Fiber Optics — US PTAB Patent Cases
13 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 13 total
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 49 claims related to modular cassette systems used in fiber optics. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art combinations involving Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,808,994 patent covering small form‑factor fiber‑optic connectors, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, anticipation and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of Senko Advanced Components' patent, alleging obviousness and anticipation based on prior art references including Nguyen, Lin, Scherer, and Gniadek. The petitioner argues that combining these references yields predictable improvements to the optical connector technology.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. challenges the validity of Senko Advanced Components' '369 patent, arguing that various claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references (Scherer, Lee, Gniadek). The petition asserts both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically targeting connector housing arrangements in optical fiber technology.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.