Defendant
11 cases as defendant.
I'll research PPC Broadband before writing the profile.
Let me get the litigation context.
PPC Broadband, Inc. ("PPC") — East Syracuse, New York — is a manufacturer of broadband connectivity hardware and a wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), which acquired it in December 2012 for roughly $515.7 million. The business was founded in the early 1940s (the company cites 1942; third-party databases say 1940–1944) and was formerly named John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. before adopting the PPC Broadband name at the time of the Belden deal. Headcount is commonly reported around 414–500 employees; revenue is not disclosed separately by Belden, and third-party estimates in the $500M–$1B range are unsourced and should be treated as unverified.
PPC designs and manufactures end-to-end fiber and copper connectivity for broadband and wireless operators, from the headend/central office to the premises. Product lines include coaxial drop and hardline connectors, F-connectors and adapters (NexBand™, Snap-N-Seal®, EX®), traps and filters, RF amplifiers and splitters, fiber-to-the-x/PON connectivity (QuikPush® assemblies, Miniflex® cable, Sapphire™ closures, FutureLink® terminals), category twisted-pair copper, outside-plant enclosures and house boxes, and installation tooling. It operates manufacturing and design sites in the U.S., Mexico, Europe, India, and Asia. The company states it holds more connector-technology patents than any competitor; third-party databases count well over a thousand patent documents in its name.
Its tracked litigation posture is that of an operating company in two-way, competitor-on-competitor disputes — not an NPE. PPC appears twice as plaintiff and once as defendant, all against Amphenol Corp., with no cases in the Eastern District of Texas. PPC sued Amphenol (with Times Fiber Communications) in the District of Delaware in 2021, asserting coaxial-connector patents; Amphenol countered with four PTAB inter partes reviews (IPR2022-00718 through -00721), naming Times Fiber and Holland Electronics as real parties in interest.
PPC appealed the PTAB's adverse final written decisions to the Federal Circuit in April 2024 (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776 to -1779). The panel affirmed on March 4, 2026 in a nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment, leaving the patentability holdings against PPC's connector claims intact. PPC also asserted fiber-enclosure patents against Amphenol and Charles Industries in Delaware. Sources: ppc-online.com; Belden press releases/investor site; PitchBook; Law360; Federal Circuit opinion 24-1776.
Amphenol filed an IPR against PPC Broadband challenging U.S. 10,038,284. The PTAB held claims 29–33, 36–43, and 46 unpatentable as obvious in a final written decision; rehearing was denied and the Federal Circuit later affirmed.
Amphenol Corp. filed an inter partes review challenging U.S. 10,446,983 B2. The PTAB instituted review and issued a final written decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable; PPC's rehearing request was denied.
Amphenol Corp. petitioned for inter partes review of the '063 patent. The PTAB instituted review and in its Final Written Decision held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious; rehearing was denied and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
Times Fiber Communications sued PPC Broadband in Delaware, asserting five related cable-reel/cable-bag patents including U.S. Patent No. 11,001,471, and accusing PPC's coaxial cable and coaxial cable bags with reusable reels. The case was closed on December 20, 2023.
Corning filed an inter partes review petition on U.S. Patent 8,366,481, claims 1, 3-7, and 14-16. The proceeding was terminated by settlement before institution in January 2017.
Corning Optical Communications RF petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-6 of the '353 patent. The Board instituted review, and after PPC filed a Request for Adverse Judgment, the Board granted it on April 15, 2014, cancelling claims 1-6.
Corning Optical Communications RF petitioned for inter partes review of claims 7-27 of the '353 patent. The Board's November 21, 2014 Final Written Decision held claims 7-27 unpatentable; the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in part, and on November 16, 2016 the Board again held the claims unpatentable.
Corning challenged claims 1–9 of US 8,323,060 in an inter partes review. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate on September 25, 2018, which was granted and was not a final written decision.
Corning challenged claims 10–25 of US 8,323,060. The Board initially held claims 10–25 unpatentable, but after Federal Circuit vacatur and remand on the 'reside around' construction, the Board held Corning had not shown those claims unpatentable.
Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320 against PPC Broadband, Inc. The proceeding concerned claims 1-32 of the '320 patent and is recorded as a settlement.
PerfectVision filed a declaratory-judgment action against PPC Broadband. The original complaint named six PPC patents, and PerfectVision later moved to add several newly issued PPC patents including the '353 patent; leave to amend was granted June 10, 2013. The August 29, 2014 Markman opinion identified a different set of six patents then at issue, indicating the '353 count may have dropped out, but the specific disposition order was not retrieved.