DCT

1:12-cv-01491

Nexans Inc v. Belden Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:12-cv-01491, D. Del., 12/03/2012
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant entities are incorporated in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff Nexans alleges that certain data cables manufactured by Defendant Belden infringe a Nexans patent on striated cable jackets, while simultaneously seeking a declaratory judgment that its own products do not infringe four of Belden's patents related to cables with cross-web separators, and that those Belden patents are invalid.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns high-performance data communications cables, such as those used for Ethernet networks, where internal cable geometry is critical for preventing electrical interference (crosstalk) between wire pairs to ensure high-speed data transmission.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute was precipitated by an April 2012 letter from Belden to Nexans alleging infringement and demanding a license. The complaint notes extensive prior litigation between Belden and a third party, Superior Essex, involving the same Belden patents. It also notes that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously ordered a reexamination of one of Belden's patents based on a challenge citing the Nexans patent-in-suit. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, a series of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO resulted in the cancellation or finding of unpatentability of all claims in two of Belden's patents-in-suit and the majority of claims in a third.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-04-09 Priority Date for U.S. Patents 7,663,061 and 7,977,575
1996-06-24 Priority Date for U.S. Patent 5,796,046
1997-04-22 Priority Date for U.S. Patents 6,074,503 and 7,135,641
1998-08-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 5,796,046
2000-06-13 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 6,074,503
2006-11-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,135,641
2008-01-29 Belden files first lawsuit against Superior Essex re: '503 Patent
2008-10-31 Belden files second lawsuit against Superior Essex re: '641 & '503 Patents
2009-10-23 USPTO orders reexamination of '641 Patent based on '046 Patent
2010-02-16 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,663,061
2011-07-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent 7,977,575
2011-08-01 Belden files third lawsuit against Superior Essex re: '575 Patent
2012-04-03 Belden sends letter to Nexans alleging infringement
2012-06-25 Nexans and Belden enter Protected Communications and Standstill Agreement
2012-09-21 Counsel for Nexans and Belden meet in New York City
2012-10-31 Standstill Agreement expires
2012-12-03 Amended Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 5,796,046 - "Communication cable having a striated cable jacket," issued August 18, 1998

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In unshielded twisted pair (UTP) data cables, close proximity between the outer jacket and the internal conductor pairs can cause capacitive coupling, which degrades signal quality. While creating a loose-fitting jacket can reduce this coupling, it allows the conductor pairs to shift, which introduces undesirable variations in the cable's electrical impedance (Compl., Ex. F, '046 Patent, col. 1:15-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a cable jacket with "sharply angled striations" on its inner surface. These striations, or grooves, create small, inwardly-directed projections that hold the core of twisted pairs slightly away from the main surface of the jacket, creating an air gap that reduces coupling. The projections also serve to hold the conductor pairs in a stable position, minimizing impedance variations ('046 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-27).
  • Technical Importance: This design provided a method to improve the electrical performance of UTP cables without resorting to more expensive internal shielding or bulky plastic separators, offering a more cost-effective way to achieve higher data speeds ('046 Patent, col. 1:29-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more of the '046 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1, as amended by a 2009 reexamination, is central to the patent.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (as reexamined):
    • A communication cable operating at high frequencies.
    • A core including a plurality of twisted pair electrical conductors.
    • A cable jacket encasing the conductors.
    • The jacket's inner surface includes a plurality of "sharply angled striations" having peak-to-valley distances sufficient to reduce signal attenuation.
    • The striations define "sharply angled inwardly directed projections" that maintain the conductors in the core and out of the striations.

U.S. Patent No. 6,074,503 - "Making enhanced data cable with cross-twist cabled core profile," issued June 13, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: High-speed data cables require consistent separation between internal twisted pairs to prevent crosstalk. Conventional cable designs that simply bundle pairs together can allow them to lie too closely, degrading performance ('503 Patent, col. 1:13-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method for manufacturing a cable that incorporates a central, pre-formed core, often with a "+" or "star" shaped profile. The method involves a series of dies that first align the twisted pairs into the channels created by the core's fins, then "bunch" the pairs and core together, and finally apply an overall twist to the assembly to lock the components in place before the final jacketing is applied ('503 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-20; Fig. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This manufacturing method provided a reliable way to produce cables with an internal separator, ensuring consistent spacing between wire pairs and enabling the improved performance required for standards like Category 5 and beyond ('503 Patent, col. 1:56-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim of the '503 Patent (Compl. ¶31). At the time of filing, independent claims 1-4 were in force.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1 (as filed, later cancelled in IPR):
    • A method of producing a cable comprising steps of:
    • Passing a plurality of transmission media and a core through a first die which aligns the media with surface features of the core and prevents twisting.
    • Bunching the aligned media and core using a second die.
    • Twisting the bunched assembly to close the cable.
    • Jacketing the closed cable.

U.S. Patent No. 7,135,641 - "Data cable with cross-twist cabled core profile," issued November 14, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a data cable product, rather than a method. The invention combines a central separator core to isolate twisted pairs with a jacket that has inwardly extending protrusions, creating an air gap between the jacket and the conductors. It appears to merge concepts from both the Nexans and Belden portfolios.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim (Compl. ¶33).
  • Accused Features: The technology is implicated by Nexans' LANmark family of cables (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 7,977,575 - "High performance data cable," issued July 12, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a data cable with an interior star-shaped separator. A key feature is that the separator itself can be a composite structure, having a first material for the main body and a different second material, such as a foil shield, forming its outer surface to further improve electrical performance.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The technology is implicated by Nexans' LANmark family of cables (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 7,663,061 - "High performance data cable," issued February 16, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a data cable with an interior star separator having specific, tightly controlled geometric properties. The claims are directed to the shape of the separator's splines (e.g., triangular) and the ratios between certain dimensions, such as the "tip distance" and "crevice distance," to precisely position the wire pairs.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any claim (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The technology is implicated by Nexans' LANmark family of cables (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint alleges that Belden's "Mohawk GigaLAN10 Augmented Category 6 and Mohawk XGO Augmented Category 6 cables" infringe the '046 Patent (Compl. ¶47).
  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Nexans' "Berk-Tek LANmark 1000 Enhanced Category 6 products, the LANmark 2000 Premium Category 6 products and the LANmark 10G2 Augmented Category 6 products" do not infringe the Belden patents ('503, '641, '575, '061) (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality or construction of any of the accused or non-accused products. The products are identified only by name and general category (e.g., "Enhanced Category 6").

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a claim chart or sufficient detail to map specific product features to claim elements for any of the patents-in-suit.

  • '046 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint makes a general allegation that Belden's specified Mohawk cables are "covered by one or more of the '046 Patent claims" (Compl. ¶47). No specific infringement theory is articulated.
  • Belden Patents Non-Infringement Allegations: For the four Belden patents, Nexans seeks a declaratory judgment that it "has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or actively induced infringement of any claim" of the respective patents (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 33, 35, 37). The complaint does not present a specific technical theory of non-infringement for its LANmark products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 5,796,046

  • The Term: "sharply angled striations having peak to valley distances sufficient for reduction of signal attenuation" (from reexamined Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core of the invention. The construction of "sharply angled" and what constitutes a "sufficient" distance will be central to determining infringement, as it defines the boundary between a generic textured surface and the specific, functional geometry claimed by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because Belden's products likely achieve pair separation via a different primary mechanism (a cross-web separator), and any texturing on its jackets may be argued to be functionally and structurally different from what is claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal as making the cable jacket "less intimate with the electrical conductors" ('046 Patent, col. 2:39-41), suggesting any structure that achieves this spacing could potentially be a "striation."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment discloses specific dimensions, such as a peak-to-valley distance "on the order of about 0.003 to 0.010 inches" and a configuration of "about thirty-six (36) striations" ('046 Patent, col. 3:45-53). A party could argue the claims should be limited to structures with similar geometric properties.

U.S. Patent No. 6,074,503

  • The Term: "passing a plurality of transmission media and a core through a first die which aligns the plurality of transmission media with surface features of the core" (from original Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: As the first step in the claimed manufacturing method, the definition of this term is critical. The dispute would question whether a competitor's manufacturing process, which may also use dies, performs the specific functions of "aligning" the media with the core's "features" as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term describes a general manufacturing step of guiding components together, which could be argued to read on a wide variety of cable-making processes.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 and the associated description depict a specific three-part die system, with the first die (403) having distinct openings for the core and each twisted pair ('503 Patent, col. 5:6-19). A party could argue that the claim term "first die which aligns" is limited to a die structure that performs this specific, multi-hole guiding function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: In its requests for declaratory judgment, Nexans states it has not "contributed to the infringement, or actively induced infringement" of any of Belden's patents (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 33, 35, 37). However, the complaint alleges no specific facts from either party that would form the basis for an indirect infringement claim, such as instructions or components provided to third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: Nexans alleges that Belden's infringement of the '046 Patent is willful. The complaint alleges that Belden had knowledge of the '046 Patent "since at least as early as October 23, 2009," the date the USPTO ordered reexamination of Belden's '641 Patent based on the '046 Patent, and from its use in prior litigation (Compl. ¶48). This alleges a specific basis for pre-suit knowledge.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of competing technologies: Can the claims of Nexans' '046 patent, directed to a "striated cable jacket" for pair separation, be construed to read on Belden's cables, which are understood to rely on a physical "cross-web separator" for the same purpose? This raises a fundamental infringement question about the scope and boundaries of two different technical solutions to the same problem.
  • A second central issue is the validity of the competing patent portfolios. The complaint initiates a direct clash, with Nexans asserting its own patent while simultaneously challenging the validity of four Belden patents. The procedural history, which includes a reexamination based on the patents-in-suit, suggests that prior art and patentability will be a primary battleground.
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will concern the method vs. product distinction. To adjudicate the claims related to Belden's '503 patent, the court would need to examine the specific, potentially proprietary steps of Nexans' manufacturing process and determine if they map to the ordered steps of Belden's method claims, posing significant discovery and proof challenges.