Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-01858
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 33
In Cisco Systems v. Capella Photonics, Judge Chen construed eleven patent terms defining their meanings for the parties’ infringement dispute.
Cisco Systems, Inc. and Capella Photonics, Inc., whose patent infringement dispute will use the court’s interpretations of the eleven disputed claim terms.
What happened
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc. concerns two patents for optical communication equipment. Capella alleged that Cisco’s products infringed the patents, while Cisco sought a declaration that its products did not infringe them.
The parties asked the court to interpret eleven disputed words and phrases in the patent claims. Their disagreements included whether a “port” had to be a fiber-collimator port, what types of structures were “beam-deflecting elements,” and what it meant for micromirrors to be continuously controlled or movable in two dimensions.
Judge Chen adopted several specific meanings and gave other terms their ordinary meanings. He ruled that “port” excludes circulator ports, “beam-deflecting elements” and “micromirror” need no further construction, and the remaining disputed phrases have the meanings set out in the order.
The detailed version
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-01858
- Edward Chen
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
Capella alleged that Cisco’s reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexer products—including the ONS 15454 MSTP, NCS 2000, and ONS 15200— infringed U.S. Patent Nos. RE 47,905 and RE 47,906. Cisco had filed the action seeking a declaration that its products did not infringe those patents, and Capella filed counterclaims alleging infringement.
The patents concern wavelength-separating-routing technology used in optical communication systems. The technology separates an optical signal into wavelength channels, focuses those channels onto micromirrors, and directs the channels to selected output ports.
The parties asked the court to construe eleven claim terms. Claim construction is the court’s interpretation of patent language that defines the scope of the claimed invention. The court also considered whether “beam-deflecting elements” was a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which would limit the term to structures described in the patent specification and their equivalents.
Court’s Analysis and Constructions
Terms One Through Five: Ports and Fiber Collimators
The court rejected Capella’s proposal to construe “port” as meaning a fiber-collimator port. The court held that “port” is not limited to fiber-collimator ports because the patents’ claims and specification used “port” and “fiber collimator port” as distinct terms, and because the patent record contemplated ports that could be separate from fiber collimators.
The court also held that “providing” a port does not mean “serving as” a port. In the court’s view, “providing” has its ordinary meaning of making a point of entry or exit of light available.
The court adopted these constructions:
- “Port” means “point of entry or exit of light, excluding circulator ports.” - “Fiber collimator port” or “fiber collimator . . . port” means “fiber collimator port that is the point of entry or exit of light.” - “Fiber collimator, providing . . . port” means “fiber collimator that can be coupled to other components to make available a point of entry or exit of light.” - “Fiber collimator(s), providing and serving as . . . port(s)” or “fiber collimator(s) serving as . . . port(s)” means “fiber collimator port that is the point of entry or exit of light.”
Term Six: “Beam-Deflecting Elements”
The court held that “beam-deflecting elements” is not a means-plus-function term under § 112(f). Although the term describes a function, the court found that it refers to a known class of structures, including silicon micromachined mirrors, reflective ribbons, and reflective membranes. The court therefore gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning without further construction.
Term Seven: “Micromirrors”
The court gave “micromirror” its plain and ordinary meaning without further construction. It declined to adopt Cisco’s proposed requirement that a micromirror be a single reflective microelectromechanical-system element that can be physically moved to reflect light at different angles.
Term Eight: Continuous Control
The court construed the relevant versions of “continuously controllable,” “controlling . . . continuously,” and “continuously controlling” to require continuous adjustment rather than step-wise control:
- “Continuously controllable” means “controllable such that [it/they] can be continuously adjusted, i.e. not in step-wise fashion.” - “Controlling . . . continuously” means “controlling . . . such that [it/they] can be continuously adjusted, i.e. not in step-wise fashion.” - “Continuously controlling” means “controlling such that [it/they] can be continuously adjusted, i.e. not in step-wise fashion.”
Term Nine: Control in Two Dimensions
The court rejected Capella’s proposal to define “dimension” as a “direction or quality” and Cisco’s proposal to define “controllable” as capable of being physically moved. The court held that the relevant versions of the term mean control in two spatial dimensions:
- “Controllable in two dimensions” means “controllable in two spatial dimensions.” - “Controlling . . . in two dimensions” means “controlling . . . in two spatial dimensions.”
Term Ten: “Being Pivotal About Two Axes”
The court construed “being pivotal about two axes” to mean “being capable of rotating about two axes.”
Term Eleven: Dynamic Control
The court construed “dynamically controlling” and “controlling . . . dynamically” to mean “controlling in a way marked by usually continuous and productive activity or change, in contrast to static.”
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen entered a claim construction order adopting the meanings listed above. The opinion does not state that this order itself resolved the parties’ infringement claims; it defines the disputed patent terms for the case.
Read the full 33-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.