DCT

1:23-cv-01202

AFL Telecommunications LLC v. Sterlite Tech Holding Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-11 '591 Patent Priority Date
2022-03-29 '591 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-23 Original Complaint Filing Date
2023-12-05 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,287,591 - "Optical Fiber Cable," issued March 29, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies technical challenges in prior art optical fiber cables. Specifically, cables with V-shaped grooves in their outer sheaths were susceptible to cracking due to stress concentration, while other designs were either too flexible for effective "air-blowing" installation or too rigid and large, leading to increased signal loss. (’591 Patent, col. 1:30-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve these problems through a unique physical construction. It combines a core of "intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon" with a specially designed outer sheath. This sheath features alternating protrusions and recesses, where the recesses have a specific geometry—two connecting portions and a bottom surface—to distribute stress and prevent cracking. (’591 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-62). This design is purported to improve air-blowing characteristics, reduce cable diameter, and minimize transmission loss while increasing sheath strength. (’591 Patent, col. 2:2-5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to resolve competing engineering demands for high-density fiber optic cables, enabling faster and more reliable deployment in crowded conduits, which is critical for the expansion of communication infrastructure. (’591 Patent, col. 2:47-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An optical fiber cable comprising a sheath and a core.
    • The core contains an "intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon" with adhesive portions that intermittently bind the optical fibers.
    • The sheath's outer surface has alternating "recesses and protrusions" disposed circumferentially.
    • Each recess has a specific geometry: "two connecting portions" connected to adjacent protrusions and a "bottom surface" between them.
    • A quantitative limitation on the "cross-sectional area of the recesses," which must be 1.3 mm² or greater and 4.8 mm² or less, measured in a specific way.
  • The complaint does not explicitly assert dependent claims but reserves the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are Defendant’s "Celesta Intelligently Bonded Ribbon" optical fiber cables, specifically those with 96F-576F fiber counts (the "Accused Cables"). (Compl. ¶22).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Cables are high-density optical fiber cables used in telecommunications networks. The complaint alleges they contain a core of "intermittently bonded fiber ribbons" housed within an outer sheath. (Compl. ¶30).
  • Crucially, the complaint alleges this outer sheath features "alternating recesses and protrusions" around its circumference. (Compl. ¶31).
  • The complaint references Defendant’s marketing materials, which allegedly promote features that facilitate air blowing and a smaller cable diameter. (Compl. ¶23).
  • The complaint provides a product diagram illustrating the cross-section of various "Celesta Intermittently Bonded Ribbon OFC" cables and labeling key components. (Compl. ¶24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'591 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a sheath; and a core that is housed in the sheath and comprises an intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon comprising: optical fibers; and... The Accused Cables are alleged to have a core with intermittently-bonded fiber ribbons housed within an outer sheath. ¶42, ¶43 col. 3:5-12
adhesive portions that intermittently adhere the optical fibers together in a longitudinal direction... The Accused Cables are alleged to contain adhesive portions that intermittently adhere the fibers along the length of the fibers. ¶44 col. 3:31-35
recesses and protrusions are disposed alternately in a circumferential direction on an outer circumferential surface of the sheath... The Accused Cables are alleged to have a sheath with alternating recesses and protrusions disposed along its circumference. ¶45 col. 4:22-26
the recesses each comprise: two connecting portions respectively connected to radial inner ends of two adjacent protrusions; and a bottom surface positioned between the two connecting portions... The construction of each recess in the Accused Cables is alleged to include two connecting portions and a bottom surface. ¶46 col. 4:41-46
in a transverse cross-sectional view, a cross-sectional area of the recesses...is 1.3 mm² or greater and 4.8 mm² or less. The cross-sectional area of the recesses on the Accused Cables is alleged to fall within the claimed range of 1.3 mm² to 4.8 mm². ¶47 col. 9:33-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that the accused cables meet the specific quantitative limitation for the recess cross-sectional area. A central technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products' physical geometry meets this precise range of 1.3 mm² to 4.8 mm², as measured according to the patent's definition.
    • Scope Question: The infringement analysis depends on whether the defendant's "Intelligently Bonded Ribbon" technology falls within the scope of the patent's term "intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon." This raises the question of whether there are material structural or functional differences between the accused implementation and the structure described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "cross-sectional area of the recesses that is enclosed by closed curves tangent to radial outer ends of the protrusions and all the recesses"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it sets a specific, quantitative boundary for infringement. The precise method of defining the "closed curves" and calculating the resulting area will be a central point of dispute, as minor variations in interpretation could place the accused product inside or outside the claim's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that the specification allows for some flexibility, noting language that the "closed curve L" is "usually circular" but "may have an elliptical shape" due to deformation during manufacturing or use, which could suggest that the measurement method should accommodate such variations. (’591 Patent, col. 9:4-8).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may counter that Figure 6 and its accompanying description provide a definitive and limiting definition of how the area "A" is to be determined by the curve "L." They would argue this specific depiction controls the interpretation and allows for no deviation from the illustrated method. (’591 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 8:61-66).

  • The Term: "intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the required structure of the cable's core. Infringement requires the accused "Intelligently Bonded Ribbon" to meet this definition.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to the general description of "adhesive portions... for adhering adjacent optical fibers... at different positions in the longitudinal direction" as encompassing any structure with periodic, non-continuous bonding. (’591 Patent, col. 3:31-38).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the term is limited by more specific descriptions in the patent, such as the ability for the fibers to "spread in a mesh shape (spider web shape)," and that a ribbon lacking this specific characteristic does not meet the claim limitation. (’591 Patent, col. 3:35-37).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides customers with "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation guides, and other instructional and marketing materials" that allegedly instruct on the use of the Accused Cables in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the '591 patent at least since the filing of the original complaint on October 23, 2023. (Compl. ¶32). The complaint further alleges Defendant knew or should have known its conduct constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement. (Compl. ¶54).

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

This dispute presents several focused technical and legal questions for the court. The outcome may turn on the resolution of two issues in particular:

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of quantitative proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate through expert testimony and physical measurement that the "cross-sectional area of the recesses" on the accused cables falls within the specific numerical range of 1.3 mm² to 4.8 mm², as defined and required by claim 1?
  • A central issue of claim construction will be one of definitional scope: Does the defendant's "Intelligently Bonded Ribbon" technology meet the structural and functional characteristics of an "intermittently-adhered optical fiber ribbon" as that term is described and defined within the context of the '591 patent's specification?