US Conec Ltd v. Senko Advanced Components Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00120
• Patent #: 10,191,230
• Filed: December 22, 2023
• Petitioner(s): US Conec Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 26-34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Reversible Polarity Fiber Optic Connector
• Brief Description: The ’230 patent describes a duplex fiber optic connector designed for reversible polarity. The invention centers on a connector housing for two optical ferrules and a removable latch that can be attached to either a top or bottom exterior wall of the housing to change the connector's polarity without complex disassembly. A key limitation, added during reexamination, requires the housing's exterior portion to extend 360 degrees circumferentially around the space where the ferrules are received.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Veatch, Nguyen, and Soubh - Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 27, 30, 32-34 are obvious over Veatch in view of Nguyen and Soubh.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Veatch (Patent 9,684,130), Nguyen (Application # 2017/0343740), and Soubh (Application # 2013/0122745).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Veatch taught the foundational reversible polarity fiber optic connector, including a removable latch that could be repositioned. However, Petitioner argued Veatch's multi-piece housing did not extend 360 degrees around the ferrules. Nguyen was cited to cure this deficiency, as it expressly taught replacing multi-piece connector bodies with a single, unitary housing that extends 360 degrees to reduce the pitch between ferrules and decrease the connector's footprint. To address the latching mechanism, Petitioner argued Soubh disclosed a simpler and more efficient slide-on latch coupling (using guides, slots, and an anchor) than Veatch's more cumbersome two-sided snap-fit mechanism.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Nguyen’s unitary 360-degree housing with Veatch’s design to achieve the known benefits of a reduced part count, a smaller footprint for high-density applications, and simplified assembly. Subsequently, a POSITA would replace the combined connector's latching mechanism with Soubh's slide-on interface to further streamline assembly and reduce manufacturing complexity compared to Veatch's two-point snap system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have an expectation of success because the combination involved substituting known components (a unitary housing for a multi-piece one; a slide-on latch for a snap-on one) to achieve their predictable functions.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nehler and Limbert - Claims 1, 2, 9, 27, 32-34 are obvious over Nehler in view of Limbert.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nehler (Patent 8,061,906) and Limbert (Patent 8,834,038).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination directly addressed the limitation that allowed the ’230 patent to survive reexamination. Nehler was asserted to disclose a fiber optic connector with a housing that extends 360 degrees around the optical ferrules, thus teaching the key amended limitation of the challenged claims. However, Nehler’s latching mechanism was integral to the housing and not removable for polarity reversal. Limbert was cited to teach this missing feature, disclosing a connector with a latch explicitly designed to be releasably mountable on opposing faces of the connector body for the express purpose of altering polarity.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Nehler's 360-degree housing design by incorporating the removable and repositionable latch taught by Limbert. This combination would provide the well-understood and desirable advantage of polarity adjustment in the field without requiring a different connector, directly addressing a known industry need.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected as it involved applying a known technique (Limbert's releasably mountable latch) to a similar device (Nehler's connector) to predictably add a known functionality (polarity reversal).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Veatch-Nguyen-Soubh in view of Suzic - Claims 2 and 26 are obvious over Veatch, Nguyen, and Soubh in view of Suzic.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Veatch (Patent 9,684,130), Nguyen (Application # 2017/0343740), Soubh (Application # 2013/0122745), and Suzic (Application # 2017/0363818).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims 2 and 26, which required the latch coupling to include a recess with angled walls and the latch to have a protrusion with slanted edges (i.e., a dovetail shape). Petitioner argued that while the base combination taught a slide-on latch, Suzic explicitly disclosed using a "dovetail connection" with these precise features to removably secure an actuation unit (latch) to a holding unit (housing).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the slide-on latch interface derived from Soubh to incorporate the dovetail shape from Suzic. This modification would create a more secure, form-fit coupling that generates greater resistance against inadvertent sliding between the latch and the housing, improving the connector's reliability.
  • Expectation of Success: Applying a known coupling method (dovetail connection) to improve the stability of a similar sliding latch mechanism would be a predictable design modification for a POSITA.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the Veatch-Nguyen-Soubh combination in view of Lee or Peng, and the Nehler-Limbert combination in view of Soubh, Suzic, Lee, or Peng, to address limitations in other dependent claims related to remote release mechanisms and spring-retention bodies.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate. A parallel district court case is stayed, and Petitioner stipulated it would not pursue in court any invalidity grounds raised or reasonably available in this inter partes review (IPR).
• Petitioner further argued against denial under §325(d), contending the petition presented new prior art and evidence not previously considered by the USPTO. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Nehler and Nguyen disclose the key "360-degree housing" limitation that was added during reexamination to overcome prior art, and therefore the primary basis for patentability has not been substantively reviewed by the Office.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, and 26-34 of Patent 10,191,230 as unpatentable.