Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the IPR proceedings and related litigation.

I have strong material. Let me verify the IPR outcomes and the latest status changes.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and their business. This is a straight competitor‑versus‑competitor dispute, not an NPE/PAE or university assertion. Plaintiff Belden Canada ULC is a Canadian subsidiary and real party in interest alongside its Delaware‑incorporated parent Belden Inc. (the Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Belden Inc. as corporate parent, D.I. 4; the '423 IPR mandatory notice names "Belden Canada ULC and its parent company, Belden Inc." as RPIs). Belden is an operating company — a global manufacturer of network, connectivity and cable infrastructure, and one of the largest structured‑cabling vendors in North America alongside CommScope, Corning, Panduit and Legrand. The defendants — CommScope, Inc., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies LLC — are operating entities under CommScope Holding Company, Inc. (Hickory, NC), a direct Belden competitor in fiber and copper connectivity for enterprise and data‑center networks. Consistent with that, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies both the asserter here (Belden) and CommScope as category‑8 "product companies," and the campaign runs in both directions: Belden Canada sued CommScope in D. Del. on the Reede connector patent, Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, No. 1:22‑cv‑00782‑RGA (trial set Oct. 20, 2025; final judgment entered on a joint stipulation October 14, 2025, in CommScope's favor on Count I and CommScope's first counterclaim) and on a data‑cable patent in No. 1:22‑cv‑00783‑RGA, while CommScope Technologies LLC and CommScope, Inc. of N.C. counter‑sued Belden, Opterna AM and PPC Broadband in Nos. 1:24‑cv‑00411‑RGA and 1:24‑cv‑00427‑RGA asserting FTTX and connector patents (RE48,675; RE44,758; 7,200,317; 10,078,192; 7,277,620; 7,515,805; 7,519,259; 9,266,697).

The accused technology and the patents. Belden accuses CommScope's Propel™ modular fiber connectivity system — including Propel high‑density panels (PPL‑1U/2U/4U) and Propel fiber modules and adapters — of infringing four patents, all members of a single Belden family directed to modular fiber‑optic cassettes and trays built on a shared "standard width unit" (W) pitch, so that cassettes of integer‑multiple widths (1W, 2W, 3W, 4W, 6W) can be mixed side‑by‑side on one tray without redesign (Belden's opening Markman brief; '107 Patent at 1:15‑20). The original complaint (D.I. 1, filed July 27, 2023) asserted three patents; the amended complaint (D.I. 9, Aug. 30, 2023) added a fourth. One‑line sketches: U.S. 10,795,107 — "Modular Fiber Optic Cassette, System and Method" (apparatus: case, slidable tray, variable‑width cassette set, fastener) (app. 16/143,831); U.S. 11,435,542 — same title, a continuation of the '107 with "as measured between outer side edges" limitations (app. 17/010,113); U.S. 11,656,422 — same family, a method of organizing a tray with variable‑width cassettes (app. 17/929,

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches. Let me start with several parallel queries.

I have a good start, but I'm detecting multiple related litigations (22-782, 23-810, 25-870) and four IPRs. Let me disambiguate and dig deeper.

I'll research the counsel of record for Belden Canada ULC in this case.

I found the core team. Let me dig deeper into the local counsel and any later appearances.

Let me verify the exact 23-810 signature blocks and check for additional or later-appearing counsel.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Belden Canada ULC

Important framing note: Belden Canada ULC is represented by a two-firm team — Barclay Damon LLP (substantive/patent prosecution-side counsel, admitted pro hac vice) and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Delaware local counsel). I could not query PACER directly; the appearance list below is reconstructed from (a) the D. Del. docket entries surfaced via Justia/UniCourt, (b) signed filings from C.A. No. 23-810 that were later submitted as exhibits in the co-pending IPRs, and (c) the 2024 signature blocks in the 23-810 joint claim construction papers. The Justia docket snapshot stops at 8/31/2023, but the same roster appears on 2024-dated 23-810 papers, so continuity is well supported.

---

Lead / substantive counsel (pro hac vice)

Delaware counsel (Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE)

Additional attorney appearing on Belden's 23-810 signature blocks

---

Two caveats you should know about

1. PTAB counsel ≠ district court counsel. In the four parallel IPRs (IPR2024-01218/-01227/-01228/-01382), Belden Canada ULC's lead PTAB counsel is Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980, Barclay Damon, Syracuse), with Thomas Hoehner (Reg. No. 73,474, Barclay Damon, Syracuse) and Cory C. Bell (Reg. No. 75,096, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Boston) as back-up — per Belden's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices filed Aug./Sept. 2024. I found no evidence these three entered an appearance in C.A. No. 23-810; the district court signature blocks name Nash, Cook, Halpenny, Kannan and Batchu instead. Do not conflate the two rosters. (Sullivan also leads Belden's PTAB team in IPR2023-01061/-01062 involving Belden Inc., where Pranav Katti, Barclay Damon, Syracuse, appeared as back-up.)

2. Adjacent Belden–CommScope case (22-782) has a slightly broader roster. Judge Andrews' Oct. 10, 2025 opinion caption in C.A. No. 22-782 (the Reede patent case, tried in October 2025) lists for Plaintiff: Pilar G. Kraman, Robert M. Vrana, Alexis N. Stombaugh, Jennifer P. Siew, YCST, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook, Barclay Damon LLP, Syracuse, NY; Naresh K. Kannan, Barclay Damon LLP, Albany, NY; Michael A. Dorfman, Barclay Damon LLP, Washington, D.C. I confirmed Alexis N. Stombaugh and Michael A. Dorfman only in the 22-782 caption; I did not verify their appearance in 23-810.

---

What I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel of record identified for Belden Canada ULC in 23-810. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Belden Inc. as corporate parent, and the IPR mandatory notices name Belden Canada ULC and Belden Inc. as real parties-in-interest.
• No sealed filings or sealed appearances turned up; the case was stayed on Sept. 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) pending the four IPRs and administratively closed, so no post-stay appearances are expected.
• I found no withdrawal of any of the counsel above. Because the docket snapshot I could retrieve (Justia, last retrieved 8/31/2023) predates the stay, a final PACER/CM-ECF run should be done to confirm no substitutions occurred between August 2023 and September 2024.

Sources: D. Del. C.A. No. 23-810 D.I. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (appearances); 23-810 Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dated June 21, 2024) and joint claim construction brief (Dated July 19, 2024), both reproduced as exhibits in the CommScope IPRs; PTAB Mandatory Notices in IPR2024-

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for the CommScope entities in C.A. No. 23-810.

I've found the core defense team. Let me verify the appearances, pro hac vice admissions, and compare with the parallel CommScope litigation.

Let me verify the 23-810 docket entries for appearances and check for any counterclaim filings or additional counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants CommScope, Inc., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies LLC

Framing note / sourcing caveat. I could not query PACER directly, and the publicly mirrored docket snapshots (Justia, UniCourt) stop at 8/31/2023 — before the substantive briefing. The roster below is therefore reconstructed from (a) the early docket entries that name defense filers, (b) the signature blocks and certificates of service on CommScope's August 23, 2024 Answering Claim Construction Brief in C.A. No. 23-810 (a primary-source document, reproduced as a PTAB exhibit), and (c) third-party docket aggregators (PatSnap, UniCourt, PACER Monitor). The defense structure is a standard two-tier D. Del. arrangement: Richards, Layton & Finger (Delaware counsel of record) + Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist (Minneapolis; "of counsel"/pro hac vice). While it is unusual, note that CommScope's brief lists the Carlson Caspers team under an "OF COUNSEL:" heading on the cover page while the final signature block designates both firms as "Attorneys for Defendants."

---

Tier 1 — Delaware counsel of record (Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.)

Address for both: One Rodney Square, 920 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 651‑7700.

No other RLF attorney (e.g., Jeffrey L. Moyer or Frederick L. Cottrell III, who co-appear with Farnan/Metzler in RLF's other patent cases) is listed on the 23-810 signature blocks. Farnan and Metzler are the only two names UniCourt lists as "Defendant Attorneys," and PACER Monitor lists the same pair.

---

Tier 2 — Substantive / lead patent counsel, "of counsel" (Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A.)

Address for all: 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200 (Capella Tower), Minneapolis, MN 55402, (612) 436‑9600. This is CommScope's long-standing national patent litigation firm — the same firm that has represented CommScope Technologies LLC as petitioner in its IPR campaigns (IPR2022‑01242, IPR2023‑01056, IPR2023‑01061/‑01062) — and it has appeared for CommScope in D. Del. before Judge Andrews (CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, 1:20-cv-01053-RGA).

Representative caption, verbatim from the Aug. 23, 2024 brief in 23-810:

Kelly E. Farnan (#4395) / Sara M. Metzler (#6509), RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. … /s/ William F. Bullard — Philip P. Caspers, Timothy A. Lindquist, Dennis C. Bremer, Tara C. Norgard, Joseph W. Winkels, William F. Bullard, Saukshmya Trichi, Katherine Q. Chen, CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A., 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200, Minneapolis, MN 55402 … Attorneys for Defendants, CommScope, Inc., CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies LLC.

---

Unverified / adjacent names — flagged, not adopted

• Christopher R. Johnson appears on PatSnap's role table for this dispute as "Counsel for Commscope, Inc." I could not corroborate him on any 23-810 signature block, docket appearance, or PTAB notice, and he does not appear in the RLF/Carlson Caspers rosters. Treat as unverified; he may belong to a different CommScope matter in the campaign. Do not list him as counsel of record without a PACER check.
• No in-house counsel of record identified. CommScope's Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 14) was filed by outside counsel (Metzler); nothing in the retrieved record shows a CommScope legal-department attorney entering an appearance in 23-810.
• No sealed appearances or substitutions found. Because the case was stayed on Sept. 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) and administratively closed, no post-stay appearances are expected — but the retrievable docket snapshots predate the stay, so a final CM/ECF run is advisable to confirm no withdrawal or substitution between mid-2023 and the stay.

PTAB counsel ≠ district court counsel (do not conflate)

The petitioner in the four parallel IPRs on the Belden Canada patents (IPR2024‑01218 / ‑01227 / ‑01228 / ‑01382) is CommScope Technologies LLC. I did not retrieve the petitioner's § 42.8 mandatory notices in those four IPRs and therefore cannot confirm the exact PTAB-side roster. Based on CommScope's consistent practice in its other IPRs (IPR2022‑01242; IPR2023‑01056; IPR2023‑01061/‑01062), the likely PTAB team is Lindquist (lead), Bremer, Bullard, Samuel A. Hamer, Peter M. Kohlhepp, and Ryan D. Rypka — all Carlson Caspers. I am listing these as probable, not confirmed; the names above marked with Reg. Nos. or PHV status are the ones I have actually sourced. Note also that Belden's PTAB team (Sullivan/Hoehner/Bell) is entirely distinct from its district court team, per the plaintiff-side section of this report.

What I could not confirm

• The D.I. number of CommScope's answer and counterclaims in 23-810. The Answer/Affirmative Defenses/Counterclaims at D.I. 22 that I located belongs to C.A. No. 22‑782 (the Reede connector case), not 23-810 — the final-judgment order quoted by third-party aggregators (entered Oct. 14, 2025 in CommScope's favor on Count I and CommScope's First Counterclaim) is a 22‑782 order. Do not attribute it to this case.
• Whether any 23-810 pro hac vice motion was filed specifically naming the Carlson Caspers attorneys; the retrieved docket does not include those entries, though their "of counsel" designation on the 2024 brief implies PHV admission.
• The Federal Circuit appeal No. 26‑1255 (Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc.