CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 6,570,095
• Filed: June 13, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Commscope Technologies LLC.
• Patent Owner(s): Belden Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 27-33

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Data Communications Cable
• Brief Description: The ’095 patent discloses a data communications cable featuring multiple twisted pairs of insulated conductors, a jacket, and a configurable pair separator. The separator, which is preferably a substantially flat, foamed polymer tape, is designed to be arranged within the cable to form grooves that position the twisted pairs, thereby providing crosstalk isolation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Roberts - Claims 27-29 are anticipated by Roberts.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 3,622,683).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Roberts teaches a telephone cable that meets all limitations of independent claim 27. Roberts discloses a "plastic-coated metal foil strip or tape" (shield 15) that functions as a configurable dielectric pair separator. Petitioner contended that this separator is substantially flat before being formed into its final S-shape within the cable. This separator divides groups of conductor pairs, and the entire assembly—separator and pairs—is twisted about a common central axis, forming at least two grooves that are not completely enclosed. This structure was alleged to anticipate claims 27-29.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roberts, Jachimowicz, and Gingue - Claims 30-33 are obvious over Roberts in view of Jachimowicz and/or Gingue.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 3,622,683), Jachimowicz (Patent 3,894,172), and Gingue (Patent 5,670,748).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Roberts as the base reference. The key additional limitation in the challenged claims (e.g., claim 31) is that the separator includes a "substantially flat dielectric tape formed of a foamed polymer." While Roberts disclosed a plastic-coated separator, it did not specify a foamed polymer. Jachimowicz and Gingue were cited to remedy this, as both taught the use of foamed polymer tape in data communications cables to improve electrical properties and flame retardancy.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to address market pressure for improved cable performance and reliability. Specifically, a POSITA would replace or supplement Roberts' plastic coating with a foamed polymer tape as taught by Jachimowicz and Gingue to reduce signal transmission loss (by lowering capacitance and increasing conductor spacing) and enhance the dielectric barrier.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because the references address overlapping technologies (data cables) and using foamed polymers was a well-known, predictable technique for improving cable characteristics. The modification would not require substantial changes to the manufacturing process taught by Roberts.

Ground 3: Anticipation over GmbH-866 - Claims 27-29 are anticipated by GmbH-866.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: GmbH-866 (German Patent DE 297 19 866 U1).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that GmbH-866, which discloses a "data transfer cable," anticipates claims 27-29. GmbH-866 teaches using plastic-laminated metal foil shieldings (11, 12) to divide twisted conductor pairs. These shieldings were asserted to be configurable, substantially flat, dielectric pair separators. The reference described stranding the conductor pairs and the partial shieldings together about a common axis, which Petitioner contended inherently forms a twisted pair cable with at least two grooves, thus meeting all limitations of the claims.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation and obviousness challenges based on combinations involving Yanagida (Japanese Patent Publication S43-15474) as a primary reference. Further grounds alleged obviousness based on more extensive combinations of Roberts, GmbH-866, Jachimowicz, and Gingue to address any potential deficiencies found in the primary grounds.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several claim terms require construction consistent with the specification and prosecution history, and that these constructions are critical to showing how the prior art meets the claim limitations.

• "dielectric pair separator": Petitioner contended this term means a separator that serves as a dielectric medium and does not require the separator to consist entirely of dielectric material. This construction is crucial for applying prior art like Roberts and GmbH-866, which disclose plastic-coated metal foil separators.
• "substantially flat": Petitioner argued this term describes the separator as a flat member prior to being formed into the final cable assembly. It does not require the separator to remain flat in the finished cable's cross-section. This allows prior art showing a flat tape being shaped (e.g., into an "S" or "6" profile) to meet the limitation.
• "configurable": Petitioner proposed this means the separator is flexible enough to be shaped during the cable manufacturing process. It does not imply the separator must be reconfigurable after the cable is assembled.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).

• Arguments against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued denial is unwarranted because the asserted prior art (Roberts, GmbH-866, Yanagida) and anticipation arguments are new and were never considered during original prosecution. Further, prior inter partes reexaminations involving the ’095 patent were terminated before reaching finality and involved conflicting examiner conclusions on the teachings of GmbH-866, which this petition sought to resolve.
• Arguments against §314(a) Denial (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation does not favor denial. The trial date (October 20, 2025) is nearly a year after the expected Final Written Decision in this IPR. The court case is in its early stages, with no claim construction or significant discovery completed. Petitioner also stated its intent to seek a stay of the litigation if the IPR is instituted.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 27-33 of Patent 6,570,095 as unpatentable.