DCT
2:23-cv-05322
Certicable Inc v. Point 2 Point Communications Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Certicable Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Point 2 Point Communications Corporation (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Feldman Law Group P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-05322, E.D.N.Y., 07/27/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement, including offering for sale and selling accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Armored Data Cable Assembly infringes a patent related to armored flexible fiber optic cable assemblies.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical construction of armored fiber optic cables, aiming to provide crush resistance while maintaining flexibility for installation in space-constrained environments like data centers.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of two earlier applications. The complaint alleges the parties are major competitors in a highly competitive industry, suggesting a context of close market observation. The complaint also includes trademark infringement claims not analyzed in this report.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-10-16 | '454 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-10-15 | '454 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-07-12 | Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of patent |
| 2023-07-27 | Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,444,454 - "ARMORED FLEXIBLE FIBER OPTIC ASSEMBLY"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,444,454, "ARMORED FLEXIBLE FIBER OPTIC ASSEMBLY," issued October 15, 2019. (Compl. ¶9; Ex. A).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem with conventional armored fiber optic cables, which typically use a "metallic interlocking armor." This construction results in cables with a large bend radius and large outside diameter, making them difficult to install in tight spaces. (’454 Patent, col. 1:33-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fiber optic cable assembly that uses a "non-interlocking armor" formed from a single spiral tube with a gap between each spiraling ring. This structure, combined with other layers like pull materials and jackets, is designed to provide crush resistance while allowing for a significantly smaller bend radius (≥5D, where D is cable diameter), making the cable more flexible and suitable for dense environments. (’454 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:15-24; FIG. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design provides an armored cable that is "much easier to install and saves space in data centers, cable trays and under raised floors," where traditional, more rigid armored cables were impractical. (’454 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 4, as well as dependent claims 2-3 and 5-7. (Compl. ¶1, ¶12).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a fiber optic cable assembly with four key elements:
- A "non-interlocking armor" formed from a "single spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring," allowing a bend radius of ≥5D.
- 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 recites a fiber optic cable assembly with two key elements:
- "at least one fiber optic fiber."
- An "armor for providing crush resistance" that is a "single spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring," allowing a bend radius of ≥5D.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Defendant's "Fiber Optic Products," referred to as the "Accused Product" and also identified by the name "NanoFiber." (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The product category is an "Armored Data Cable Assembly." (Compl. ¶1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the Accused Product is an armored fiber optic cable assembly that is "uniquely designed and adapted for use in the performance of the methods of the patent-in-suit." (Compl. ¶13). The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and Defendant are "major competitors in a highly competitive industry," suggesting the Accused Product competes directly with Plaintiff's offerings. (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint's substantive infringement allegations are presented in a claim comparison chart, attached as Exhibit 2, rather than in the main body of the pleading. (Compl. ¶14). The provided chart juxtaposes the language of the asserted claims with conclusory statements about the accused "Nanofiber" product's features. (Compl., Ex. 2, pp. 17-18).
- ’454 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A non-interlocking armor, the non-interlocking armor being formed from a single spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring of the spiral tube, the gap allowing the fiber optic cable assembly to have a bend radius of ≥5 D; | The Accused Product is alleged to include a "non-interlocking armor" that "is formed from a single spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring" and allows a bend radius of ≥5 D. | ¶14; Ex. 2 | col. 4:15-24 |
| an outer jacket, the outer jacket having an inside diameter slightly greater than an outside diameter of the non-interlocking armor; | The Accused Product is alleged to include an "outer jacket" that "has an inside diameter slightly greater than the outside diameter of the non-interlocking armor." | ¶14; Ex. 2 | col. 4:57-59 |
| a pull material, the pull material being positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor; and | The Accused Product is alleged to include a "pull material" that "is positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor." | ¶14; Ex. 2 | col. 4:1-4 |
| at least one fiber optic fiber. | The Accused Product is alleged to include "at least one fiber optic fiber." | ¶14; Ex. 2 | col. 4:60-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise from the term "slightly greater," a term of degree used to describe the relationship between the outer jacket and the armor. The precise meaning of "slightly" could become a point of contention.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegations in the complaint's Exhibit 2 are conclusory, essentially mirroring the claim language without providing underlying technical facts, product specifications, or physical evidence (e.g., product teardowns). A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff provides to show that the accused "Nanofiber" product contains each specific component arranged in the precise layered structure required by the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "non-interlocking armor"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims, distinguishing the invention from the "interlocking armor" of the prior art. Its construction will be critical to both infringement and validity analyses.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader construction may argue that the term's plain and ordinary meaning should apply, covering any armor structure whose adjacent wraps do not mechanically interlock, without being confined to a single embodiment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "non-interlocking armor" as a specific structure: a "spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring." (’454 Patent, col. 5:41-44; Abstract). A party seeking a narrower construction may argue that the patentee defined the term by implication to mean this specific gapped-spiral-tube structure, as it is the only embodiment disclosed and is explicitly contrasted with prior art interlocking armor. (’454 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
The Term: "pull material ... positioned underneath the outer jacket and on top of the non-interlocking armor"
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific spatial and structural relationship between three distinct components of the cable assembly. Infringement requires the accused product to meet this precise layering. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on the exact physical arrangement of the cable's internal components.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "on top of" and "underneath" describe a general positional order and do not strictly require direct physical contact, potentially allowing for thin, non-claimed intermediate layers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could point to the patent's figures, which depict the pull material (12) in direct contact with the outer jacket (10) and the armor (14), to argue that the claim requires direct adjacency between the recited layers. (’454 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While the prayer for relief seeks judgment for indirect infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶1), the sole infringement count in the complaint body alleges only direct infringement. (Compl. ¶¶20-24). The complaint alleges in its venue section that Defendant's sales have "contributed to and/or induced direct infringement," but provides no further factual basis for a standalone inducement claim. (Compl. ¶7).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patent "at least as early as July 12, 2023, on the date of service of this complaint," establishing a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement. (Compl. ¶11). It further speculates that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge because the parties are "major competitors" and Defendant’s president allegedly "posted an article about tinifiber’s Microfiber Assembly," though it notes discovery is needed to provide evidentiary support. (Compl. ¶11).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint’s infringement theory rests on a conclusory claim chart. A key question is whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence—such as product teardowns, schematics, or expert testing—to prove that the accused "Nanofiber" product incorporates the specific multi-layer structure and component relationships recited in the asserted claims.
The case will likely involve a dispute over definitional scope: The outcome may depend on whether the term "non-interlocking armor" is construed broadly to cover various non-interlocked designs or is limited to the specific "gapped spiral tube" structure detailed in the patent’s specification and figures.
A key factual question for damages will be timing of knowledge: The viability of a claim for enhanced damages may turn on whether Plaintiff can substantiate its allegation of pre-suit knowledge, which is currently based on circumstantial claims of industry competition and an alleged social media post, or if knowledge will be limited to the date the complaint was served.