DCT
3:22-cv-00623
Dali Wireless Inc v. Corning Optical Communications LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dali Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Corning Optical Communications LLC (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen, Chesson & Grimes PLLC; Folio Law Group PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00623, W.D.N.C., 11/17/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of North Carolina because Defendant is a North Carolina company that has committed infringing acts in the state and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fiber optic cable management products, including splice enclosures and connector housings, infringe three patents related to systems for organizing and providing access to spliced optical fibers.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical enclosures and panels designed to house and manage high-density fiber optic connections, which are fundamental components of modern telecommunications networks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the ’164 Patent since at least May 2, 2016, as it was cited by a patent examiner against one of Defendant’s own patent applications, which was subsequently abandoned. This allegation may be used to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 7,599,599 Priority Date |
| 2008-10-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,260,105 Priority Date |
| 2009-10-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,599,599 Issue Date |
| 2011-08-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,081,164 Priority Date |
| 2012-09-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8,260,105 Issue Date |
| 2015-07-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,081,164 Issue Date |
| 2016-05-02 | ’164 Patent allegedly cited in Office Action against Corning app. |
| 2016-11-14 | Corning patent application allegedly abandoned |
| 2022-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,260,105 - "Enclosure for Housing Splice Trays," issued September 4, 2012 (’105 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in accessing a single, specific splice tray for maintenance or new connections when multiple trays are arranged together in a single, dense enclosure, such as a cabinet (’105 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides an enclosure with a bracket that couples splice trays to the enclosure body. This bracket is designed to rotate the splice trays around an axis, allowing a technician to move them out of the way to gain better access to the contents of the enclosure (’105 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-10). The patent illustrates this with a bracket (14) that pivots within the enclosure (10) to move attached splice trays (12) (’105 Patent, Fig. 6).
- Technical Importance: This design improves the serviceability and maintenance efficiency of high-density fiber optic termination points by simplifying access to individual components without disturbing adjacent connections.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An enclosure body
- A splice tray
- A bracket adapted to couple the splice tray to the enclosure body
- The bracket is adapted to rotate the splice tray about an axis
- A plurality of splice trays are adapted to be coupled to a frame of the bracket
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,599,599 - "Cable Management Panel with Rear Entry," issued October 6, 2009 (’599 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes a continued need for better and more adaptable cable management devices to address the difficulties of installing and modifying large-scale telecommunication infrastructures (’599 Patent, col. 1:31-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a cable management panel featuring a chassis and a slidable drawer. The drawer has an open rear and open sides, and the chassis provides corresponding rear and side access points. This configuration allows for flexible cable routing from different directions (’599 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes how this structure, particularly through a reversible "drop-in plate" (40), allows the panel to be adapted for either left-side or right-side cable access depending on the needs of the installation (’599 Patent, col. 4:1-26).
- Technical Importance: This design provides modularity and field-configurable adaptability, allowing a single product to be used in various physical layouts without requiring different left- or right-handed versions.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A chassis having a front, a rear, and sides
- A drawer mounted to the chassis, having a front, an open rear, and open sides, and configured to slide relative to the chassis
- Fiber optic cable management elements located within the drawer's interior
- The chassis provides rear cable access to the drawer's interior through the open rear of the drawer, and side cable access through the open sides of the drawer
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,081,164 - "Fiber Management Panel," issued July 14, 2015 (’164 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of preventing cable pinching in high-density fiber panels with pivoting trays. The solution is a termination panel with a housing and a pivotable tray, where the housing and the tray each have a "trough" for guiding cables. These troughs are designed to move relative to each other—from perpendicular to parallel—as the tray opens and closes, ensuring cables are managed safely without being damaged (’164 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶55).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Corning's ODF Swiveling Patch Panel products, including specific product numbers, when used within enclosures like the Optical Distribution Frame RFO (Compl. ¶53).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- For the ’105 Patent: Corning's Optical Splice Enclosures, specifically the Optical Splice Enclosure-RXD (Compl. ¶25, ¶27).
- For the ’599 Patent: Corning's Closet Connector Housings (CCH), specifically models CCH-01U, CCH-02U, and CCH-03U (Compl. ¶38).
Functionality and Market Context
- Optical Splice Enclosure-RXD: This is an enclosure designed to house multiple fiber optic splice trays. The complaint alleges, using Corning's own documentation, that the product contains a cabinet (enclosure body) and a bracket that holds and rotates multiple splice trays for access (Compl. ¶¶28-30). A product diagram shows a stack of splice trays mounted on a pivoting bracket assembly inside a cabinet (Compl. Fig. 2).
- Closet Connector Housings (CCH): These are rack-mountable units that "provide interconnect or cross-connect capabilities between outside plant, riser or distribution cables and opto-electronics" (Compl. Fig. 7). The complaint alleges these products feature a chassis and a "slide-out tray" with open sides and an open rear, allowing for both side and rear cable entry (Compl. ¶44, Fig. 11, Fig. 12). The complaint provides a still from a product video showing a user accessing the open side and rear of the sliding tray (Compl. Fig. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’105 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An enclosure for housing splice trays, comprising: an enclosure body, a splice tray, and a bracket adapted to couple the splice tray to the enclosure body, | The accused Optical Splice Enclosure includes a cabinet (enclosure body), multiple splice trays, and a bracket that holds the splice trays. The complaint's Figure 2 shows these components assembled within the product housing (Compl. Fig. 2). | ¶29 | col. 2:37-43 |
| wherein the bracket is adapted to rotate the splice tray about an axis; and | The bracket assembly is alleged to rotate around a point at the bottom front of the cabinet. The complaint also alleges that the individual splice trays can rotate around a rod on the bracket. The complaint's Figure 3 highlights the bracket's rotational movement (Compl. Fig. 3). | ¶30 | col. 2:7-10 |
| wherein a plurality of splice trays are adapted to be coupled to a frame of the bracket. | The bracket is alleged to have a frame designed with a rod at the lower rear corner. Multiple splice trays are attached to this rod, allowing them to rotate. The complaint's Figure 5 depicts the rod on the bracket frame where the trays attach (Compl. Fig. 5). | ¶31 | col. 2:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges two distinct rotational movements meet the "rotate the splice tray about an axis" limitation: rotation of the entire bracket assembly, and individual rotation of trays on the bracket (Compl. ¶30). The case may turn on whether the claim term "rotate the splice tray" is construed to cover either or both of these alleged functionalities, or if it is limited to a specific type of rotation disclosed in the patent's embodiments.
’599 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a chassis having a front, a rear, and sides; | The accused CCH products are alleged to include a chassis with a front, rear, and sides, as shown in product photographs and technical drawings (Compl. Fig. 8). | ¶43 | col. 2:50-51 |
| a drawer mounted to the chassis, the drawer having a front, an open rear, and open sides, the drawer defining an interior region, the drawer being configured to slide relative to the chassis between an open position and a closed position; and | The CCH products are alleged to feature a "slide-out tray" mounted in the chassis, which has open sides and an open rear for cable access. A product brochure highlights the "slide-out tray" feature (Compl. Fig. 11). | ¶44 | col. 3:1-7 |
| fiber optic cable management elements located within the interior region of the drawer; | The sliding tray is alleged to contain various cable management elements, such as routing guides and loops. A product diagram labels the "Interior of sliding tray" and its components (Compl. Fig. 10). | ¶45 | col. 4:32-35 |
| wherein the chassis provides rear cable access to the interior region of the drawer through the open rear of the drawer at the rear of the chassis, and side cable access...through the open sides of the drawer at each of the sides of the chassis. | The complaint alleges that the CCH chassis provides access to the tray's interior via openings in the rear and sides of the chassis itself. Figures from product documentation are used to show rear panel removal and side cable entry (Compl. Fig. 13, Fig. 15). | ¶46 | col. 3:20-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key question will be how "rear cable access" is achieved. Claim 1 requires the chassis to provide access "through the open rear of the drawer at the rear of the chassis." This suggests a direct path. The complaint shows evidence of rear access being created by removing a knockout panel on the chassis (Compl. Fig. 13, Fig. 15). The court may need to determine if this configuration meets the specific claim language, which describes a pre-existing pathway rather than one created by a user.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’105 Patent:
- The Term: "rotate the splice tray about an axis"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central functional element of the claim. Its construction will determine whether the accused product infringes, as the complaint alleges two different types of rotation (of the bracket itself, and of the trays on the bracket). Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue the claim is limited to only one type of rotation shown in the patent's specific embodiments.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, simply requiring the bracket to be "adapted to rotate the splice tray." It does not specify how the rotation must occur. The abstract similarly states the bracket is "adapted to rotate the splice trays about an axis" without further limitation (’105 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures primarily illustrate a single, large bracket (14) that pivots as a unit within the enclosure (’105 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 2:38-43). A defendant might argue that this specific embodiment limits the claim scope to the rotation of the entire bracket, not the individual rotation of trays upon it.
For the ’599 Patent:
- The Term: "chassis provides rear cable access to the interior region of the drawer through the open rear of the drawer"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific path for rear cables. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product's structure, which the complaint shows involves removable knockouts on the chassis, constitutes the access pathway described in the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background focuses on the general need for adaptability (’599 Patent, col. 1:31-39). A plaintiff might argue that any structure on the chassis that enables rear access to the open rear of the drawer, including a knockout, falls within the plain meaning of "provides...access."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires access "through the open rear of the drawer." The detailed description refers to "first and second rear access openings 70, 72...formed in a rear wall 21...of the chassis 12" (’599 Patent, col. 3:30-33). A defendant could argue this language, paired with the figures, requires pre-existing, defined openings in the chassis wall, not sections that must be physically removed by the user to create an opening.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, asserting that Corning knowingly instructs users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner through technical documentation, customer support, and publicly available video guides (Compl. ¶¶33, 48, 66). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are especially made for infringing use and have no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶34, 49, 67).
- Willful Infringement: For the ’105 and ’599 Patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge gained no later than the filing of the lawsuit (Compl. ¶¶35, 50). For the ’164 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge and willfulness based on Defendant Corning’s own patent prosecution history, where the ’164 Patent was allegedly cited as prior art against a Corning application in a 2016 office action, leading Corning to abandon its application (Compl. ¶¶68-71).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and scope: For the '105 patent, does the claim term "rotate the splice tray" encompass both the pivoting of the entire bracket assembly and the individual rotation of trays on that bracket, as alleged by the plaintiff? For the '599 patent, does creating an opening by removing a knockout panel on the accused product's chassis satisfy the claim requirement that the "chassis provides rear cable access"?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willful infringement, particularly for the ’164 patent. The allegation that Corning was made aware of the ’164 patent during the prosecution of its own, similar technology raises a significant question of pre-suit knowledge that, if proven, could substantially impact potential damages.
- The case also presents a question of mechanical operation: For the '164 patent, the court will need to determine if the interaction between the alleged "first trough" (on the housing) and "second trough" (on the pivoting tray) in the accused ODF Swiveling Patch Panels functions in the specific, coordinated manner required by the claims to prevent cable pinching.