Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these cases are DISMISSED IN THEIR ENTIRETY due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (yl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CORE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES,
NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA
OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
ADVA OPTICAL NETWORKING SE
and ADVA OPTICAL NETWORKING
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
No. 8:19-cv-2190 JAK (RAOx)
No. 8:20-cv-1463 JAK (RAOx)
No. 8:20-cv-1468 JAK (AGRx)
On August 4, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the joint summary
judgment motion of Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., ADVA Optical Networking SE,
ADVA Optical Networking North America, Inc., Nokia Corporation, and Nokia of
America Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) (the “Order”). See Core Optical
Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al, C.A. 8:20-cv-01468 JAK (AGRx) Dkt.
111; Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. ADVA Optical Networking SE et al, C.A.
8:20-cv-01463 JAK (RAOx), Dkt.128; Core Optical Technologies, LLC v. Nokia
Corporation et al., C.A. 8:19-cv-02190 JAK (RAOx), Dkt.144. In the Order, the
Court concluded that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the patent-in-
suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211 (the “’211 Patent”), is not a Non-TRW Invention
under Dr. Core’s Invention Agreement with TRW, and therefore Dr. Core’s rights in
the ’211 Patent were automatically assigned under the Invention Agreement to TRW.
As a result of the Order, Plaintiff Core Optical Technologies, LLC lacks standing to
assert the ’211 Patent. As a further result of the Order, each Defendant is a prevailing
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these cases are DISMISSED IN
THEIR ENTIRETY due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 14, 2022
John A. Kronstadt
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?