DCT

3:24-cv-00282

Clearfield Inc v. NSI Industries Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:24-cv-00282, W.D.N.C., 03/06/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of North Carolina because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district and have committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pushable/Pullable Bullet Fiber" products infringe three patents related to multi-part optical fiber connectors designed for installation through narrow conduits.
  • Technical Context: The technology facilitates the rapid deployment of fiber optic networks by allowing high-quality, factory-terminated fiber optic cables to be easily pulled or pushed through small-diameter conduits before the final, larger connector housing is attached on-site.
  • Key Procedural History: The three asserted patents are part of a single family. U.S. Patent No. 9,678,285 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,297,976. U.S. Patent No. 10,007,068 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 9,678,285. This shared prosecution history may be relevant for issues of claim scope and priority.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-11-14 Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-03-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,297,976 Issued
2017-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 9,678,285 Issued
2018-06-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,007,068 Issued
2024-03-06 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,297,976 - Optical Fiber Connector, issued March 29, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of installing pre-terminated fiber optic cables through protective conduits, as the fully assembled connectors are often too large to fit through the narrow passages, particularly in microducts with internal diameters as small as 6 mm (’976 Patent, col. 2:1-10). This situation often necessitates costly and time-consuming on-site termination by skilled technicians, which can compromise connection quality (’976 Patent, col. 1:50-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a terminal end assembly for a fiber optic cable that is pre-terminated at a factory to ensure quality, but is small enough to pass through a conduit (’976 Patent, col. 2:20-34). The assembly includes the core components like the ferrule, a biasing spring, and a connector body, all encased within a protective structure. After the narrow assembly is routed through the conduit, larger outer housing components are attached to complete the standard-form connector, ready for use (’976 Patent, col. 7:25-44; Fig. 1B).
  • Technical Importance: This modular design bridges the gap between high-quality, factory-made connections and the practical need for fast, simple field installation, thereby reducing the cost and complexity of deploying fiber optic networks (’976 Patent, col. 2:11-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A terminal end assembly for an optic fiber cable, comprising a ferrule assembly, a tubular connector body, and a biasing member.
    • A ferrule retainer for retaining the ferrule holder within the connector body, where the retainer is a "solid tubular body" with a first end "fixedly engaged" with the connector body.
    • The ferrule retainer and connector body together "encase" the biasing member and the ferrule holder.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’976 Patent (Compl. ¶20).

U.S. Patent No. 9,678,285 - Optical Fiber Connector, issued June 13, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent patent, the ’285 Patent addresses the need for a pre-assembled fiber optic cable that can be easily installed through a minimal diameter conduit without damage (’285 Patent, col. 2:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a specific embodiment of the conduit-ready terminal assembly that includes features to make the installation process more robust. The claimed assembly comprises a "protective tube" arranged around the delicate ferrule and a "pulling eye" retained on the end of the cable (’285 Patent, Claim 1). The pulling eye provides a dedicated, secure point for attaching a pull string or wire, transferring the pulling force to the cable assembly without stressing the optical components, while the protective tube shields the ferrule during its passage through the conduit (’285 Patent, col. 12:4-16).
  • Technical Importance: The invention adds specific mechanical features to the core concept of a two-stage connector, enhancing the reliability and practicality of pulling pre-terminated fiber through conduits, especially over longer or more difficult paths (’285 Patent, col. 12:61-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A terminal end assembly for an optical fiber cable, comprising at least one ferrule.
    • A "protective tube" arranged around the ferrule, with its first end retained on the pre-terminated end of the cable.
    • A "pulling eye" also retained on the pre-terminated end, with a portion positioned "external to the second end of the protective tube" for attachment.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 10,007,068 - Optical Fiber Connector, issued June 26, 2018 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’068 Patent refines the concept of a multi-stage fiber optic connector. It claims a terminal end assembly comprising a "first plurality of connector components" that are configured to be small enough to pass through a conduit, and a "second plurality of connector components" designed to be installed around the first plurality after the cable is in place (’068 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1). This modular framework allows for a variety of connector types (e.g., LC-type) to benefit from the two-stage installation method, combining factory-grade termination with field-installation efficiency (’068 Patent, col. 10:11-23).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).

Accused Features

The "Pushable/Pullable Bullet Fiber" product is accused of infringing by embodying a system with a first set of components for installation through a conduit and a second set for final assembly, in line with the patent's claims (Compl. ¶¶40-41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Pushable/Pullable Bullet Fiber" (the "Accused Product") (Compl. ¶1).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Product is part of a line of "fiber protection, fiber management and fiber delivery solutions" (Compl. ¶14). The product’s name, "Pushable/Pullable Bullet Fiber," suggests its primary function is to be pushed or pulled through conduits, which directly aligns with the technical problem addressed by the Asserted Patents. The complaint does not provide specific technical details of the product's construction or operation, but alleges it is marketed and sold with instructions for use in a manner that infringes the patents (Compl. ¶¶24, 34, 44).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶21, 31, 41). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

’976 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product practices all elements of at least Claim 1 of the ’976 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory suggests that the Accused Product is sold as a pre-terminated assembly with a ferrule, ferrule holder, and biasing member housed within a connector body. It is further alleged that this assembly includes a "solid tubular" retainer that is "fixedly engaged" with the connector body to "encase" the internal components, thereby meeting the structural requirements of the claim (’976 Patent, Claim 1).

’285 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product practices all elements of at least Claim 1 of the ’285 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The infringement theory is that the Accused Product, as sold and used, constitutes a terminal end assembly that includes a ferrule shielded by a "protective tube" and features a "pulling eye" for installation, directly corresponding to the elements of the claim (’285 Patent, Claim 1). The product's name and intended use for being pushed or pulled through conduits are central to this allegation.

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions

For the ’976 Patent, a likely point of dispute is the meaning of "solid tubular body" and "fixedly engaged." A defendant may argue its ferrule retainer is not "solid" if it has seams or slots, or that its method of attachment to the connector body is not "fixedly engaged" as required by the claim. For the ’285 Patent, the construction of "pulling eye" will be critical; the dispute may center on whether the accused feature is a distinct structure as depicted in embodiments or a more general, functional feature for attaching a pull-string.

Technical Questions

A factual question will be whether the Accused Product’s components structurally and functionally map onto the claim elements. For instance, what evidence demonstrates that the accused ferrule retainer and connector body "together form an encasement" for the internal components in the specific manner required by Claim 1 of the ’976 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’976 Patent

The Term

"solid tubular body" (from Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term defines a key characteristic of the ferrule retainer. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the corresponding component in the Accused Product can be characterized as "solid." Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could design around the claim by using a retainer that is, for example, slotted, perforated, or formed from two clam-shell halves, and then argue it is not "solid."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the specification, which may support giving it a plain and ordinary meaning that is functional—i.e., sufficiently solid to perform the retaining and encasing function without requiring it to be a single, seamless, monolithic piece (’976 Patent, col. 17:50-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict the ferrule retainer (36) as a continuous, uninterrupted tube (e.g., ’976 Patent, Fig. 3). A court could find that these consistent depictions limit the term to such an embodiment, supporting a narrower construction that excludes components with significant gaps or seams.

For the ’285 Patent

The Term

"pulling eye" (from Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the novel feature claimed in the ’285 Patent. Whether the Accused Product infringes will likely turn on whether a feature of the product meets this definition.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly provides several examples, stating a "pulling eye...may, for example, be a plastic loop, a string loop, or a wire loop" (’285 Patent, col. 12:8-10). This language suggests the term is functional and not limited to a specific shape, potentially covering any structure designed for the attachment of a pull string.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the pulling eye (133) as a distinct loop structure extending from the cable assembly (e.g., ’285 Patent, Figs. 10B, 11). A defendant may argue that these embodiments, combined with the common meaning of "eye," require the structure to be an actual loop or aperture, rather than simply a reinforced point on the cable jacket.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. The factual basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant provides marketing materials, instructions for use, and technical support that encourage customers and distribution partners to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶24, 34, 44). For contributory infringement, the complaint alleges the Accused Product is not a staple commodity of commerce and is not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶25, 35, 45).

Willful Infringement

The complaint seeks trebled damages for willful infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶C.2). The allegations establish knowledge of the patents and infringement allegations "at least as of the filing of this Complaint," forming a basis for potential post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶23, 33, 43). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pulling eye" in the ’285 patent, which the specification describes with multiple examples, be construed to cover any purpose-built feature for attaching a pull-string, or will it be limited to the distinct loop-like structures shown in the patent's figures?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused "Pushable/Pullable Bullet Fiber" product contain a ferrule retainer that is both a "solid tubular body" and is "fixedly engaged" with its connector body, as strictly required by Claim 1 of the ’976 patent, or does its construction present a material difference that avoids literal infringement?
  3. The dispute involves an entire patent family. A critical question for the litigation will be the interplay of the patents: how will a finding on the infringement or validity of the foundational claims in the ’976 patent impact the analysis of the more specific, feature-focused claims of the later ’285 and ’068 patents?