Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 7 Apr 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 22 Nov 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10554297B2US6665500B2
- Case no.
- 4:20-cv-02354
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Apr 2020 – 22 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 1324 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- 4200 · 5400 series · 6500 series · CoreSteam Agility · FlexSelect 40G Shelf · WaveLogic 3 · WaveLogic 5 Nano 100G/200G CFP2- DCO · XCVR-CEP0001, XCVR-DEP0002, and XCVR-GES101 transceivers
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Fiber optic telecommunications card with security detection
A transceiver card for a telecommunications box for transmitting data over a first optical fiber and receiving data over a second optical fiber. The card has transmitter for transmitting data over the first optical fiber, the transmitter having a laser and a modulator, a fiber output optically connected to the laser for connecting the first optical fiber to the card, a fiber input for connecting the second optical fiber to the card, a receiver optically connected to the fiber input for receiving data from the second optical fiber, and an OTDR optically connected between the transmitter and the fiber output or between the receiver and the fiber input. An energy level detector is also provided between the receiver and the fiber input.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Feb 2020
- Earliest priority
- 9 Jul 2001
- Est. expiry
- 3 Jul 2022
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2021-00565 · filed by Ciena Corporation
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SNAWERDT, PETER
- Classification
- H04B10/07H04B10/85H04B10/071H04B10/079G02BH04B10/08H04B10/12
- Prosecution counsel
- JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
- Examiner
- TRAN, DZUNG D
Dual-mode fiber optic telecommunications system and method
An optical data transmitter includes at least one light source, a phase modulator for phase modulating light from the light source, and a controller having an input for receiving an electronic data stream, the controller in a first mode controlling the phase modulator so as to create phase-modulated optical signals in the light as a function of the electronic data stream and the controller in a second alternate mode amplitude-modulating the light as a function of the electronic data stream. A dual-mode receiver, an optical data transmission system and a dual-mode optical signal are also disclosed.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Dec 2003
- Est. expiry
- 8 Jan 2022
- Validity challenges
- 4 on recordIPR2020-00326 · filed by Infinera CorporationIPR2021-00319 · filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.IPR2020-01347 · Other · filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.IPR2020-00325 · Other · filed by Infinera Corporation
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SNAWERDT, PETER
- Classification
- H04B10/152H04B10/12
- Prosecution counsel
- JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
- Examiner
- PASCAL, LESLIE
Parties of record
Oyster Optics, LLC
- Core tech
- H04B10/07H04B10/85H04B10/071H04B10/079
- Counsel
- Adam Hoffman · Daniel B. Kolko · James Shrin Tsuei · Neil Alan Rubin · Paul Anthony Kroeger · Reza Mirzaie
- Firm
- Russ August & Kabat LLP
Ciena Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alan P. Block · Blair M. Jacobs · Christina Ann Ondrick · John Stewart Holley · Raymond Winters Stockstill IV
- Firm
- McKool Smith PC, Paul Hastings LLP
- Also named
- AT&T, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Adam Hoffman | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Daniel B. Kolko | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James Shrin Tsuei | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Neil Alan Rubin | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Paul Anthony Kroeger | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Reza Mirzaie | Oyster Optics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Alan P. Block | Ciena Corp. | Defendant |
| Blair M. Jacobs | Ciena Corp. | Defendant |
| Christina Ann Ondrick | Ciena Corp. | Defendant |
| John Stewart Holley | Ciena Corp. | Defendant |
| Raymond Winters Stockstill IV | Ciena Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms of a separate agreement, the Plaintiff, Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster”) and Defendant Ciena Corporation (“Ciena”) have agreed to settle, adjust and compromise all claims in the above-captioned action. The parties, therefore, stipulate to dismiss the above-entitled cause and all claims by Oyster ORDER GRANTING Case 4:20-cv-02354-JSW Document 148 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 against Ciena and all claims by Ciena against Oyster made therein with prejudice to the re-filing and request that the Court Order same. The parties further stipulate that the Court order that all costs and expenses relating to this litigation (including attorney and expert fees and expenses) shall be borne solely by the party incurring them. A proposed Order accompanies this motion.”
Case 4:20-cv-02354 · N.D. Cal. · closed 22 November 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:20-cv-02354?
4:20-cv-02354 is a patent infringement action brought by Oyster Optics, LLC against Ciena Corp., filed on 7 Apr 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 22 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 4:20-cv-02354?
US10554297B2 (“Fiber optic telecommunications card with security detection”), assigned to OYSTER OPTICS LLC, currently inactive; US6665500B2 (“Dual-mode fiber optic telecommunications system and method”), assigned to OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists 4200, 5400 series, 6500 series, CoreSteam Agility, FlexSelect 40G Shelf, WaveLogic 3, WaveLogic 5 Nano 100G/200G CFP2- DCO and XCVR-CEP0001, XCVR-DEP0002, and XCVR-GES101 transceivers.
How was case 4:20-cv-02354 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms of a separate agreement, the Plaintiff, Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster”) and Defendant Ciena Corporation (“Ciena”) have agreed to settle, adjust and compromise all claims in the above-captioned action. The parties, therefore, stipulate to dismiss the above-entitled cause and all claims by Oyster ORDER GRANTING Case 4:20-cv-02354-JSW Document 148 Filed 11/22/23 Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 against Ciena and all claims by Ciena against Oyster made there
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 4:20-cv-02354 take?
1324 calendar days, from filing on 7 Apr 2020 to closure on 22 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:20-cv-02354?
Adam Hoffman, Daniel B. Kolko, James Shrin Tsuei, Neil Alan Rubin, Paul Anthony Kroeger and Reza Mirzaie are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Oyster Optics. Alan P. Block, Blair M. Jacobs, Christina Ann Ondrick, John Stewart Holley and Raymond Winters Stockstill IV appear for defendant Ciena.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:20-cv-02354 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.