US Conec Ltd v. Senko Advanced Components Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00115
• Patent #: 11,307,369
• Filed: January 6, 2024
• Petitioner(s): US Conec Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Optical Fiber Connector
• Brief Description: The ’369 patent relates to an optical fiber connector designed for high-density applications. The connector is configured to hold first and second optical fiber ferrules spaced apart in a row, and it features a depressible latch positioned above the connector housing that is actuated by a pullable, elongate arm.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Scherer and Lee - Claims 1-17, 20, and 21 are obvious over Scherer in view of Lee.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Scherer (WO 2015/027033) and Lee (WO 2017/127208).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Scherer taught a fiber optic connector with key features, including a connector housing, a depressible latch (lever 360a), and a pullable elongate arm (extender 330d) configured to actuate the latch for use in high-density environments. Petitioner contended that while Scherer disclosed multi-fiber capabilities, it did not explicitly show the claimed side-by-side arrangement of two ferrules. Lee was introduced to supply this missing element, as it expressly disclosed a connector with first and second optical fiber ferrules (20, 22) arranged in a row along a transverse axis.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Lee's well-known dual-ferrule arrangement with Scherer's connector design to achieve the known industry benefit of increased connector density. Both references address the challenges of high-density interconnects, making their teachings directly relevant and complementary. The combination would have amounted to implementing a known multi-ferrule configuration, as suggested by Scherer, using the specific, advantageous arrangement taught by Lee.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Scherer explicitly suggested its technology could be used with various connector types, including multi-fiber connectors (e.g., MPO/MTP). The proposed modification was argued to be a predictable implementation of known design principles, involving basic structural changes well within the ordinary skill in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Scherer-Lee and Gniadek - Claims 18, 19, and 22 are obvious over Scherer and Lee in view of Gniadek.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Scherer (WO 2015/027033), Lee (WO 2017/127208), and Gniadek (Patent 8,465,317).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the connector established by the Scherer and Lee combination to address additional limitations in dependent claims. Specifically, claim 18 requires the connector housing's front body to include a recess and its back body to include a protrusion that is received in the recess to connect the two parts. Petitioner argued that Gniadek taught this precise mechanism, disclosing a connector (816) with a trap/recess (828) and a boot (840) with a corresponding protruding member (851) to couple the components.
  • Motivation to Combine: A strong motivation to combine was asserted because Scherer explicitly incorporated the Gniadek patent by reference, stating that its own connector hoods were "similar in some respects to the remote-release connectors disclosed in [Gniadek]." This direct reference would have prompted a POSITA to consult Gniadek for known constructional details, such as methods for assembling the front and back portions of the connector housing.
  • Expectation of Success: The explicit statement in Scherer regarding its similarity to Gniadek provided a POSITA with a reasonable expectation that features from Gniadek could be successfully integrated into the Scherer-Lee design. The components were of a similar style, and the proposed modification served the conventional purpose of securing connector parts.

Ground 3: Anticipation by Lee - Claims 1-17, 20, and 21 are anticipated by Lee.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (WO 2017/127208).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Lee, standing alone, disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped elements of Lee's connector 10 to the limitations of independent claim 1, arguing that Lee taught: (1) first and second optical fiber ferrules (20, 22); (2) a connector housing (comprising inner body 24 and outer body 36); (3) the ferrules being held by the housing and spaced apart along a transverse axis; (4) a depressible latch (28) positioned above the housing; and (5) an elongate arm (handle 30) connected above the housing and configured to be pulled to actuate the latch. Petitioner provided detailed mappings for dependent claims as well.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 18, 19, 21, and 22 based on Lee alone, arguing it would have been obvious to swap the locations of a shoulder and opening on Lee's connector bodies or to incorporate a push-pull knob from another of Lee's disclosed embodiments.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny the petition. Regarding Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the petition presents a compelling unpatentability challenge and stipulated that, if review is instituted, it would not pursue in district court the grounds raised or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised in the petition. Regarding 35 U.S.C. §325(d), Petitioner argued that denial would be improper because the primary prior art references, Scherer and Lee, were not presented to or substantively considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’369 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 11,307,369 as unpatentable.