Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jul. 01, 2011

Contingencies [Abstract]

Contingencies

12. Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to legal claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, such as employment or intellectual property claims, including the matters described below. We are unable to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome against us and are unable to reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any.

Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc. On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of Tellabs). Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on December 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain other of our current or former officers and/or directors. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class period (December 11, 2000-June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading, misrepresenting demand for our products, and reporting overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in our financial statements. Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities laws by trading our securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public information about us pertaining to these matters. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified restitution, damages and other relief.

On January 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. On May 19, 2003, the Court granted our motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously named individual defendants, realleging claims similar to those contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint. We filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003, seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second consolidated amended class action complaint. On February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on January 21, 2005. On January 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanding for further proceedings. On February 8, 2006, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2006, the Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiffs to file an answer to the petition for rehearing, which was filed by the plaintiffs on May 3, 2006. On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded the case to the district court. On September 22, 2006, defendants filed a motion in the district court to dismiss some (but not all) of the remaining claims. On October 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the United States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the Seventh Circuit's decision. On January 5, 2007, the defendants' petition was granted. The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On November 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the remanded case. On January 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On February 24, 2009, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 13, 2010, the Court granted in large part Tellabs' motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit and on July 27, 2011, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. All settlement amounts will be paid by Tellabs' insurers.

Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc. On January 28, 2008, Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. and Fujitsu Limited filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Tellabs in a case captioned Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. and Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc. and Tellabs Operations, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-00022-LED. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163, 5,521,737, 5,386,418 and 6,487,686, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On March 21, 2008, Tellabs filed its answer, defenses and counterclaims in response to the complaint. A trial date had been set for May 10, 2010, in the Eastern District of Texas, however on July 7, 2009, the court granted Tellabs' motion to transfer and issued an order transferring the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 15, 2009, the Court in the Northern District of Illinois consolidated this action, for discovery purposes only, with the action instituted by Tellabs against Fujitsu in the Northern District of Illinois. On November 4, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice Fujitsu's claim for infringement of Fujitsu's U.S. Patent No. 6,487,686. In conjunction with the dismissal, Fujitsu signed a covenant not to sue Tellabs for infringement as to any claim of Fujitsu's U.S. Patent No. 6,487,686, as to any Tellabs products as they currently exist or existed in the past. On March 31, 2011, the Court issued an Order denying a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness of Fujitsu's U.S. Patent No. 5,386,418, and granting a motion by Fujitsu for summary judgment for judicial correction of an error in asserted Claim 1 of the same patent as originally issued. The parties currently remain in the discovery phase, and a trial date has been set for January 17, 2012. The parties also await the Court's issuance of a Markman ruling.

Tellabs Operations, Inc. v. Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications Inc. On June 11, 2008, Tellabs Operations, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. in a case captioned Tellabs Operations, Inc. v. Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-3379. The complaint alleges infringement of Tellabs Operations, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On September 5, 2008, each of Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. served its answer, defenses and counterclaims in response to the complaint. Fujitsu Limited also brought counterclaims against Tellabs, Inc. and Tellabs Operations, Inc. alleging infringement of two U.S. patents, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5,533,006 and 7,227,681, seeking unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On September 22, 2008, Tellabs Operations, Inc. filed its answer to the counterclaims of Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc., and also filed its counterclaims and reply to counterclaims of Fujitsu Limited. On that same date, Tellabs, Inc. filed its answer and counterclaims against Fujitsu Limited. On September 15, 2009, the Court in the Northern District of Illinois consolidated this action, for discovery purposes only, with the action filed by Fujitsu transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Eastern District of Texas. On March 31, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Tellabs' motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of Fujitsu's U.S. Patent No. 5,533,006. The parties currently remain in the discovery phase, and a trial date has been set for January 17, 2012. The parties also await the Court's issuance of a Markman ruling.

Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc. On May 4, 2009, Telcordia Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint against Tellabs in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in a case captioned Telcordia Technologies Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-02089. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,893,306, 4,835,763 and Re. 36,633, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On July 27, 2009, Telcordia filed a first amended complaint adding Tellabs Operations, Inc. and Tellabs North America, Inc. as additional defendants. On September 1, 2009, Tellabs filed answers, defenses and counterclaims in response to the first amended complaint. On December 15, 2009, the Court granted Tellabs' motion to transfer, which resulted in a transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The parties are in the early phases of discovery. A trial date has not yet been set.

Lambda Optical Solutions, LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent SA, et al. On June 4, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Tellabs and several other companies in a case captioned Lambda Optical Solutions, LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent SA, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00487-UNA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,973,229, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as interest, costs, expenses, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs was served with the Complaint on September 13, 2010. Tellabs responded to the Complaint on November 2, 2010, denying Lambda's allegations. The parties are in the earliest phases of the litigation. No trial date has been set.

Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Tellabs, Inc. On June 3, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division against Tellabs in a case captioned Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Tellabs, Inc. and Tellabs North America, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-12429-VAR-MAR. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,940,647 and 6,856,459, and seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs, disbursements, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs is reviewing the complaint, but has not yet been served with or responded to the complaint.

Apart from the matters described above, we are and in the future may be subject to various legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Any legal proceedings, claims and litigation, whether current or future, and whether with or without merit, potentially can result in: costly litigation; diverting management's time, attention and resources; delaying or halting product shipments or services delivery; requiring us to pay damages; requiring us to enter into royalty-bearing licensing arrangements or to obtain substitute technology of lower quality or higher costs; or otherwise imposing obligations or restrictions that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.