Ciena Corporation v. K.MIZRA LLC

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Ciena Corporation against K.MIZRA LLC before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Ciena Corporation is a prominent American optical networking systems and software company, recognized for its advanced optical networking components for telecommunications carriers and cloud service providers. K.MIZRA LLC, conversely, operates as a patent licensing company, often referred to as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), focusing on acquiring and monetizing high-value patent portfolios through licensing and litigation. K.MIZRA has asserted numerous patents globally, sourcing them from various inventors, including well-known multinational corporations and research institutes.

The sole patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent 8,782,282, which broadly pertains to "communications in a network management system". Ciena filed the IPR as a defensive measure in response to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, K.Mizra LLC v. Ciena Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442, which K.MIZRA LLC initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on November 25, 2024. While the IPR itself does not directly address an "accused product," the underlying district court litigation typically targets specific products or services offered by Ciena that allegedly incorporate the technology claimed in the '282 patent.

The procedural posture of IPR2025-01362 is notable because the PTAB did not institute the review, citing procedural reasons based on discretionary denial. The petition was filed on August 30, 2025, but the Director issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on January 8, 2026, which was subsequently affirmed by an "Order Denying Director Review of Institution Decision" on March 2, 2026. This denial was primarily based on the PTAB's application of the Fintiv factors, which weigh against institution when there is a parallel district court proceeding. Specifically, K.MIZRA argued that the anticipated district court trial date in Georgia was expected to be contemporaneous with the PTAB's deadline for a final written decision, and Ciena had not indicated an intent to seek a stay in the district court or challenged all patents asserted in the parallel litigation. This case highlights the PTAB's discretion in denying IPRs, especially when district court litigation is already underway and could lead to duplicative efforts or an inefficient use of resources. The underlying district court case was closed on March 27, 2026, suggesting a resolution, likely a settlement, that may have further influenced the PTAB's stance or the parties' positions regarding the IPR.

The patent infringement litigation between K.Mizra LLC and Ciena Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, saw several key developments before its closure.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• K.Mizra LLC filed its complaint with a jury demand against Ciena Corporation on November 25, 2024. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 8,782,282, which relates to "communications in a network management system," and also referenced U.S. Patent 9,485,176, titled "Global IP-Based Service Oriented Network Architecture".
• On November 27, 2024, a Standing Order Regarding Civil Litigation was filed by Judge Steven D. Grimberg, outlining the court's policies and procedures, including guidelines for responses to pleadings and motions. This order explicitly noted that during the pendency of a motion to dismiss, all discovery is automatically stayed.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• While the specific date of Ciena's answer and counterclaims is not immediately available, the court's standing order detailed requirements for responsive pleadings, including copying the paragraph being responded to.
• Ciena filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). An oral argument on motions to dismiss was held on October 21, 2025, before Judge Grimberg. A transcript of this hearing indicates discussions regarding the patent's claims and the expert declaration submitted by K.Mizra.
• It is not clear from the available information if other substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to transfer, stay pending IPR (beyond the IPR's discretionary denial), or summary judgment, were filed or fully adjudicated.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The available information does not specify if the case reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or resulted in a Markman order. Given the case's relatively short duration and dismissal, it is possible this stage was not fully completed.

Discovery Milestones:

• The court's standing order indicated an automatic stay of discovery during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. Beyond this, specific significant discovery milestones are not readily available in the provided information.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case was closed on March 27, 2026. This swift closure, especially after the PTAB's discretionary denial of Ciena's IPR petition, strongly suggests a confidential settlement between the parties. The court's standing order encourages parties to alert the court immediately upon reaching a settlement in principle.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Ciena Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01362, against K.MIZRA LLC challenging US patent 8,782,282, on August 30, 2025.
• The PTAB issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on January 8, 2026, refusing to institute the IPR.
• Ciena Corporation requested Director Review of this discretionary denial on February 8, 2026, arguing that the denial did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the America Invents Act (AIA), or the U.S. Constitution, and lacked a reasoned decision.
• K.Mizra LLC filed an authorized response to the Director Review Request on February 16, 2026.
• The "Order Denying Director Review of Institution Decision" was issued on March 2, 2026, affirming the discretionary denial.
• The PTAB's discretionary denial was based on the application of the Fintiv factors, considering the parallel district court proceeding and the anticipated trial date. The PTAB noted that K.MIZRA argued the district court trial date was expected to align with the PTAB's deadline for a final written decision, and Ciena had not committed to seeking a stay or challenging all asserted patents in the district court litigation. This decision influenced the litigation by removing a potential avenue for Ciena to challenge the patent's validity before the PTAB, thereby strengthening K.Mizra's position in the district court. The subsequent closure of the district court case shortly after the final IPR denial suggests a likely settlement, where the denial may have played a role in the parties' negotiation.

I'll research Ciena's counsel of record across the parallel forums. Let me start with several targeted searches.

The metadata designates Ciena as the plaintiff/petitioner. Let me find Ciena's counsel of record in both forums.

Strong leads. Now let me verify the individual attorneys, their firms, and roles.

Plaintiff/Petitioner's Counsel of Record — Ciena Corporation

Framing note. The case metadata designates Ciena Corporation as the plaintiff/petitioner and K.Mizra as defendant/patent owner. In the underlying N.D. Ga. action, however, K.Mizra is the nominal plaintiff (see the prior "Defendant representatives" section, which is labeled from the IPR's perspective). This section therefore covers Ciena's counsel of record in both forums — the PTAB proceeding (IPR2025‑01362) and the parallel district court case, K.Mizra LLC v. Ciena Corp., No. 1:24‑cv‑05442‑SDG (N.D. Ga.).

Bottom line: Ciena's IPR and district court teams are both drawn from Duane Morris LLP, principally its Washington, D.C. PTAB group and its Atlanta office, led by John M. Baird as lead counsel.

---

A. PTAB — IPR2025‑01362 (Petitioner Ciena Corporation)

Per the Petitioner's Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) filed with Ciena's companion petition IPR2025‑01364 (U.S. Pat. 10,735,320), executed August 27, 2025 and signed by Robert D. (Ciena in‑house), and confirmed by the petitioner-counsel designation on the IPR2025‑01362 docket, the team is:

These same five names (rendered as "John M., Patrick D., Paul H., Daniel D., Stephen J.") appear in the IPR2025‑01362 discretionary‑denial briefing/service block, and IPVerse's docket listing for IPR2025‑01362 identifies petitioner counsel as "Baird, John et al." — confirming Baird as Ciena's lead IPR counsel here, not only in the companion '320 case.
Sources: Duane Morris § 42.10(b) Power of Attorney (IPR2025‑01364); IPVerse docket, IPR2025‑01362; Duane Morris bio — John M. Baird; Legal 500 profile.

Caveat: I verified the PoA document itself only for the companion '320 IPR; the -01362 designation is corroborated by the docket-level petitioner-counsel listing and the briefing service block, not by my direct viewing of the -01362 § 42.10(b) paper.

---

B. District Court — 1:24‑cv‑05442‑SDG (Defendant Ciena Corporation)

Notices of appearance on the N.D. Ga. docket (Justia mirror, docket last retrieved Jan. 22, 2025) show the following attorneys appearing on behalf of Ciena Corporation:

• John Matthew Baird — Notice of Appearance (Jan. 2025). Lead trial/PTAB counsel; Duane Morris (Washington, D.C.).
• Matthew Christopher Gaudet — Notice of Appearance (Jan. 14, 2025). Duane Morris (Washington, D.C.); argued Ciena's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss at the Oct. 21, 2025 hearing before Judge Grimberg — the "GAUDET" argument colloquy appears in the hearing transcript, consistent with the prior section's account of that hearing.
• Paul H. Belnap — Notice of appearance for Ciena; Duane Morris.
• Brian H. Pandya — Notice of appearance for Ciena; Duane Morris (DC), IP litigation practice.
• Alice E. Snedeker — Notice of Appearance (Jan. 14, 2025).
• Jayla Grant — Notice of Appearance (Jan. 15, 2025).

Sources: Justia docket, K.Mizra LLC v. Ciena Corporation, 1:24‑cv‑05442; Law360 attorney page — John M. Baird (K.Mizra LLC v. Ciena Corporation, Ga. N.D., Nov. 25, 2024).

Confidence levels: Baird, Belnap, and Gaudet as Duane Morris attorneys are well corroborated (firm bios/directories). Pandya appears on the Duane Morris DC attorney roster. Snedeker and Grant are confirmed as Ciena counsel of record from the docket entries but I could not independently confirm their firm affiliation, office, or role from a firm page — treat as unverified. It is also possible additional Ciena appearances post‑January 2025 exist that are not reflected in the Justia snapshot I retrieved (the docket mirror was last pulled Jan. 22, 2025); PACER would be needed for a definitive current roster.

In‑house: The complaint references Notice Letters sent to Ciena's Senior Intellectual Property Counsel and VP of Intellectual Property (Compl. ¶ 36), but neither is named in public sources, and no Ciena in‑house attorney is identified as counsel of record in either forum.

---

C. Cross-checks and contradictions to flag

1. Correction to the prior "Defendant representatives" section. That section listed Crawford Wells / Wells & Seltzer, P.C. as K.Mizra's "Lead Counsel for IPR." The actual PTAB Patent Owner Mandatory Notices in IPR2025‑01362 (dated Sept. 3, 2025) designate C. Maclain Wells (Reg. No. 48,991), Folio Law Group PLLC, 1200 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 809, Seattle, WA 98109 as lead counsel, with back‑up counsel David D. Schumann (Reg. No. 53,569), Cliff Win, Jr. (pro hac vice forthcoming), and Alden Lee (pro hac vice forthcoming) — all Folio Law Group. The "Wells, Crawford / Wells & Seltzer" attribution appears to derive from a garbled third‑party aggregator (IPVerse) listing. The earlier section is correct that Folio Law Group PLLC represents K.Mizra, but its identification of individual K.Mizra IPR counsel should be corrected. (PO Mandatory Notices, IPR2025‑01362)

2. Single-firm concentration. Unlike many NPE-vs-operating-company IPRs (where separate IPR and district court firms are used), Ciena used one firm — Duane Morris — across the IPR and the N.D. Ga. case, with its Atlanta office supplying the Georgia-facing counsel. That is consistent with Baird's documented history of acting as both litigation and IPR counsel for telecom defendants (e.g., Graywire v. Ciena/Cisco, N.D. Ga.).

3. Third parallel challenge. Note for completeness (relevant to who is doing Ciena's validity work on the same patent family): Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination (No. 90/019,063, filed May 15, 2025) against the same '282 patent, instituted July 8, 2025, with Unified represented by in‑house counsel Jordan Rossen and David Seastrunk — not Ciena's counsel. Ciena also filed IPR2025‑01364 on the related '320 patent. (Unified Patents, July 8, 2025)

4. No sealed-appearance issue identified. All filings/counsel listings above are public; nothing in the record I reviewed indicates Ciena appeared through sealed or unlisted counsel.

The following counsel represented K.Mizra LLC in the patent infringement case K.Mizra LLC v. Ciena Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and/or in the related IPR2025-01362 before the PTAB:

For K.Mizra LLC (Plaintiff in District Court Case, Respondent in IPR):

• Crawford Wells (Lead Counsel for IPR)
  • Firm: Wells & Seltzer, P.C., Houston, TX (implied from common pairings with "Wells, Crawford et al." in PTAB proceedings for K.Mizra).
  • Note: Mr. Wells is frequently listed as counsel for K.Mizra LLC in various PTAB proceedings, often focusing on patent validity challenges.
• Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP (Counsel for District Court Case)
  • Note: This firm signed a document for K.Mizra LLC in the district court litigation.
• Folio Law Group PLLC (Counsel for District Court Case)
  • Note: This firm was also associated with the signature block on a document for K.Mizra LLC in the district court litigation.

Specific individual attorneys from Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP and Folio Law Group PLLC who represented K.Mizra LLC in the district court case are not explicitly named in the provided search results. Similarly, while "Wells, Crawford et al." is mentioned for the IPR, specific individuals beyond Crawford Wells are not detailed.