Having recently survived a motion challenging prior claims against Juniper Networks and Nokia, inventor-controlled Core Optical Technologies, LLC has made clear in its new Central District of California complaints—against Alphabet (Google), Apple, CenturyLink (d/b/a Lumen Technologies), Comcast, CoxCommunications, Nokia (Alcatel Submarine Networks), and Zayo Group (8:21-cv-00046); and both Amazon and Lumen Technologies (8:21-cv-00049)—that it is asserting only method claims of the single patent-in-suit. That patent generally relates to separating multiple optical signals (“waveforms”) on the same frequency using a cross-polarization interface canceler technique. Core Optical accuses the defendants in the -46 case of infringement through the use of products already identified in a prior suit filed directly against Nokia, while the plaintiff targets in the -49 case the defendants’ alleged use of products previously identified in a suit against ADVA.
In early July, Judge A. Kronstadt of the Central District of California took under submission multiple early motions, filed separately by Juniper Networks and Nokia, in cases brought against them by inventor-controlled Core Optical Technologies, LLC in November 2019. Among other things, each defendant moved to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to plead satisfaction of the marking requirements under Section 287 by prior licensees Fujitsu, Ciena, and Infinera. As the parties await Judge Kronstadt’s rulings, Core Optical has filed two new cases in the same district, one each against ADVA Optical Networking (8:20-cv-01463) and Cisco (8:20-cv-01468).
Inventor-controlled Core Optical Technologies, LLC has revived its sole litigation campaign, suing Juniper Networks (8:19-cv-02189) and Nokia (8:19-cv-02190) in separate Central District of California complaints. The cases were filed roughly two months after a settlement between Core Optical and Infinera led to the dismissal of the last active case in the campaign. The same patent, generally related to separating multiple optical signals (“waveforms”) on the same frequency using a cross-polarization interface canceler technique, is asserted, with infringement allegations targeting the defendants’ products containing dual polarization coherent optical receivers.