PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

Good initial leads. Let me dig into the docket, the stay order, and the parties' corporate identities.

Let me verify the district court docket details, the stay, and the patents asserted.

Case Overview — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00654-LPS (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. is an operating company, not an NPE/PAE: a Delaware corporation headquartered at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, New York, it manufactures coaxial cable connectors, fiber enclosures, and related broadband connectivity hardware. It is the former broadband division of John Mezzalingua Associates d/b/a PPC, which Belden Inc. acquired for $515.7 million in 2012 (Reuters, "Belden buys privately held PPC for $515.7 million"); PPC's Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Belden Inc. as corporate parent appears in the related earlier Delaware action, PPC Broadband v. Amphenol, No. 1:20-cv-01148 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2020), D.I. 4. Though a manufacturer, PPC is among the most active patent enforcers in the CATV connector space (prior suits against Corning, Times Fiber, CommScope, and Amphenol dating to 2009). Defendants are Amphenol Corporation (NYSE: APH), a Delaware corporation at 358 Hall Avenue, Wallingford, Connecticut, and one of the world's largest interconnect/sensor/antenna manufacturers, and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (TFC), also a Delaware corporation at the same Wallingford address (per TFC's own complaint, TFC v. PPC, No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.)). TFC functions as Amphenol's broadband/Times Fiber business: it shares Amphenol's headquarters address and asserted cable-reel patents that list "Amphenol Corporation" as applicant. I could not verify the precise corporate parentage from a primary source, so I flag that affiliation as strongly supported but inferential.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The case concerns F-type coaxial cable connectors — the fittings that join a coaxial drop cable to a set-top box, modem, or tap port. The patented subject matter is PPC's "continuity" connector family: an internal conductive continuity member (typically a compliant/conductive ring) that maintains a ground path between the connector body and the rotatable coupling nut even when the connector loosens, addressing RF signal egress/ingress — the technical problem described in the PVM v. PPC order, No. 4:22-cv-00163 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 2024), and in the earlier PPC v. Times Fiber claim-construction opinions, No. 5:13-cv-460 (N.D.N.Y.). The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 10,038,284 as the patent at issue. IPR filings confirm the district court case also involved U.S. 10,965,063 and U.S. 9,225,083 (Amphenol's IPR exhibit lists cite "PPC's Infringement Contentions – '063 Patent, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation, No. C.A. 21-654 (LPS) (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2022)," and the parallel citation for the '083 patent), with U.S. 10,446,983 as the fourth patent attacked in the same IPR cluster — all four are members of the same continuity-connector family. From the Board's claim charts, the '063 and '284 claims recite a body portion with a first grounding-member contact surface, a post, a conductive coupling portion with an opposing contact surface, and a compliant conductive ring forming the grounding path; the '083 claims are broader. Accused products were Amphenol/Times Fiber coaxial connectors; I could not verify specific model numbers because the complaint is behind PACER and no free source reproduced it.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed May 6, 2021 in the District of Delaware, Wilmington Division, as 1:21-cv-00654-LPS, assigned to then-Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark, with a jury demand and § 271(a) infringement allegations. Delaware is the natural forum: both PPC and Amphenol are Delaware corporations, so venue is proper under § 1400(b) as to Amphenol as a Delaware resident, and it is PPC's preferred venue across its connector campaign (e.g., 1:20-cv-01148; 1:21-cv-00305 v. CommScope). The case has been stayed and one aggregator lists it as closed (see the docket summary at Ex Parte), but I could not verify the stay order's date or docket entry, and free dockets for this case are thin. The related activity is dense: Amphenol filed four IPRs in March 2022 (IPR2022-00718/719/720/721, before APJs Gerstenblith, Hoskins, and Ippolito, consolidated for a July 20, 2023 hearing); TFC counter-sued PPC on cable-reel/Tech Service Bag patents (1:21-cv-01823); PPC filed mirror IPRs against TFC (IPR2022-00830, -00831, -00946, -00947, -01087, -01088); and PPC filed a Northern District of New York declaratory-judgment action, No. 5:21-cv-00504.

Why it is notable. First, this is operating company versus operating company in a highly consolidated market — PPC was alleged (by rival PVM, in the E.D. Ark. case) to hold over 80% of the U.S. "continuity" F-connector market, a claim that itself generated antitrust counterclaims against PPC. Second, the case is a clean example of IPR linkage proving case-dispositive: a second-generation PTAB attack on the same continuity-connector family that had produced PPC's roughly $61 million willful-infringement judgment against Corning (Finnegan's summary of PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Communications, Fed. Cir. No. 17-1347), and this time the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) — I verified the "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" judgment text for the '983 patent directly, and PPC's notices of appeal (dated April 29, 2024) followed in all four proceedings. On March 4, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion under Rule 36 in Nos. 2024-1776 through 2024-1779 (panel: Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham), PPC represented by Finnegan (Robert King High III, Cory C. Bell, J. Michael Jakes) and Amphenol by Latham & Watkins (Gabriel K. Bell, Richard A. Lowry, Richard Gregory Frenkel) (CAFC judgment PDF). The invalidation of the asserted patents — including the '284 patent identified with this case — is the most plausible explanation for the case's stayed/closed status, though I could not confirm a termination entry.

Sourcing flags. (1) The set of four asserted patents is reconstructed from Amphenol's IPR exhibit lists rather than from the complaint itself; only the '284 is given as "patent at issue" in the case metadata. (2) The stay order, its date, and any change of assigned judge (the aggregator suggests a shift in 2022, consistent with Judge Stark's elevation to the Federal Circuit — which I could not re-verify in these searches) are unconfirmed. (3) Accused product model numbers and the disposition/settlement of the stayed action were not verified. I found no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog/RPX treatment of this specific docket in the searches run.

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Let me dig into the specific docket for 21-654 and the related IPRs.

Good progress. Now let me pin down the complaint's asserted patents, the answers/counterclaims, and post-IPR docket activity.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2021-05-06 — Complaint filed. PPC Broadband, Inc. sued Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. in the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 1:21-cv-00654 (originally assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark; later docket captions read "(VAC)" and aggregators now list Judge Gregory B. Williams — I could not confirm the reassignment entry). Jury demand by plaintiff; NOS 830.

Patents actually asserted (four, not one). D.I. 3, the Patent/Trademark Report to the Commissioner (filed 2021-05-06), identifies the patents-in-suit as U.S. 9,225,083; 10,038,284; 10,446,983; and 10,965,063 — all members of the "connector having a grounding member" family (Krenceski et al.) and all related to the earlier U.S. 7,833,053 patent. This corrects the case-summary inference: the '284 patent was one of four asserted patents, and it was the linkage to IPR2022-00720 that made the '284 connection visible.

2021-06 to 2021-08 — Answers/counterclaims. Defendants answered and asserted invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims (exact D.I. numbers and dates not verified in the sources I could retrieve). Notably, the parties later exchanged a draft amended answer on 2022-03-27 that would have added inequitable conduct and collateral estoppel defenses — a sign that defendants had already developed a collateral-estoppel theory based on PPC's loss in the '053 reexamination.

Related parallel suits worth noting (same parties, different patents):

• Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del., filed 2021-12-26) — TFC's affirmative case asserting its cable-reel/Tech Service Bag patents ('016, '342, '471, '771, '632) against PPC. Aggregator lists as closed.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Charles Industries, LLC & Amphenol Corp., C.A. No. 1:22-cv-01517 (D. Del.) — separate suit on U.S. 9,008,483 (fiber enclosures / CFIT-Flex). Not the same patents as 21-654.

2. Scheduling and Discovery Milestones

2021-11-17 — Scheduling Order (D.I. 17). Key dates set:

• Joint claim construction brief: 2022-10-21
• Markman hearing: 2022-11-21
• Fact discovery cutoff: 2023-02-17
• Status report: 2023-02-10
• Dispositive motions: 2023-06-16
• Oral argument: 2023-08-01
• Pretrial order 2023-10-19; final pretrial conference 2023-10-27; 5–7 day jury trial set for 2023-11-06
• Case referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge for ADR/mediation.

Discovery actually conducted (all pre-stay):

• 2021-11-18 — PPC's First Set of RFPs and First Set of Interrogatories served (D.I. 18).
• 2021-11-19 — Defendants served their first document requests (D.I. 20).
• 2021-11-22 — Pro hac vice granted for Dale Chang and Richard Lowry (Latham & Watkins) (D.I. 19, SO ORDERED).
• 2021-12-01/12-02 — Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures served by PPC and by Defendants (D.I. 21, 22).
• 2021-12-03 — PPC's Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 9–14) and Second Set of RFPs (Nos. 14–88) served (D.I. 23).
• 2021-12-17 — Stipulation extending time to submit a proposed protective order to 2021-12-22, SO ORDERED (D.I. 24).
• ~March 2022 — PPC served infringement contentions (cited in the PTAB record as "PPC's Infringement Contentions – '083 Patent, No. C.A. 21-654 (LPS) (D. Del. Mar. __)"), which Amphenol then used as IPR exhibits.

Strategic read: the parties got through written discovery, contentions, and protective-order negotiation, but the stay landed before expert discovery (fact discovery cutoff was still ~10 months out) and before claim construction.

3. The Stay Pending IPR — The Case-Defining Event

2022-03-18 — Amphenol filed four IPR petitions challenging all asserted claims of all four patents-in-suit:

Petitioner RPIs: Amphenol Corp., Times Fiber Communications, Inc., Holland Electronics, LLC. Patent Owner RPIs: PPC Broadband, Inc. and Belden Inc. (PPC's parent).

2022-04-06 — Joint stipulation to stay, SO ORDERED (D.I. 43; implementing order D.I. 45). This was a stipulated stay, not a contested motion — unusual, and a strong signal that the parties viewed the IPRs as likely to be dispositive. Terms:

• Litigation stayed pending at least the PTAB's institution decisions;
• If all petitions were instituted, the stay continues until the PTAB issues a final written decision in each IPR;
• If any petition was not instituted, PPC could ask the court to lift the stay (joint status report within 7 days);
• If any asserted claims survived the FWDs, the parties would file a joint status report within 7 days proposing how to resume;
• Within 7 days of any lifting of the stay, Defendants could file an unopposed motion to amend their answer to add inequitable conduct and collateral estoppel defenses (in substantially the form of the 2022-03-27 draft that PPC had already agreed in writing to allow).

4. Claim Construction (Markman) — Never Reached

No claim construction ruling issued. The joint claim construction brief was due 2022-10-21 and the Markman hearing was set for 2022-11-21 (before Judge Stark), but the stay of 2022-04-06 froze the case roughly six months before that hearing. The PTAB record confirms the posture: "[t]he Court has stayed the litigation 'until the [PTAB] has issued a final written decision on each IPR.' PPC Broadband v. Amphenol, Docket Nos. 43 and 45." (For contrast, the same parties did litigate Markman in the earlier N.D.N.Y. case, PPC v. Times Fiber, 5:13-cv-00460 (Dkt. 63 R&R; Dkt. 64/opinion adopting constructions of "a connector body attached to a post," "positioned along the post," etc.).)

5. Trial Events — None

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, and no fee motions. The November 2023 trial date was vacated by operation of the stay, which remained in effect.

6. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect

IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721 (Amphenol v. PPC). All four were instituted in late October 2022 (IPR2022-00718 and -00720 on 2022-10-24; IPR2022-00721 on 2022-10-26, Paper 11). A consolidated oral hearing was held virtually on 2023-07-20 before APJs Gerstenblith, Hoskins, and Ippolito (Paper 31 in -00718; LEAP argument by Richard Lowry, 135 minutes total for petitioner).

2023-10-23 / 2023-10-24 — Final Written Decisions: all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.

• IPR2022-00718 ('063), Paper 36, 101 pp. — 2023-10-23
• IPR2022-00719 ('983), Paper 35, 100 pp. — 2023-10-23
• IPR2022-00720 ('284), Paper 35, 99 pp. — 2023-10-23
• IPR2022-00721 ('083), Paper 35, 104 pp. — 2023-10-24

Grounds centered on Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant, and Bell; Amphenol also pressed a collateral estoppel theory based on the Board's earlier invalidation of the related '053 patent claims, which PPC never appealed.

2023-11-22 — PPC requests for rehearing in all four cases (e.g., Papers 37, 36). 2024-02-28 — rehearing denied, with the Board rejecting PPC's arguments that it had overlooked evidence that Youtsey's F-connector had two grounding paths and that the Board had relied on grounds petitioner never advanced.

2024-04-29 — PPC notices of appeal → Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-1776, 24-1777, 24-1778, 24-1779.

2026-03-04 — Federal Circuit affirms (Rule 36, nonprecedential). Panel: Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776 et al. For PPC: Robert King High III (Finnegan; argued), Cory C. Bell, J. Michael Jakes. For Amphenol: Gabriel K. Bell (Latham & Watkins; argued), Richard A. Lowry, Richard Gregory Frenkel. Oral argument audio was posted on/around 2026-03-02 (the two-day gap to judgment suggests argument was heard shortly before; I could not confirm the exact argument date). The Rule 36 affirmance leaves the PTAB's cancellation of every asserted claim in place; the certiorari window would have closed around early June 2026 and I found no cert petition.

Related PTAB activity in the companion TFC v. PPC case (different patents). PPC petitioned against TFC's cable-reel patents in IPR2022-00945 through -00948. In IPR2022-00946 ('342 patent), the Board's FWD of 2023-12-20 found claims 1–12 and 14–22 unpatentable — a mirror-image outcome in the parties' parallel dispute. Those PPC-side IPRs on the '342/'471/'016/'771 patents appear to be what the aggregators mean when they list TFC's 21-1823 case as closed.

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

Practical disposition: complete defense victory for Amphenol and Times Fiber. The chain is: stipulated stay (2022-04-06) → institution of all four IPRs (Oct. 2022) → all asserted claims held unpatentable (Oct. 2023) → rehearing denied (Feb. 2024) → Federal Circuit affirmance (2026-03-04). Because the stay agreement continued the stay "until the PTAB has issued a final written decision on each IPR," and because no asserted claim survived, the condition that would have triggered a joint status report and resumption of litigation never materialized. The D. Del. docket still carries the flags "STAYED" and "PATENT," while aggregators (Docket Alarm, Ex Parte, Unified Patents) list the case as closed.

Caveat, stated plainly: I could not retrieve a specific post-2026 dismissal or judgment-closing entry (e.g., a stipulation of dismissal or an order lifting/closing the stay) on the 21-654 docket. The "closed" status in the aggregators may reflect administrative closure, and the last docket activity I could source directly is the April 2022 stay. If a formal res judicata/dismissal order exists, it is likely a short stipulated dismissal following the March 2026 affirmance, but I am not representing that as confirmed.

Key takeaways for the client:

1. The case was won and lost entirely in the PTAB — the district court never construed a claim, never held a Markman hearing, never set a trial, and never ruled on summary judgment.
2. Amphenol's decision to challenge every asserted claim of every asserted patent in four simultaneously filed petitions (2022-03-18) is what made a joint stay possible and eliminated any chance of a partial resumption.
3. PPC's unpaid-for benefit of the stay: it avoided adverse Markman and potentially adverse invalidity findings in Delaware, but at the cost of a total loss of the patent family. PPC's mirror-image IPR attack on TFC's reel patents (IPR2022-00946, FWD 2023-12-20) shows both sides ran the same playbook in the companion case.

Primary sources: D.I. 3 (Patent/Trademark Report) and D.I. 17 (Scheduling Order), 21-654 docket via Docket Alarm/Patexia; Stipulation to Stay (D.I. 43), https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554547](/patent/1554547)/download-documents; IPR2022-00718–00721 institution/FWD papers and consolidated hearing transcript (2023-07-20) via PTAB/PTABCTS and https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00720; Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html; Law360 PTAB coverage ("PTAB Axes All Challenged Claims In 4 Coaxial Cable Patents," 2023-10-25).

I'll research the docket and counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet for 1:21-cv-00654 and confirm plaintiff's counsel of record.

Let me retrieve the full docket text for this case from Docket Alarm's OCR mirror and cross-check the patexia docket listing.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00654-GBW (D. Del.)

Sourcing note up front: I could not pull the live PACER docket sheet directly. The appearance/docket entries below come from PACER-derived mirrors — Docket Alarm's OCR docket for 1:21-cv-00654 (case flags "STAYED" and "PATENT," filed 5/6/2021) and the Patexia docket mirror for this same case — plus signature blocks in filings that appear in the same litigation family. Where an attorney is confirmed on this docket versus merely on a related docket, I say so. Nothing here is drawn from sealed material; the appearances at issue are public.

The '284 patent linkage is now confirmed

Your summary flagged that U.S. 10,038,284's tie to this case was inferred. The PTAB consolidated oral-hearing transcript for Amphenol's IPRs expressly lists IPR2022-00720 (Patent 10,038,284 B2) among the cases captioned Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. — the same four-IPR set whose mandatory notices identify "PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.)" as the co-pending district court action. That is good corroboration that the '284 patent is the (or a) patent at issue in 21-654.

---

1. Delaware / local counsel — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP (Wilmington)

Address: Rodney Square, 1000 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. Under D. Del. L.R. 83.5(d), Delaware counsel must be CM/ECF-registered and file all papers — which is why the Young Conaway team appears on essentially every docket entry.

2. Pro hac vice / national counsel — Barclay Damon LLP (Syracuse, NY and Albany, NY)

Admitted by stipulation in this case: D.I. 15, MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook & Naresh K. Kannan, filed 10/27/2021 and SO ORDERED that same day by then-presiding Judge Leonard P. Stark; the Oct. 29, 2021 docket note confirms all three "added for electronic noticing."

3. Patent Office (PTAB) counsel for PPC — same client, different forum

Not counsel of record in the district court, but part of the integrated PPC team and worth naming because the district case was stayed against this parallel work:

• Denis J. Sullivan — Barclay Damon, Syracuse, NY; USPTO Reg. No. 47,980. Lead counsel for PPC as Patent Owner in Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721 (including the '284 in -00720) and in IPR2023-01363 ('483 patent); he argued for PPC at the consolidated Sept. 2023 oral hearing.
• Cory C. Bell — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, 2 Seaport Lane, Boston, MA; USPTO Reg. No. 75,096. Back-up counsel for PPC as Patent Owner in Amphenol's IPRs, and lead counsel for PPC as petitioner in the mirror-image IPRs PPC brought against Times Fiber (IPR2022-00946/-00947/-01087/-01088).

4. In-house counsel

• Christopher W. Day — Vice President (Legal), Assistant General Counsel, and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of Belden, Inc., PPC's parent company. He executed PPC's PTAB powers of attorney and designations of lead/back-up counsel (e.g., in IPR2023-01363) and was identified as a client representative at the Sept. 20, 2023 PTAB hearing. I have not found him on the 21-654 district court docket as counsel of record — in-house IP counsel typically coordinate rather than enter an appearance, particularly where the case is stayed.

---

Caveats

• No sealed filings or unserved appearances are implicated; all four plaintiff-side district court appearances (D.I. 14, 15 and the corresponding PHV docket notes) are public.
• I was unable to retrieve the complaint (D.I. 1) signature block for this case number directly. It is highly likely — based on the identical Young Conaway/Barclay Damon team in the companion PPC Broadband v. Amphenol/Times Fiber, No. 1:20-cv-01148-LPS (D. Del.) and in No. 1:22-cv-01517-GBW — to have been signed by the same group, but I am flagging it as inference, not verified fact.
• Aggregator dockets for the PPC/Amphenol matters (21-654, 20-1148, 22-1517) overlap heavily in party and counsel data; I have tried to attribute each attorney to the correct case number, and marked the one instance (Stombaugh) where I could not.
• The case is stayed and at least one aggregator lists it as closed; a stay does not withdraw counsel of record, so the appearances above remain the operative ones unless a withdrawal was filed after the docket snapshot I could see.

I'll research the defendant-side counsel of record through the docket mirrors, PTAB records, and firm/court sources.

Strong leads. Let me confirm the Delaware local counsel (the "Rodger Smith" signature) and the full Latham team.

Now let me confirm the Latham & Watkins team's offices/roles and check for any additional Delaware counsel on the docket.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Defendants ran a two-tier defense team. Delaware local counsel is Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, with Rodger D. Smith II as the attorney appearing on the docket and filing defendants' answer and discovery papers. National/parent counsel is Latham & Watkins LLP, which entered pro hac vice in two waves (June 2021 and November 2021) and also carried the IPR and Federal Circuit work that ultimately disposed of this case. Both defendants are represented by the same team; there is no separate Times Fiber-only firm in this docket.

---

1. Delaware counsel of record — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington)

Source: Patexia docket text for 21-654 (showing "(Smith, Rodger)" as filer on the Answer and initial disclosures); Morris Nichols attorney bio, morrisnichols.com; related-case attribution via UniCourt docket for 1:20-cv-01148.

Caveat: I could confirm only Rodger D. Smith II by name as the Morris Nichols attorney on this docket. Delaware practice (L.R. 83.5(d)) requires that every paper be filed by a Delaware-registered attorney, and Morris Nichols frequently staffs a second Wilmington attorney on such filings; I could not verify a second name for 21-654, so I do not name one.

---

2. National counsel — Latham & Watkins LLP (pro hac vice)

Wave 1 — D.I. 11, filed June 28, 2021; SO ORDERED by then-Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark on June 29, 2021. Motion for pro hac vice appearance of Maximilian A. Grant, Richard G. Frenkel, B. Thomas Watson, and B. Rashmi Borah, filed on behalf of both Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. The Oct. 29, 2021 docket note confirms all four were "added for electronic noticing." (Patexia docket)

Wave 2 — D.I. 19, filed November 19, 2021; SO ORDERED by Judge Stark on November 22, 2021. Motion for pro hac vice appearance of Dale Chang and Richard A. Lowry, filed for both defendants.

---

3. Federal Circuit appellee counsel (same defense team, appellate phase)

On the appeal from the four IPRs (Nos. 2024-1776 through -1779, affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on March 4, 2026), Amphenol was represented by Gabriel K. Bell (Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC — argued), Richard A. Lowry, and Richard Gregory Frenkel (Menlo Park) (CAFC judgment PDF). This is the appellate continuation of the same Latham team, not a separate district-court appearance.

---

4. Latham attorneys appearing only in the PTAB (not counsel of record in 21-654)

To avoid confusion with the district-court roster, these Latham attorneys appear in the Amphenol/Times Fiber IPR papers and hearing transcripts but are not shown as pro hac vice counsel in 21-654: Jonathan M. Strang (Washington, DC), S. Giri Pathmanaban, Sarah Propst, and Gabrielle LaHatte (San Francisco). They handled the parallel PTAB and Times Fiber's affirmative case (No. 1:21-cv-01823) work.

---

5. Sourcing flags and gaps

• Confirmed from the docket: D.I. 11 and its June 29, 2021 SO ORDERED entry; D.I. 19 and its November 22, 2021 SO ORDERED entry; the Answer and initial-disclosures entries bearing "(Smith, Rodger)." These come from the Patexia docket mirror for 21-654; I could not pull the live PACER docket sheet directly.
• Not confirmed: (a) any second Morris Nichols attorney on this docket; (b) office locations for Watson and Borah; (c) whether any of these attorneys formally withdrew after the case was stayed. A stay does not withdraw counsel of record, so the appearances above remain the operative ones as of the last docket snapshot I could retrieve.
• No in-house counsel identified for Amphenol/Times Fiber on the 21-654 docket. (By contrast, PPC in-house chief IP counsel Christopher Day was active in the PTAB — see the plaintiff-side section.)
• No sealed or non-public appearances are at issue; all of the pro hac vice admissions and the answer are public filings.
• Consistency with the earlier sections: this confirms and completes the plaintiff-side note that "pro hac vice was granted for Dale Chang and Richard Lowry (Latham & Watkins)" (D.I. 19) — that was the second defense PHV wave; the first wave (Grant, Frenkel, Watson, Borah) came nearly five months earlier at D.I. 11, which the earlier sections had not identified.