Senko Advanced Components v. US Conec Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01074
• Patent #: 11,880,075
• Filed: June 20, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Senko Advanced Components
• Patent Owner(s): US Conec Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Fiber Optic Connector Ferrule Holder
• Brief Description: The ’075 patent discloses a ferrule holder for a multi-fiber optic connector. The holder includes a main body with top and bottom surfaces, each featuring a projection, where the projections have different widths to serve as polarity keys, and the top surface also includes a cantilevered latch that is unconnected to its corresponding projection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 19-20 are obvious over Suzuki in view of Shimozu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Suzuki (Patent 7,284,912) and Shimozu (JP 2573482).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Suzuki, which discloses an optical fiber interconnect system, teaches most limitations of the independent claims, including a ferrule holder with top and bottom projections. However, Suzuki's projections have the same shape. Shimozu was cited for its teaching of a connector using identification guides of different widths to ensure proper polarity and prevent incorrect insertion.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Shimozu's teaching of using differently sized guides for polarity keying with Suzuki's connector design. This modification represented a known technique to improve similar connectors and would have yielded the predictable result of preventing incorrect connector insertion.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because modifying Suzuki's projections to have different widths as taught by Shimozu was a simple, known technique for improving connector polarity.

Ground 9: Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are obvious over JP610 in view of Manning and Loder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: JP610 (JP 3886619), Manning (Patent 6,224,268), and Loder (Patent 6,419,399).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that JP610 discloses a fiber optic connector with a ferrule holder that teaches most claim limitations, including projections on top and bottom surfaces. In JP610, however, the latching mechanism is unitary with the top projection. Manning was introduced for its teaching of a forward-facing cantilever latch designed to prevent cable entanglement, which is explicitly separate from a forward projection that acts as a shroud. Loder was cited for its teaching of adding chamfers to the leading edges of ferrule holders to ease insertion.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to replace JP610's rearward-extending, unitary latch with Manning's forward-facing, non-unitary latch and shroud design to solve the known problem of cable entanglement. It would also be obvious to add Loder's chamfered edges as a standard design practice to improve alignment and insertion of the JP610 connector into an adapter.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a simple substitution of known latching mechanisms to achieve a predictable improvement in functionality, with the addition of chamfers being a common and predictable modification.

Ground 12: Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are obvious over JP391 in view of Shimozu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: JP391 (JP 2001-305391) and Shimozu (JP 2573482).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that JP391 discloses an optical connector with a sleeve-shaped ferrule holder, an MT-type ferrule, and top and bottom projections used for polarity keying via horizontal offset. JP391's latching mechanism consists of engagement pawls that are spatially separated from the projections, meeting another key limitation.
  • Motivation to Combine: While JP391 provides polarity keying via offset projections, Shimozu teaches an alternative, well-known method of using differently sized projections for the same purpose. A POSITA would recognize that substituting Shimozu's differently-sized projections for JP391's offset projections was a simple substitution of one known keying method for another to achieve the same predictable result of preventing incorrect insertion.
  • Expectation of Success: The substitution was characterized as a "textbook case" of combining familiar elements to yield a predictable result, as both keying methods were known in the art and served the identical function.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 added Saito, JP391, and Katagiyama, respectively, to the Suzuki/Shimozu combination to teach features like chamfered surfaces, spring configurations, and flush-mounted ferrules. Grounds 5-8 added Chen to the combinations of Grounds 1-4 to explicitly teach a cantilevered latch, addressing a potential means-plus-function construction of the "latching mechanism" limitation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• The Petitioner contended the term "latching mechanism" should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(¶6) as a means-plus-function limitation, for which the only corresponding structure disclosed in the ’075 patent is a cantilever latch.
• Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner has advocated for a broader construction in a parallel ITC proceeding. Consequently, Petitioner presented invalidity grounds applicable under both constructions; for example, Grounds 1-4 applied to the broader construction, while grounds adding references like Chen (e.g., Grounds 5-8) explicitly addressed the narrower means-plus-function construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv because the parallel district court litigation is stayed, a factor that weighs in favor of institution.
• Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that none of the prior art references relied upon in the petition were previously considered by the USPTO during the prosecution of the ’075 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of Patent 11,880,075 as unpatentable.