DCT

1:21-cv-00377

CommScope Tech LLC v. AFL Telecommunications LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CommScope Technologies LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: AFL Telecommunications LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
Case Identification: 1:21-cv-00377, D. Del., 03/15/2021
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, AFL Telecommunications LLC, is a Delaware corporation.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ASCEND® Modular Platform product line infringes eight patents related to high-density fiber optic adapter panels and housings featuring laterally sliding components.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the need to increase the density of fiber optic connections in network equipment while maintaining technician access for installation, maintenance, and upgrades.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant previously participated in patent litigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) concerning its ASCEND® platform. In that litigation, Defendant allegedly identified U.S. Patent No. 7,570,860—a parent patent to all eight patents-in-suit—as invalidating prior art. Plaintiff leverages this allegation to support its claims of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement for each asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-19	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2016-09-20	U.S. Patent No. 9,448,379 Issues
2016-11-08	U.S. Patent No. 9,488,796 Issues
2017-05-02	U.S. Patent No. 9,638,879 Issues
2017-05-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,645,342 Issues
2017-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,690,066 Issues
2017-07-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,703,059 Issues
2019-02-12	U.S. Patent No. 10,203,464 Issues
2019-06-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,310,204 Issues
2021-03-15	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,488,796 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued November 8, 2016

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge in telecommunications where the demand for greater service capacity has led to an increase in the "circuit densities of termination panels," making it difficult for technicians to access and manage cables for installation, maintenance, and cross-connections (’796 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
The Patented Solution: The invention is an adapter panel arrangement within a chassis that contains multiple, independently sliding "adapter arrays" (i.e., rows of fiber optic connectors). This configuration allows a technician to pull a single array forward, separating it from the others to provide clear access to its front and rear connection points without disturbing adjacent cabling (’796 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-60). This two-tiered system—a main drawer for installation access and individually sliding arrays for operational access—is a core feature (’796 Patent, col. 3:6-18).
Technical Importance: This design seeks to resolve the fundamental conflict between maximizing connection density and preserving workable access for network technicians in data centers and telecommunication facilities (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶21).
Essential elements of claim 19 include:
- A fiber optic apparatus with a chassis and fiber optic connection equipment.
- The equipment comprises a row of forty-eight (48) LC connector ports aligned along the same horizontal plane.
- These ports are arranged in a plurality of "groups," with each group having at least four ports.
- A key limitation is that the spacing between adjacent ports within a group is less than the spacing between adjacent groups in the row.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 9,690,066 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued June 27, 2017

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’796 Patent, this patent addresses the need for "further advances to improve upon high-density termination panels" and to "enhance termination access and cable management" procedures (’066 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
The Patented Solution: The patent describes a comparable solution involving an adapter panel with multiple groups of adapters that can slide independently. The specification details a main "sliding member" (like a drawer) coupled to the chassis, which in turn supports multiple "fiber optic adapter groups" that are themselves slidable relative to that main sliding member (’066 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-33). This creates a two-level system of movement to facilitate access.
Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide a practical mechanical solution for managing the physically dense and complex fiber optic patch panels that form the backbone of modern communication networks (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A fiber optic apparatus with a chassis and a "sliding member" slidable in a forward-rearward axis.
- Fiber optic equipment supported by the sliding member, including a row of connection locations arranged in a plurality of "groups."
- Each group is slidable relative to the sliding member and relative to each other group in the same forward-rearward axis.
The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,638,879 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued May 2, 2017

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a fiber optic apparatus with a chassis and a sliding member that supports multiple, independently slidable groups of fiber optic adapters to improve access in high-density environments. An arm extending forward from the connection locations provides a handle and a fiber retaining ring (’879 Patent, Claim 12).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶57).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 9,703,059 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued July 11, 2017

Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a chassis arrangement with a removably coupled rear portion to provide access to the chassis interior for cable installation. It also features a sliding member supporting a plurality of fiber optic adapters (’059 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶75).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶75).

U.S. Patent No. 9,645,342 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued May 9, 2017

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a chassis arrangement with a sliding member that defines a bottom access opening. This opening is positioned to facilitate finger access to the front ports of the fiber optic adapters when they are slid forward (’342 Patent, Claim 12).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶93).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶93).

U.S. Patent No. 10,310,204 B2 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued June 4, 2019

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses an adapter panel arrangement with an elongated guide defining a channel. A piece of fiber optic equipment with a side rail slides within this channel, and a stop member is used to engage the side rail at specific positions (’204 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶110).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶110).

U.S. Patent No. 9,448,379 B2 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued September 20, 2016

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a chassis arrangement with a first sliding member (e.g., a drawer) and a second sliding member that carries the fiber optic connections and slides relative to the first member. It also claims an arm extending forwardly with a fiber retaining ring (’379 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶127).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶127).

U.S. Patent No. 10,203,464 B1 - "Adapter Panel With Lateral Sliding Adapter Arrays," issued February 12, 2019

Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a fiber optic apparatus with a tray guide system receiving a tray, which in turn has a module guide system for movably supporting a fiber optic module. The invention describes a hierarchy of independently translatable components (’464 Patent, Claim 1).
Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶142).
Accused Features: The ASCEND® Modular Platform is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶142).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification: The accused products are Defendant AFL’s ASCEND® Modular Platform product line, which includes ASCEND® Fiber Housings and associated cassettes (Compl. ¶¶2, 19). The complaint identifies various configurations, such as 1U, 2U, and 4U chassis and cassettes in Base-8, Base-12, and Base-24 formats (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are described as "high density fiber optic equipment" used to provide cross-connections in telecommunications systems (Compl. ¶¶9, 19). The complaint alleges that AFL competes directly with CommScope in the market for these products (Compl. ¶4).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’796 and ’066 patents but does not provide a narrative infringement theory or include the referenced claim chart exhibits. For each asserted claim element, the complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the accused system satisfies the element "as shown in" an exhibit that is not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶¶23-28, 38-49). Without these exhibits, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not present in the complaint itself.

Identified Points of Contention:
- ’796 Patent: A potential point of contention for claim 19 may be the limitation requiring that the spacing of connector ports within a "group" is less than the spacing between "groups." The analysis will question whether the accused ASCEND® platform cassettes or modules constitute "groups" and exhibit this specific non-uniform spacing arrangement as claimed.
- ’066 Patent: For claim 1, a central issue may be one of structural and functional correspondence. The analysis will raise the question of whether the accused product's architecture contains a main "sliding member" that, in turn, supports independently "slidable" "adapter groups" that move relative to it, as required by the claim's two-tiered motion framework. A mismatch in how the components are structured or how they move relative to one another could suggest a basis for a non-infringement argument.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 9,488,796 (Claim 19)

The Term: "group"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central because claim 19 requires a specific relationship between intra-group spacing and inter-group spacing. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the claim reads on modular systems where cassettes are uniformly spaced, or if it is limited to specific physical blocks of adapters with non-uniform panel layouts.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "group" is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support an argument for giving it its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially covering any logical collection of four or more ports.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "adapter block 58" as a physical component containing multiple adapters (’796 Patent, col. 3:26-33). A party may argue that a "group" should be construed as being limited to such a discrete, unitary "adapter block" embodiment.

U.S. Patent No. 9,690,066 (Claim 1)

The Term: "slidable relative to the sliding member"
Context and Importance: This phrase defines the two-level sliding functionality that is a core concept of the invention. The construction of this term will be critical to determining whether the accused product's mechanism—likely a chassis in which modular cassettes are inserted and removed—infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of the "sliding" action (e.g., on rails vs. simple insertion/removal) and the identity of the "sliding member" (e.g., a drawer vs. the chassis itself) will be dispositive for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional. A party could argue that any structure where one component moves within another supporting component meets the limitation, regardless of the specific mechanism.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of a "drawer 34" as the main "sliding member" and "panel sections 60" that slide within a framework mounted on the drawer (’066 Patent, col. 3:6-18, col. 3:56-62). A party may argue that "slidable relative to" requires a guided rail-like motion characteristic of the disclosed embodiment, not merely the insertion and removal of a cassette from a chassis.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that AFL provides marketing materials, brochures, and instructions that encourage customers to use the ASCEND® platform in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶30, 51). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce and have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶31, 52).
Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all eight patents. The primary basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from prior ITC litigation related to the same accused product line. In that proceeding, Defendant allegedly cited a parent patent to the entire asserted patent family as prior art, which Plaintiff contends made Defendant aware of, or willfully blind to, its infringement of the patents-in-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶¶33, 54).

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

Plausibility of Allegations: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint’s conclusory infringement allegations, which rely entirely on incorporating by reference unprovided exhibits for their factual support, satisfy the plausibility standard for patent pleadings established by Twombly and Iqbal.
Structural and Functional Mapping: A core technical issue will be one of claim scope: can the architecture of the accused ASCEND® Modular Platform, consisting of a chassis and insertable cassettes, be mapped onto the claimed structures of a "sliding member" that itself supports independently "slidable" "groups" or "arrays" of adapters? The case may turn on whether the accused product’s modularity is functionally and structurally equivalent to the specific two-tiered sliding mechanisms disclosed in the patents.
Significance of Prior Litigation for Willfulness: A key question for damages will center on the allegation of willfulness. The court will need to determine whether Defendant's act of citing a parent patent as prior art in a separate ITC investigation is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness with respect to the eight asserted child patents.