PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Key finding: the underlying district court case is in D. Del. Let me dig deeper.

Now let me nail down the parties' corporate identities, the district court details, and the accused products.

Case overview — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2024-1776 et al.)

Framing note: The case in the prompt is not itself an infringement trial record — it is PPC Broadband's consolidated appeal from four PTAB inter partes review decisions. The infringement action it grew out of is PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.), filed May 6, 2021. So the "parties / accused products / patents" questions are answered against that district court docket, and the "posture" question against both fora.

The parties and the technology. PPC Broadband, Inc. is an operating manufacturer headquartered at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, New York, founded in 1942 and formerly known as John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), which acquired it in December 2012 for approximately $515.7 million; PPC is the core brand of Belden's broadband/broadband-solutions business and manufactures coaxial drop connectors, hardline connectors, fiber connectivity, and related HFC-network hardware (see ppc-online.com's corporate summary and Belden's Dec. 2012 8-K disclosures; Belden is publicly traded and headquartered in St. Louis). PPC identified itself and Belden Inc. as the real parties-in-interest in the IPRs. Amphenol Corp. (NYSE: APH) is a large diversified interconnect manufacturer — not an NPE — and is the appellee here; Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (Amphenol's coaxial cable business) was a co-defendant in Delaware and, together with Holland Electronics, LLC, was identified by Amphenol as a real party-in-interest in the petitions (Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00720, § II.A). Neither side is a university or a patent-assertion entity; this is classic competitor-versus-competitor, two-way connector litigation. The accused technology is F-type/coaxial "continuity" connectors — connectors engineered to maintain a reliable electrical ground path between the connector body/post and the coupling nut (and thus the interface port) even when the connector is loosely tightened, reducing RF signal ingress/egress in cable-TV and broadband HFC networks. PPC pioneered the commercial "continuity" category (marketed at various times as the EX® Plus and EX® SignalTight™ connector), which is the commercial backdrop for the asserted family. (PPC's own expert declaration in the Arizona-era Connors litigation, Ex. 1065 in IPR2013-00345, describes that history.) I could not verify from the sources retrieved the specific Amphenol/Times Fiber model numbers accused in Delaware; PPC's infringement contentions for the '083 patent were served in that case and entered the IPR record as Ex. 1014, but the product list itself is not in the retrieved excerpts.

Patents asserted and one-line technical sketches. Four patents, all issued from the same continuation family claiming priority to November 24, 2004, all titled "Connector having a grounding member" and all naming PPC's prolific connector inventor Noah P. Montena as inventor: U.S. 9,225,083 (issued Dec. 29, 2015) — a coaxial connector with a conductively coated/conductive member proximate the post or body that electrically couples the connector body to the coupling member to complete the ground/shielding path; U.S. 10,038,284 (issued July 31, 2018) — a connector body with a first grounding contact surface, a post with an outwardly projecting flange forming part of the mating interface, a conductive coupler whose lip forms the second part of that interface, and a conductive (compliant) ring between the two contact surfaces that slides along the interface to permit nut rotation while maintaining a body-to-coupler electrical path; U.S. 10,446,983 (issued Oct. 15, 2019) and U.S. 10,965,063 (issued March 30, 2021) — further continuations in the same family claiming additional/variant structural arrangements of the connector body, post, coupler, and grounding member for maintaining that continuity path.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Amphenol (with Times Fiber and Holland Electronics as RPIs) filed four IPR petitions on March 18, 2022 (IPR2022-00718 → '063; -00719 → '983; -00720 → '284; -00721 → '083), challenging all asserted claims. On April 6, 2022 the parties stipulated to stay the Delaware case, and the court (per the exhibit caption then shown as "21-654 (VAC)"; Docket Alarm currently lists Judge Gregory B. Williams, while an earlier Amphenol filing cited "21-654 (LPS)," i.e., then-Judge Leonard P. Stark) so ordered the stay "until the PTAB has issued a final written decision on each IPR" (D.I. 43, 45; stipulation at D.I. 43). Delaware venue matters because Amphenol is a Delaware corporation and D. Del. was at the time among the most-used patent venues, with a local practice — reflected here — of granting early, case-dispositive stays pending AIA review; the accused party effectively won the litigation in the PTAB rather than at trial. The Board held the challenged claims unpatentable in all four proceedings (the '083 and '284 decisions, for example, relied on obviousness combinations of Youtsey (US 6,042,422), Lionetto (US 4,929,188) and Horak (US 3,879,102), with a second Tarrant/Bell ground), PPC sought rehearing, and PPC noticed its appeals on April 29, 2024, raising both substantial-evidence challenges to the motivation-to-combine findings and APA/procedural arguments. Argument was heard by Judges Reyna, Hughes, and Cunningham (Robert King High III of Finnegan for PPC; Gabriel K. Bell of Latham & Watkins for Amphenol), and on March 4, 2026 the court issued a Rule 36 per curiam judgment affirming — a one-page, nonprecedential disposition with no reasoning (24-1776, Dkt. 47; CAFC Opinions & Orders page). The case is notable for the familiar pattern of a competitor neutralizing a large connector patent portfolio through coordinated IPRs plus a district court stay rather than an infringement trial; for the parties' mirror-image war (PPC also filed IPRs against Times Fiber patents, e.g., IPR2022-01087 on U.S. 10,941,016, which the Board found unpatentable, and Times Fiber sued PPC in D. Del., No. 1:21-cv-01823); and for the appellate argument's secondary-considerations issue — whether PPC's earlier, ultimately-rejected patent application on the same redundant-grounding idea could serve as objective evidence of non-obviousness (per the CourtListener oral-argument transcript). Market context: this is the same "continuity F-type connector" market in which a rival, PVM, has alleged in counterclaims that PPC holds more than an 80% share (PPC Broadband v. PVM, No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR (E.D. Ark.), Dkt. 57 at 2–3) — that is an allegation in a separate antitrust/patent case, not a court finding, but it frames why the connector-continuity patent family is commercially valuable.

Sourcing notes / open items. (1) Verified: caption, appeal numbers, IPR numbers, panel, Rule 36 affirmance and date, counsel of record, the underlying D. Del. case number/stay, the four patent numbers and their shared 2004 priority chain and title, and the prior-art references. (2) Not verified from the sources retrieved: the specific accused Amphenol/Times Fiber product models and part numbers; the exact date the Delaware stay was lifted or whether that case is now resolved (a stay lifting would be the expected consequence of the affirmance, but I have no docket entry confirming it); the precise corporate relationship between Amphenol and Times Fiber beyond their joint defense and RPI status; and whether PPC has sought rehearing en banc or certiorari after March 4, 2026. Treat those as open, not established. (3) Because the disposition is a Rule 36 affirmance, any statement about the Federal Circuit's reasoning must be attributed to the PTAB decisions and the oral argument, not to a written opinion — there isn't one.

I'll research the docket history and related proceedings before drafting.

Let me pull the underlying docket details and the PTAB timeline.

Scope and a necessary framing correction

The "patent infringement litigation" here has two layers, and they must not be conflated:

1. The infringement action — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.), filed 2021-05-06. This is the case that generated the four asserted patents and the IPR petitions. It never reached Markman, summary judgment, trial, or verdict.
2. The appeal in the prompt — CAFC Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779, an appeal from the PTAB, terminated 2026-03-04 by Rule 36 affirmance.

A separate, later D. Del. case — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Charles Industries, LLC & Amphenol Corp., No. 1:22-cv-01517 (D. Del.) — asserts U.S. 9,008,483 against CFIT-Flex™ fiber enclosures, not connectors. That case did reach claim-construction briefing (sole disputed term: "drop cable"). Several search hits for "PPC v. Amphenol D. Del. claim construction" actually belong to 22-1517, not 21-654. I flag this because it is an easy error to propagate.

---

Chronology — District of Delaware (No. 1:21-cv-00654)

2021-05-06 — Complaint filed. PPC sued Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. in D. Del. on four continuity-connector patents ('083, '284, '983, '063), jury demand, damages/royalty theory. Reported filing date 05/06/21 (docket aggregator: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:21-cv-00654/ppc-broadband-inc-v-amphenol-corp). Belden/PPC's public announcement framed it as Amphenol selling connectors with a ground path that survives a loose connector (trade-press summary dated May 2021). No motion to transfer was warranted — Amphenol is a Delaware corporation (Wallace: Amphenol's own RPI disclosures; the complaint in the parallel 22-1517 case recites Amphenol's Delaware incorporation at 358 Hall Avenue, Wallingford, CT).

2021 (date not verified) — Answer and counterclaims. Amphenol/Times Fiber answered and, on the record available, the answer as originally filed did not include inequitable conduct or collateral estoppel. That inference comes from the stay stipulation's recitals, which describe a draft amended answer (circulated 2022-03-27) adding "new defenses of inequitable conduct and collateral estoppel." The precise filing date of the original answer and the content of any declaratory-judgment counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement) are not verified in the sources I retrieved.

Judge assignment discrepancy (flag). Early Amphenol filings and PPC's own infringement contentions caption the case "21-654 (LPS)" — then-Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark. The April 2022 stay papers caption it "21-654 (VAC)" — the vacant-judgeship designation used after Judge Stark's elevation to the Federal Circuit. Aggregators now list Judge Gregory B. Williams. This is a real reassignment sequence, not a contradiction in the metadata, and it matters for anyone pulling the docket by judge.

2022-03-08 — Infringement contentions served on the '083 and '063 patents; entered into the IPR records as Exhibits 1014 to IPR2022-00718 and IPR2022-00721 (Petitioner's Reply, IPR2022-00718, entered 2023-04-18, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549311](/patent/1549311)/...). This is the only discovery-type milestone with confirmed dates; the case did not progress to fact or expert discovery beyond this.

2022-03-18 — Amphenol files four IPR petitions on all asserted claims: -00718 ('063), -00719 ('983), -00720 ('284), -00721 ('083). Real parties-in-interest included Holland Electronics, LLC in addition to Amphenol and Times Fiber (per the FWD, IPR2022-00720, § II.A). Petition date and RPI disclosure are recited in the stay stipulation (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554547](/patent/1554547)/...).

2022-04-01 → 2022-04-06 — Stay negotiation and entry. The parties met and conferred 2022-04-01; PPC agreed in writing on 2022-04-06 to entry of the stay and to non-opposition to Defendants' amended answer if the case resumed.

2022-04-06 — Joint stipulation to stay, SO ORDERED (D.I. 43; implementing order D.I. 45). The operative terms, quoted from the stipulation as filed (same URL as above):

• Stay "pending at least a decision by the PTAB on institution of the IPR petitions";
• If all petitions were instituted, "the stay should continue until the PTAB has issued a final written decision on each IPR"; if not all were instituted, PPC "may request that the Court lift the stay";
• Joint status report within 7 days if any asserted claims survived the FWDs, with proposals for resuming;
• Defendants get an unopposed motion to amend the answer within 7 days of any lift.

This stipulation is the single most consequential district-court event in the case: it converted the litigation into a PTAB referendum on validity. It is also the source of the "until the PTAB has issued a final written decision on each IPR" language that later Section II of the IPR petitions and the final decisions quote as the parties' own characterization (e.g., petition excerpt at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549314](/patent/1549314)/...).

2022–2023 — No substantive district-court activity. No Markman order, no Daubert motions, no summary-judgment motions, no trial date, no verdict, and no fee motion exist for 21-654 in any source I retrieved. The case was dormant by design.

2023-10-23 → 2026 — Effect of the PTAB decisions on the stay. Because all four petitions were instituted and all four FWDs found every challenged claim unpatentable, the "if any asserted claims survive" trigger for a status report and possible resumption was never met. The stay therefore became functionally case-dispositive without ever being formally litigated as a dismissal motion.

Post-2026-03-04 — Present posture of 21-654 (partially verified). A docket aggregator lists 1:21-cv-00654 as "Status: Closed" with a case-activity window ending 2026-04-21 (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:21-cv-00654/ppc-broadband-inc-v-amphenol-corp). I could not verify a specific docket entry dismissing or closing the case, nor whether the closure was by stipulation of dismissal, by judgment on the unstayed claims, or administratively. Treat "closed in April 2026" as a lead, not a finding.

---

Chronology — PTAB (the four Amphenol IPRs) and the appeal

Key point on the appeal outcome: because the disposition is a Rule 36 affirmance, there is no written Federal Circuit reasoning. Any statement about why the court affirmed must be sourced to the PTAB decisions, the rehearing denial, or the oral argument — not to an opinion.

Post-affirmance status (open): I found no petition for rehearing en banc and no certiorari petition following 2026-03-04. The cert clock would have run roughly 90 days to early June 2026; absence in my searches is weak evidence of absence. Likewise, certificates cancelling the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) would be expected to issue once appellate review ended — I could not verify issuance.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

PPC's mirror-image IPRs against Times Fiber. PPC filed IPR2022-00830 and -00831 (institution denied) and IPR2022-00946, -00947, -01087, -01088 against Times Fiber's cable/reel patents (U.S. 10,988,342; 11,001,471; 10,941,016; 10,906,771). Consolidated hearing 2023-09-20 before the same three APJs; FWDs issued (IPVerse listing at https://ipverse.greyb.com/competitive-analysis/company/ppc-broadband). Times Fiber asserted a commercial-success/copying narrative — the Tech Service Bag and reel-less coils, with PPC's "Perfect Tote"/"NexReel" marketing offered as copying evidence (Patient Owner's Response and Opposition to Motion to Exclude, IPR2022-00946).

IPR2023-01363 (Amphenol v. PPC) — FWD issued; the patent challenged is not identified in my sources.

IPR2022-01523 (PerfectVision Manufacturing v. PPC) — institution denied.

Effect on 21-654. This is the through-line: the four Amphenol IPRs were timed and structured to coincide with — and freeze — the Delaware case. Amphenol filed them seven weeks before PPC's infringement contentions deadline season, obtained a stipulation staying the case eleven days after the contentions were served, and the stay's own terms made the PTAB outcome dispositive. PPC's counter-IPRs against Times Fiber followed the same playbook in the opposite direction.

---

Related litigations worth tracking separately

• PPC v. Charles Industries & Amphenol, No. 1:22-cv-01517 (D. Del.) — '483 patent, CFIT-Flex™ fiber enclosures; the only PPC/Amphenol case that reached Markman briefing ("drop cable"). Complaint drafted after Amphenol's 2022-10-21 notice letter.
• Times Fiber v. PPC, No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.) — Times Fiber's affirmative case on five cable/reel patents ('016, '342, '471, '771, '632) asserting PPC's coaxial cable and "Perfect Tote" reusable-reel bags (complaint at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/.../Exhibit-1008-...).
• PPC Broadband v. PVM, No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR (E.D. Ark.) — PVM's counterclaims alleging PPC holds >80% of the continuity F-type connector market; the court's 2024-12-10 order on judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 57, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.[131796](/patent/131796)/gov.uscourts.ared.131796.57.0.pdf) treats those as allegations, not findings.
• Corning Gilbert v. PPC / N.D.N.Y. and D. Ariz. iterations — the earlier generation of continuity-connector litigation that produced the PPC I line of Federal Circuit authority and the claim constructions (connector body/post "separate components, interlocked") that recur in this family.

---

What never happened (important for anyone relying on this case as precedent)

• No Markman/claim construction ruling in 21-654. The patents were construed, if at all, only in the PTAB under the Phillips standard.
• No summary-judgment motions, no Daubert motions, no trial, no verdict, no damages award, no JMOL/new-trial motions, no fee motion in 21-654.
• No written appellate opinion — Rule 36 affirmance only.
• The district court never had to decide the merits of infringement or validity; the stay stipulation outsourced both to the Board.

Sourcing gaps (explicitly unverified)

1. Exact filing date of Defendants' answer and the substance of any counterclaims.
2. The institution decision dates for -00718, -00719 and -00721 (only -00720's 2022-10-24 is sourced).
3. The date of the Board's denial of PPC's request for rehearing (text obtained, date not).
4. The Federal Circuit oral-argument date (audio located; date not confirmed).
5. Whether the D. Del. stay was formally lifted, and the docket entry closing 21-654 (aggregator shows "Closed," activity through 2026-04-21).
6. Whether PPC sought en banc or Supreme Court review after 2026-03-04, and whether claim-cancellation certificates have issued.
7. The identity of the "'053 reexam" that Amphenol invoked for collateral estoppel, and the patent at issue in IPR2023-01363.
8. Whether the 2021-05-06 complaint date in the aggregator is the actual filing date or a docket-entry date (Belden's public statement is dated May 2021, consistent).

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel in both the underlying D. Del. infringement action and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Good progress. Let me pin down the underlying district court docket (1:21-cv-00654) and its counsel entries, plus appellate roster details.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff, PPC Broadband, Inc.

Framing. The consolidated appeal as docketed (Fed. Cir. 2024-1776/1777/1778/1779) is PPC-as-appellant, and the plaintiff in the underlying infringement action is PPC Broadband, Inc. So "plaintiff's counsel" has two layers: (1) the appellate team that represented PPC on the affirmance, and (2) the trial team of record in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.). I treat the Rule 36 judgment and the D. Del. docket entries as the two authoritative appearance records. Note that Amphenol's/Latham's roster (Gabriel K. Bell, Richard A. Lowry, Richard Gregory Frenkel, Maximilian Grant, et al.) is the defense side and is therefore outside this request; it was partly covered in the earlier section.

---

A. Appellate counsel — PPC Broadband, Inc., Appellant (Fed. Cir. 2024-1776 et al.)

The Rule 36 judgment of March 4, 2026 lists the complete PPC-side appellate roster (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., No. 24-1776, slip op. at 1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026); cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026):

Cross-reference/flag: the earlier case-overview section mentioned only "Robert King High III of Finnegan for PPC" on appeal. The Rule 36 judgment additionally names Cory C. Bell and J. Michael Jakes on the PPC side — a minor addition, not a contradiction.

---

B. Trial counsel — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.)

PPC used the classic Delaware two-tier structure: a Delaware local firm on the CM/ECF signature line (Local Rule 83.5(d)) plus out-of-state lead counsel admitted pro hac vice. The pro hac vice motion at D.I. 15 (filed Oct. 27, 2021, granted by then-Judge Leonard P. Stark) and the YCST signature blocks on the parties' joint filings identify the team (docket-derived entries via aggregator and mirror filings in IPR2023-01363, which quote the same signature block verbatim):

Delaware / local counsel — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Rodney Square, 1000 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801

Lead / out-of-state counsel — Barclay Damon LLP

PTAB-side PPC lead counsel (not the appeal, but the same dispute). In all four IPRs, PPC's mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 designated Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980), Barclay Damon LLP, Syracuse, NY, as lead counsel, with Naresh K. Kannan (Barclay Damon, Albany), Genevieve M. Halpenny (Barclay Damon, Syracuse) and Cory C. Bell (FINNEGAN, Boston) as back-up counsel (see PPC's Mandatory Notices, IPR2022-00719, dated Apr. 8, 2022; same team restated Oct. 11, 2023 in IPR2023-01363).

In-house / party representatives. At the consolidated PTAB oral argument on September 20, 2023, PPC's counsel identified Christopher Day and Noah Montena as PPC's "cooperative representatives" on the line (IPR2022-00946 et al., hearing transcript, Sept. 20, 2023, __). Montena is PPC's named inventor on the patents-in-suit; Day appears to be a PPC-side corporate representative. I could not verify from the retrieved sources whether either is in-house counsel, and neither appears on the D. Del. docket as counsel of record — treat the in-house designation as unconfirmed.

---

Sourcing notes and caveats

1. Sources relied on: the Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment (24-1776, Mar. 4, 2026) for the appellate roster; docket-derived entries for 1:21-cv-00654 (via the D. Del. docket aggregators/UniCourt and the Patexia docket view) for D.I. 15 (PHV motion), D.I. 17 (scheduling order), D.I. 18, 21, 23, 24; and PTAB filings (PPC's § 42.8 mandatory notices in IPR2022-00718–00721 and IPR2023-01363) for the Barclay Damon/Finnegan PTAB designations and firm addresses.
2. Not directly verified: I did not retrieve the raw PACER docket sheet for 1:21-cv-00654, so I cannot state the order or entry numbers of every PPC appearance. Because the case was stayed by stipulation on April 6, 2022 (D.I. 43, 45) pending the IPRs, PPC's counsel-of-record activity is concentrated in 2021–early 2022, and the appearance list has not been refreshed through trial.
3. Contradiction/uncertainty to flag: one aggregator (ai-lab.exparte.com) lists 1:21-cv-00654 as "Closed" with a docket period running to 04/21/26. I have no PACER confirmation of a post-affirmance dismissal or closure order, and the earlier overview's open item on the stay's lifting remains open. Do not treat "closed 4/21/26" as established.
4. What I did not invent: no attorney is listed here unless their name appears in the Rule 36 judgment, a PTAB mandatory notice, or a D. Del. docket entry/signature block. I have not attributed any in-house title, firm title, or bar admission beyond what those documents show.

I'll research counsel for the defendants (Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc.) in the underlying district court action, plus the appellate counsel.

Let me get the 21-654 docket and the Delaware appearances specifically.

Let me find the defense-side counsel of record in the district court (21-654), including any non-Delaware co-counsel.

Counsel of record for the defendants — Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

Framing note (building on the prior section). The case in the metadata is the appeal, where the only appellee/defendant-side party is Amphenol Corp. But the question is best answered against the underlying infringement action — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.) — where the defendants of record are Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. Below I give the defense roster at three layers: (1) Federal Circuit appellee counsel, (2) district court defense counsel, and (3) the PTAB petitioner team, which is the same group. The prior section already identified Latham & Watkins as Amphenol's appellate counsel; this section fills in the full roster and the Delaware layer.

1. Federal Circuit (appellee Amphenol) — per the Rule 36 judgment

The March 4, 2026 per curiam judgment lists appellee's counsel explicitly (24-1776 Rule 36 judgment):

2. District court (D. Del. 21-654) — defense counsel of record

• Rodger D. Smith II (Del. Bar #3778) — local/Delaware counsel of record, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE. He signed the April 6, 2022 Stipulation to Stay Litigation expressly as "Attorney for Defendants Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc." He is the same Morris Nichols Delaware counsel who appeared for these two defendants in the earlier-filed related action, PPC Broadband v. Amphenol Corp. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01148 (D. Del.) (docket entries signed (Smith, Rodger)), and he is a long-serving Delaware IP litigator at Morris Nichols.
• Latham & Watkins LLP — lead/principal defense counsel in the district court on the merits (the non-local firm), per Frenkel's own firm bio describing the D. Del. case as one he handled for Amphenol. The specific pro hac vice Delaware appearances by named Latham attorneys are not in the excerpts I retrieved (see caveats below), but the firm's role for Amphenol in this exact Delaware case is stated by Latham itself.

Note: the prior section flagged the caption/initials discrepancy — the stipulation itself is captioned "C.A. No. 21-654 (VAC)" (then-visiting Judge Andrews' initials), while earlier filings used "(LPS)." That does not affect counsel identification.

3. PTAB petitioner team (same defense group; IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721)

These are the same Latham attorneys who would be "of counsel"/trial-team for the defendants; the Board's consolidated oral-hearing transcript (July 20, 2023) and the petitions' papers name them:

• S. Giri Pathmanaban — Latham & Watkins LLP, Austin, TX — argued as Petitioner's lead at the consolidated PTAB hearing.
• Richard A. Lowry — Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C. — argued via the Board's LEAP program.
• Richard G. Frenkel — Latham & Watkins LLP, Menlo Park, CA — counsel of record on the petitions.
• Dale Chang (Reg. No. 61,476) — Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL — signed Amphenol's § 42.63(e) exhibit-list filings as "Counsel for Petitioner."
• Jonathan M. Strang — Latham & Watkins LLP — served with process/correspondence on the Amphenol petitions.

4. In-house / client representatives

At the PTAB hearing, Latham's Frenkel identified "Rob Branham and Greg Cheyne, of Amphenol Corporation" as the clients on the line (transcript, IPR2022-00946 family, Sept. 20, 2023). Those are almost certainly Amphenol in-house/business personnel rather than attorneys of record — I could not verify their titles or bar status, so treat them as client-side representatives, not counsel.

Caveats and open items (things I could not verify)

1. No PACER docket sheet was retrieved for 21-654. I confirmed Rodger Smith's Delaware appearance from the signed stipulation and the parallel 1:20-cv-01148 docket, but I could not pull the full 21-654 docket/signature blocks, so additional attorneys of record may exist (e.g., a second Morris Nichols associate, or a Latham associate admitted pro hac vice).
2. Specific pro hac vice admissions in 21-654 are unverified. That Latham attorneys were admitted pro hac vice in the Delaware case is strongly supported by Latham's own case description but is not documented in the excerpts I retrieved. I am not naming which Latham attorneys formally entered in Delaware.
3. Times Fiber's separate role. Times Fiber was a co-defendant in 21-654 (represented by the same Smith/Latham team), but Times Fiber was a plaintiff against PPC in the mirror-image case, Times Fiber Commc'ns, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.), where Latham's Richard G. Frenkel signed as "Counsel for Patent Owner Times Fiber Communications, Inc." in the related IPRs. Do not conflate that representation with the 21-654 defense role.
4. No fabrication: the names above are drawn from the Federal Circuit judgment PDF, the PTAB filings/transcripts, the D. Del. stipulation, and the firms' own attorney bios. Where a fact came only from a firm bio or a client-side line entry rather than a court filing, I've said so.