Untitled case

The patent infringement lawsuit 1:22-cv-00783, filed in the District of Delaware, involves plaintiff Belden Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Belden Inc., a global leader in signal transmission solutions and structured cabling systems, and defendant CommScope, Inc., a major network infrastructure company that provides Category 6A cabling solutions. Belden Technologies, Inc. is an operating company with a substantial intellectual property portfolio, while CommScope is also an operating company in the same industry. The litigation centers on allegations that CommScope's Category 6A cable products, specifically models such as 2091SD, 2091SDB, 1071E, 2071E, and 2088B, infringe U.S. Patent 9,991,030. While the specific technical sketch for the '030 patent was not immediately detailed in the search results, it is asserted in the context of Category 6A cabling.

The case is currently in the District of Delaware, a venue frequently chosen for patent litigation, particularly after the TC Heartland decision, due to its experienced patent bench and efficient case management, which can lead to tight deadlines for contentions and expert disclosures. U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews is presiding over related cases and it's likely he is involved in this one as well given the administrative closure for IPR. The procedural posture is significant as the case was administratively closed on March 4, 2024, pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO. This means the underlying infringement claims remain active and the case may be reopened once the IPRs are resolved.

This case is notable due to the IPR linkage, a common strategy in patent litigation where accused infringers challenge patent validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parallel with district court proceedings. The administrative closure signals the court's preference to await the PTAB's validity determination, which can significantly impact the district court litigation. Such cases highlight the interplay between district court and PTAB proceedings in shaping patent dispute outcomes, particularly within the competitive structured cabling industry. This type of litigation also underscores the importance of strong IP portfolios and defensive strategies like IPRs for major players in the technology sector.

Belden Technologies, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc. (1:22-cv-00783-RGA) is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the District of Delaware. The case involves four U.S. patents related to Category 6A cable technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,998,537 B2; 6,570,095 B2; 10,832,833 B2; and 9,991,030 B2.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-2023):

• Complaint Filed: Belden Inc. filed the patent infringement complaint against CommScope, Inc. on June 13, 2022. The complaint alleged infringement of the aforementioned patents by CommScope's Category 6A cable products.
• Scheduling Order & Discovery Milestones: On May 26, 2023, the court issued a scheduling order outlining discovery deadlines. This included:
  • Plaintiff (Belden) to produce initial infringement contentions by September 27, 2023.
  • Defendants (CommScope) to produce initial invalidity contentions by October 27, 2023, along with related invalidating references.
  • Document production was to be substantially complete by June 7, 2024.
  • The order also indicated that CommScope expected to file IPRs against each asserted patent in June 2023.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2024):

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: On March 1, 2024, the District Court for the District of Delaware granted a motion to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO.
• Administrative Closure: Subsequently, on March 4, 2024, the case was administratively closed. This closure is a procedural step that pauses the district court litigation while the IPRs are being resolved, but the underlying infringement claims remain active and the case can be reopened.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2023-Present):

• CommScope Technologies LLC, the defendant, filed petitions for inter partes review challenging the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Specifically, IPR2023-01009 and IPR2023-01010 were filed by CommScope Technologies LLC against US Patent 9991030 and other patents in the case.
• The PTAB instituted review for some of the challenged claims, including those in U.S. Patent 11,656,422 B2, which is related to the current litigation (though the '422 patent itself is not listed as one of the patents at issue in the initial case overview, it is referenced in a PTAB document related to CommScope v. Belden Canada ULC).
• The outcome of these IPRs will significantly impact the district court litigation, as a finding of invalidity by the PTAB could lead to the cancellation of the patent claims. The case remains administratively closed pending the resolution of these IPR proceedings.

Present Posture:
The litigation is currently ongoing but stayed and administratively closed in the District of Delaware, awaiting the outcomes of the inter partes review proceedings at the USPTO. No final judgment, settlement, or appeal has been reached in the district court case.

The plaintiff, Belden Technologies, Inc., is represented by the following counsel in this patent infringement case:

Lead Counsel:

• Thomas Hoehner (Attorney)
  • Firm: Barclay Damon LLP
  • Location: Not specified in search results for this case.
  • Experience: Mr. Hoehner is listed as counsel for Belden Technologies, Inc. in related Federal Circuit appeals and IPR proceedings. His firm, Barclay Damon LLP, is also identified as representing Belden Technologies, Inc..

Local Counsel (Delaware):

• John G. Day (Director)
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (formerly Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.)
  • Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Day focuses on providing Delaware litigation counsel services for intellectual property firms in patent and trademark disputes before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He has experience in a broad variety of technologies, including telecommunications, and has served as Delaware counsel in numerous major patent cases. He is recognized as a leading Delaware litigator.
• Ryan P. Newell (Litigator, Mediator & Arbitrator)
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
  • Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Newell has extensive experience in corporate and commercial lawsuits before various Delaware courts, including the District of Delaware, and has represented parties as Delaware counsel in intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware. He is regularly recognized as a leading Delaware litigator.

It is important to note that while some search results indicate an "Andrew H. Lee" as counsel, further investigation reveals multiple individuals with this name and varying practice areas, including tax law and workers' compensation, with no clear connection to patent litigation in the District of Delaware for Belden Technologies, Inc.. Therefore, Andrew H. Lee is not listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record using the docket and related sources.

Good leads. Let me verify the Delaware local counsel and the full defendant-side roster.

Key finding: a 2026 claim construction opinion suggests the case has been revived. Let me pull the docket and the opinion.

Counsel of record for the defendant(s)

Important threshold correction / flag. Before listing counsel, two things in the search record contradict the previously generated sections and the case metadata:

1. The case does not appear to still be stayed. The District of Delaware's own opinion page lists a Belden Inc. v. CommScope LLC et al, No. 22‑783 (D. Del.), opinion by Judge Richard G. Andrews dated 04/22/2026 (ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/belden-inc-v-commscope-llc-et-al), and a claim construction opinion captioned Belden Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies LLC is available on CourtListener (opinion 10846930, courtlistener.com/opinion/10846930). A merits claim construction ruling in April 2026 is inconsistent with the "administratively closed / stayed pending IPR" posture described earlier. The stay appears to have been lifted and the case reopened. Please reconcile before relying on the earlier "present posture" text.
2. The defendant is a three-entity group, not one company: CommScope, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; and CommScope Technologies LLC (per the CourtListener caption above). The IPR petitioner is CommScope Technologies LLC.

Delaware counsel of record (local counsel)

Lead / trial counsel (off-counsel, pro hac vice)

The substantive patent work for CommScope in this case is handled by Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A. (Capella Tower, Suite 4200, 225 South Sixth St., Minneapolis, MN 55402). This is established by sworn declarations filed in the parallel IPRs, in which Carlson Caspers attorneys state under oath that the firm represents the petitioner/defendant in Civil Action No. 1:22‑cv‑00783‑RGA (D. Del.):

• William F. Bullard (Carlson Caspers, Minneapolis) — declared: "I represented CommScope … in Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00783 (RGA) … in which Patent Owner alleged that Petitioner infringed the '030 patent." (IPR2023-01056, Paper — Bullard pro hac vice declaration).
• Peter M. Kohlhepp (Carlson Caspers, Minneapolis) — declared that "My law firm, Carlson Caspers, represents Petitioner in a patent infringement lawsuit that is pending in the … District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00783 (RGA), filed June 13, 2022)" (IPR2023‑01061, Ex. 1060, docketalarm.com).

Additional Carlson Caspers attorneys identified in the litigation record as CommScope counsel for the Belden/CommScope Delaware matters:

In-house counsel

Not identified. No corporate/in-house CommScope attorney appeared by name in any source I could access for 22‑783. I will not speculate as to names; CommScope's in-house patent litigation team appears to run the matter through outside counsel (Carlson Caspers) rather than appearing itself.

Firm attribution note (data-quality caveat)

Aggregator records (PatSnap) collapse the Delaware and Minnesota firms into a single undifferentiated "defendant counsel" list for this case — e.g., listing Bremer, Caspers, Lindquist, Norgard, Metzler, Trichi and Johnson together, with "Richards Layton & Finger PA" given as the firm. That attribution is wrong as to the Carlson Caspers attorneys (Caspers, Lindquist, Bremer, Norgard, Bullard, Kohlhepp are all Carlson Caspers, Minneapolis). Treat aggregator "firm" fields for this case with caution.

Unresolved / lower-confidence items

• Saukshmya Trichi — listed by PatSnap as counsel for CommScope, Inc. in the 22‑782 family, but I could not confirm her firm or her appearance in 22‑783. Not verified; do not treat as counsel of record.
• Christopher R. Johnson — same caveat as above (RLI attribution rests on aggregator data only).
• Whether Carlson Caspers' pro hac vice admissions in 22‑783 remain current after the case was reopened (post-April 2026) is unverified; the district court docket (PACER) would need to be checked for renewed appearances and any substitution of counsel.
• I was unable to pull the full PACER docket sheet for 1:22‑cv‑00783 (a docketalarm/PACER docket report for this specific case was not retrieved), so the above reflects IPR filings, the April 2026 opinion caption, court website data, and aggregator records rather than a current docket-sheet attorney listing.

Cross-reference flag on the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section

The earlier section lists John G. Day (Ashby & Geddes) and Ryan P. Newell (Young Conaway) as Belden's counsel. Those names were not corroborated by any primary source I saw; the primary sources instead show Belden's side staffed by Barclay Damon LLP (Denis J. Sullivan, Thomas Hoehner, Pranav Katti) with Finnegan Henderson (Cory C. Bell) in the IPRs. Note that Richards, Layton & Finger — the firm I've identified as defendant counsel here — is also the Delaware firm for CommScope, and Young Conaway/Procopio appear on the plaintiff side in the separate Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope action (1:23‑cv‑00810). There is a real risk of cross-contamination between the 22‑782/22‑783/23‑810 dockets in third-party databases; the plaintiff-side roster should be re-verified against PACER.