PTAB

IPR2026-00094

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc v. Applied Optoelectronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pluggable Optical Transceiver
  • Brief Description: The ’818 patent discloses a pluggable optical transceiver featuring a main body with an outer surface (top or bottom) that defines one or more confined grooves. An elastic component (e.g., a spring) is disposed in each groove, and a movable fastening component is disposed on the main body to compress the elastic component, securing the transceiver within a cage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Wang - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 are anticipated by Wang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Application # 2015/0263453).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wang discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Wang’s optoelectronic module 200 is an optical transceiver with a main body (housing 208) that includes an outer surface defining two confined grooves (recesses 256). Elastic components (resilient members 254) are disposed in these grooves. A fastening component (release slide 202) is movably disposed on the main body and comprises a linkage arm (release slide base 238), two extending arms (release slide arms 240), and confined portions (fingers 258). The linkage arm includes openings (260) that communicate with the grooves, allowing the elastic components to be inserted and disposed within. The confined portions extend into the grooves to press the elastic components, and the extending arms are detachably fastenable with a cage.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended Wang's disclosure is a complete blueprint for the invention claimed in the ’818 patent, mapping its housing, resilient members, and release slide directly to the corresponding main body, elastic components, and fastening component of the claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wang in view of Tsai - Claims 8, 11, and 12 are obvious over Wang in view of Tsai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Application # 2015/0263453) and Tsai (Patent 9,523,826).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Wang discloses every limitation of independent claim 11 except for the bail being connected to a pivot shaft on the linkage arm. Tsai, which is also directed to a pluggable optical transceiver, explicitly teaches this missing element: a pull handle (bail) connected to a pivot shaft on the linkage arm (claim 11[d]). Claim 8 adds this pivot shaft and bail limitation to claim 1, and claim 12 requires the bail to remain in an upright position without external force, a feature Petitioner argued is disclosed by Tsai.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tsai's pivoting handle with Wang's transceiver design for two primary reasons: 1) to prevent breakage or damage to the pull handle during insertion or removal from a socket, and 2) to facilitate easier access to optical connectors by pivoting the handle out of the way. Wang itself recognized the need for handle flexibility, and Tsai provided a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that both references describe similar pluggable optical transceivers and address common design challenges, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in integrating Tsai's pivoting bail mechanism into the Wang transceiver using routine engineering skills.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Koutrokois - Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 are anticipated by Koutrokois

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Koutrokois (Application # 2014/0104808).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Koutrokois discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Koutrokois’s optoelectronic module 300 includes a main body (housing 301) with an outer surface defining confined grooves (channels 314). Elastic components (springs 308) are disposed within these grooves. A fastening component (follower 304), which is movably disposed on the main body, comprises a linkage arm, extending arms, and confined portions (engaging members 312). The linkage arm has openings (accesses 306) allowing the springs to be loaded into the channels, and the confined portions extend into the channels to compress the springs, thereby securing the module.
    • Key Aspects: Similar to the argument against Wang, Petitioner contended Koutrokois provides an alternative, but equally complete, disclosure of the claimed invention, mapping its follower, springs, and housing channels directly onto the claimed fastening component, elastic components, and confined grooves.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Wang alone (rendering claims 4, 6, and 9 obvious based on routine assembly practices and inferring dimensions from drawings) and Koutrokois alone (rendering claims 4, 6, and 9 obvious for similar reasons). An additional ground argued that claims 8, 11, and 12 are obvious over Koutrokois in view of Tsai, mirroring the motivation-to-combine argument from Ground 2.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • To preempt a potential discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner stipulated that if the Board institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation the specific grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 based on patents or printed publications.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’818 patent as unpatentable.