DCT

1:22-cv-01517

PPC Broadband Inc v. Charles Industries LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-01517, D. Del., 11/21/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in Delaware because Defendant Amphenol is a Delaware corporation, and Defendant Charles resides in Delaware for venue purposes because its member-manager, Amphenol, is a resident.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ CFIT-Flex™ Series of fiber optic enclosures infringes a patent related to the mechanical design and cable management features of a drop interface box.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns enclosures used in Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTx) deployments to manage the connection between a service provider's main fiber optic cable and the smaller distribution cables that serve individual subscribers in a building.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the parties are competitors engaged in other active litigation. Plaintiff sent a notice letter with a detailed claim chart to Defendants on October 21, 2022, one month before filing suit. Public records, attached to the provided patent, indicate that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) was subsequently filed against the patent-in-suit (IPR2023-01363). An IPR certificate notes that all asserted claims in this litigation (Claims 1, 2, and 10-13) have been cancelled, with a certificate issue date of May 19, 2025. This post-filing development raises fundamental questions about the viability of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-04-05 ’483 Patent Priority Date
2013-10-04 ’483 Patent Application Filing Date
2015-04-14 ’483 Patent Issue Date
2022-10-21 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendants
2022-11-21 Complaint Filing Date
2023-09-13 IPR2023-01363 Filed
2025-05-19 IPR Certificate Issue Date (projected) indicating cancellation of asserted claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,008,483 - “Optical Fiber Cable Drop Interface Box”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,008,483, “Optical Fiber Cable Drop Interface Box,” issued April 14, 2015.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in deploying fiber optic networks to customer premises, especially when using pre-connectorized cables. These challenges include managing excess cable length, organizing different types of cables (e.g., main "drop" cables vs. individual "distribution" cables), and protecting delicate fiber optic lines from excessive bending or strain (Compl. ¶¶24-25; ’483 Patent, col. 1:50-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a drop interface box featuring a base, a cover, and a central, hinged fiber storage panel that is stored between the base and cover. This internal panel has dedicated spools and clips to separately store and route the incoming drop/feed cables and the outgoing distribution cables, often on opposite sides of the panel. This compartmentalized design aims to prevent cable tangling, maintain the minimum bend radius required for fiber optics, and simplify installation and maintenance (Compl. ¶21; ’483 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This design facilitates the use of efficient, factory-terminated cables by providing a structured, organized method for field technicians to manage the resulting cable slack within a compact enclosure (’483 Patent, col. 3:6-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 10-13 (’483 Patent, col. 7:22-col. 8:46; Compl. ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the core components of the box:
    • A base unit with a drop cable entrance and retaining mechanisms for looped drop cable.
    • A cover with a hinged connection to the base unit.
    • A fiber storage panel with a hinged connection to the base unit on a side opposite the cover's hinge, allowing it to be stored between the base and cover.
    • The panel includes "first spools" to store feed break-out cables and "second spools" to store distribution cables.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, though the subsequent IPR proceeding may render this point moot (Compl. ¶33; ’483 Patent, IPR Certificate).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The CFIT-Flex™ Series of fiber enclosures (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as "universal enclosures" and, more specifically, as a "drop interface box that includes a base unit, a cover and a fiber storage panel" (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The complaint alleges these products are sold for the same purpose as the patented invention and are in direct competition with Plaintiff's own fiber enclosure products (Compl. ¶18). An annotated photograph of the accused "CFIT-Flex™ Compact Universal Enclosure" is provided to show its constituent parts. This photo depicts an open enclosure with a hinged cover, a base, and a hinged internal panel containing cable management features (Compl. p. 7).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a detailed claim chart (Exhibit G) that was allegedly provided to Defendants pre-suit and is incorporated by reference, but the exhibit itself is not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶¶30, 34). The infringement theory must therefore be reconstructed from the complaint's narrative and visual allegations.

The plaintiff’s infringement theory appears to rely on a direct structural correspondence between the claimed invention and the Accused Products. The complaint quotes the language of claim 1 and alleges that the CFIT-Flex™ enclosure is a "drop interface box that includes a base unit, a cover and a fiber storage panel" (Compl. ¶¶21, 28). To support this, the complaint presents an annotated photograph of the accused product with its "cover," "base unit," and "fiber storage panel" explicitly labeled (Compl. p. 7, image titled "Defendants' CFIT-Flex™ Compact Universal Enclosure, depicted below...").

While the complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain "each of the elements" of the asserted claims, it does not provide specific factual allegations for every limitation in the text of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶34). For example, it does not explicitly describe the "first spools" or "second spools" on the accused panel or detail the precise location of the hinges. The infringement argument appears to rely on the visual evidence and the general assertion that the unattached Exhibit G contains a full, element-by-element breakdown.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the claim term requiring the fiber storage panel's hinge to be on a side "opposite" the cover's hinge. The parties may contest whether the geometric arrangement in the accused product meets this limitation, which the patent figures depict as being on parallel sides of the enclosure (’483 Patent, Fig. 4-1).
    • Technical Questions: It raises a factual question whether the cable management structures on the accused product's panel function as distinct "first spools" for one cable type and "second spools" for another, as required by the claim. The complaint does not provide evidence or description of how cables are routed within the accused device to meet this functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a side opposite the hinged connection of the cover" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines a specific spatial relationship between the two primary moving parts of the box. Infringement may turn on whether the accused product's hinges are on "opposite" sides or, for example, on adjacent sides. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a precise geometric constraint that could be a clear point of demarcation between the claim scope and the accused device.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that in the absence of a special definition, "opposite" should be given its plain meaning, which could encompass any configuration where the hinges are not on the same side.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the panel hinge is on an "opposing side of base unit 205" (’483 Patent, col. 4:51-53). The primary embodiment shown in Figure 4-1 depicts the cover hinge (part of 401) and panel hinge (406) on the left and right sides of the rectangular box, respectively, which are parallel and directly opposite each other. A party could argue this embodiment defines the scope of "opposite."

  • The Term: "spools" (from Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The claim requires two distinct sets of "spools" for storing two different types of cables. The case may depend on whether the cable management features of the accused product qualify as "spools" or are merely guides or clips that fall outside the term's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the use of "spools 430 and 440 and two sets of corresponding storage clips 435 and 445," suggesting the "spool" is part of a system and not necessarily a standalone, fully-formed cylinder (’483 Patent, col. 4:63-65). This could support construing the term to cover a wider range of cable winding structures.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict the spools as distinct, raised, semi-circular structures around which cable is coiled (’483 Patent, Fig. 4-1, elements 430, 440). A party could argue this limits the term "spools" to such specific coiling forms, excluding simpler retaining features.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. For inducement, it claims Defendants instruct customers on how to use the Accused Products with fiber optic cables in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶35). For contributory infringement, it claims the Accused Products are a material component of the invention, are not a staple article of commerce because they "must be used with cables to be functional," and were especially made for infringing use (Compl. ¶36). Both allegations are predicated on knowledge dating from at least the October 21, 2022 notice letter.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-notice conduct. Pre-notice willfulness is based on the inference that Defendants, as sophisticated competitors involved in other litigation with Plaintiff, knew of or were willfully blind to the patent (Compl. ¶29). Post-notice willfulness is based on continued infringement after receiving the October 21, 2022 notice letter, which allegedly included a detailed infringement analysis (Compl. ¶¶30, 38).

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

  1. Impact of IPR: The most critical issue is the apparent cancellation of all asserted claims in IPR2023-01363. The primary question for the court will be the procedural and substantive effect of this cancellation on the present litigation. Unless the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision is reversed on appeal, the case may not be able to proceed on the currently asserted claims.
  2. Definitional Scope: If the claims were to survive, a core issue would be one of geometric and structural definition: can the term "spools" be construed to read on the accused product's cable management features, and does the hinge placement of the accused device satisfy the "opposite side" limitation of Claim 1?
  3. Pre-Suit Knowledge: A key evidentiary question related to willfulness will be whether Plaintiff can provide concrete evidence to support its inference of pre-suit knowledge, or if damages enhancement will be limited to the period after Defendants received the formal notice letter.