Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 27, 2013
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 (‘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 Fujitsu’s appeal of this order and judgment was withdrawn and the appeal dismissed.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. On May 15, 2013, the Court consolidated Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229 for purposes of trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On May 23, 2013, the Court issued an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment on lost profits damages, which Fujitsu petitioned for permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (docketed June 4, 2013, as Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc., Misc. No. 154). On September 11, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied Fujitsu’s petition for permission to appeal, and the District Court granted a motion filed by Fujitsu to consolidate the 4991 action with the 4530 action. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent, and denied as moot Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of claims 5 and 6 of the ‘163 patent. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014 as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014. 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 (‘163 patent), 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), 5,386,418 (‘418 patent) and 7,227,681 (‘681 patent), the same patents at issue in 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 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. On May 1, 2013, the Tellabs defendants answered Fujitsu’s complaint, and asserted counterclaims against Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. On May 15, 2013, the Court consolidated Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229 for purposes of trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On Tellabs’ motion the Court, on June 25, 2013, dismissed with prejudice Fujitsu’s claims of infringement of Fujitsu’s ‘418 patent. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion in the 4530 action for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014, as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014. On this same date the Court also denied Fujitsu’s motion to dismiss Tellabs’ counterclaim and third-party claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc. On July 12, 2013, 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. 1:13-cv-04991. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163 ( ‘163 patent) and 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), two of the same patents at issue in Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as interests, costs and other remedies including injunctive relief. The complaint includes allegations of infringement that Fujitsu previously sought unsuccessfully to add to Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229. On July 24, 2013, Fujitsu filed a first amended complaint that removes allegations of continuing infringement as well as Fujitsu’s prior request for injunctive relief relative to the expired ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion in the 4530 action for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent. On September 11, 2013, the Court denied a motion filed by the Tellabs defendants to dismiss the 4991 action, and the Court granted a cross-motion filed by Fujitsu to consolidate the 4991 action with the 4530 action. The Tellabs defendants answered the first amended complaint on September 25, 2013. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014 as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014. 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 completing discovery, which closed September 12, 2013. 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)). Cirrex Sys., LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. On May 22, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., among several defendants in a case captioned Cirrex Sys., LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00921-UNA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953 (’953 patent), and seeks unspecified damages including supplemental damages, as well as interest and other remedies including injunctive relief. On July 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that contains additional allegations of infringement directed to co-defendant Verizon Communications Inc. under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,208,783 and 6,222,970. The Tellabs defendants’ answered the complaint on August 19, 2013. A trial date has been set for January 11, 2016. Gordium Innovations LLC v. Tellabs, Inc. On August 28, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming Tellabs, Inc. as defendant in a case captioned Gordium Innovations LLC v. Tellabs, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01501-UNA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,697,385 (’385 patent) , and seeks unspecified damages including treble damages, as well as interest, costs, expenses and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs, Inc.’s response to the complaint is currently due November 11, 2013. 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 former officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits were consolidated and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 3, 2013, which purports to bring claims on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between June 9, 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 filed a motion to dismiss on July 24, 2013. 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 lawsuit has been stayed by the court pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated Alizadeh stockholder class action lawsuit. 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. Such claims may include indemnification and/or other obligations on the part of Tellabs relative to infringement assertions brought by third parties against our customers or partners, and relative to commercial assertions brought by our customers or partners. The proceedings described above, including the Fujitsu matters, the Telcordia matter, the Cheetah Omni matter, the Internet Machines matter, the Cirrex Systems matter, the Gordium Innovations 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.

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 (‘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. On May 15, 2013, the Court consolidated Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229 for purposes of trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On May 23, 2013, the Court issued an Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment on lost profits damages, which Fujitsu petitioned for permission to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (docketed June 4, 2013, as Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc., Misc. No. 154). On September 11, 2013, the Federal Circuit denied Fujitsu’s petition for permission to appeal, and the District Court granted a motion filed by Fujitsu to consolidate the 4991 action with the 4530 action. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent, and denied as moot Fujitsu’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of claims 5 and 6 of the ‘163 patent. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014 as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014.

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 (‘163 patent), 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), 5,386,418 (‘418 patent) and 7,227,681 (‘681 patent), the same patents at issue in 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 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. On May 1, 2013, the Tellabs defendants answered Fujitsu’s complaint, and asserted counterclaims against Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. On May 15, 2013, the Court consolidated Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229 for purposes of trial of Fujitsu’s ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On Tellabs’ motion the Court, on June 25, 2013, dismissed with prejudice Fujitsu’s claims of infringement of Fujitsu’s ‘418 patent. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion in the 4530 action for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014, as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014. On this same date the Court also denied Fujitsu’s motion to dismiss Tellabs’ counterclaim and third-party claim for misappropriation of trade secrets.

Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc. On July 12, 2013, 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. 1:13-cv-04991. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,526,163 ( ‘163 patent) and 5,521,737 (‘737 patent), two of the same patents at issue in Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229, and seeks unspecified damages including enhanced damages, as well as interests, costs and other remedies including injunctive relief. The complaint includes allegations of infringement that Fujitsu previously sought unsuccessfully to add to Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-04530 and 1:12-cv-03229. On July 24, 2013, Fujitsu filed a first amended complaint that removes allegations of continuing infringement as well as Fujitsu’s prior request for injunctive relief relative to the expired ‘163 and ‘737 patents. On August 20, 2013, the Court granted Tellabs’ motion in the 4530 action for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims of the ‘163 patent. On September 11, 2013, the Court denied a motion filed by the Tellabs defendants to dismiss the 4991 action, and the Court granted a cross-motion filed by Fujitsu to consolidate the 4991 action with the 4530 action. The Tellabs defendants answered the first amended complaint on September 25, 2013. On October 10, 2013, the Court struck February 24, 2014 as a trial date for the ‘737 patent and instead reset the date for trial on the ‘737 patent to July 14, 2014.

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 completing discovery, which closed September 12, 2013. 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)).

Cirrex Sys., LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. On May 22, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Operations, Inc., and Tellabs North America, Inc., among several defendants in a case captioned Cirrex Sys., LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00921-UNA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,404,953 (’953 patent), and seeks unspecified damages including supplemental damages, as well as interest and other remedies including injunctive relief. On July 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that contains additional allegations of infringement directed to co-defendant Verizon Communications Inc. under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,208,783 and 6,222,970. The Tellabs defendants’ answered the complaint on August 19, 2013. A trial date has been set for January 11, 2016.

Gordium Innovations LLC v. Tellabs, Inc. On August 28, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, naming Tellabs, Inc. as defendant in a case captioned Gordium Innovations LLC v. Tellabs, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01501-UNA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,697,385 (’385 patent) , and seeks unspecified damages including treble damages, as well as interest, costs, expenses and other remedies including injunctive relief. Tellabs, Inc.’s response to the complaint is currently due November 11, 2013.

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 former officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits were consolidated and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 3, 2013, which purports to bring claims on behalf of those who purchased the Company’s publicly traded securities between June 9, 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 filed a motion to dismiss on July 24, 2013. 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 lawsuit has been stayed by the court pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the consolidated Alizadeh stockholder class action lawsuit.

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. Such claims may include indemnification and/or other obligations on the part of Tellabs relative to infringement assertions brought by third parties against our customers or partners, and relative to commercial assertions brought by our customers or partners.

The proceedings described above, including the Fujitsu matters, the Telcordia matter, the Cheetah Omni matter, the Internet Machines matter, the Cirrex Systems matter, the Gordium Innovations 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.