CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC

I'll research this case across the PTAB docket and any parallel district court litigation.

Now let me dig into the district court litigation, the patents, and post-IPR developments.

Case overview — and an important framing correction

IPR2024‑01382 is not itself an infringement suit. It is an inter partes review before the PTAB, and the prompt's caption captures only the PTAB alignment (CommScope as petitioner, Belden as patent owner). The actual infringement litigation runs the other way: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del.), filed July 27, 2023, in which Belden is plaintiff and CommScope, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope Technologies LLC are defendants (Justia docket). The '423 patent was added by amended complaint filed August 30, 2023 — one day after the patent issued (D.I. 9, 10).

The parties. Both sides are operating companies and direct competitors in structured cabling and fiber connectivity — there is no NPE/PAE or university in this dispute, which is worth stating plainly because the four-patent assertion-plus-immediate-IPR pattern superficially resembles PAE practice. Belden Canada ULC (Saint‑Laurent, Quebec) is the Canadian subsidiary and record owner of the patents, which name a single inventor, Vincent Pilon of Lachine, Quebec; its parent, Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), is a St. Louis-based signal-transmission and networking manufacturer and was identified as a real party in interest. CommScope Technologies LLC, a subsidiary of CommScope Holding Company, Inc. (Hickory, NC), makes fiber and copper connectivity, broadband and wireless infrastructure. CommScope's real parties in interest were identified as CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope, Inc. (Institution Decision, IPR2024‑01228, Paper 9).

The accused technology. Belden's complaint targets CommScope's Propel™ modular fiber connectivity platform — the PPL‑1U/2U/4U high-density panels and the interchangeable Propel fiber modules, splice cassettes and adapter packs (e.g., PPL‑AP‑12‑LC‑SM, PPL‑AP‑24‑LC‑SM, PPL‑AP‑16‑LC‑OM4/OM5/SM, PPL‑AP‑n‑MPO16 adapter packs, PPL‑DM‑… distribution modules) that snap into tray positions in any available space (complaint analysis and claim charts, D.I. 1‑1). The technical core of the dispute is the "standard width unit": cassettes/modules sized in integer multiples (1W, 2W, 3W, 4W, 6W) of a base footprint — an LC‑quad/SC‑duplex-based width — so that differently sized cassettes sit side-by-side on one tray within a standard EIA/ECA‑310‑E U-space. Claim construction in Delaware turned on whether "standard width unit" means an industry-standardized actual width (CommScope's reading) or a unit accommodating a single receptacle module (Belden's), with CommScope attacking Belden for contradicting its own prosecution statements (CommScope's claim construction brief).

The patents. All four are continuations of one family claiming priority to U.S. Provisional 62/567,339 (Oct. 3, 2017), and all four share substantially the same specification:

• U.S. 10,795,107 — "Modular fiber optic cassette, system and method" (issued Oct. 6, 2020; app. 16/143,831, filed Sept. 27, 2018): case + slidable tray + cassettes of differing widths in 1W/2W/3W/4W/6W multiples that touch one another when seated.
• U.S. 11,435,542 — same title (issued Sept. 6, 2022; app. 17/010,113): same system, with width "as measured between outer side edges" and a "directly adjacent edge" limitation.
• U.S. 11,656,422 — "Modular Fibre Optic Cassette, System and Method" (issued May 23, 2023; app. 17/929,566): adds method claims for organizing a tray by selecting cassettes whose widths are integer multiples of a standard width unit.
• U.S. 11,740,423 — "Tray system for providing modular cassette configurations in a fiber optic management system" (issued Aug. 29, 2023; app. 18/105,639, filed Feb. 3, 2023): claims the tray itself — a tray whose width fits a standard U-space and which is configured to fit specified cassette combinations (six 2W, four 3W, three 4W, two 6W), with each 1W unit accommodating at least four fiber optic plug receptacles (USPTO Official Gazette). Note that secondary sources sometimes title the '423 "Tray for a Modular Fiber Optic Cassette System"; the gazette title above is authoritative.

The IPR. CommScope petitioned on August 30, 2024, challenging all 30 claims on five grounds: (1) anticipation/obviousness over Fukui (U.S. 10,101,551); (2)–(4) obviousness combinations of Sauter (U.S. 9,690,064), Dagley (US 2017/0192191) and Fukui; and (5) further in view of Laarveld (U.S. 10,215,944) for claims 7, 15, 25. Belden's POPR followed on January 9, 202

I'll research this case across the PTAB docket and any parallel district court litigation.

Key finding: the IPR has a significant parallel district court case and a Federal Circuit appeal. Let me dig deeper.

Let me examine the sibling IPRs, the institution decision, and the termination sequence.

I'll search for the docket and counsel information for this IPR.

Now let me dig into the petition's counsel designations and later filings.

Let me pull the petitioner's power of attorney and check for later counsel updates in this specific IPR.

Framing note (important)

The metadata for this matter describes a PTAB proceeding, not a district-court infringement suit: IPR2024-01382, CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC, U.S. Patent 11,740,423. So the "plaintiff-side" party is Petitioner CommScope Technologies LLC — the party that initiated the challenge. The companion infringement case, Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.), had Belden as plaintiff (and was stayed Sept. 4, 2024, D.I. 63, then administratively closed). I address the IPR petitioner's counsel below and flag the district-court counsel separately so the two records aren't conflated.

Counsel of record for Petitioner CommScope Technologies LLC — IPR2024-01382

Per Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper filed Sept. 18, 2024) and the service certificates in the Patent Owner's papers, only two practitioners have appeared for CommScope in this IPR, both at one firm. There is no local counsel (not required at the PTAB).

Verification note: these designations come from CommScope's own Updated Mandatory Notices (served Sept. 18, 2024) and from Belden's certificates of service, which list only pcaspers@carlsoncaspers.com and shamer@carlsoncaspers.com as "counsel of record for the Petitioner" (e.g., Patent Owner's Exhibit List, Jan. 9, 2025). I found no later mandatory notice adding or substituting petitioner's counsel, and no withdrawal appearing before the Sept. 8, 2025 adverse judgment. Nothing on the petitioner's side appears to be sealed — the record I relied on is the public PTAB papers.

Attorney notes

Philip P. Caspers (lead). Co-founder of Carlson Caspers, a Minneapolis IP-litigation boutique repeatedly ranked in the IAM Patent 1000 (Caspers is "highly commended" and is a perennial Minnesota Super Lawyers "Top 100" honoree; Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year" for Patent Litigation in 2016 and IP Litigation in 2018). His practice is unusually PTAB-heavy — his firm bio states he has been lead counsel in over a hundred post-grant proceedings — which is consistent with his appearance as lead for CommScope across the four related IPRs (IPR2024-01218, -01227, -01228, -01382). Notable litigation: Banner Engineering Corp. v. Tri-Tronics (invalidity win plus fee award, early career); enforcement of ADC Telecommunications jack/panel patents against CommScope products (a notable reversal of roles relative to this case); CommScope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc. (N.D. Tex.; Fed. Cir.) involving the '521 and '473 patents; and a $75 million ADC result relating to wireless OFDM patent assets. Sources: https://carlsoncaspers.com/professionals/philip-p-caspers/ ; https://www.iam-media.com/rankings/patent-1000/profile/firm/carlson-caspers-vandenburgh-lindquist-pa ; https://profiles.superlawyers.com/minnesota/minneapolis/lawyer/philip-p-caspers/dd0295b4-9df6-414a-a501-cb12f1dcda09.html

Samuel A. Hamer (back-up). Carlson Caspers attorney who appears alongside Caspers in CommScope's PTAB filings across multiple proceedings (e.g., IPR2024-01382; IPR2024-00343-area filings; the '343 patent IPR filed April 2023). Firm case descriptions credit him, with Caspers and Joe Winkels, on the 3M deformable-mirror light-engine enforcement, the CSI Technology/Emerson vibration-analyzer enforcement, and the $75 million ADC Telecommunications OFDM portfolio matter. Sources: https://carlsoncaspers.com/professionals/philip-p-caspers/ (firm matter descriptions); https://docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01382/... (Sept. 20, 2024 Patent Owner Mandatory Notices certificate of service).

Context: the other side and the district-court record (not the plaintiff's PTAB counsel)

• Patent Owner Belden Canada ULC in the IPR was represented by Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. 47,980, lead) and Thomas Hoehner (Reg. 73,474) of Barclay Damon LLP, Syracuse, NY, with Cory C. Bell (Reg. 75,096) of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Boston, as back-up. Those are the defendant-side PTAB counsel — listed here only to avoid confusion with the petitioner's team.
• In the stayed Delaware suit, where Belden was plaintiff, Belden's counsel were Barclay Damon and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor (D. Nash, J. Cook, N. Kannan, R. Vrana, et al.), and CommScope's defense team included Carlson Caspers (Caspers, Hamer, Dennis C. Bremer, Joseph W. Winkels, Timothy A. Lindquist, Tara C. Norgard) plus Richards, Layton & Finger (Kelly E. Farnan, Sara M. Metzler) as Delaware counsel. Richards Layton did not appear in IPR2024-01382.

Caveats

• I could not independently pull the PTAB docket sheet through PTACTS/PACER in this session; the counsel list is sourced from the filed papers themselves (CommScope's Sept. 18, 2024 Updated Mandatory Notices and Belden's Sept. 20, 2024 Mandatory Notices and Jan. 9, 2025 Exhibit List), as mirrored at Docket Alarm and PTACTS. Cross-checks (Greyb/IPVerse, Ex Parte AI) likewise list only "Caspers, Philip et al." for Petitioner.
• No in-house CommScope attorney appears as counsel of record in this IPR; if one exists, it is not reflected in the public filings I reviewed. Say the word and I can try to confirm via the PTACTS petition download and the Power of Attorney paper.

I'll research the patent-owner/defendant-side representation in this proceeding and cross-check against the parallel Delaware litigation.

Framing: which "defendants" — and a cross-reference

There are two defendant-side alignments in this matter, and they point in opposite directions:

1. In IPR2024‑01382 itself (the proceeding in the metadata), the defending party is the Patent Owner, Belden Canada ULC. CommScope Technologies LLC is the petitioner (the "plaintiff-equivalent"), and Belden is the respondent/defendant-equivalent. That is the party whose counsel is set out in full below.
2. *In the parallel infringement suit — Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del.) — the defendants are the CommScope entities* (CommScope, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope Technologies LLC), represented by Carlson Caspers + Richards, Layton & Finger. Those names were already given in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section (where I treated CommScope as the petitioner/plaintiff side). I do not repeat that table here; I only reconcile and verify it below, since a literal reading of "defendants in this patent infringement case" lands on that group.

So: the substantive answer for the IPR's defending party is Belden's team; the literal answer for the Delaware defendants is the CommScope team, cross-referenced.

---

Counsel of record for Belden Canada ULC (Patent Owner / defending party, IPR2024‑01382)

This is the complete roster. Per Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, Paper 5 (filed Sept. 20, 2024) and the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (filed July 22, 2025), only three practitioners appear, and no in-house or local counsel is designated (Paper 5 via Docket Alarm; Updated Mandatory Notices, July 22, 2025).

Non-attorney: Lisa C. Hines (Finnegan case manager) is listed on service certificates but is not counsel of record.

Court/agency: the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (no local counsel required; none designated). No in-house Belden attorney appears as counsel of record in the public papers I reviewed.

Attorney notes

Denis J. Sullivan (lead). The single most important structural fact: Sullivan has represented Belden Inc. subsidiaries in PTAB for well over a decade, which explains why Belden used an upstate-New York boutique rather than Delaware counsel for the IPRs. He appears as lead counsel for Belden-owned PPC Broadband, Inc. in multiple IPRs (e.g., IPR2014‑00736, '646 patent; the 2022 PPC Broadband IPRs, where his back-up team included Naresh K. Kannan, Genevieve M. Halpenny and Cory Bell), and in IPRs for Baxter International, M2M Solutions and Reckitt Benckiser (PPC Broadband Mandatory Notices, Apr. 8, 2022). Background: former managing partner of the Syracuse IP boutique Marjama Muldoon Blasiak & Sullivan, which he left for Hiscock & Barclay (now Barclay Damon) in 2013; earlier an IP-litigation associate at Kirkland & Ellis in New York; before law school an electrical engineer/project manager in the Port Authority of NY & NJ aviation design division; NY Law School J.D. 2002 (first in class) and Manhattan College B.S. 1993 (first in class); NYS licensed P.E. (firm press release; Super Lawyers profile). He authored the firm's Law360 piece on strategies for avoiding IPR institution — relevant, because institution was in fact granted here on Feb. 27, 2025. In this proceeding he handled the July 2025 meet-and-confer that led to the disclaimer and adverse judgment.

Thomas Hoehner (back-up). Reg. No. 73,474, Syracuse office. His public footprint is almost entirely as Sullivan's designated back-up counsel in Barclay Damon's PTAB docket, which is exactly the role he played here (Paper 5, Sept. 20, 2024). I could not locate a detailed public technical bio for him, so I am not characterizing his engineering background or prior litigation results — that fact is not well sourced.

Cory C. Bell (back-up; Finnegan). Brought in as the post-grant specialist alongside the Barclay Damon prosecution-side team. Per his Finnegan bio: member of the firm's management and compensation committees; has represented patent owners and petitioners in over 200 PGR/IPR trials and related Federal Circuit appeals; former USPTO patent examiner; co-author of the ABA's The Practitioner's Guide to Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; created and teaches a Suffolk University Law School course on post-grant practice; Legal 500 U.S. "Next Generation Partner"; named a top‑50 PTAB attorney by Managing IP (2018); B.S. electrical engineering, Penn State (2005), J.D. George Washington (2011). Representative matters: SAP in the first CBM review (CBM2012‑00001, Fed. Cir. 14‑1194); A10 Networks v. F5 reexaminations (W.D. Wash.); Innoscience v. Infineon (ITC 337‑TA‑1414); Bell Northern (ITC 337‑TA‑1367) (Finnegan profile). Bell signed the Patent Owner's Exhibit List (Jan. 9, 2025) and the July 22, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notices, and he was the Finnegan contact in the joint Board emails with petitioner's counsel.

Note on team continuity across the four IPRs. The four related proceedings (IPR2024‑01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382) were run by the same Belden team; the July 24 and July 30, 2025 emails to the Board regarding withdrawal of the motions to amend and termination are from Sullivan's Barclay Damon address, copied to Bell at Finnegan (PTACTS correspondence). The same patent-owner team is confirmed by Greyb/IPVerse, which lists respondent counsel simply as "Sullivan, Denis et al." (IPVerse IPR2024‑01382).

---

The other alignment: defendants in the Delaware infringement action

Because the caption in the metadata is the PTAB caption, a literal reading of "defendants in this patent infringement case" points to the CommScope defendants in Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del.). Their counsel were identified in the prior section and I verified the names against the firm/docket