Litigation

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v. Belden Canada ULC

terminated - adverse judgment

IPR2024-01227

Filed
2024-07-26
Terminated
2025-09-08

Patents at issue (1)

11435542

Defendants (1)

Summary

CommScope entities filed an inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542. The Board instituted review on Feb. 27, 2025, and terminated the proceeding with adverse judgment against Belden on Sept. 8, 2025; a statutory disclaimer of claims 1-5 and 8-13 followed, and the IPR certificate issued Dec. 15, 2025.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case and its parallel proceedings to build a grounded overview.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the IPR outcome, the parallel IPRs, and the district court case posture.

Now let me verify the district court posture, the parallel counter-suit, and the market context.

Case Overview

This is an IPR, not a district-court case — and the caption runs "backwards." The proceeding at IPR2024-01227 is an inter partes review in which CommScope Technologies LLC (with CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina and CommScope, Inc. as real parties-in-interest) is the petitioner and Belden Canada ULC (with parent Belden Inc.) is the patent owner. The underlying infringement litigation is the mirror image: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.), where Belden is plaintiff. Both sides are operating companies, not NPEs — Belden is a major structured-cabling and connectivity manufacturer, and CommScope is a direct competitor in enterprise/data-center fiber connectivity. This is a two-front, operating-company trade dispute: Belden sued CommScope on its modular-cassette family, and CommScope counter-sued on April 1, 2024 in a separate action (No. 1:24-cv-00411) asserting its TurnOpt™ fiber distribution hub and splitter patents (e.g., the '675, RE44,758, '620, '805 and '259 patents) against Belden (CommScope complaint). Counsel in the IPR: Philip P. Caspers and Samuel A. Hamer (Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist) for CommScope; Denis J. Sullivan (Barclay Damon) and Cory C. Bell (Finnegan) for Belden. In Delaware, Belden is represented by Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor and Barclay Damon; CommScope by Richards, Layton & Finger and Carlson Caspers.

Accused technology and patents. Belden's Delaware complaint targets CommScope's Propel™ modular fiber connectivity system — the PPL-1U/PPL-2U/PPL-4U high-density panels and the Propel MPO fiber modules, adapter packs (e.g., PPL-AP-24-LC-SM, PPL-AP-16-LC-OM4/OM5, PPL-AP-4/6/8/12-MPO16) and splice cassettes that slide into a panel blade in any available position and click into place (see Belden's claim charts, reproduced as Ex. 1012 in the IPRs). The asserted family shares a common specification and a single priority chain to U.S. Provisional 62/567,339 (filed Oct. 3, 2017; inventor Vincent Pilon): U.S. 10,795,107 ('107) — a modular cassette system with a case, a slidable tray, cassettes of widths of one/two/three/four/six "standard width units," and a fastener, where adjacent cassettes touch; U.S. 11,435,542 ('542, issued Sept. 6, 2022, Appl. 17/010,113) — the same system claim refined to widths "as measured between outer side edges" and requiring an outer side edge of each cassette to be "directly adjacent" another, i.e., the '107's system claim with tighter adjacency language; U.S. 11,656,422 ('422) — a method of organizing a tray by selecting cassettes whose widths are integer multiples of a standard width unit and arranging them side-by-side; and U.S. 11,740,423 ('423) — a tray claim keyed to a "standard U-space width dimension" (stipulated to mean a width defined in EIA/ECA-310-E). Thirty-two claims across the four patents were asserted, with eight disputed claim terms; the pivotal one was "standard width unit," which CommScope argued meant an actual industry-standardized width (or was indefinite) and Belden argued meant "a unit of width that accommodates a single receptacle module, such as an LC Quad (SC Quad) footprint." That term appears in every asserted claim.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Belden filed in D. Del. on July 27, 2023 before Judge Richard G. Andrews; Delaware is the default venue for high-stakes competitor patent suits (speed, a deep patent bench, and familiarity with the fiber-optics sector). CommScope answered with four parallel

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this. Note upfront: the metadata describes a PTAB IPR (IPR2024-01227), not a district court case — so I'll cover the IPR in depth and look for any parallel district court litigation and other PTAB proceedings involving the '542 patent.

Good — the metadata case is a PTAB IPR inside a broader dispute. Let me dig into the IPR docket details, the parallel IPRs, and the district court case's later history.

Now let me verify the institution/termination specifics, the IPR certificates, any appeal, and the district court docket history.

Framing note before the analysis

The case metadata you supplied (IPR2024‑01227, "terminated – adverse judgment," Sept. 8, 2025) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. CommScope is the petitioner there and Belden Canada ULC the patent owner. The infringement litigation proper is the mirror-image case: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.), in which Belden is plaintiff. The two tracks are tightly coupled — the IPR is what killed the district court case, and a successor district court case on newly issued continuation patents is now the live dispute.

Also flagged up front: this case never reached Markman, summary judgment, trial, or a final written decision. Everything of substance was resolved by procedural maneuver at the PTAB. I note below where a fact is unsourced.

I. Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA)

Date Event Source
2023-07-27 Belden Canada ULC files complaint for patent infringement against CommScope, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope Technologies LLC, D. Del., assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews PatSnap litigation record; complaint analysis at Ex Parte
2023 CommScope answer and counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement) Date not verified — an answer was necessarily filed before the June 2024 claim-construction exchange, and CommScope served Initial Invalidity Contentions (cited at p. 69 in Belden's later briefing), but I could not open a PACER entry confirming the filing date

Four patents asserted, 32 claims total: U.S. 10,795,107 ('107); 11,435,542 ('542); 11,656,422 ('422); 11,740,423 ('423). All are members of the same Belden Canada family (priority to provisional 62/567,339, filed 2017‑10‑03; inventor Vincent Pilon), directed to modular fiber-optic cassettes of varying widths that are integer multiples of a "standard width unit" on a common slidable tray.

Accused products: CommScope's Propel™ system — PPL‑1U/2U/4U high-density panels and PPL‑AP / PPL‑DM fiber modules and adapters (LC and MPO‑16, OM4/OM5/single-mode variants). This is the commercially significant part of the case; the '542 is one of four patents reading on the same product line.

Counsel of record (D. Del.):

  • Belden: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor (Pilar G. Kraman, Robert M. Vrana, Jennifer P. Siew) and Barclay Damon (Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook, Naresh K. Kannan, Genevieve M. Halpenny).
  • CommScope: Richards, Layton & Finger (Kelly E. Farnan, Sara M. Metzler) and Carlson Caspers (Philip P. Caspers, Samuel A. Hamer, Dennis C. Bremer, William Bullard, Timothy A. Lindquist).

At the PTAB: Petitioner counsel Philip P. Caspers et al. (Carlson Caspers); Patent Owner counsel Denis J. Sullivan et al. ([IP Verse docket](https://ip

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this. Note one important wrinkle up front: IPR2024-01227 is a PTAB proceeding, not a district court infringement suit, so "counsel of record" means the attorneys listed on the Board's papers (petitioner's counsel), not a PACER civil docket. Let me verify the party alignment and pull the counsel listings.

Party alignment is the reverse of a typical infringement posture here: CommScope is the petitioner in IPR2024-01227 and Belden is the patent owner. Let me pull the actual PTAB papers to confirm counsel of record for CommScope.

Now let me confirm the lead/back-up counsel designation inside the '227 petition itself and gather firm/attorney background.

Threshold clarification: who is "plaintiff" here

Before naming anyone, one correction that matters for the research trail. The case metadata lists CommScope as plaintiff/defendant per the PTAB caption, but IPR2024-01227 is not an infringement action — it is an instituted IPR in which CommScope Technologies LLC is the petitioner challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542, and Belden Canada ULC is the patent owner. The underlying infringement suit runs the other direction: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del., filed July 27, 2023), where Belden is plaintiff and the three CommScope entities are defendants. That case was stayed Sept. 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) and administratively closed.

So "counsel of record for the plaintiff(s)" = CommScope's PTAB counsel, listed below, plus (separately flagged) its Delaware litigation counsel.

Counsel of record for CommScope in IPR2024-01227

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Philip P. Caspers (Reg. No. 33,227) Lead counsel Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, P.A. — Capella Tower, Suite 4200, 225 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Founding member of Carlson Caspers; CommScope's long-time PTAB lead. Led the CommScope v. Dali Wireless campaign (5 patents enforced, 8 Dali patents defeated across D. Del., N.D. Tex., Fed. Cir., and the PTAB), for which Minnesota Lawyer named him and his team "Attorneys of the Year" in 2022.
Samuel A. Hamer (Reg. No. 46,754) Back-up counsel Carlson Caspers — same Minneapolis office (direct 612.436.9615) Member of the same CommScope/Dali team recognized in 2022; handled the July–August 2025 meet-and-confer correspondence with Belden's counsel that led to termination.

Both are listed under "FOR PETITIONER" on the Board's Panel Change Order of May 30, 2025 (Paper substituting Judge Jameson Lee for Judge Josiah C. Cocks; panel of Lee, Kaiser, and McGraw), which covers IPR2024-01227 and its companion IPR2024-01228. They are also the copied recipients on the attorney-correspondence exhibits (Ex. 3001/3002, Aug. 4, 2025) and remained counsel of record through the adverse judgment of Sept. 8, 2025.

Who is not of record in the IPR

  • Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Wilmington, Del.) — Kelly E. Farnan and Sara M. Metzler served as Delaware counsel for the CommScope defendants in the stayed district court case (they signed the Joint Claim Construction Chart, June 21, 2024, C.A. No. 23-810-RGA). They do not appear on the PTAB papers; the Board does not use local counsel. Do not describe them as IPR counsel.
  • In-house counsel — no CommScope in-house attorney appears in the PTAB filings I reviewed. CommScope's powers of attorney in its other IPRs are executed by a company officer authorizing outside counsel; I found no PTAB appearance by in-house personnel in -01227.
  • No pro hac vice counsel appears in the -01227 docket listing (contrast older CommScope IPRs such as IPR2018-00571, where William F. Bullard was admitted pro hac vice). On the record I could access, only the two registered Carlson Caspers practitioners were designated.

For context — opposing counsel (Belden, patent owner)

Not asked, but useful for the adverse-judgment story: Denis J. Sullivan and Thomas Hoehner (Barclay Damon LLP) with Cory C. Bell (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP), per the same Panel Change Order. Belden filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–5 and 8–13 and moved to withdraw its non-contingent motion to amend; CommScope opposed any termination other than adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2), and the Board entered adverse judgment on Sept. 8, 2025.

Sourcing caveats — please read

  • High confidence: the names, firms, office address, and lead/back-up alignment. These come from the Board's own Panel Change Order (May 30, 2025) and the Board exhibits of July 2025 attorney correspondence, both hosted at ptacts.uspto.gov.
  • Medium confidence: the registration numbers (33,227 and 46,754). I verified these from Carlson Caspers' powers of attorney for CommScope in other PTAB matters (e.g., IPR2022-01345; IPR2018-00571) and could not open the -01227 § 42.10(b) power of attorney itself before exhausting my search budget. They are almost certainly the same, but treat as inferred rather than confirmed for this docket.
  • Do not rely on: the PatSnap/Eureka "counsel of record" tables, which list nine CommScope-side names (Caspers, Norgard, Winkels, Bremer, Trichi, Lindquist, Chen, Farnan, Metzler) and conflate D. Del. appearances with firm affiliations. That data is a third-party scrape of the C.A. No. 23-810 docket and is not PTAB counsel-of-record data.
  • I did not find any sealed or restricted filing affecting counsel identity in -01227; the docket appears fully public, and no attorney appearance is missing.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and PTAB filings for this matter.

Let me check the later filings (July 2025 updated notices, termination papers) to confirm no counsel changes, and verify the attorneys' backgrounds.

Let me verify the final counsel listing in the July 2025 updated notices and check the attorneys' profiles.

Threshold point on posture

The case number in the metadata — IPR2024-01227 — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district‑court infringement action. CommScope Technologies LLC is the petitioner (functionally the plaintiff), and Belden Canada ULC is the patent owner/respondent (functionally the defendant in this dataset). There is no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense, and no PACER docket sheet exists for this proceeding; the operative record is the PTAB docket on P‑TACTS and the Board's papers. The related infringement litigation is Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del.), which was stayed pending the four related IPRs (IPR2024‑01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382). Counsel identified below are those of record for Belden in IPR2024‑01227.

Counsel of record for Belden Canada ULC (Patent Owner) in IPR2024‑01227

Designations are taken from Belden's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (Paper filed Aug. 16, 2024, with power of attorney; same designations repeated in the Sept. 20, 2024 notices in the sibling IPR2024‑01382 and carried forward in Belden's Updated Mandatory Notices of July 22, 2025). They are confirmed in the Board's May 30, 2025 Panel Change Order, which lists the parties' service counsel.

Attorney Role Firm / office Reg. No. Note
Denis J. Sullivan Lead counsel Barclay Damon LLP, Barclay Damon Tower, 125 E. Jefferson St., Syracuse, NY 13202 47,980 Heads Barclay Damon's IP practice group; former licensed professional electrical engineer (Manhattan College B.S.E.E., 1st in class) and former Kirkland & Ellis IP litigation associate; his firm bio states he has served as lead counsel in over 30 IPRs and in Federal Circuit appeals of IPR decisions, plus an ITC coaxial‑connector case in which exclusion orders issued — i.e., the same connector/network‑hardware sector as this dispute.
Thomas ("Tom") Hoehner Back‑up counsel Barclay Damon LLP, Syracuse, NY (firm bio also lists an Albany, NY address; admitted in NY and MA) 73,474 Cornell B.S.E.E.; former software engineer/consultant (Accenture, Keane) and ex‑Proskauer Rose (Boston) associate; PTAB and district court patent litigator in networking/communications, semiconductors, medical devices. He handled the July 25, 2024 deposition of Kenneth Cornelison in the related CommScope–Belden matter, so he was active in the day‑to‑day discovery rather than nominal only.
Cory C. Bell Back‑up counsel Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 2 Seaport Lane, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02210‑2001 75,096 Finnegan is Belden's PTAB co‑counsel across the four related IPRs; Bell signed Belden's exhibit lists and service papers in the companion IPR2024‑01382 and appears in the July 2025 Board correspondence as Belden's co-counsel. Caveat: I could not retrieve and verify Finnegan's own bio page for Bell before research ended, so I am not characterizing his prior case list — only his role here.

Practical notes:

  • No local counsel / no in-house counsel of record. PTAB practice does not require a local‑counsel admission, and no Belden in‑house attorney appears in the § 42.8(b)(3) designation or on the Board's service lists. The real parties‑in‑interest are Belden Canada ULC and its parent, Belden Inc., but neither entity's legal department entered an appearance.
  • No sealed or missing appearances. The counsel designation is public and was served on petitioner's counsel (Philip P. Caspers and Samuel A. Hamer, Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, PA).
  • Continuity through termination. Sullivan and Bell were both still corresponding with the Board in late July 2025 (e‑mails of July 24 and July 30, 2025 regarding Belden's request to withdraw its motions to amend and terminate), immediately before the Board entered adverse judgment on Sept. 8, 2025 following Belden's statutory disclaimer of claims 1‑5 and 8‑13 (disclaimer filed Aug. 7, 2025). I did not read the text of the July 22, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notices themselves, so I cannot rule out a purely ministerial change (e.g., an added back‑up counsel or updated address); the Board's May 30, 2025 order and the July 2025 correspondence show no change in the three named attorneys.

Cross‑reference: counsel in the actual infringement suits (different roster)

Because the request refers to an "infringement case," note that Belden's district‑court team is not identical to its PTAB team:

  • In Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del.) — where Belden is plaintiff — the appearances of record include Douglas J. Nash (Barclay Damon, Syracuse), John D. Cook, Naresh K. Kannan, and Genevieve M. Halpenny, with Delaware filings made by Robert Vrana as local counsel (D.I. 11, 12, entered Aug. 31, 2023). Nash and Sullivan are Barclay Damon colleagues and have appeared together on PTAB papers; Kannan's firm affiliation is not confirmed in the sources I retrieved, so I am not attributing him to a firm here.
  • In the mirror‑image suits CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc., Opterna AM, Inc. and PPC Broadband, Inc., Nos. 1:24‑cv‑00411, ‑00427, ‑00440‑RGA (D. Del.), Belden is the defendant; I did not retrieve the appearance docket for those cases, so I am not naming defense counsel there rather than guess.

Sources

Unsourced/flagged items: Bell's individual case history; the firm affiliations of John D. Cook, Naresh K. Kannan and Genevieve M. Halpenny; Robert Vrana's firm; and the precise text of the July 22, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notices.