Panduit Corp v. Corning Optical Communications LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2017-01323
• Patent #: 6,758,600
• Filed: May 1, 2017
• Petitioner(s): Panduit Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): CCS Technology, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 3-4

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Optical Polarity Modules and Systems
• Brief Description: The ’600 patent discloses an optical networking assembly that uses specific interconnection modules and a fiber routing scheme to manage and maintain signal polarity. The system is designed to ensure that optical fibers within a ribbon cable connect consistently, for example, from a transmitter on one end to a receiver on the other, without reversing the polarity externally between modules.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Eichenberger in view of Bennett - Claims 3-4 are obvious over Eichenberger in view of Bennett.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Eichenberger (Patent 7,021,837) and Bennett (Patent 5,915,055).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Eichenberger, which was not considered during the original prosecution, teaches all limitations of claims 3 and 4 except for the explicit color-coding of optical fibers, which is supplied by Bennett.
    • Independent claim 3 recites an optical assembly with at least two interconnection modules optically linked by paths established through connectors and adapters, where the connectors are mated with keys in the same relative position and the polarity of the external fibers is not reversed. Petitioner asserted that Eichenberger’s disclosure of two transceiver modules interconnected by a fiber ribbon cable (Fig. 3) meets the requirement for at least two modules.
    • Petitioner contended that Eichenberger teaches the establishment of optical paths through MPO connectors and adapters (receptacles). Eichenberger explicitly discloses using a "straight" ribbon cable where connectors at both ends are mated with keys oriented in the same direction (e.g., "keys up") to ensure the transmit side of one module connects to the receive side of the other, thereby maintaining polarity. This, Petitioner argued, directly teaches the claimed "keys in the same relative position" and non-reversed polarity.
    • The final limitation of claim 3 requires that optical paths remain with their respective color (e.g., blue communicates with blue). Petitioner argued that while Eichenberger does not explicitly mention color-coding, Bennett teaches it is standard industry practice for optical fibers in a ribbon to have unique color coatings for identification, listing the exact colors recited in the ’600 patent (blue, orange, green, etc.).
    • For dependent claim 4, which adds that all optical paths remain with their respective color, Petitioner argued this is also rendered obvious. Eichenberger's "straight" ribbon ensures all paths maintain their relative positions, and Bennett's standard color-coding applies to all fibers in the ribbon. The combination therefore makes it obvious that all paths would maintain their respective colors.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine Eichenberger and Bennett because both references are from the same field of fiber optic interconnection and address the problem of managing connections while maintaining polarity. A POSITA would have combined Bennett’s standard color-coating technique with Eichenberger’s interconnection system for the predictable and well-known benefits of easier fiber identification for installers and compliance with industry standards.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. Applying standard color coatings to the fibers in Eichenberger’s assembly is a simple substitution of a known element (uncolored fibers) with another known element (colored fibers) to yield a predictable result: a polarity-managed system that is easier to install and troubleshoot.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under §325(d). The petition acknowledged a prior IPR filed by Petitioner against the ’600 patent (IPR2016-01647) where the Board instituted review on claims 1-2 but denied institution on the presently challenged claims 3-4. Petitioner stressed that the prior denial was based on a finding that a different prior art reference was not sufficiently accessible to the public and that the Board never reached the merits of the obviousness arguments for claims 3-4. Therefore, Petitioner contended that a substantive review of the new grounds based on Eichenberger and Bennett was warranted.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 3 and 4 of the ’600 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.