3M Co v. Amphenol Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Company (Delaware/Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Amphenol Corp. (Delaware/Connecticut)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00360, D. Del., 04/03/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Shielded Ribbon Cables infringe patents related to the construction and performance characteristics of high-speed data cables designed to be flexible without signal degradation.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance ribbon cables used for high-speed data transmission in space-constrained electronic systems, such as servers and routers, where cable flexibility is critical.
• Key Procedural History: The U.S. Patent No. 9,601,236 issued from a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,933,333, indicating a shared specification and a close technological relationship between the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-08-31	Priority Date for '333 and '236 Patents
2015-01-13	U.S. Patent No. 8,933,333 Issued
2017-03-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,601,236 Issued
2017-04-03	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,933,333 - "Shielded Electrical Cable"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,933,333, "Shielded Electrical Cable," issued January 13, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for high-speed electrical cables that can be sharply bent without causing impedance discontinuities or poor electrical performance, a common issue in conventional wrapped cables used in dense electronic systems (Compl. Ex. A, ’333 Patent, col. 6:7-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shielded ribbon cable constructed from a planar arrangement of differential wire pairs. These pairs are encased between two non-conductive polymeric layers that are bonded together with adhesive in "pinched portions" on either side of the wire pairs ('333 Patent, col. 7:16-32, Fig. 1). This structure is designed to maintain signal integrity, specifically limiting insertion loss, even when the cable undergoes a tight transverse bend ('333 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This design allows high-performance cables to be routed within space-constrained environments like servers and routers, where sharp bends are often necessary to navigate around components ('333 Patent, col. 27:43-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 5 (Compl. ¶23).
• Essential elements of claim 5 include:
  • A shielded electrical cable with a plurality of differential pairs arranged in a plane, each pair substantially surrounded by a shield.
  • First and second non-conductive polymeric layers on opposite sides of the cable, which have "cover portions" that surround the differential pairs and "pinched portions" on each side of the pairs.
  • An adhesive layer bonding the polymeric layers together in the pinched portions.
  • A functional requirement that a 90-degree transverse bend over a radius of at most 5 mm causes the insertion loss to vary by no more than 0.5 dB from its unbent state.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,601,236 - "Shielded Electrical Cable"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,601,236, "Shielded Electrical Cable," issued March 21, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '333 Patent's application, the '236 Patent addresses the same general problem of creating flexible, high-performance shielded cables (Compl. ¶19; Compl. Ex. B, ’236 Patent, col. 1:11-34).
• The Patented Solution: The '236 Patent defines the cable's geometry with specific dimensional ratios rather than functional performance metrics. The invention is a shielded electrical cable where the ratio of the minimum separation of the outer layers in the pinched portions (d1) to the maximum separation in the cover portions (D) is less than 0.25, and the ratio of the minimum separation between conductors (d2) to D is greater than 0.33 ('236 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:55-65). These specific physical dimensions are purported to ensure electrical performance.
• Technical Importance: By claiming specific physical dimensions, the patent provides a structural definition for a high-performance flexible cable, which may offer a more direct path for manufacturing and quality control compared to purely functional testing (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A shielded electrical cable with a plurality of "conductor sets" (each with two insulated conductors) arranged in a plane and substantially surrounded by a shield.
  • First and second non-conductive polymeric layers with "cover portions" and "pinched portions."
  • An adhesive layer bonding the layers in the pinched portions.
  • A set of dimensional requirements: the layers are spaced within 0.05 mm in the pinched portions; the ratio of minimum separation in the pinched portions to maximum separation over the conductors (d1/D) is less than 0.25; and the ratio of minimum separation between conductors to maximum separation over the conductors (d2/D) is greater than 0.33.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant Amphenol’s "Shielded Ribbon Cables" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as high-performance, shielded ribbon cables used for data transmission that are manufactured, used, offered for sale, and/or imported by Amphenol (Compl. ¶2). The complaint alleges these cables are incorporated into servers sold within the United States and directly compete with 3M's products (Compl. ¶2-3). Figure 1 of the complaint provides a photograph showing examples of the accused Amphenol Shielded Ribbon Cables, which were allegedly retrieved from products sold in the U.S. (Compl. ¶3, Fig. 1). The complaint alleges these cables have a structure including a plurality of differential pairs, two non-conductive polymeric layers made of polyester or similar material, and an adhesive layer bonding the layers together (Compl. ¶26-27, 38-39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,933,333 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a plurality of differential pairs extending along a length of the cable and being arranged generally in a plane... each differential pair including two insulated conductors... substantially surrounded by a shield	The Amphenol cables have a plurality of differential pairs with two insulated conductors arranged along the cable width, with each pair substantially surrounded by a shield (Compl. ¶26).	¶26	col. 7:1-15
first and second non-conductive polymeric layers disposed on opposite sides of the cable, the first and second layers including cover portions and pinched portions arranged such that... the cover portions... substantially surround the plurality of differential pairs, and the pinched portions... form pinched portions of the cable on each side of the plurality of differential pairs	The cables include two non-conductive polymeric layers (e.g., polyester) on opposite sides, with cover portions that substantially surround the differential pairs and pinched portions on each side (Compl. ¶27).	¶27	col. 7:16-32
an adhesive layer bonding the first non-conductive polymeric layer to the second non-conductive polymeric layer in the pinched portions of the cable	An adhesive layer bonds the pinched portions together (Compl. ¶27).	¶27	col. 7:38-44
wherein a transverse bending of the cable at a cable location of 90 degrees over an inner radius of at most 5 mm causes an insertion loss... to vary by no more than 0.5 dB from an initial insertion loss... in an unbent configuration	On information and belief, when bent at a 90° angle with a bend radius of 5 mm or less, the variance in insertion loss does not exceed 0.5 dB compared to an unbent state (Compl. ¶28).	¶28	col. 2:56-64

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A central dispute may concern the functional "wherein" clause. The complaint alleges compliance "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶28). The case may turn on whether discovery and expert testing can prove that Amphenol's cables meet the specific "no more than 0.5 dB" insertion loss variation limitation under the claimed bending conditions.
  • Scope Question: The meaning of "substantially surrounded" could be contested. The defense may argue for a strict interpretation requiring near-complete enclosure, while the plaintiff may point to specification language allowing for as little as 75% coverage to argue for a broader scope ('333 Patent, col. 7:22-25).

U.S. Patent No. 9,601,236 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a plurality of conductor sets extending along a length of the cable and arranged generally in a plane... each conductor set substantially surrounded by a shield and including two insulated conductors	The Amphenol cables have a plurality of conductor sets, each with two insulated conductors, arranged along the cable width and substantially surrounded by a shield (Compl. ¶38).	¶38	col. 7:40-49
first and second non-conductive polymeric layers disposed on opposite sides of the cable, the first and second layers including cover portions and pinched portions arranged such that... the cover portions... substantially surround the plurality of conductor sets, and the pinched portions... form pinched portions of the cable on each side of the cable	The cables have two non-conductive polymeric layers with cover portions that surround the conductor sets and pinched portions on each side (Compl. ¶39).	¶39	col. 7:50-60
an adhesive layer bonding the first non-conductive polymeric layer to the second non-conductive polymeric layer in the pinched portions of the cable	An adhesive layer bonds the pinched portions together (Compl. ¶39).	¶39	col. 8:1-3
wherein: the first and second layers are spaced apart within 0.05 mm of each other in each pinched portion... a maximum separation between the cover portions... is D; a minimum separation between the pinched portions... is d1, d1/D being less than 0.25; and... d2, d2/D being greater than 0.33	On information and belief, the Amphenol cables meet the claimed dimensional features, including that the layers are spaced no more than 0.05 mm apart at the pinched portions and that the specified d1/D and d2/D ratios are met (Compl. ¶40).	¶40	col. 8:55-65

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: As with the '333 Patent, the infringement allegation for the '236 Patent hinges on claims made "on information and belief" regarding precise physical measurements (Compl. ¶40). The core of the dispute will likely be a factual battle over whether reverse engineering of Amphenol's cables confirms they meet the specific dimensional ratios (d1/D < 0.25 and d2/D > 0.33) required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "substantially surrounded"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in both asserted independent claims and defines the degree of shielding required around the conductors. Its construction is critical because if the accused cables have a shield that is argued to be incomplete, the infringement determination may depend entirely on whether that level of coverage meets the "substantial" threshold.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "substantially" is inherently flexible and does not facially require 100% encirclement. A party could argue that its plain and ordinary meaning implies "largely" or "mostly" surrounded, without being tied to a specific number.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both patents provide explicit examples, stating that "cover portions of the shielding films may collectively encompass at least 75%, or at least 80, 85, or 90% of the perimeter of any given conductor set" ('333 Patent, col. 7:22-25; '236 Patent, col. 7:33-37). A party could argue this language defines the lower bound of what "substantially" means in the context of the patent, effectively limiting the claim scope to at least 75% coverage.

• The Term: "pinched portions"

• Context and Importance: This structural term is foundational to the architecture of the patented cable and is recited in both asserted claims. The distinction between "pinched portions" and "cover portions" is essential for understanding the dimensional limitations of the '236 Patent (e.g., the d1/D ratio) and the location of the adhesive layer.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be broadly construed to mean any part of the cable where the outer layers are closer to each other than they are over the conductors, without requiring a specific degree of "pinching."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents' figures, such as Figure 2a, clearly depict the "pinched portions" (118) as the regions on either side of the "conductor set" (104) where the "shielding films" (108) are brought into "closer proximity" and bonded ('333 Patent, col. 7:30-32). A party could argue that the term must be interpreted in light of these specific embodiments, requiring a distinct, narrowed region formed by deflecting the shielding films toward each other.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Amphenol actively induces infringement by, upon information and belief, offering its Shielded Ribbon Cables for sale to third parties who Amphenol "reasonably knows will incorporate" the cables into infringing products sold in the United States (Compl. ¶4, 23, 35). The specific acts constituting inducement, such as providing instructions or advertising, are not detailed.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement in its prayer for relief (Compl. p. 10, ¶d). The factual basis for willfulness appears to be post-suit knowledge, alleging that "at least as of the time it received notice of this complaint, Amphenol's inducement of infringement has been with full knowledge" of the patents (Compl. ¶31, 43).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual compliance: Can 3M prove, through discovery and testing, that Amphenol's cables meet the specific quantitative limitations of the asserted claims? This includes the functional performance metric of the '333 Patent (less than 0.5 dB insertion loss variance on bending) and the precise dimensional ratios of the '236 Patent (d1/D < 0.25 and d2/D > 0.33), both of which are currently alleged only on "information and belief."

2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the term "substantially surrounded" be construed? The case may turn on whether the court finds that the term is limited by the specification's exemplary numerical percentages (e.g., "at least 75%"), or whether it adopts a broader, more qualitative meaning, which could significantly impact the infringement analysis for the accused cables.