IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`BELDEN CANADA ULC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COMMSCOPE, INC., COMMSCOPE, INC.
`OF NORTH CAROLINA, and COMMSCOPE
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 23-810-RGA
`
`BELDEN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
`& TAYLOR, LLP
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Robert M. Vrana (#5666)
`Jennifer P. Siew (#7114)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`pkraman@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`jsiew@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Belden Canada ULC
`
`Dated: July 19, 2024
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`BARCLAY DAMON LLP
`Douglas J. Nash
`John D. Cook
`Genevieve M. Halpenny (#6738)
`Barclay Damon Tower
`125 East Jefferson Street
`Syracuse, New York 13202
`(315) 425-2700
`dnash@barclaydamon.com
`jcook@barclaydamon.com
`ghalpenny@barclaydamon.com
`
`Naresh K. Kannan
`80 State Street
`Albany, New York 12207
`(518) 429-4200
`nkannan@barclaydamon.com
`
`Dhruthi Batchu
`160 Federal Street
`Suite 1001
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 274-2994
`dbatchu@barclaydamon.com
`
`

`

`
`
`Belden’s Preliminary Statement
`
`Plaintiff Belden Canada ULC (“Belden”) and defendants CommScope, Inc., CommScope
`
`Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies, LLC (collectively, “CommScope”) are
`
`competitors in the telecommunications and cable products industry. CommScope infringes
`
`Belden’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,795,107 (the “’107 Patent”), 11,435,542 (the “’542 Patent”),
`
`11,656,422 (the “’422 Patent”), and/or 11,740,423 (the “’423 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-
`
`in-Suit”), by selling various modular fiber connectivity products.
`
`As set forth in the specification of the Patents-in-Suit, the invention disclosed and claimed,
`
`“relates to a fiber optic cassette comprising a width of one or more standard width units and such
`
`that fiber optic cassettes of different widths can be arranged on the same tray while optimizing the
`
`use of tray space.” (’107 Patent, Field of the Invention, 1:16-19.) The invention was intended to
`
`address drawbacks in the prior art, including “that cassettes which are used to terminate fiber optic
`
`cables comprising different numbers of optic fibers are generally incompatible with one another
`
`and additionally require trays with different spacing, securing mechanisms and the like.” (Id.,
`
`Background of the Invention, 1:30-34.)
`
`To try to avoid infringement, CommScope now invites the Court to commit a host of
`
`factual and legal errors by proposing various claim construction theories that are contrary to how
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention (“POSA”) would reasonably
`
`understand the meaning of such claim terms. By contrast, Belden’s constructions are supported
`
`by the intrinsic record and well-settled claim construction principles of patent law. CommScope
`
`also invites the Court to commit additional errors by proposing indefiniteness theories that are
`
`contrary to not only how a POSA would reasonably ascertain the meaning of the claim language
`
`at issue, but also well-settled principles of patent law. CommScope also cannot meet its burden to
`
`establish indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence because the claim language at issue,
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`when read in light of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, reasonably informs a POSA about the
`
`scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.1 Accordingly, the Court should reject
`
`CommScope’s invitation to commit such legal and factual errors, and instead address the identified
`
`terms in accordance with Belden’s proposed constructions to avoid committing such errors.
`
`I.
`
`Disputed Constructions
`
`A.
`
`Terms 1a-1b – The “Standard Width Unit” Terms
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`1a “standard width
`unit”
`
`’107 Patent
`(claims 1 and 8)
`
`’542 Patent
`(claims 1 and 8)
`
`’422 Patent
`(claims 1, 18, 40)
`1b “standard one
`width (1 W) unit”
`
`’423 Patent
`(Claims 1, 9, 17)
`
`Why Resolution
`Matters
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`Not indefinite –
`
`that
`of width
`unit
`“a
`single
`accommodates
`a
`receptacle module, such as a LC
`Quad (SC Duplex) technology
`footprint
`comprising
`four
`connectors”
`
`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`A standard width unit means an
`actual width that is standardized in
`the industry. For example, the
`width of an SC Duplex footprint.
`
`Otherwise, indefinite.
`
`that
`of width
`unit
`“a
`single
`accommodates
`a
`receptacle module, such as a LC
`Quad (SC Duplex) technology
`footprint
`comprising
`four
`connectors”
`Belden’s Position
`term
`Construction
`of
`this
`addresses
`CommScope’s
`indefiniteness claim and may also
`impact
`infringement
`and/or
`validity.
`
`A standard width unit means an
`actual width that is standardized in
`the industry. For example, the
`width of an SC Duplex footprint.
`
`Otherwise, indefinite.
`CommScope’s Position
`is
`CommScope’s construction
`dispositive of all asserted claims in
`all the asserted patents. Every
`asserted claim requires a version
`of Term 1.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the text of the asserted claims with the disputed terms italicized
`is attached hereto as Appendix 1.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1. Belden’s Opening Position
`
`These terms are not indefinite. Instead, their meaning is readily apparent from the plain
`
`language of the identified claims in light of the specification. Belden’s proposed construction
`
`should be adopted because it is based on the intrinsic evidence.
`
`As informative context, the “invention relates to a fiber optic cassette comprising a width
`
`of one or more standard width units and such that fiber optic cassettes of different widths can be
`
`arranged on the same tray while optimizing the use of tray space.”2 (’107 Patent, Field of the
`
`Invention, 1:16-19.) The invention was intended to address drawbacks in the prior art, including
`
`“that cassettes which are used to terminate fiber optic cables comprising different numbers of optic
`
`fibers are generally incompatible with one another and additionally require trays with different
`
`spacing, securing mechanisms and the like.” (Id., Background of the Invention, 1:30-34.) In other
`
`words, the invention provides for the optimized arrangement and use of modular cassettes of
`
`different sizes that accommodate different quantities of optical fibers on a single tray of a fiber
`
`optic system. (See id. at 4:23-26 (“cassettes of different widths can be used in the same tray system
`
`or in some cases on the same tray without modification or changing the density of the receptacles
`
`54 for terminating optic fibers”).)
`
`The specification teaches this, including in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis is added.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`This figure depicts “a modular fiber optic cassette system mounted in a rack in accordance
`
`with an illustrative embodiment of the present invention.” (’107 Patent, 2:25-27.) “[E]ach cassette
`
`32 illustratively comprises a plurality of receptacle modules 52 each comprising four (4)
`
`
`
`receptacles 54.” (Id. at 3:36-39.)
`
`
`
`The specification further teaches that:
`
`Each of the different cassette sizes of the set is based on an integer multiple of a
`standardised pitch or width unit W wherein one standardized width unit
`accommodates a single receptacle module 52 comprising four (4) receptacles 54.
`Illustratively, a 2 W cassette 32 comprising two (2) modules 52 accommodating
`eight (8) optic fibers (FIG. 4A) is provided, a 3 W cassette 32 comprising three (3)
`modules 52 accommodating twelve (12) optic fibers (FIG. 4B) is provided, a 4 W
`cassette 32 comprising four (4) modules 52 accommodating sixteen (16) optic
`fibers (FIG. 4C) is provided and a 6 W cassette 32 comprising six (6) modules 52
`accommodating twenty-four (24) optic fibers (FIG. 4D) is provided for.
`
`(Id. at 3:42-54.) The referenced Figures 4A through 4D are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The specification also teaches that:
`
`
`
`
`
`Although [in] the present illustrative embodiment the pitch/width W is based on a
`LC Quad (SC Duplex) technology footprint comprising four (4) connectors, in an
`alternative embodiment the pitch/width W could be based on a different technology
`footprint, including SC Duplex comprising two (2) connectors and MPO type
`connectors comprising inter alia multiple optic fibers such as MPO-12, MPO-16
`and MPO-24.
`
`(Id. at 3:60-67.)
`
`
`
` Consistent with this teaching, and in fact incorporating specific language used in the
`
`specification, Belden respectfully submits that these terms should be construed as “a unit of width
`
`that accommodates a single receptacle module, such as a LC Quad (SC Duplex) technology
`
`footprint comprising four connectors.” See Grace Instrument Indus., LLC v. Chandler Instruments
`
`Co., LLC, 57 F. 4th 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Where the specification instructs as to the
`
`meaning of a claim term, the inventor’s lexicography governs.” (cleaned up)); Linear Tech. Corp.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F. 3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming construction of a
`
`limitation according to the definition in the specification).
`
`By contrast, CommScope’s proposed construction erroneously seeks to artificially narrow
`
`the scope of these terms to “an actual width that is standardized in the industry.” But not only is
`
`“actual width” never referenced or even alluded to in the specification, the very concept of an
`
`“actual” width is wholly inconsistent with the teaching of the specification. Indeed, as previously
`
`discussed, the specification explicitly teaches that a standard width unit “accommodates a single
`
`receptacle module 52,” not that it is the actual width of such a module, and that is how these terms
`
`should be construed. (Id. at 3:44-45.) See Grace Instrument Indus., LLC, 57 F. 4th at 1010; Linear
`
`Tech. Corp., 566 F. 3d at 1054.
`
`B.
`
`Terms 2a-2e – The “Cassette Width” Terms
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`2a “cassette width of [one of]
`two, three, four, [and] six
`standard width units”
`
`’107 Patent
`(Claim 1)
`
`2b “cassette width as measured
`between outer side edges
`thereof of one of one, two,
`three, four and six standard
`width units”
`
`’542 Patent
`(Claim 1)
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“cassette
`width
`that
`accommodates one of one,
`two,
`three,
`four, or six
`receptacle modules”
`
`“cassette width as measured
`between outer side edges
`thereof
`that accommodates
`one of one, two, three, four, or
`six receptacle modules”
`
`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`“The cassette width equals
`one, two, three, four, or six
`times the standard width
`unit, without an additional
`amount. This means the
`cassette width must be
`evenly divisible by the
`standard width unit.”
`“The cassette width as
`measured between outer
`side edges thereof equals
`one, two, three, four, or six
`times the standard width
`unit, without an additional
`amount. This means the
`cassette width must be
`evenly divisible by the
`standard width unit.”
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
` “The cassette width, as
`measured between outer
`side edges thereof, equals
`two, three, four, or six
`times the standard width
`unit, without an additional
`amount. This means the
`cassette width must be
`evenly divisible by the
`standard width unit.”
` “Each of
`the modular
`fiber optic cassettes has a
`cassette width that equals
`two, three, four, or six
`times the standard one
`width unit, without an
`additional amount. This
`means the cassette widths
`must be evenly divisible
`by
`the standard width
`unit.”
`
`
`
`
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`2c “cassette width, as measured
`between outer side edges
`thereof, of two, three, four, or
`six standard width units”
`
`’422 Patent,
`(Claim 1)
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“cassette width as measured
`between outer side edges
`thereof
`that accommodates
`one of one, two, three, four, or
`six receptacle modules”
`
`“each of the modular fiber
`optic cassettes includes a first
`cassette side end portion and a
`second cassette side end
`portion defining a standard
`cassette width unit extending
`between the first cassette side
`end portion and the second
`cassette side end portion that
`comprises
`a
`unit
`that
`accommodates two receptacle
`modules,
`a
`unit
`that
`accommodates
`three
`receptacle modules, a unit that
`accommodates
`four
`receptacle modules, or a unit
`that
`accommodates
`six
`receptacle modules, relative
`to a unit that accommodates
`one receptacle module”
`
`2d “each of the modular fiber
`optic cassettes … defining a
`standard cassette width unit
`… that comprises a standard
`two width (2 W) unit, a
`standard three width (3 W)
`unit, a standard four width (4
`W) unit, or a standard a
`standard six width (6 W) unit
`relative to the standard one
`width (1 W) unit”
`(CommScope) /
`
`“each of the modular fiber
`optic cassettes includes a first
`cassette side end portion and
`a second cassette side end
`portion defining a standard
`cassette width unit extending
`between the first cassette side
`end portion and the second
`cassette side end portion that
`comprises a standard
`two
`width (2 W) unit, a standard
`three width (3 W) unit, a
`standard four width (4 W)
`unit, or a standard a standard
`six width (6 W) unit relative
`to the standard one width (1
`W) unit”
`(Belden)
`
`’423 Patent,
`(Claim 1)
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`“Each of
`the
`recited
`cassette
`sizes has
`a
`cassette width that equals
`two, three, four, or six
`times the standard one
`width unit, without an
`additional amount. This
`means the cassette widths
`must be evenly divisible
`by
`the standard width
`unit.”
`
`
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`2e “cassettes include a 2 W
`cassette
`size
`that
`is
`configured to fit a standard
`two width (2 W) unit relative
`to the standard one width (1
`W) unit, a 3 W cassette size
`that is configured to fit a
`standard three width (3 W)
`unit relative to the standard
`one width (1 W) unit, a 4 W
`cassette
`size
`that
`is
`configured to fit a standard
`four width (4 W) unit relative
`to the standard one width (1
`W) unit, and a 6 W cassette
`size that is configured to fit a
`standard six width (6 W) unit
`relative to the standard one
`width (1 W) unit”
`
`’423 Patent,
`(Claims 9 and 17)
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“cassettes include a size that
`is configured to accommodate
`two
`receptacle modules
`relative
`to
`the unit
`that
`accommodates one receptacle
`module, a
`size
`that
`is
`configured to accommodate
`three
`receptacle modules
`relative
`to
`the unit
`that
`accommodates one receptacle
`module, a
`size
`that
`is
`configured to accommodate
`four
`receptacle modules
`relative
`to
`the unit
`that
`accommodates one receptacle
`module, and a size that is
`configured to accommodate
`six
`receptacle modules
`relative
`to
`the unit
`that
`accommodates one receptacle
`module”
`
`Why Resolution
`Matters
`
`Belden’s Position
`Construction of this term
`may
`impact
`infringement
`and/or validity.
`
`CommScope’s Position
`CommScope’s construction is dispositive
`of infringement for all asserted claims in
`all the asserted patents. Every asserted
`claim requires a version of Term 2.
`
`
`1. Belden’s Opening Position
`
`These terms incorporate Terms 1a and 1b – “standard width unit” and “standard one width
`
`(1 W) unit” – into broader terms that concern the width of the claimed cassettes. As such, for the
`
`reasons previously discussed in the context of those terms, these terms should also be construed in
`
`a similar manner. As a representative example, Term 2a, which is, “cassette width of one of two,
`
`three, four, and six standard width units” should be construed as “cassette width that
`
`accommodates one of one, two, three, four, or six receptacle modules.” This proposed
`
`construction, as well as the others for Terms 2b through 2e, is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`evidence, and should therefore be adopted.
`
`To the contrary, CommScope once again proposes constructions that would artificially
`
`(and erroneously) narrow the scope of these terms, including that “the cassette width must be
`
`evenly divisible by the standard width unit.” This extent of mathematical precision is neither
`
`taught by the specification nor required by the claims. Indeed, although the specification teaches
`
`that “[e]ach of the different cassette sizes of the set is based on an integer multiple of a standardized
`
`pitch or width unit W,” that in no way limits cassette widths to just exact multiples of a standard
`
`width unit. (’107 Patent, 3:42-43.) Yet, CommScope seek to impose such a limitation by virtue
`
`of its proposed constructions – e.g., with respect to Term 2a, “cassette width equals one, two, three,
`
`four, or six times the standard width unit, without an additional amount.” Such constructions
`
`are improper and should be rejected.
`
`Term 3 - “cassette width, as measured between the outer side edges thereof,
`of two, three, four, and six standard width units”
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“cassette width, as measured
`between the outer side edges
`thereof, of two, three, four, or
`six standard width units”
`
`CommScope’s
`Proposed Construction
`The term “and” has its
`plain
`and
`ordinary
`meaning, which does not
`mean “or.”
`
`C.
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`3 “cassette width, as measured
`between the outer side edges
`thereof, of two, three, four, and
`six standard width units”
`
`’422 Patent
`(Claims 18 and 40)
`
`Why Resolution
`Matters
`
`Belden’s Position
`Construction of this term may
`impact infringement and/or
`validity.
`
`CommScope’s Position
`CommScope’s construction is dispositive
`of infringement of these claims.
`
`
`1. Belden’s Opening Position
`
`CommScope’s proposed construction creates a nonsensical, physical impossibility
`
`whereby a single cassette must simultaneously have four different widths, each corresponding to
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`a multiple of a standard width. For this reason alone, the Court should reject CommScope’s
`
`proposed construction, and instead adopt Belden’s proposed construction.
`
`The absurdity of CommScope’s position is illustrated by a review of the relevant portions
`
`of Claim 18, which is representative of Claim 40:
`
`A fiber optic cassette tray for providing a plurality of different modular fiber optic
`cassette configurations in a fiber optic management system comprising:
`
`
`. . .
`
`wherein the plurality of different modular fiber optic cassette configurations
`includes a selected plurality of fiber optic cassettes that are each configured to be
`arranged side by side along the cassette engaging portion of the tray such that an
`outer side edge of each of the selected plurality of fiber optic cassettes adjacently
`faces an outer edge of at least one other fiber optic cassette;
`
`
`
`
`. . .
`
`wherein a first of the selected plurality of fiber optic cassettes comprises a first
`cassette width, as measured between outer side edges thereof, of two, three, four,
`and six standard width units;
`
`
`wherein a second of the selected plurality of fiber optic cassettes comprises a
`second cassette width, as measured between outer side edges thereof, of two,
`three, four, and six standard width units; and
`
`wherein the second cassette width is different from the first cassette width.
`
`
`Indeed, as emphasized, the plain language of the claim repeatedly recites the singular form
`
`of “width,” including the final claim limitation that also recites that the second cassette has a
`
`“width” and that this “width” is different from the “first cassette width.” Thus, just from the
`
`context of the claim language, a POSA would understand that the use of “and” in this context is
`
`being used in its disjunctive sense to mean that any one of the listed group – “two, three, four, and
`
`six standard width units” – is being claimed. In other words, in this context, “and” means “or.”
`
`Indeed, for the identified claims, “and” simply “links alternatives” for what the width of the
`
`cassettes can be in terms of being a multiple of a standard width unit and thus “conjoins mutually
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`exclusive possibilities.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1361-63
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (construing “and” as having a conjunctive meaning (i.e., “or”)). Accordingly,
`
`“[i]n the circumstances of this case, the use of and to express alternatives was chosen and
`
`adequately expressed by the applicant.” Id. “Giving and its most common dictionary meaning
`
`[as CommScope erroneously urges] would produce in this case the nonsensical result.” Id.
`
`
`
`While the specification shows that in comparison to each other a first and second modular
`
`cassette can have different widths, nothing in the specification discloses that a single modular
`
`cassette has any appreciable variation in width along its length. (See, e.g., ’422 Patent, Figs. 3-
`
`5C.) As a result, there is no intrinsic evidence to support CommScope’s position that the term
`
`should be construed in a manner that results in a nonsensical, physical impossibility.
`
`
`
`Claim construction that results in a nonsensical construction should be avoided. See K-2
`
`Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“claim construction is firmly
`
`anchored in reality by the understanding of those of ordinary skill in the art”). That applies here.
`
`CommScope’s proposed construction should, therefore, be rejected, and Belden’s proposed
`
`construction should instead be adopted. See Aptiv Techs. Ltd. v. Microchip Tech., Inc., No. 23-
`
`307-JDW, 2024 WL 3400109, *5 (D. Del. July 12, 2024) (“Where the claim is susceptible of both
`
`an absurd construction and a reasonable construction, courts should attempt to construe the claims
`
`to preserve their validity reading them in light of the specification.” (cleaned up)).
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`Term 4 - “a width of the front edge is substantially evenly divisible by said
`standard width unit”
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`
`CommScope’s
`Proposed
`Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`4 “a width of the front edge
`is substantially evenly
`divisible by said standard
`width unit”
`
`’107 Patent
`(Claim 8)
`
`’542 Patent
`(Claims 8 and 13)
`
`Why
`Resolution
`Matters
`
`
`
`Not indefinite –
`
`“a width of the front edge of the tray is
`evenly divisible by the unit of width
`that accommodates a single receptacle
`module, such as a LC Quad (SC
`Duplex)
`technology
`footprint
`comprising four connectors.
`
`‘Substantially,’ in this context, means
`that there may be some excess space
`between a cassette and an end of the
`front edge of the tray.”
`Belden’s Position
`term
`Construction
`of
`this
`addresses
`CommScope’s
`indefiniteness claim and may also
`impact
`infringement
`and/or
`validity.
`
`CommScope’s Position
`CommScope’s construction is dispositive
`of validity for these claims.
`
`1. Belden’s Opening Position
`
`It is CommScope’s burden to prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. See
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011); Dow Chem. Co. v. NOVA Chems. Corp.
`
`(Can.), 809 F.3d 1223, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2015). CommScope cannot meet its burden because the
`
`scope of the claims in which this term is found is capable of being understood by a POSA with
`
`reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).
`
`Once CommScope attempts to do so and explains its proposed indefiniteness theory, Belden will
`
`respond in greater detail regarding why this term is not indefinite and why Belden’s proposed
`
`construction should be adopted, including possibly with expert testimony.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`E.
`
`Terms 5a-5e – The “Directly Adjacent” Terms
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`5a “directly adjacent”
`(CommScope) /
`
`“an outer side edge of
`each of said selected
`cassettes
`is
`directly
`adjacent an outer side
`edge of at least one other
`selected cassette”
`(Belden)
`
`’542 Patent
`(Claims 1 and 8)
`5b “directly adjacent”
`(CommScope) /
`
`“an outer side edge of
`each of
`the selected
`plurality of fiber optic
`cassettes
`is
`directly
`adjacent to an outer edge
`of at least one other fiber
`optic cassette”
`(Belden)
`
`’422 Patent
`(Claim 1)
`5c “directly adjacent”
`(CommScope) /
`
`side edge
`“an outer
`portion of each of the
`selected plurality of the
`set of fiber optic cassettes
`faces a directly adjacent
`outside edge portion of at
`least one other selected
`fiber optic cassette”
`(Belden)
`
`’422 Patent
`(Claim 10)
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“an outer side edge of each
`of said selected cassettes is
`almost
`touching
`or
`touching, without
`any
`intervening structure, an
`outer side edge of at least
`one
`other
`selected
`cassette”
`
`“an outer side edge of each
`of the selected plurality of
`fiber optic cassettes
`is
`almost
`touching
`or
`touching, without
`any
`intervening structure, an
`outer edge of at least one
`other fiber optic cassette”
`
`
`“an outer side edge portion
`of each of the selected
`plurality of the set of fiber
`optic
`cassettes
`almost
`touches
`or
`touches,
`without any
`intervening
`structure, an outside edge
`portion of at least one
`other selected fiber optic
`cassette”
`
`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`“an outer side edge of each of said
`selected
`cassettes
`is
`almost
`touching or touching an outer side
`edge of at least one other selected
`cassette.
`This
`excludes
`arrangements
`with
`any
`intervening structure such as a rail
`between an outer side edge of a
`cassette and an outer side edge of
`at
`least one other
`selected
`cassette”
`
`
`“an outer side edge of each of the
`selected plurality of fiber optic
`cassettes is almost touching or
`touching an outer edge of at least
`one
`other
`fiber
`optic
`cassette.
`This
`excludes
`arrangements
`with
`any
`intervening structure such as a rail
`between an outer side edge of a
`cassette and an outer edge of at
`least one other selected cassette”
`
`
`“an outer side edge portion of
`each of the selected plurality of
`fiber optic cassettes faces and is
`almost touching or touching an
`outside edge portion of at least
`one other selected fiber optic
`cassette.
`This
`excludes
`arrangements
`with
`any
`intervening structure such as a rail
`between an outer side edge
`portion of a cassette and an
`outside edge portion of at least
`one other selected fiber optic
`cassette”
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`#
`
`Term
`
`5d “directly adjacent”
`(CommScope) /
`
`“the outer side edge of
`each of
`the selected
`plurality of fiber optic
`cassettes
`is
`directly
`adjacent to the outer edge
`of at least one other fiber
`optic cassette”
`(“Belden”)
`
`’422 Patent
`(Claims 20 and 45)
`5e “directly adjacent”
`(CommScope) /
`
`“a cassette side end
`portion that is directly
`adjacent to a cassette side
`end portion of another
`module
`fiber
`optic
`cassette”
`(Belden)
`
`’423 Patent
`(Claims 5, 13, and 23)
`
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“the outer side edge of
`each of
`the
`selected
`plurality of fiber optic
`cassettes almost touches or
`touches, without
`any
`intervening structure, the
`outer edge of at least one
`other fiber optic cassette”
`
`“a cassette side end portion
`that almost
`touches or
`touches, without
`any
`intervening structure, a
`cassette side end portion of
`another module fiber optic
`cassette”
`
`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`“the outer side edge of each of the
`selected plurality of fiber optic
`cassettes is almost touching or
`touching the outer edge of at least
`one
`other
`fiber
`optic
`cassette.
`This
`excludes
`arrangements
`with
`any
`intervening structure such as a rail
`between the outer side edge of a
`cassette and the outer edge of at
`least one other
`fiber optic
`cassette”
`
`
`“a cassette side end portion that is
`almost touching or touching a
`cassette side end portion of
`another module
`fiber optic
`cassette.
`This
`excludes
`arrangements
`with
`any
`intervening structure such as a rail
`between a cassette side end
`portion and a cassette side end
`portion of another module fiber
`optic cassette”
`
`
`Why
`Resolution
`Matters
`
`Belden’s Position
`Construction of this term
`may impact infringement
`and/or validity.
`
`CommScope’s Position
`There is a disclaimer in the prosecution history
`that limits the meaning of “directly adjacent.”
`The scope of a disclaimer is a question of law for
`the Court.
` CommScope
`asserts non-
`infringement based on the disclaimer.
`
`
`1. Belden’s Opening Position
`
`The parties are largely in agreement concerning the proper construction of these terms.
`
`However, the parties disagree regarding how the aspect of “without any intervening structure”
`
`should be addressed in the construction. Belden’s proposed construction appropriately uses the
`
`precise language utilized by prosecution counsel that CommScope contends constitutes a
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`disclaimer. CommScope improperly twists that language in a manner that broadens the impact of
`
`prosecution counsel’s statement – i.e., there cannot be intervening structure between any “outer
`
`side edges” or “cassette side end portions” of two cassettes, as opposed to excluding intervening
`
`structure between the “outer side edge” or “cassette side end portions” of two cassettes that are
`
`identified as “almost touching or touching” in satisfaction of the limitation of the identified claims.
`
`Therefore, CommScope’s proposed construction should be rejected, and Belden’s proposed
`
`construction should be adopted. See Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co., 29 F. 4th 1365,
`
`1374-76 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (rejecting accused infringer’s broad scope of disclaimer where only a
`
`narrow scope was supported by the evidence).
`
`During prosecution of the ’542 Patent, original Claim 1 stated, in pertinent part:
`
`wherein when arranged on the tray each of said selected cassettes is directly
`adjacent at least one other selected cassette.
`
`(D.I. 56-1 at 510.) The Examiner rejected this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,215,944 (“Sedor”). (See id. at 572-574.) In response, Belden’s
`
`prosecution counsel stated:
`
`Applicant also submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly
`understand that the modification of adjacent by “directly” was clearly intended to
`exclude any intervening structure, and such that, although the cassettes may be
`separated by a relatively small gap, cassettes which are “directly adjacent” are
`almost touching or touching without any intervening structure.
`
`
`(Id. at 602.)
`
`
`
`The Examiner maintained the rejection, Belden’s prosecution counsel repeated the
`
`statement above, and the Examiner maintained the rejection once again. (See id. at 608-610, 627,
`
`632.) Thereafter, Belden amended original Claim 1 to state, in pertinent part:
`
`wherein when arranged on the tray an outer side edge of each of said selected
`cassettes is directly adjacent an outer side edge of at least one other selected
`cassette.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(Id. at 638.) With that amendment, the Examiner allowed the claim, which issued and is asserted
`
`in this case. (See id. at 652-654.)
`
`
`
`As this prosecution history demonstrates, Belden’s prosecution counsel defined “directly
`
`adjacent” as “almost touching or touching without any intervening structure.” Therefore, in view
`
`of CommScope’s position that this statement constitutes a disclaimer, that is how the term should
`
`be construed in the context of the identified terms. More specifically, it is an “outer side edge” or
`
`“cassette side end portion” of one cassette that “almost touches or touches without any intervening
`
`structure” an “outer side edge” or “cassette side end portion” of another cassette. The claims do
`
`not require that there be no intervening structure between all “outer side edges” or “cassette side
`
`end portions” of one cassette and all “outer side edges” or “cassette side end portions” of another
`
`cassette. Yet, if adopted, that is a new limitation that CommScope’s proposed construction would
`
`impose. As a result, it should be rejected.
`
`F.
`
`Term 6 - “wherein each of the plurality of different modular fiber optic
`cassette configurations includes a plurality of different sizes of modular fiber
`optic cassettes”
`
`Belden’s
`Proposed Construction
`“Each of the plurality of different
`modular
`fiber
`optic
`cassette
`configurations includes a plurality of
`different sizes of modular fiber optic
`cassettes, such as the fifth modular
`fiber optic cassette configuration,
`which includes three modular 2 W
`standard width size cassettes and one
`modular 6 W standard width size
`cassettes.”
`
`CommScope’s Proposed
`Construction
`“This requires