In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CIRREX SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiff,

v. C.A. No. ______

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ALCATEL-LUCENT, INC.; ALCATEL- LUCENT USA, INC.; TELLABS, INC.; TELLABS OPERATIONS, INC.; TELLABS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Cirrex Systems LLC (“Cirrex”) alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Cirrex is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business located at 4425 Mariners Ridge, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005.

2. Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 140 West Street, New York, New York

10007. Verizon has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust

Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.

3. Defendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Motorola”) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1303 East Algonquin Road,

Schaumburg, Illinois 60196. Motorola has appointed The Corporation Trust Company,

Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent

for service of process.

4. Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“Alcatel-Lucent USA”) is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 600 Mountain Avenue,

Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974. Alcatel-Lucent USA has appointed Corporation Service

Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808, as its agent

for service of process.

5. Defendant Alcatel-Lucent, Inc. (“Alcatel-Lucent France”) is a French corporation with its principal place of business at 3 av. Octave Greard, 75007 Paris,

France.

6. Alcatel-Lucent France and Alcatel-Lucent USA shall be referred to collectively as “Alcatel-Lucent.”

7. Defendant Tellabs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415 West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563.

Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center,

1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.

8. Defendant Tellabs Operations, Inc. (“Tellabs Operations”) is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415 West Diehl

Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The Corporation Trust

Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.

9. Defendant Tellabs North America, Inc. (“Tellabs North America”) is a

Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at One Tellabs Center, 1415

West Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Tellabs, Inc. has appointed The

Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,

Delaware 19801, as its agent for service of process.

10. Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, and Tellabs North America shall be

referred to collectively as “Tellabs.”

11. Hereinafter, Verizon, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent, and Tellabs are

collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

13. Defendants are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware or have established minimum contacts with the forum state of

Delaware. Thus, Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits of the state of Delaware and the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

14. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)-(d) and

1400(b) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.

15. Joinder of the Defendants in the present action is proper pursuant to 35

U.S.C. § 299 because the claims against all Defendants arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions, or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling Optical Network Terminals used to provide Verizon customers access to Verizon’s fiber-optic communications

network FiOS. More specifically, Motorola, Alcatel-Lucent and Tellabs each provide the accused Optical Network Terminals used by Verizon to provide Verizon customers access to FiOS. Furthermore, questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise in the present action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

16. Optical technologies empower telecommunications, photonic instrumentation, and biomedical devices. For the past two decades, Cirrex has pioneered the development of optics, optical systems, and optical fabrication related to process control and the chemistry of fiber optics. The main objective has been to find solutions that photonic technologies can provide that will benefit instrumentation, communications, and healthcare. To date, Cirrex’s innovation process has provided various novel technologies that combine the effects of multiple conventional optical elements such as filters, mirrors, prisms, and lenses; these are fashioned into highly complex designs on a microscopic scale, enabling fiber optics and lasers to attain uses at a fraction of the size and cost previously thought possible.

17. Fiber optics has been recognized as an idyllic solution for telecommunications and has been implemented for the transmission of telephone signals, cable television signals, and Internet communication. Fiber optics communications distribute the information by sending pulses of light through the fiber. Advantageously, fiber optics differs from prior technologies as it provides lower interference, remarkably low loss and attenuation, which ultimately leads to higher bandwidth and better transmission to end users. All of these advantages work under the premise that light is diffused fittingly and this is particularly challenging when light has to be controlled in

various stages with very small optical assemblies to prevent unwanted photon entrance,

reflection, departure, or appearance in or from the assembly.

18. Cirrex’s innovations provide an effective solution to control light and

reduce optical noise with specific configurations of elements in optical assemblies. The

arrangement and properties of the elements are critical to control light. Cirrex’s objective

with their inventions has been to provide optical assemblies for precisely controlling light

through particular filters and masks. In telecommunications, it is critically important to be able to achieve the transmission envisioned and ultimately provide end users with

reliable, stable, and high-bandwidth signals.

COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953)

19. Cirrex references and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 18

of this Complaint.

20. Cirrex is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953 (the “‘953 patent”). The ‘953 patent is entitled “Optical Assembly With High Performance Filter.”

The ‘953 patent issued on June 11, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ‘953 patent is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

21. Verizon has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,

literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or

importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including, but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies..

22. By way of example only, with reference to Claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,

the ONTs distributed by Verizon contain an optical assembly with a waveguide with an

end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter (deposited on top

of the substrate) in optical communication with the waveguide. The lens puts the thin-

film filter in optical communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first

face surface that is optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface

opposed to the first face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is

substantially opaque in at least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one

of the surfaces of the thin-film filter.

23. Motorola has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including, but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies..

24. By way of example only, Motorola has been and still is making, using,

selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide with an

end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical

communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is

optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first

face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at

least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-

film filter.

25. Alcatel-Lucent has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or

importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including, but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies.

26. By way of example only, Alcatel-Lucent has been and still is making,

using, selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide

with an end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical

communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is

optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first

face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at

least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-

film filter.

27. Tellabs has been and still is infringing at least claim 30 of the ‘953 patent,

literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, or

importing, without license or authority, Optical Network Terminals (“ONTs”) including, but not limited to, ONTs containing triplexer optical assemblies.

28. By way of example only, Tellabs has been and still is making, using,

selling, or offering to sell ONTs containing an optical assembly with a waveguide with an

end face that leads to a triplexer assembly that contains a thin-film filter in optical

communication with the waveguide. The thin-film filter has a first face surface that is

optically closer to the waveguide end face and a second face surface opposed to the first

face. The triplexer assembly also contains a mask, which is substantially opaque in at

least some spectral region, in intimate contact with at least one of the surfaces of the thin-

film filter.

29. To the extent applicable, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) have been

met with respect to the ‘953 patent.

30. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ‘953 patent, Cirrex has

suffered monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’

infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the

invention by Defendants, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court, and

Cirrex will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Defendants’ infringing

activities are enjoined by this Court.

31. Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Defendants and their

agents, servants, employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting or in active

concert therewith from infringing the ‘953 patent, Cirrex will be greatly and irreparably

harmed.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Cirrex prays for the following relief:

1. A judgment that Verizon has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953 patent;

2. A judgment that Motorola has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953 patent;

3. A judgment that Alcatel-Lucent has infringed one or more claims of the

‘953 patent;

4. A judgment that Tellabs has infringed one or more claims of the ‘953 patent;

5. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors,

agents, servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all

others acting in active concert or participation with them, from infringing the ‘953 patent;

6. An award of damages resulting from Defendants’ acts of infringement in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

7. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide accountings and to pay supplemental damages to Cirrex, including, without limitation, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and

8. Any and all other relief to which Cirrex may show itself to be entitled.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Cirrex hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

May 22, 2013 BAYARD, P.A.

OF COUNSEL: /s/ Stephen B. Brauerman Richard D. Kirk (rk0922) Marc A. Fenster Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952) Daniel P. Hipskind Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398) RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12 th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Los Angeles, California 90025 (302) 655-5000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (310) 826-7474 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cirrex Systems LLC