DCT

2:23-cv-05322

Certicable Inc v. Point 2 Point Communications Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-05322, E.D.N.Y., 11/08/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' residence and regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of New York, where acts of infringement have allegedly occurred.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Armored Data Cable Assembly infringes a patent related to flexible, non-interlocking armored fiber optic cable assemblies.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns armored fiber optic cables designed to be both crush-resistant and highly flexible, enabling their use in space-constrained environments such as data centers and cable trays.
  • Key Procedural History: The active complaint is a Second Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patent-in-suit at least as of the service of the original complaint on July 12, 2023, which is a relevant date for allegations of post-suit willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-10-16 '454 Patent Priority Date
2019-10-15 '454 Patent Issue Date
2023-07-12 Service of Original Complaint
2023-11-08 Second Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,444,454 - ARMORED FLEXIBLE FIBER OPTIC ASSEMBLY, issued October 15, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with traditional armored fiber optic cables, which use a "metallic interlocking armor." This construction, while protective, results in a large bend radius and overall diameter, making such cables unsuitable for installation in modern, space-constrained environments that require tight bends. (’454 Patent, col. 2:33-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a cable assembly using a "non-interlocking armor" formed from a single spiral tube. This tube has a defined "gap between each spiraling ring," a structure that provides crush resistance while simultaneously allowing for a significantly smaller bend radius and overall cable diameter. This design, illustrated in the layered construction of Figure 1, aims to combine the protective qualities of armored cable with the flexibility needed for dense installations. (’454 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:46-52).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the benefits of armored cable—namely crush and rodent resistance—to be realized in applications like data centers and under-floor wiring, where the rigidity of conventional armored cables would be prohibitive. (’454 Patent, col. 2:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claims 1 and 4 (Compl. ¶1, ¶24).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • a non-interlocking armor, formed from a single spiral tube with a gap between each spiraling ring that allows for a bend radius of ≥5 D
    • an outer jacket with an inside diameter slightly greater than the armor's outside diameter
    • a pull material positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor
    • at least one fiber optic fiber
  • Independent Claim 4 requires:
    • at least one fiber optic fiber
    • an armor for providing crush resistance, the armor being a single spiral tube with a gap between each spiraling ring that allows for a bend radius of ≥5 D
  • The complaint notes that claims 1-7 of the patent recite the invention, suggesting a reservation of rights to assert additional dependent claims (Compl. ¶19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is identified as an "Armored Data Cable Assembly" ("Accused Products") manufactured, used, and sold by Defendants (Compl. ¶1, ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are fiber optic cables that include "a non-interlocking armor, an outer jacket, a pull material, and multiple optic fibers" (Compl. ¶14). These features are alleged to be structurally equivalent to those claimed in the ’454 Patent.
  • The complaint frames the market context as a "highly competitive industry" in which the Plaintiff and Defendants are "major competitors" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a "Claim Comparison Chart" (Exhibit B) that compares claims 1 and 4 of the ’454 Patent with the Accused Products; however, this exhibit was not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶24). The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Armored Data Cable Assembly directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’454 Patent by incorporating each of its required structural elements (Compl. ¶14, ¶39).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the armor on the Accused Products falls within the scope of the term "non-interlocking armor" as defined by the patent. This will likely involve comparing the accused armor’s structure to the patent’s description of a "single spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring." (’454 Patent, col. 6:39-42).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will depend on the precise physical construction of the accused cable. A key factual question will be whether the accused product contains a "pull material" that is specifically "positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor," as the claim requires this exact layered arrangement. (’454 Patent, col. 6:47-49). Another technical question is whether the accused armor's construction factually results in the functionally claimed "bend radius of ≥5 D." (’454 Patent, col. 6:42-44).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "non-interlocking armor"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central feature distinguishing the invention from the prior art discussed in the patent. The outcome of the case may hinge on whether the Defendants' product is found to have an armor that is "non-interlocking." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the patent's protective scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to encompass any armor that lacks the positive mechanical interlock of conventional armor, which the specification describes as "wound about the fiber optic cable so that the edges of the adjacent wraps of armor mechanically interlock." (’454 Patent, col. 2:36-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention as a "spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring." (’454 Patent, col. 4:17-19, col. 6:40-42). A party could argue the term is limited to this specific spiral-and-gap structure. The Abstract and Summary also reinforce this specific embodiment. (’454 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-52).

The Term: "pull material"

  • Context and Importance: While the term itself is common, its specific location is a limitation in Claim 1: "positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor." (’454 Patent, col. 6:47-49). Infringement of Claim 1 requires meeting this precise structural arrangement, making it a critical factual element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is broad, and the specification notes that the material functions to "absorb the tension needed to pull the cable." (’454 Patent, col. 4:2-5). Any material performing this function could potentially qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the claim language is primarily structural, the specification provides context by identifying the pull material as "aramid fibers." (’454 Patent, col. 4:2-3). The most significant constraint, however, remains the explicit positional requirement in the claim language itself, which is not subject to broad interpretation but rather to factual verification in the accused product.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Roman Krawczyk induced infringement by P2P and its customers (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is based on his role as CEO and President, where he allegedly "personally directed and authorized the manufacture, use, offering for sale, [and] sale" of the Accused Products with knowledge of the ’454 Patent (Compl. ¶5, ¶33, ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants' infringement was and is willful and intentional (Compl. ¶33, ¶42). The basis for this allegation includes alleged pre-suit knowledge, stemming from the parties' status as direct competitors and Defendant Krawczyk's alleged monitoring of Plaintiff’s products (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges knowledge at least as of the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "non-interlocking armor," which the patent contrasts with traditional mechanically interlocking armor, be construed to read on the specific armor design of the Defendants' products? The case will likely require a detailed analysis of whether the accused armor constitutes a "single spiral tube" with a "gap" as described in the patent.
  • A second key issue will be a structural-factual inquiry: does the accused cable contain a "pull material" situated in the precise layered configuration mandated by Claim 1—specifically, located between the outer jacket and the armor layer? A mismatch in this physical arrangement could defeat a literal infringement allegation for that claim.
  • A third issue will be an evidentiary question of function: can the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused armor's structure achieves the functionally-defined limitation of allowing the cable "to have a bend radius of ≥5 D"?