Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2013
Contingencies	11. 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 (‘163 patent), 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), 5,386,418 (‘418 patent) and 6,487,686 (‘686 patent), and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. The case was thereafter transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:09-cv-04530). As to Fujitsu’s ‘686 patent, on November 4, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice Fujitsu’s claim for infringement of the patent and Fujitsu signed a covenant not to sue Tellabs for infringement of the patent as to any Tellabs products as they currently exist or existed in the past. As to Fujitsu’s ‘418 patent, on March 31, 2011, the Court denied Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness and granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment for judicial correction of an error in asserted Claim 1. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘418 patent, and judgment was entered in favor of Tellabs on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the patent. Fujitsu’s appeal of this order and judgment was withdrawn and the appeal dismissed. As to Fujitsu’s ‘737 patent, on September 27, 2012, the Court denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity. A trial date of January 14, 2013 had been set by the Court to commence trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents, 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. On December 21, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment on lost profits damages, and as a result Fujitsu Limited is precluded from pursuing the theory of lost profits. 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 alleged infringement of Tellabs Operations, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772 (‘772 patent), and sought unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Fujitsu Limited brought counterclaims alleging infringement of two U.S. patents, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5,533,006 (‘006 patent) and 7,227,681 (‘681 patent), seeking unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On March 31, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of Fujitsu’s ’006 patent. As to Tellabs’ ‘772 patent, Fujitsu pursued an inter partes reexamination of the patent in the Patent Office which resulted in 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 the patent, as well as a January 9, 2013, BPAI decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of amended claims of the patent. On February 14, 2013, Tellabs moved to dismiss all claims related to the ‘772 patent. As to Fujitsu’s ‘681 patent, in July, 2012, the Court denied a Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity and granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment finding no inequitable conduct. Trial on Fujitsu’s ’681 patent 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 the ‘681 patent and in favor of Fujitsu on Tellabs’ claim for invalidity of the same patent, and the parties’ respective post-trial motions were denied by the Court on January 24, 2013. Both Tellabs and Fujitsu are appealing the denial of post-trial motions related to the ‘681 patent. On February 19, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion to dismiss claims related to Tellabs’ ‘772 patent and terminated Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-3379. 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. On June 4, 2012, the Tellabs defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part on January 30, 2013. Tellabs’ response to the complaint is currently due May 1, 2013. 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 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). On April 12, 2013, after a period of inactivity in the case, the Court closed the case with a Docket Text that reads: “Case Closed.” 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. The accused products include products from the Tellabs 7100 product line. On December 5, 2012, the Court entered an order staying the proceedings with respect to US Patents 6,888,661 and 6,847,479 until such time as an injunction issued by the Court of the Eastern District of Michigan in a separate action involving the two patents is lifted. The parties are in discovery, and a Markman hearing was held on February 14, 2013, and on April 11, 2013, the Court issued an order that construes disputed claim language of various patents in suit. 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)). Mahmood Alizadeh v. Tellabs, Inc., et al. and Lawrence Sasala v. Tellabs, Inc., et al. Beginning on January 23, 2013, two purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Tellabs, Inc. and certain of our current or former officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The two stockholder class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, purport to bring claims on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between October 26, 2010, and April 26, 2011. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s revenues and prospects, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. John Nicholas v. Michael J. Birck, et al. On March 19, 2013, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against current and former officers and directors of the Company alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, insider trading and unjust enrichment between October 26, 2010 and July 27, 2012. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and other relief. The Company intends to bring a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to allege facts establishing that a demand on the Tellabs Board of Directors is excused under Delaware law. 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, the Internet Machines matter, the stockholder class action matters and the shareholder derivative complaint, 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.

11. 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 (‘163 patent), 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), 5,386,418 (‘418 patent) and 6,487,686 (‘686 patent), and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. The case was thereafter transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:09-cv-04530). As to Fujitsu’s ‘686 patent, on November 4, 2010, the Court dismissed with prejudice Fujitsu’s claim for infringement of the patent and Fujitsu signed a covenant not to sue Tellabs for infringement of the patent as to any Tellabs products as they currently exist or existed in the past. As to Fujitsu’s ‘418 patent, on March 31, 2011, the Court denied Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness and granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment for judicial correction of an error in asserted Claim 1. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘418 patent, and judgment was entered in favor of Tellabs on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the patent. Fujitsu’s appeal of this order and judgment was withdrawn and the appeal dismissed. As to Fujitsu’s ‘737 patent, on September 27, 2012, the Court denied a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment of invalidity. A trial date of January 14, 2013 had been set by the Court to commence trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents, 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. On December 21, 2012, the Court granted a motion by Tellabs for summary judgment on lost profits damages, and as a result Fujitsu Limited is precluded from pursuing the theory of lost profits. 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 alleged infringement of Tellabs Operations, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 7,369,772 (‘772 patent), and sought unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. Fujitsu Limited brought counterclaims alleging infringement of two U.S. patents, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5,533,006 (‘006 patent) and 7,227,681 (‘681 patent), seeking unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as attorney fees and other remedies including injunctive relief. On March 31, 2011, the Court issued an Order granting Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of Fujitsu’s ’006 patent. As to Tellabs’ ‘772 patent, Fujitsu pursued an inter partes reexamination of the patent in the Patent Office which resulted in 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 the patent, as well as a January 9, 2013, BPAI decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of amended claims of the patent. On February 14, 2013, Tellabs moved to dismiss all claims related to the ‘772 patent. As to Fujitsu’s ‘681 patent, in July, 2012, the Court denied a Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity and granted Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment finding no inequitable conduct. Trial on Fujitsu’s ’681 patent 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 the ‘681 patent and in favor of Fujitsu on Tellabs’ claim for invalidity of the same patent, and the parties’ respective post-trial motions were denied by the Court on January 24, 2013. Both Tellabs and Fujitsu are appealing the denial of post-trial motions related to the ‘681 patent. On February 19, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion to dismiss claims related to Tellabs’ ‘772 patent and terminated Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-3379.

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. On June 4, 2012, the Tellabs defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), which the Court granted in part and denied in part on January 30, 2013. Tellabs’ response to the complaint is currently due May 1, 2013.

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 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). On April 12, 2013, after a period of inactivity in the case, the Court closed the case with a Docket Text that reads: “Case Closed.”

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. The accused products include products from the Tellabs 7100 product line. On December 5, 2012, the Court entered an order staying the proceedings with respect to US Patents 6,888,661 and 6,847,479 until such time as an injunction issued by the Court of the Eastern District of Michigan in a separate action involving the two patents is lifted. The parties are in discovery, and a Markman hearing was held on February 14, 2013, and on April 11, 2013, the Court issued an order that construes disputed claim language of various patents in suit. 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)).

Mahmood Alizadeh v. Tellabs, Inc., et al. and Lawrence Sasala v. Tellabs, Inc., et al. Beginning on January 23, 2013, two purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Tellabs, Inc. and certain of our current or former officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The two stockholder class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated, purport to bring claims on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between October 26, 2010, and April 26, 2011. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s revenues and prospects, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

John Nicholas v. Michael J. Birck, et al. On March 19, 2013, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against current and former officers and directors of the Company alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, insider trading and unjust enrichment between October 26, 2010 and July 27, 2012. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and other relief. The Company intends to bring a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint fails to allege facts establishing that a demand on the Tellabs Board of Directors is excused under Delaware law.

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, the Internet Machines matter, the stockholder class action matters and the shareholder derivative complaint, 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.