Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 637

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/9/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
FINISAR CORPORATION,

11

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.

SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION ORDER

13
NISTICA, INC.,

14

Defendant.
15
16
17

Finisar claims that Nistica infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,092,599. The parties seek

18

supplemental construction of the following terms in the patent-in-suit: “focussing the angularly

19

dispersed wavelength signals,” “angularly dispersed wavelength signals,”1 and “wavelength

20

bands.” This request for additional claims construction comes to the Court after the jury in the

21

first trial found non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,980 and was unable to reach a verdict

22

regarding Finisar’s claim of infringement of the ’599 Patent. The Court declared a mistrial on that

23

claim and set a re-trial for June 16, 2016. The Court granted the parties’ request for additional

24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties appear to disagree over the exact term being construed. Finisar separately briefs
“into” and “focussing the angularly dispersed wavelength signals into a series of elongated
spatially separated wavelength signals.” Finisar Mot. 3:3-21 and 3:22-5:11, ECF 624. Nistica
briefs “elongated spatially separated wavelength signals.” From this, the Court gathers the parties
seek to resolve the dispute over whether the angularly dispersed wavelength signals can be
elongated before entering the optical power element. Accordingly, the Court construes the term
“angularly dispersed wavelength signals.”

1

claims construction and issues the following order.

2

First, the Court construes “focussing the angularly dispersed wavelength signals” as

3

“making the angularly dispersed wavelength signals clearer and more defined.” The parties

4

previously brought their dispute over the term “focussing” to the Special Master. R&R 9-10, ECF

5

461-4. In front of the Special Master, Finisar argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of

6

“focussing” is “to bring to a focus, causing to converge.” Id. at 9. After the mistrial, and in what

7

appears to be an attempt to fix perceived deficiencies in its case, Finisar has changed its position

8

and argues a drastically different construction. Finisar Mot 1, ECF 624.

9

The Court did not adopt the Special Master’s construction of “focussing” because this
district’s patent local rules do not contemplate additional claims construction at summary

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

judgment. Order 8-9, ECF 514. In doing so, the Court did not review the Special Master’s

12

analysis. Upon review of the parties’ claim construction briefing, the Court adopts Nistica’s

13

construction for “focussing the angularly dispersed wavelength signals.”

14

Second, the Court construes “angularly dispersed wavelength signals” as “circular or

15

elongated beams.” The ’599 Patent does not limit the beam profile for light entering the optical

16

power element. See Figs. 11, 12 of the ’599 Patent (disclosing elongated beams); Fig. 1 of the

17

’599 Patent (disclosing circular beam). Nistica argues that Court should not consider Figures 11

18

and 12 based on a general proposition of patent law that the claims of a patent need not encompass

19

all disclosed embodiments. Nistica Opp. 5, ECF 628. But other than a bare assertion, Nistica has

20

not provided any reason why claim 24 was not drafted to cover either Figure 11 or Figure 12 of

21

the ’599 Patent.

22

Third, the Court construes “wavelength bands” as “wavelength signals.” Both parties

23

agree that the construction of “wavelength bands” should include “wavelength signals.”

24

However, Nistica argues the patentee limited wavelength bands to signals that are collimated in

25

the port (or switching) dimension. Nistica Mot. 5, ECF 625. Contrary to Nistica’s argument, the

26

patentee did not define wavelength bands in the patent as being collimated in the port dimension

27

but rather was describing an example in the patent. Col. 5:33-57 of the ’599 Patent. This

28

description did not limit the term “wavelength bands.”
2

1

For the foregoing reasons set forth above, the Court construes the disputed terms as

2

follows:

3

Claim Term
focussing the angularly dispersed wavelength
signals
angularly dispersed wavelength signals
wavelength bands

4
5

Court’s Construction
making the angularly dispersed wavelength
signals clearer and more defined
circular or elongated beams
wavelength signals

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated: June 9, 2016
8
9

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3