Viavi Solutions, Inc. v. Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 7 Oct 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 4 May 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11131794B2US10222526B2US9588269B2
- Case no.
- 2:21-cv-00378
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Oct 2021 – 4 May 2023
- Duration
- 574 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Optical filter and sensor system
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
Optical filter and sensor system
An optical filter having a passband at least partially overlapping with a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm is provided. The optical filter includes a filter stack formed of hydrogenated silicon layers and lower-refractive index layers stacked in alternation. The hydrogenated silicon layers each have a refractive index of greater than 3 over the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm and an extinction coefficient of less than 0.0005 over the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 Sep 2021
- Earliest priority
- 16 Jul 2012
- Est. expiry
- 16 Jul 2033
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2022-01489 · Other · filed by Platinum Optics Technology Inc.IPR2022-01489 · Patentability · filed by VIAVI SOLUTIONS INCIPR2022-01281 · Other · filed by Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- G02B5/28G01J5/08H04N13/254G02B1/115C23C14/58C23C14/08C23C14/54C23C14/18G02B1/11G02B5/20G06K9/00H04N5/33
- Prosecution counsel
- Harrity & Harrity, LLP
- Examiner
- BRYANT, MICHAEL C
Optical filter and sensor system
An optical filter having a passband at least partially overlapping with a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm is provided. The optical filter includes a filter stack formed of hydrogenated silicon layers and lower-refractive index layers stacked in alternation. The hydrogenated silicon layers each have a refractive index of greater than 3 over the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm and an extinction coefficient of less than 0.0005 over the wavelength range of 800 nm to 1100 nm.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Mar 2019
- Earliest priority
- 16 Jul 2012
- Est. expiry
- 16 Jul 2033
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2022-01183 · Other · filed by Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd.IPR2021-00432 · Other · filed by Platinum Optics Technology Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- G02B5/28H04N5/33G02B1/11G06K9/00G02B5/20H04N13/254G01J5/08
- Prosecution counsel
- Harrity & Harrity, LLP
- Examiner
- BRYANT, MICHAEL C
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Viavi Solutions, Inc.
- Core tech
- G02B5/28G01J5/08H04N13/254G02B1/115
- Counsel
- Charles Everingham IV · Charles J. Monterio · Dave J. McNamara · Frank C. Cimino Jr · Jack Wesley Hill · Megan S. Woodworth · William Andrew Hector
- Firm
- Venable LLP, Venable LLP (San Francisco), Venable LLP (Washington DC), Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham · Eric C. Cohen · Harry Lee Gillam Jr. · Jason Liang Xu · Matthew Herman Poppe · Melissa Richards Smith · Zheng Liu
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith, LLP, Rimon PC
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 119.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action without prejudice. (Id.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims, causes of action, and counterclaims asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain. So Ordered this”
Case 2:21-cv-00378 · E.D. Tex. · closed 4 May 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 2:21-cv-00378?
2:21-cv-00378 is a patent infringement action brought by Viavi Solutions, Inc. against Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co., Ltd., filed on 7 Oct 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 4 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:21-cv-00378?
US11131794B2 (“Optical filter and sensor system”), assigned to VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC., currently active; US10222526B2 (“Optical filter and sensor system”), assigned to VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC., currently active; US9588269B2 (“Optical filter and sensor system”), assigned to VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC.. The record also lists Optical filter and sensor system.
How was case 2:21-cv-00378 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co Ltd. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 119.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action without prejudice. (Id.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims, causes of action, and counterclaims asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the abov
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:21-cv-00378 take?
574 calendar days, from filing on 7 Oct 2021 to closure on 4 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:21-cv-00378?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Charles Everingham IV, Charles J. Monterio, Dave J. McNamara, Frank C. Cimino Jr, Jack Wesley Hill, Megan S. Woodworth and William Andrew Hector are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Viavi Solutions. Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham, Eric C. Cohen, Harry Lee Gillam Jr., Jason Liang Xu, Matthew Herman Poppe, Melissa Richards Smith and Zheng Liu appear for defendant Zhejiang Crystal-Optech.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:21-cv-00378 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.