PTAB

IPR2026-00093

Accelight Technologies Inc v. Applied Optoelectronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pluggable Optical Transceiver Module
  • Brief Description: The ’826 patent discloses a pluggable optical transceiver module designed for insertion into a socket. The invention focuses on a mechanical locking system comprising a main body with sliding slots, a sliding component with extending arms that move within these slots, and an elastic component that facilitates locking and unlocking of the module within the socket.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7 are anticipated by Mizue under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mizue (Patent 7,201,520).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mizue, a reference considered during prosecution, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The argument centered on a feature the Patent Owner successfully used to overcome Mizue during prosecution: "the elastic component is covered by the extending arm such that the elastic component is confined by the main body and the sliding component." Petitioner contended the Examiner erred by only considering Mizue's Figure 9, as urged by the Patent Owner, and failed to recognize that Mizue's Figure 8 explicitly shows this "covered" and "confined" arrangement. Petitioner mapped the elements of Mizue's optical module 1a—including its upper body 26 (main body), actuator 20 (sliding component), arms 20a (extending arms), and springs 30 (elastic components)—to all limitations of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as the dependent claims.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this ground was the assertion of Examiner error, arguing that a complete review of Mizue reveals the very limitation that was the basis for allowance.

Ground 2: Claims 1-6 are obvious over Li in view of Liu under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Chinese Utility Model No. CN 203026708 U) and Liu (Chinese Utility Model No. CN 201749226 U).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Li discloses a QSFP module interface device with all major components of the claimed invention. Li's upper and lower covers form the main body, its "elastic arm 3" is the sliding component with extending arms, and "first recess portions 11" are the sliding slots. Li further disclosed an unlocking device with protrusions (second fastening parts) and a return spring (elastic component) located within a "third recess portion 52" (limiting space). To the extent Li's disclosure of the interaction between the module's fastening parts and the socket's fastening parts was considered insufficient, Petitioner argued Liu supplied the details. Liu describes a similar locking mechanism where protrusions on unlocking plates engage with pre-configured locking members in a socket, providing a clear model for the interaction.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Li and Liu, both of which address QSFP module interfaces, to design an improved, practical, and reliable hot-pluggable transceiver. Petitioner argued that Liu’s detailed description of a locking/unlocking mechanism would have been a natural and logical supplement to Li's similar but less-detailed system, serving to improve its locking function.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references due to their high degree of structural and functional similarity. The combination would have involved applying known mechanical principles to compatible components and would not have required undue experimentation.

Ground 3: Claim 7 is obvious over Li under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Li (Chinese Utility Model No. CN 203026708 U).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Li, standing alone, renders the limitations of claim 7 obvious. The mapping was substantially similar to that provided for claim 1 in Ground 2. Li's main body has a head part and an inserted part, with sliding slots extending between them. It includes a sliding component (elastic arm 3), a limiting space (third recess portion 52), and an elastic component (return spring). Petitioner asserted that while Li shows the limiting space in the head part, it would have been an obvious design choice to reposition it to the inserted part to better utilize space, as taught by other art like Mizue.
    • Key Aspects: This ground served as an alternative to Ground 2 for claim 7, asserting that Li's disclosure was sufficient on its own to suggest the claimed invention without the need for the supplemental teachings of Liu.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner provided a stipulation to avoid a discretionary denial under Fintiv. If the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, Petitioner stipulated that it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation: (i) the specific grounds raised in the petition, (ii) any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised in an IPR, or (iii) any ground based on a combination of system prior art and the references asserted in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’826 patent as unpatentable.