DCT

1:24-cv-00411

CommScope Tech LLC v. Belden Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00411, D. Del., 04/01/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because each Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s TurnOpt™ series of fiber optic distribution hubs and related components infringe seven patents related to the design of fiber optic interconnect cabinets, splitter modules, and cable management systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves equipment for fiber optic distribution, a critical component in building out "Fiber to the X" (FTTX) networks that provide high-speed data communications to homes and businesses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of patent litigation between CommScope and Belden entities dating back more than 10 years. It further alleges that Belden has cited patents from the same families as the patents-in-suit during its own patent prosecution activities and that an inventor named on CommScope patents has worked with Opterna to develop the accused products, suggesting Defendant’s awareness of the patented technology prior to the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-03-20 Priority Date for RE48,675 and RE44,758 Patents
2003-11-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,317
2004-06-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,277,620, 7,515,805, and 7,519,259
2006-03-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,078,192
2007-04-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,200,317
2007-10-02 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,277,620
2009-04-07 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,515,805
2009-04-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,519,259
2014-02-11 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. RE44,758
2018-09-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,078,192
2021-08-10 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. RE48,675
2024-04-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. RE48,675 - "Optical Fiber Interconnect Cabinets, Termination Modules and Fiber Connectivity Management for the Same"

  • Issued: August 10, 2021.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patents-in-suit address the need for efficiently managing and distributing a large number of fiber optic connections within indoor and outdoor cabinets for FTTX networks (Compl. ¶16). This includes providing organized access for technicians to connect, disconnect, and reconfigure subscriber lines.
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an interconnect cabinet for optical fibers that features a pivotally mounted termination panel. This pivotal design allows a technician to move the panel between positions to access both the front side, where connections to subscriber fibers are made, and the rear side (RE48675 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:55-65). The cabinet also includes distinct routing paths for pigtails extending from an optical splitter, with one path leading to the termination panel for active connections and a second path leading to a separate storage location for unused pigtails, thereby improving organization (RE48,675 Patent, Abstract).
    • Technical Importance: This approach of providing organized, two-sided access to termination points and separate storage for unused fibers improves the density, scalability, and serviceability of fiber distribution hubs (Compl. ¶17).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶42).
    • Essential elements of claim 19 include:
      • An enclosure containing a splitter and a termination panel.
      • The splitter has connectorized pigtails extending from it.
      • The termination panel is "pivotally mounted" and moveable to allow access to both a first and second side of its connection members.
      • The cabinet includes a first pigtail routing path from the splitter to the termination panel and a second, separate path from the splitter to a "pigtail storage location" for unused pigtails.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. RE44,758 - "Optical Fiber Interconnect Cabinets, Termination Modules and Fiber Connectivity Management for the Same"

  • Issued: February 11, 2014.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’675 patent, this invention addresses the management of fiber optic connections in a high-density cabinet (Compl. ¶16).
    • The Patented Solution: This patent also discloses an interconnect cabinet with a pivotally mounted termination support structure to provide access to both sides of the fiber connections (RE44758 Patent, Abstract). A distinguishing feature of the asserted claim is its focus on the structure of the splitter itself, which is described as a "splitter module" with an "outer housing" and a "pigtail exit member that projects outwardly" to guide the exiting pigtails (RE44,758 Patent, col. 16:1-6). This modularizes the splitter component within the overall cabinet architecture.
    • Technical Importance: A modular splitter design facilitates easier installation, replacement, and incremental scaling of network capacity within a fiber distribution hub (Compl. ¶17).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 21 (Compl. ¶67).
    • Essential elements of claim 21 include:
      • An enclosure with a splitter and a termination support structure.
      • The termination support structure is "pivotally mounted" for two-sided access.
      • The splitter includes a "splitter module" with an "outer housing" and a "pigtail exit member that projects outwardly" through which the pigtails exit.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 7,200,317 - "Systems and Methods for Optical Fiber Distribution and Management"

  • Issued: April 3, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’317 Patent describes a fiber distribution hub comprising a "swing frame pivotably mounted within the enclosure" (Compl. ¶91). This swing frame includes a bulkhead that divides the enclosure into front and back sections, with a subscriber termination field mounted on the bulkhead, allowing access to front or rear connections depending on the pivoted position of the frame ('317 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TurnOpt™ Series 1000 Fiber Hub, with its rotating frame assembly, infringes the ’317 Patent (Compl. ¶89).

U.S. Patent No. 10,078,192 - "Fiber Distribution with Hub with Outside Accessible Grounding Terminals"

  • Issued: September 18, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’192 Patent discloses an enclosure for fiber connections that defines specific, distinct routing paths for different types of fibers. It claims a first path from an input port to a splitter region and then to a termination region; a second path that bypasses the splitter region entirely; and a third path from the other side of the termination region to an output port (’192 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Belden's Opterna Impact Resistant Fiber Distribution Hub of infringement, alleging it contains the claimed housing, termination region, splitter region, and distinct routing paths (Compl. ¶109, 112-125).

U.S. Patent No. 7,277,620 - "Fiber Optic Splitter"

  • Issued: October 2, 2007.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’620 Patent is directed to the specific physical construction of a splitter module itself. It claims a housing defined by major and minor sides, with a "first boot protruding linearly outwardly from one of the end walls" through which output cables exit, where the boot tapers inwardly as it extends from the housing (’620 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶131).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Belden's TurnOpt™ Splitter module of infringing the ’620 patent (Compl. ¶132).

U.S. Patent No. 7,515,805 - "Fiber Optic Splitter"

  • Issued: April 7, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’805 Patent also describes a splitter module, focusing on the exit point for the output cables. It claims a "first exit member projecting outwardly from the splitter housing" that defines a passage, where the output cables occupy "at least a majority of the transverse cross-sectional area of the passage" (’805 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶152).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Belden's TurnOpt™ Splitter module of infringement (Compl. ¶153).

U.S. Patent No. 7,519,259 - "Increasing Capacity of a Telecommunications Cabinet"

  • Issued: April 14, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: The ’259 Patent claims a method of increasing a cabinet's capacity. The method involves pre-inserting the connectorized ends of a splitter's output cables into a separate "connector storage housing" (e.g., a parking tray) and then positioning the splitter housing and the storage housing at two separate locations within the cabinet as a unit (’259 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least method claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶168).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Belden infringes by making, selling, and encouraging customers to use its TurnOpt™ Splitters with parking trays in its fiber distribution hubs (Compl. ¶169, 172-194).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are Belden's TurnOpt™ Series of fiber distribution hubs and related components, including the Series 1000, 1100, 2000, 5000, MiniPOP 400, and the Opterna Impact Resistant Fiber Distribution Hub (IR-FDH) (Compl. ¶25, 109). The TurnOpt™ Splitter modules and parking modules are also accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶25).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are cabinets and components used in FTTX networks to manage the distribution of fiber optic signals from feeder cables to subscriber locations (Compl. ¶16, 25). The complaint highlights that the TurnOpt™ hubs utilize a "patented Rotating Frame Assembly" which provides 180-degree access to subscriber ports and splitter modules (Compl. p. 14, Ex. HH). An annotated image in the complaint shows this rotating frame in two positions, illustrating how it provides access to both front and rear connections (Compl. p. 18). Similarly, the IR-FDH product is alleged to use two "spinning TurnOpt cylinders" to provide access to termination points (Compl. ¶114, p. 40, Ex. EE). These products are marketed for indoor and outdoor deployments in FTTX networks (Compl. ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

RE48,675 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An interconnect cabinet for optical fibers, comprising: an enclosure; The TurnOpt™ Series 1000 Fiber Hub is an interconnect cabinet with an enclosure. An annotated photograph identifies the exterior casing as the claimed enclosure. ¶47, 49 col. 4:51-54
a splitter mounted in the enclosure that is configured to optically couple a plurality of pigtail optical fibers to an input optical fiber, the splitter having a plurality of connectorized pigtails extending therefrom... The product includes a splitter module mounted inside. Annotated product photos show the splitter module and its connectorized pigtail fibers (yellow) extending from it, which are optically coupled to an input fiber (blue). ¶51-53 col. 5:1-12
a termination panel mounted in the enclosure and having a plurality of optical fiber connection members; and The product includes a termination panel with multiple adapters that serve as connection members. An annotated photograph identifies this panel and its adapters. ¶55 col. 5:13-15
wherein the termination panel is pivotally mounted in the enclosure and moveable between first and second positions to allow access to a first side...and a second side... The termination panel is part of a rotating frame assembly that moves between positions to provide access to the front and back sides of the connection members. An annotated image explicitly labels the panel in a "first position" and "second position." ¶59 col. 5:21-27
wherein the cabinet includes a first pigtail routing path...from the splitter to the termination panel and a second pigtail routing path...from the splitter to a pigtail storage location for storing unused ones...the pigtail storage location being separate from the termination panel. The hub includes routing for used pigtails from the splitter to the termination panel and a distinct path for unused pigtails to a separate "parking" or storage area. An annotated photo explicitly identifies these two separate paths. ¶61 col. 5:28-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the claim term "pivotally mounted." The Defendant may argue that its "Rotating Frame Assembly," which rotates on a central axis, is mechanically distinct from a "pivotally mounted" structure, which could imply a hinge on one edge. The court's construction of this term will be critical. Another question may arise over whether the "pigtail storage location" is sufficiently "separate from the termination panel," as the complaint's visual evidence shows them as adjacent features within the same rotating frame assembly (Compl. p. 19).
    • Technical Questions: The complaint provides annotated photographs showing the termination panel in different positions to support the "moveable between first and second positions" limitation (Compl. p. 18). A technical question for the court will be whether the operational movement of the accused product's rotating frame provides the same type of access as that described and claimed in the patent.

RE44,758 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An interconnect cabinet for optical fibers, comprising: an enclosure; The TurnOpt™ Series 1000 Wall Mounted Enclosure is an interconnect cabinet with an enclosure. ¶72, 74 col. 15:20-22
a splitter mounted in the enclosure...having a plurality of connectorized pigtails extending therefrom... The product contains a splitter that optically couples an input fiber to a plurality of connectorized pigtail optical fibers. Annotated product photos show the splitter and its pigtails. ¶76 col. 15:23-34
a termination support structure mounted in the enclosure and having a plurality of optical fiber connection members mounted thereon; The product's rotating frame acts as a termination support structure, on which connection members (adapters) are mounted. ¶78 col. 15:35-37
wherein the...termination support structure is pivotally mounted in the enclosure to allow access to first and second opposite sides of the connection members... The product's "Rotating Frame Assembly" is alleged to be pivotally mounted, allowing 180° access to the front and back sides of the connection members (adapters). An annotated graphic illustrates this movement. ¶80 col. 15:42-47
wherein the splitter includes a splitter module having an outer housing and a pigtail exit member that projects outwardly...and wherein the plurality of connectorized pigtails exit the outer housing through the pigtail exit member. The accused splitter is a self-contained module with an outer housing. An annotated photograph identifies a portion of the housing that extends to guide the pigtails as the claimed "pigtail exit member." ¶82 col. 16:1-6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: As with the ’675 patent, the construction of "pivotally mounted" will be a key issue. For this patent, an additional question is raised by the term "pigtail exit member that projects outwardly." The complaint identifies an integral part of the splitter module's housing as this "member" (Compl. p. 28). The defense could argue that the claim requires a structurally distinct component, rather than a shaped portion of the main housing.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the rotating assembly provides "180° access to subscriber ports" (Compl. p. 27). The evidentiary question will be whether this rotation provides functionally equivalent access to "first and second opposite sides" as contemplated by the patent specification, which may illustrate a different mechanical arrangement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "pivotally mounted" (RE48,675 Claim 19; RE44,758 Claim 21)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement allegations against the TurnOpt hubs, which feature a "Rotating Frame Assembly." The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to include rotation on a central axis or narrowly to mean only a hinge-like pivot from an edge.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may point to language in the specification describing the functional purpose of the mounting, such as allowing access to front and back sides, regardless of the specific mechanism (RE44,758 Patent, col. 2:32-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties may cite specific embodiments or figures in the patent family that depict a traditional hinge mechanism mounted along one vertical edge of the panel, arguing that this context limits the term's scope (RE44,758 Patent, Fig. 3).

  • Term: "pigtail storage location being separate from the termination panel" (RE48,675 Claim 19)

  • Context and Importance: Infringement requires two distinct locations. The accused product appears to integrate these functions into adjacent zones on a single rotating frame. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "separate" is construed to mean physically detached or non-contiguous, the infringement allegation could be challenged.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may describe the functional separation—storing unused pigtails away from active connections to improve management—which could support a reading that functionally distinct zones on the same component are "separate" (RE48,675 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent may use the term "separate" in a context that implies physical non-integration, or figures may depict the storage area on a different component or surface from the termination panel, suggesting a requirement for physical separation (RE48,675 Patent, Fig. 2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for multiple patents. Inducement allegations are based on Defendant's marketing materials, product brochures, specifications, and YouTube videos that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶62, 83, 102, 126, 147, 163, 189). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that features like the splitter mounting slots have no substantial non-infringing use other than to receive the allegedly infringing splitter modules (Compl. ¶83, 102).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. This allegation is supported by claims of a long history of patent litigation between the parties, Defendant's citation to related patents in its own patent prosecution, and Opterna's alleged work with a CommScope inventor on the accused technology (Compl. ¶40, 65, 86, 105, 129, 150, 166, 198).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pivotally mounted," which appears in the asserted claims of the lead patents, be construed to cover the "Rotating Frame Assembly" and "spinning TurnOpt cylinders" of the accused products, or is its meaning limited by the specification to a more traditional hinge-based mechanism?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence and structural separateness: does the accused products' integration of termination and storage ("parking") zones onto a single rotating frame meet the "separate" location requirement of Claim 19 of the ’675 patent, and does the molded cable guide on the accused splitter module constitute the claimed "pigtail exit member" of Claim 21 of the ’758 patent?
  • Given the extensive history of litigation alleged between the parties, a central question for trial will be one of intent: does the evidence of prior disputes, patent prosecution citations, and alleged collaboration with a patent inventor rise to the level of "egregious" conduct required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?