Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 28, 2012
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. 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 (Case No. 1:09-cv-04530). 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 Court issued a Markman ruling on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163, 5,521,737 and 5,386,418, as well as patents from the consolidated action, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2011. On this same date the Court denied Fujitsu’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and granted Tellabs’ motion to disallow the filing of Fujitsu’s First Amended Complaint and Fujitsu’s supplemental infringement contentions. Fujitsu’s motion had sought to amend its allegations of direct infringement with respect to products from Tellabs’ 5500, NGX, 7100 and 6300 product lines with various additional allegations, including allegations of indirect infringement. Fujitsu thereafter filed a further motion to amend its final infringement contentions, and on March 22, 2012, the Court denied Fujitsu’ motion. In turn, on April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a new complaint against Tellabs in the Northern District of Illinois (see Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 set forth below), setting forth additional allegations of infringement of the same patents that Fujitsu unsuccessfully sought to add to the present action. A trial date was set for July 16, 2012, however in an Order dated May 22, 2012, the Court reset the schedule so as to commence trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 (Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-3379, described below) on August 27, 2012, while deferring to a later time the setting of any trial date as to the remaining patents at issue between the parties. The parties conducted a non-binding mediation on May 30-31, 2012, which did not result in any settlement, and no other mediation between the parties is presently scheduled. As an ordinary component of expert discovery, each of the parties served an expert report prepared by the party’s respective damages experts, which are subject to a governing Protective Order of confidentiality. Notwithstanding these reports, the two sides remain far apart, and Tellabs cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,386,418, and judgment was entered in favor of Tellabs on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the same patent. On October 25, 2012, Fujitsu filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order and judgment as to the invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,386,418. On September 27, 2012, the Court denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,521,737. A trial date of January 14, 2013, had been set by the Court to commence trial of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163 and 5,521,737, however on November 1, 2012, the scheduled trial date was struck from the Court’s calendar in favor of an alternative trial date to be later determined. Tellabs contests any liability and will continue to vigorously defend itself accordingly. 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 Court issued a Markman ruling on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,369,772 and 7,227,681, as well as patents from the consolidated action, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court denied Tellabs’ motion to sever and stay Tellabs’ claims involving U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772, in view of Tellabs’ January 12, 2012, filing of an amendment of the claims of the patent for further consideration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, following a December 12, 2011, decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to reverse the Examiner’s decision to not reject the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772 in an inter partes reexamination of the patent requested by Fujitsu in the Patent Office. On the same date the Court also denied a motion by Fujitsu to amend its final infringement contentions. In turn, on April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a new complaint against Tellabs in the Northern District of Illinois (see Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 set forth below), setting forth additional allegations of infringement of the same patents that Fujitsu unsuccessfully sought to add to the present action. A trial date had been set for July 16, 2012, however in an Order dated May 22, 2012, the Court reset the schedule so as to commence trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 on August 27, 2012, while deferring to a later time the setting of any trial date as to the remaining patents at issue between the parties. The parties conducted a non-binding mediation on May 30-31, 2012, which did not result in any settlement, and no other mediation between the parties is presently scheduled. On July 27, 2012, the Court responded to Fujitsu’s further motions related to claim construction of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681, and denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. On July 31, 2012, the Court granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment finding no inequitable conduct as to Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. On August 8, 2012, the Court issued further orders related to the construction of claims of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. As an ordinary component of expert discovery, each of the parties served an expert report prepared by the party’s respective damages experts, which are subject to a governing Protective Order of confidentiality. Notwithstanding these reports, the two sides remain far apart, and Tellabs cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 commenced on August 27, 2012, and concluded on September 7, 2012, whereupon the jury’s verdict the Court entered judgment in favor of Tellabs on Fujitsu’s claim for infringement of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 and in favor of Fujitsu on Tellabs’ claim for invalidity of the same patent, and the parties’ respective post-trial motions are now pending before the Court. Tellabs contests any liability and will continue to vigorously defend itself accordingly. Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc. On April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs in a case captioned Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs Operations, Inc., Tellabs, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163, 5,521,737, 5,386,418 and 7,227,681, the same patents at issue in pending Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:08-cv-3379, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. The complaint includes allegations of infringement that Fujitsu previously sought unsuccessfully to add to pending Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:08-cv-3379. By the grant of a joint motion by the parties, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 was reassigned to the calendar of Chief Judge Holderman, who is also presiding over Civil Action Nos. 1:08-cv-03379 and 1:09-cv-04530. On June 4, 2012, the Tellabs defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), which remains pending before the Court. 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 (Case No. 1:2009cv00978). The parties are in the early phases of discovery. A trial date has not yet been set. Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. On July 29, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, against Tellabs and several other companies in a case captioned Cheetah Omni LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 6:11cv390. The complaint includes allegations of infringement by Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,888,661; 6,847,479; 6,856,459; and 6,940,647, and seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs, disbursements, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs was served with the original complaint on August 31, 2011. Before any response to the original complaint was due, Tellabs was served with an amended complaint on October 14, 2011. On November 8, 2011, the Tellabs entities filed their answers, defenses and counterclaims in response to the amended complaint. In addition to the four patents asserted against Tellabs in the complaint, another three patents are asserted against Tellabs in plaintiff’s infringement contentions dated August 23, 2012. The newly asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,862; 7,339,714; and 6,882,771. The accused products include products from the Tellabs 7100 product line. The parties are in discovery. A trial date has been set for March 10, 2014. Internet Machines LLC v. Avnet, Inc., et al. On February 13, 2012, a second amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, naming Tellabs, Inc. among several defendants in a case captioned Internet Machines LLC v. Avnet, Inc., et al., Civil Action Nos. 6:10-CV-548-MHS and 6:11-CV-250-MHS (Consolidated). The plaintiff thereafter filed a third amended complaint on March 2, 2012. The amended complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,552, 7,421,532, 7,814,259 and 7,945,722, and seek unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as interest, costs, expenses, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On March 27, 2012, Tellabs filed its answer, defenses and counterclaims in response to the third amended complaint. On September 4, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting a motion by the defendants to stay the litigation, whereby the litigation is stayed pending entry of a final non-appealable judgment in a prior proceeding in which Tellabs is not named (Internet Machines LLC v. Alienware Corp., No 6:10-cv-23 (E.D. Tex. Filed Feb. 2, 2010)). 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. The proceedings described above, including the Fujitsu matters, the Telcordia matter, the Cheetah Omni matter, and the Internet Machines matter, involve costly litigation and may result in diverting management’s time, attention and resources, delaying or halting product shipments or services delivery, requiring us to pay amounts in any damages and/or settlements, requiring us to enter into royalty-bearing licensing arrangements or to obtain substitute technology of lower quality or higher costs, and otherwise imposing obligations or restrictions on us and our business. We may be unsuccessful in any such litigation, despite the time, money, energy and bases for our assertion and/or defense of the matters. We may also be unable, if necessary, to enter into licensing arrangements or to obtain substitute technology on commercially reasonable terms or any terms. Any such settlements or inability to prevail or mitigate any liability or to obtain such licensing arrangements or substitute technology may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. See Item 1A, Risk Factors, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 2011.

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.

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 (Case No. 1:09-cv-04530). 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 Court issued a Markman ruling on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163, 5,521,737 and 5,386,418, as well as patents from the consolidated action, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2011. On this same date the Court denied Fujitsu’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and granted Tellabs’ motion to disallow the filing of Fujitsu’s First Amended Complaint and Fujitsu’s supplemental infringement contentions. Fujitsu’s motion had sought to amend its allegations of direct infringement with respect to products from Tellabs’ 5500, NGX, 7100 and 6300 product lines with various additional allegations, including allegations of indirect infringement. Fujitsu thereafter filed a further motion to amend its final infringement contentions, and on March 22, 2012, the Court denied Fujitsu’ motion. In turn, on April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a new complaint against Tellabs in the Northern District of Illinois (see Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 set forth below), setting forth additional allegations of infringement of the same patents that Fujitsu unsuccessfully sought to add to the present action. A trial date was set for July 16, 2012, however in an Order dated May 22, 2012, the Court reset the schedule so as to commence trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 (Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-3379, described below) on August 27, 2012, while deferring to a later time the setting of any trial date as to the remaining patents at issue between the parties. The parties conducted a non-binding mediation on May 30-31, 2012, which did not result in any settlement, and no other mediation between the parties is presently scheduled. As an ordinary component of expert discovery, each of the parties served an expert report prepared by the party’s respective damages experts, which are subject to a governing Protective Order of confidentiality. Notwithstanding these reports, the two sides remain far apart, and Tellabs cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,386,418, and judgment was entered in favor of Tellabs on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the same patent. On October 25, 2012, Fujitsu filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order and judgment as to the invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,386,418. On September 27, 2012, the Court denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 5,521,737. A trial date of January 14, 2013, had been set by the Court to commence trial of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163 and 5,521,737, however on November 1, 2012, the scheduled trial date was struck from the Court’s calendar in favor of an alternative trial date to be later determined. Tellabs contests any liability and will continue to vigorously defend itself accordingly.

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 Court issued a Markman ruling on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,369,772 and 7,227,681, as well as patents from the consolidated action, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court denied Tellabs’ motion to sever and stay Tellabs’ claims involving U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772, in view of Tellabs’ January 12, 2012, filing of an amendment of the claims of the patent for further consideration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, following a December 12, 2011, decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to reverse the Examiner’s decision to not reject the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772 in an inter partes reexamination of the patent requested by Fujitsu in the Patent Office. On the same date the Court also denied a motion by Fujitsu to amend its final infringement contentions. In turn, on April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a new complaint against Tellabs in the Northern District of Illinois (see Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 set forth below), setting forth additional allegations of infringement of the same patents that Fujitsu unsuccessfully sought to add to the present action. A trial date had been set for July 16, 2012, however in an Order dated May 22, 2012, the Court reset the schedule so as to commence trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 on August 27, 2012, while deferring to a later time the setting of any trial date as to the remaining patents at issue between the parties. The parties conducted a non-binding mediation on May 30-31, 2012, which did not result in any settlement, and no other mediation between the parties is presently scheduled. On July 27, 2012, the Court responded to Fujitsu’s further motions related to claim construction of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681, and denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. On July 31, 2012, the Court granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment finding no inequitable conduct as to Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. On August 8, 2012, the Court issued further orders related to the construction of claims of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681. As an ordinary component of expert discovery, each of the parties served an expert report prepared by the party’s respective damages experts, which are subject to a governing Protective Order of confidentiality. Notwithstanding these reports, the two sides remain far apart, and Tellabs cannot estimate the possible loss or range of loss. Trial on Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 commenced on August 27, 2012, and concluded on September 7, 2012, whereupon the jury’s verdict the Court entered judgment in favor of Tellabs on Fujitsu’s claim for infringement of Fujitsu’s U.S. Patent No. 7,227,681 and in favor of Fujitsu on Tellabs’ claim for invalidity of the same patent, and the parties’ respective post-trial motions are now pending before the Court. Tellabs contests any liability and will continue to vigorously defend itself accordingly.

Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc. On April 30, 2012, Fujitsu Limited filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs in a case captioned Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs Operations, Inc., Tellabs, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163, 5,521,737, 5,386,418 and 7,227,681, the same patents at issue in pending Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:08-cv-3379, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. The complaint includes allegations of infringement that Fujitsu previously sought unsuccessfully to add to pending Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:08-cv-3379. By the grant of a joint motion by the parties, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-03229 was reassigned to the calendar of Chief Judge Holderman, who is also presiding over Civil Action Nos. 1:08-cv-03379 and 1:09-cv-04530. On June 4, 2012, the Tellabs defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), which remains pending before the Court.

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 (Case No. 1:2009cv00978). The parties are in the early phases of discovery. A trial date has not yet been set.

Cheetah Omni, LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al. On July 29, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, against Tellabs and several other companies in a case captioned Cheetah Omni LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 6:11cv390. The complaint includes allegations of infringement by Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,888,661; 6,847,479; 6,856,459; and 6,940,647, and seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, costs, disbursements, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs was served with the original complaint on August 31, 2011. Before any response to the original complaint was due, Tellabs was served with an amended complaint on October 14, 2011. On November 8, 2011, the Tellabs entities filed their answers, defenses and counterclaims in response to the amended complaint. In addition to the four patents asserted against Tellabs in the complaint, another three patents are asserted against Tellabs in plaintiff’s infringement contentions dated August 23, 2012. The newly asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,862; 7,339,714; and 6,882,771. The accused products include products from the Tellabs 7100 product line. The parties are in discovery. A trial date has been set for March 10, 2014.

Internet Machines LLC v. Avnet, Inc., et al. On February 13, 2012, a second amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, naming Tellabs, Inc. among several defendants in a case captioned Internet Machines LLC v. Avnet, Inc., et al., Civil Action Nos. 6:10-CV-548-MHS and 6:11-CV-250-MHS (Consolidated). The plaintiff thereafter filed a third amended complaint on March 2, 2012. The amended complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,552, 7,421,532, 7,814,259 and 7,945,722, and seek unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as interest, costs, expenses, attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On March 27, 2012, Tellabs filed its answer, defenses and counterclaims in response to the third amended complaint. On September 4, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting a motion by the defendants to stay the litigation, whereby the litigation is stayed pending entry of a final non-appealable judgment in a prior proceeding in which Tellabs is not named (Internet Machines LLC v. Alienware Corp., No 6:10-cv-23 (E.D. Tex. Filed Feb. 2, 2010)).

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.

The proceedings described above, including the Fujitsu matters, the Telcordia matter, the Cheetah Omni matter, and the Internet Machines matter, involve costly litigation and may result in diverting management’s time, attention and resources, delaying or halting product shipments or services delivery, requiring us to pay amounts in any damages and/or settlements, requiring us to enter into royalty-bearing licensing arrangements or to obtain substitute technology of lower quality or higher costs, and otherwise imposing obligations or restrictions on us and our business. We may be unsuccessful in any such litigation, despite the time, money, energy and bases for our assertion and/or defense of the matters. We may also be unable, if necessary, to enter into licensing arrangements or to obtain substitute technology on commercially reasonable terms or any terms. Any such settlements or inability to prevail or mitigate any liability or to obtain such licensing arrangements or substitute technology may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. See Item 1A, Risk Factors, in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 2011.