DCT

1:23-cv-00810

Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00810, D. Del., 07/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendants are incorporated or organized in Delaware and have allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Propel™ modular fiber connectivity products infringe three patents related to modular, high-density fiber optic cassette systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-density fiber optic management systems used in data centers and telecommunications, where maximizing connection density and maintaining flexibility for upgrades are significant market drivers.
  • Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit constitute a single family, with U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 being a continuation of the application for U.S. Patent No. 10,795,107, and U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 being a continuation of the application for the ’542 patent. This shared prosecution history suggests the patents possess very similar specifications but may have claim scope that was progressively refined over time.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-10-03 Priority Date for '107, '542, and '422 Patents
2018-09-27 '107 Patent Application Filed
2020-09-02 '542 Patent Application Filed
2020-10-06 '107 Patent Issued
2022-09-02 '422 Patent Application Filed
2022-09-06 '542 Patent Issued
2023-05-23 '422 Patent Issued
2023-07-27 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,795,107 - Modular Fiber Optic Cassette, System and Method

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,795,107, "Modular Fiber Optic Cassette, System and Method," issued October 6, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that prior art fiber optic cassette systems were often preconfigured for a single, predetermined number of fibers, making them incompatible with cassettes designed for different fiber counts and requiring different trays and securing mechanisms. (’107 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular system based on a "standard width unit." (’107 Patent, col. 2:61-64). Fiber optic cassettes are provided in various sizes (e.g., accommodating 8, 12, 16, or 24 fibers), where the physical width of each cassette is an integer multiple of this standard unit. (’107 Patent, col. 4:41-54). This allows a single standardized tray to accommodate a mix of different-sized cassettes side-by-side, optimizing the use of rack space. (’107 Patent, col. 1:15-20, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This modular approach provides greater flexibility, density, and scalability for network infrastructure, allowing technicians to customize and upgrade fiber optic connections within a standardized hardware footprint. (’107 Patent, col. 1:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A case defining a tray receiving space and a slideable tray.
    • A set of fiber optic cassettes arrangeable side-by-side on the tray.
    • A first cassette having a width of one, two, three, four, or six "standard width units."
    • A second cassette having a different width, also one, two, three, four, or six "standard width units."
    • A fastener for removably securing the cassettes to the tray.
    • A requirement that when arranged on the tray, each cassette "touches at least one other fiber optic cassette."

U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 - Modular Fiber Optic Cassette, System and Method

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542, "Modular Fiber Optic Cassette, System and Method," issued September 6, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the '107 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the incompatibility and inflexibility of prior art fiber optic systems that are preconfigured for a single cassette size and fiber count. (’542 Patent, col. 1:25-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same modular system built upon a "standard width unit," which allows cassettes of varying widths and capacities to be installed interchangeably on a common tray. (’542 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-62). The detailed description and figures are substantially identical to those in the '107 Patent.
  • Technical Importance: The invention's value lies in enabling optimized and reconfigurable high-density fiber connectivity in data centers and other network environments. (’542 Patent, col. 1:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 are very similar to Claim 1 of the '107 Patent, but include more precise language:
    • A case, a slideable tray, and a set of fiber optic cassettes.
    • First and second cassettes with different widths that are multiples of a "standard width unit," with the width being "as measured between outer side edges thereof."
    • A fastener for removably securing the cassettes.
    • A requirement that "when arranged on the tray an outer side edge of each of said selected cassettes is directly adjacent an outer side edge of at least one other selected cassette."

U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422 - Modular Fibre Optic Cassette, System and Method

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422, "Modular Fibre Optic Cassette, System and Method," issued May 23, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation from the same family, discloses a method for organizing a fiber optic tray. The method involves defining a "standard width unit" and selecting a plurality of cassettes—with widths that are integer multiples of that standard unit—for installation on the tray, allowing cassettes of different sizes to be placed directly adjacent to one another to optimize space. (’422 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:25-44).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1, which is a method claim. (Compl. ¶53).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Propel™ system, including its high-density panels, fiber modules, and adapters, infringes by being used in a manner that practices the claimed method of organizing a tray with variable-width cassettes. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 53, 56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are modular fiber connectivity products marketed as the "Propel™ system" (Compl. ¶3). This includes, but is not limited to, "Propel™ high-density panels" (e.g., PPL-1U, PPL-2U, PPL-4U) and "Propel™ fiber modules and adapters" with various specific product numbers (Compl. ¶3).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Accused Products as components of a modular fiber connectivity system (Compl. ¶3). Based on the product names, the system appears to consist of chassis-like panels designed to receive smaller, interchangeable modules and adapters for terminating and managing fiber optic connections. The complaint alleges these products are manufactured, sold, and offered for sale throughout the United States, including in the District of Delaware (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts designated as Exhibits D, E, and F, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶44, 50, 56). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement allegations are based on the general assertion that the Accused Products "include each of the elements" of at least Claim 1 of each of the Patents-in-Suit (Compl. ¶¶44, 50, 56).

The narrative theory suggests that CommScope's Propel™ panels function as the claimed "case" and "tray," while the various Propel™ modules and adapters function as the claimed "cassettes." The core of the infringement allegation is that the Propel™ system is designed with modules of varying sizes that correspond to the patents' concept of different-width cassettes based on a "standard width unit," and that these modules are installed side-by-side in the panels in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶3, 41, 47, 53).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The evolution of claim language from "touches" in the '107 Patent to "outer side edge... is directly adjacent an outer side edge" in the '542 and '422 Patents raises the question of what degree of physical contact or proximity is required. The court may need to determine if any manufacturing tolerance, designed-in gap, or intervening panel structure between the accused modules would place them outside the scope of these limitations.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused Propel™ system is in fact designed around a "standard width unit" as claimed in the patents. Evidence will be needed to establish whether the dimensions of the various Propel™ modules are integer multiples of a common base unit, or if their modularity is achieved through a different, non-infringing technical standard or mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "standard width unit" (asserted in all three patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the technological linchpin of the claimed invention, defining the basis for the system's modularity and interchangeability. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the dimensions of the accused Propel™ system can be mapped onto this claimed concept.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a method goal of "defining a standard width unit wherein a width of the front edge is substantially evenly divisible by said standard width unit" ('107 Patent, col. 2:61-64). This language could support an interpretation that covers any system based on a fundamental, repeating dimensional unit.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly ties the unit to a specific embodiment, stating that "one standardized width unit accommodates a single receptacle module 52 comprising four (4) receptacles 54" ('107 Patent, col. 4:45-48). This could support a narrower construction where the "standard width unit" is limited to the specific physical width of the LC Quad module depicted, rather than an abstract unit of measurement.

  • The Term: "touches" ('107 Patent, Claim 1) vs. "directly adjacent" ('542 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This language defines the required physical relationship between installed cassettes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the difference in wording between the parent patent and its continuations suggests a deliberate refinement during prosecution, potentially to overcome prior art or add clarity. The factual question of whether the accused modules meet this requirement will be critical.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "touches" or "directly adjacent" should be interpreted from a functional perspective, meaning abutting or side-by-side in a functional array, allowing for minor, non-functional gaps due to manufacturing tolerances.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that cassettes "fit snuggly side by side on the 12 W tray" ('107 Patent, col. 4:56-58). This could support a stricter interpretation requiring direct, gapless physical contact between the outer walls of the cassettes, as depicted in figures like Fig. 3.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement on the basis that CommScope "aided, instructed, or otherwise acted with the intent to cause acts by its customers and/or users," pointing to activities like providing instructions on the intended use of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶42, 48, 54). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce, constitute a material part of the invention, and were "especially made or adapted for use" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶43, 49, 55).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents "at least since the date of service of this Complaint" and, alternatively, on "showing willful blindness to the existence of the patent" prior to the suit (Compl. ¶¶42, 48, 54). Plaintiff seeks a determination that the case is exceptional and requests attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

  • A core issue will be one of dimensional correspondence: does the accused Propel™ system's modular architecture rely on a "standard width unit" as defined and taught by the patents, or is its interchangeability based on a different, non-infringing design principle? This may require detailed analysis of the physical dimensions and mechanical interfaces of the accused products.
  • A second key question will be one of physical adjacency: do the accused Propel™ modules, when installed in the Propel™ panels as intended, "touch" or have "directly adjacent" outer side edges as strictly required by the various claims, or do gaps or intervening panel structures negate this critical element of infringement?
  • Finally, the case may turn on a question of intent for indirect infringement: assuming customers are the direct infringers by assembling the system, what evidence demonstrates that CommScope knew or was willfully blind that the "instructed" manner of use would result in infringement of the specific combination of claim elements in the patents-in-suit?