Litigation

Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC (f/k/a Corning Gilbert Inc.) v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

adverse judgment; claims 1-6 cancelled

IPR2013-00343

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2013-06-10
Terminated: 2014-04-15

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC (f/k/a Corning Gilbert Inc.)

Defendants (1)

Δ PPC Broadband, Inc.

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8313353-ipr2013-00343 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Pre-TC Heartland, plaintiffs sued in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. by default. Post-TC Heartland, venue is a real defense — and Delaware is where most U.S. patent cases land.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
The Patent Scam (2017): a documentary on the patent troll industry
Most people learn about patent trolls only when they get sued by one. The Patent Scam does the work of making the problem concrete before that happens.

All resources →