PTAB

IPR2023-01363

Amphenol Corp v. PPC Broadband Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Drop Interface Box with Slack Storage
  • Brief Description: The ’483 patent discloses a drop interface box (DIB) for managing the connection between a service provider's heavy jacketed optical fiber drop cable and multiple distribution cables at a customer's premises. The invention is directed at providing organized storage for excess lengths of pre-connectorized drop cables while maintaining the minimum bend radius of the cables.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Holmberg and Battey (Claims 1 and 11)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holmberg (Application # 2009/0202214) and Battey (Application # 2008/0112681).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground proceeds under a construction of "drop cable" where the external jacket is removed upon entering the box, consistent with the Patent Owner's alleged litigation position.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Holmberg teaches a fiber optic wall box with a base unit, a hinged cover, cable retaining mechanisms (bend radius limiters), and a splice tray that functions as a fiber storage panel. Holmberg discloses stripping the outer jacket of the incoming cable and spooling the internal fibers, thereby meeting the limitations of independent claim 1 under this construction. However, Holmberg’s splice tray is fastened, not hinged, to the base unit. Battey, a reference not considered during prosecution, was introduced to supply the missing limitation of a hinged fiber storage panel. Battey explicitly teaches a splice tray shelf that is "hingedly affixed" to the base on a side opposite the cover's hinge.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Battey's hinged splice tray with Holmberg's wall box to achieve the known and stated advantage of providing convenient access to the splice tray and any components stored behind it. Petitioner asserted this would be a simple substitution of a known element (a hinge for a fastener) to improve a known device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as using hinged connections for splice trays was a well-known technique for improving accessibility. The modification was a predictable combination of elements from analogous art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Holmberg, Battey, and Blankenship (Claims 1-2, 11-13)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holmberg (Application # 2009/0202214), Battey (Application # 2008/0112681), and Blankenship (Patent 6,721,484).

  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground proceeds under a construction of "drop cable" requiring the external jacket to be retained as it is routed inside the box, which Petitioner contended aligns with the patent’s intrinsic record.

    • Prior Art Mapping: The combination of Holmberg and Battey was argued to teach all elements of claim 1 except for the retention of a jacketed drop cable. While Holmberg teaches stripping the cable, Blankenship explicitly discloses a network interface device that stores a slack length of a fully jacketed feeder ("drop") cable within its base, satisfying this limitation. Blankenship was also relied upon to teach elements of dependent claims, including an adapter bracket for coupling cables (claim 2), a strain-relief clamp (claim 12), and a security mechanism for locking the cover (claim 13).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Blankenship's jacketed cable storage with the Holmberg/Battey design to create a more versatile interface box. This modification would provide technicians the flexibility to use either pre-connectorized jacketed cables (per Blankenship) or stripped and spliced cables (per Holmberg), accommodating different network needs and improving installation efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Holmberg and Blankenship disclose similar enclosures for managing fiber optic cables. Incorporating the storage of a jacketed cable into Holmberg’s design was presented as a straightforward application of a known technique to a similar device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claim 10, which requires "storage clips positioned on opposing sides of the base unit." These grounds added Cowen (Patent 8,965,168) to the Holmberg/Battey and Holmberg/Battey/Blankenship combinations, arguing Cowen teaches the use of such storage clips for cable management.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "drop cable": The petition's central arguments relied on two alternative constructions for this term, which was not explicitly construed by the patentee.
    • First Construction: Based on the intrinsic evidence of the ’483 patent, Petitioner proposed that "drop cable" requires the cable to retain its external jacket as it is routed and stored inside the drop interface box. Ground 2 (summarized from petition's Ground 3) was based on this construction.
    • Second Construction: Based on the Patent Owner's infringement contentions in parallel litigation, Petitioner advanced an alternative construction where the "drop cable" can have its external jacket removed upon entry into the box, with only the internal optical fibers being routed and stored. Ground 1 was based on this broader construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, contending that the factors strongly favor institution.
    • The district court trial in the parallel litigation is scheduled for April 14, 2025, which is after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR.
    • Petitioner asserted that a stay of the parallel litigation is likely, pointing to prior stipulations between the parties in other matters and favorable statistics for stays in the District of Delaware.
    • Investment in the parallel litigation was described as minimal, with a Markman hearing not scheduled until January 2024, indicating that an IPR decision would be available long before substantial district court resources are expended.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, and 10-13 of the ’483 patent as unpatentable.