US 10446983

I'll verify the litigation/docket status with searches, then summarize from the authoritative patent text provided.

Let me try to retrieve the actual claim text, since the provided source text does not include the claims.

US 10,446,983 B2 — Summary and Current Docket Check

Identification

Continuation chain (from the patent's own cross-reference): 16/050,726 → 15/431,018 (filed Feb. 13, 2017) → 15/094,451 (Apr. 8, 2016; now US 9,570,859) → 13/448,937 (Apr. 17, 2012; now US 9,312,611) → 13/118,617 (May 31, 2011; now US 8,157,589) → CIP of 12/418,103 (Apr. 3, 2009; now US 8,071,174) and 12/941,709 (Nov. 8, 2010; now US 7,950,958), the latter being a continuation of 12/397,087 (Mar. 3, 2009; now US 7,828,595), itself a continuation of 10/997,218 (Nov. 24, 2004).

Abstract (as published)

"A grounding member for maintaining a ground path in a cable connector includes, in one embodiment, an inner core configured to flex when a force is applied to the grounding member during operation of the connector. The grounding member further includes an outer conductive coating applied to the inner core. The outer conductive coating is configured to flex from a first state to a second state when a force is applied to the grounding member, so as to maintain a conductive path through the connector when the outer conductive coating flexes between the first and second states during operation of the connector."

Plain-language overview

The patent belongs to PPC Broadband's long-running coaxial-connector grounding family. The core idea is a small elastomeric member — typically an O-ring — that sits at the interface between the connector's post (or integral post/connector body) and the coupling member (nut), and/or at the second end of the connector body. The ring does double duty:

• Physical sealing — it blocks moisture and environmental contaminants at the port/connector junction, where corrosion normally degrades shielding.
• Electrical continuity / grounding — because it is conductive (either a bulk conductive elastomer or, per the specification, a non-conductive silicone core with a conductive coating on its outer surface, e.g. a silver-based conductive ink thinned with a silicone topcoat), it completes an unbroken ground path from the cable's conductive grounding shield → post → conductive member → coupling member → interface port.

The specification distinguishes two placements: a "conductively coated mating edge member" (O-ring 70) contacting the post's mating edge, and a "connector body conductive member" (O-ring 80) seated in the annular recess at the connector body's second end and contacting the coupler's outer internal wall. Either or both may be used, including with the integral post connector body of FIG. 6.

Independent claims — plain-language overview (with a caveat)

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: The authoritative source text supplied for this patent (the Google Patents full-text fetch) does not include the claims section — the fetch terminates mid-specification. I therefore could not verify the literal wording of the independent claims, and I will not fabricate claim language. What follows is grounded in (a) the patent's own eleven "general aspects," which mirror its claim set, and (b) the PTAB record, which identifies the claims actually challenged.

From the PTAB record, the challenged claims of the '983 patent were claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 (per the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. James Dickens, IPR2022-00718/‑00719/‑00720/‑00721). The presence of a large contiguous block starting at claim 8 suggests at least two independent claims (a connector claim at/near claim 1, and another statutory class or scope at/near claim 8). On that basis, the independent claims appear to cover:

1. A connector claim (≈ claim 1) — a coaxial-cable connector comprising a connector body, a coupling member, and a conductive seal / grounding member (the O-ring) that electrically couples the connector body and the coupling member, optionally contacting the post's mating edge or the coupler's inner surface.
2. A second connector or method claim (≈ claim 8) — a connector or method in which the conductively coated member resides within the coupling member and physically/electrically contacts either the post's mating edge or the coupling member's inner surface, to (i) maintain electrical continuity between the post and coupling member, (ii) ground the connector to the port, and (iii) complete an EMI/RFI shield against ingress of unwanted electromagnetic interference.
3. Possible method claims — the specification's aspects 5, 6, 10, and 11 recite methods of grounding a coaxial cable through the connector and methods of facilitating electrical continuity, comprising providing the connector, fixedly attaching the cable, and advancing/threading the connector onto an interface port.

Bottom line: functionally, the claim set is directed to a connector with a conductive (optionally conductively-coated, elastomeric) grounding/sealing ring bridging the post/body and the coupler, plus the corresponding grounding methods. I would not quote claim language without re-fetching the claim listing from USPTO PatentCenter or the issued patent PDF.

Litigation and PTAB / CAFC status (as of April 26, 2026)

The official family record lists a PTAB proceeding and litigation:

• PTAB: IPR2022-00719, Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (filed March 18, 2022; petitioner Amphenol Corp.; patent owner PPC Broadband; respondent application 16/050,726; patent 10,446,983). Institution decision October 24, 2022. Final Written Decision October 23, 2023 — "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" (35 U.S.C. § 318(a)). Patent Owner's request for rehearing was denied February 28, 2024; Patent Owner noticed appeal April 29, 2024.
• CAFC: Appeal No. 24-1777, part of a consolidated set 24-1776, 24-1777, 24-1778, 24-1779 (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp.), each appeal arising from IPR2022-00718, ‑00719, ‑00720, and ‑00721 (patents 10,965,063; 10,446,983; 10,038,284; 9,225,083 respectively). Oral argument was held March 2, 2026 (Panel B, D.C. Circuit calendar). On March 4, 2026 the court issued a Rule 36 judgment — per curiam (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) — AFFIRMED (nonprecedential disposition). Source: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html
  • ⚠️ Note on scope: the Rule 36 judgment is a one-page affirmance covering all four consolidated appeals. It is nonprecedential and does not state reasoning, so it does not, on its face, separately restate the outcome for the '983 patent. Based on the IPR2022-00719 record (FWD finding all challenged claims unpatentable) and the affirmance, the practical effect is that the challenged claims of the '983 patent stand cancelled.
• District court: A U.S. case was filed in the District of Delaware, Docket No. 1:21-cv-00654. The source listing does not state the party names or outcome; I have not independently verified the parties, so I flag this as unconfirmed.
• Amphenol IPRs (context): IPR2022-00718 (10,965,063), IPR2022-00719 (10,446,983), IPR2022-00720 (10,038,284), IPR2022-00721 (9,225,083). Ground 1 combined Youtsey (US 6,042,422), Lionetto (US 4,929,188), and Horak (US 3,879,102); Ground 2 used Tarrant (US 5,083,943) among others.

Discrepancy to note

Google Patents simultaneously shows "Expired – Lifetime" with an anticipated expiration of November 24, 2024, and the PTAB record shows all challenged claims held unpatentable and affirmed. These are not necessarily contradictory (term expiry vs. claim cancellation are different events), but the "Expired – Lifetime" label should be treated as a bibliographic status field, not as a current legal conclusion about claim survival. The controlling fact for enforceability is the IPR2022-00719 Final Written Decision of October 23, 2023, affirmed on March 4, 2026.

Related family members (for context)

US 10,965,063 (issued Mar. 30, 2021); US 11,984,687 (May 14, 2024); US 12,009,619 (June 11, 2024); US 10,038,284 (July 31, 2018); US 9,570,859; US 9,312,611; US 9,225,083; US 9,312,611; US 8,157,589; US 8,071,174; US 7,950,958; US 7,828,595 — plus published applications US 2021/0194184, US 2021/0194185, US 2021/0194186, and US 2023/0307877, all claiming priority to the 2004-11-24 date.

Confidence statement: Bibliographic data (number, title, inventors, assignee, dates, priority chain, abstract) is high confidence — it comes from the authoritative patent text and corroborating records. The PTAB/CAFC status is high confidence with the specific URLs cited above. The independent claim overview is medium confidence because the claims text was not present in the supplied source; I recommend re-pulling the claim listing from USPTO PatentCenter (application 16/050,726) before relying on any claim characterization for legal purposes.

I'll research the litigation history for US 10446983 using multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the district court case and the CAFC appeal.

Let me verify which patents were asserted in the Delaware case and confirm the current status.

I was cut off before completing all verification searches, but I gathered enough grounded information to give a reliable answer. Below is the litigation picture for US Patent 10,446,983 B2 ("Connector having a grounding member"; PPC Broadband, Inc., a Belden Inc. subsidiary; inventors Krenceski, Mathews, Montena). Note the patent is listed with an anticipated expiration of 2024‑11‑24 (20 years from the 2004‑11‑24 priority date) and Google Patents shows its legal status as "Expired – Lifetime."

I found one piece of federal district‑court litigation, one PTAB inter partes review, and one Federal Circuit appeal directly involving the '983 patent. All three trace to the same PPC Broadband v. Amphenol dispute.

1. District Court litigation

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• Plaintiff: PPC Broadband, Inc. (operating company; parent Belden Inc.)
• Defendants: Amphenol Corporation; Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
• Jurisdiction/Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington Division)
• Case No.: 1:21‑cv‑00654
• Filing date: May 6, 2021
• Nature of suit: 830 Patent; cause of action 35:1 Patent Infringement
• Judge: originally Judge Leonard P. Stark; later reassigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams
• Outcome/status: Case flags STAYED and PATENT; aggregator data reflects the case thereafter as Closed. The '983 patent was among the patents PPC asserted in this action. PPC's own PTAB mandatory notices in the '983 IPR identify this district‑court case as a related judicial matter, and Amphenol's PTAB briefing relies on PPC's infringement contentions served in "No. C.A. 21‑654 (LPS) (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2022)."
• Sources: http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--21-cv-00654/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Amphenol_Corporation_et_al/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:21-cv-00654/ppc-broadband-inc-v-amphenol-corp ; PTAB mandatory notices (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/)

Caveat: Aggregator databases disagree on the current docket label ("Closed" vs. "STAYED"). The case had been stayed pending the parallel IPRs. I did not directly confirm the final disposition from PACER, so treat the precise closing mechanism as unverified.

2. PTAB proceedings (administrative)

Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. — IPR2022‑00719

• Petitioner: Amphenol Corp.; Patent Owner: PPC Broadband, Inc. (real parties‑in‑interest also include Belden Inc.)
• Patent challenged: U.S. 10,446,983 B2 (the '983 patent)
• Filing date: March 18, 2022
• Claims challenged: 1–5, 8–15, 18
• Institution decision: October 24, 2022 (instituted)
• Final Written Decision: October 23, 2023 — all challenged claims held unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 318(a))
• Post‑judgment: Patent Owner request for rehearing denied February 28, 2024
• Board panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith (author), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito
• Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00719 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[162531](/patent/162531) ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00719

Note: the '983 was one of four parallel Amphenol IPRs against PPC coaxial‑connector patents — IPR2022‑00718 ('063 patent), IPR2022‑00719 ('983 patent), IPR2022‑00720 ('284 patent), and IPR2022‑00721 ('083 patent).

3. Federal Circuit appeal

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp.

• Appellant: PPC Broadband, Inc.; Appellee: Amphenol Corp.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Consolidated case Nos.: 2024‑1776, 2024‑1777, 2024‑1778, 2024‑1779
• Filing date: May 3, 2024 (Patent Owner's notice of appeal in the '983 IPR was filed April 29, 2024)
• Mapping: Appeal 24‑1777 corresponds to IPR2022‑00719, i.e., the '983 patent (24‑1776 = '718, 24‑1778 = '720, 24‑1779 = '721).
• Outcome: AFFIRMED — judgment entered March 4, 2026, under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential). Panel: Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham. The Federal Circuit thus left standing the PTAB's invalidation of the '983 patent claims.
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-1777 ; https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf ; Law360 ("Fed. Circ. Backs PTAB Ax Of Coaxial Cable Patent Claims," Mar. 4, 2026)

4. Related litigation that does NOT involve the '983 patent (flagged to avoid confusion)

Per the literal-number rule, the following are different patents and are listed only to head off mistaken attribution:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation, No. 5:21‑cv‑00504 (N.D.N.Y., filed April 30, 2021) — declaratory‑judgment action concerning U.S. Patent 10,589,957 (not the '983). Dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation on October 4, 2021. (Some aggregators mislabel the court as "New York Southern District.") Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/5:21-cv-00504
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Charles Industries, LLC and Amphenol Corporation, No. 1:22‑cv‑01517 (D. Del., filed Nov. 21, 2022) — concerns U.S. Patent 9,008,483 B2 (not the '983). Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2022cv01517/80784
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑01148 (D. Del., filed Aug. 28, 2020) — an earlier PPC/Amphenol Delaware suit. I could not verify from the available results whether the '983 patent was asserted in it, so I do not attribute it to the '983.

Summary table

Bottom line: The only litigation I can confirm directly involving US 10,446,983 is the PPC Broadband v. Amphenol/Times Fiber dispute in D. Del. (1:21‑cv‑00654), its parallel PTAB review (IPR2022‑00719), and the resulting Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24‑1777, affirmed March 4, 2026). The claims of the '983 patent that were challenged were held unpatentable and that holding was affirmed on appeal.

Confidence notes: Case numbers, parties, courts, and dates are corroborated across Google Patents, Unified Patents, Patexia, Justia, and the CAFC opinion. Two items I could not fully verify and would confirm against PACER before relying on them: (a) the exact final disposition of 1:21‑cv‑00654 (the "Closed" status comes from an aggregator, and the case had been stayed), and (b) whether every one of the four patents (including the '983) was formally named in that complaint versus being brought in through related filings.

I'll start by reconciling the structured ODP data with what the patent page itself discloses, then research the proceeding it flags.

Good — the ODP block says "no PTAB activity," but the patent's own page linked IPR2022-00719. Let me nail down the claim-level disposition, claim structure, and the appeal.

Let me verify the claim structure, check for any other IPRs on this patent, and check the parallel district court case.

PTAB Landscape — US 10,446,983 ("Connector having a grounding member")

⚠️ Data-source discrepancy — read first. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) reports no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That block is contradicted by the patent's own Google Patents record for US 10,446,983, which links "PTAB case IPR2022-00719 filed (Final Written Decision)" alongside a Unified Patents litigation link. Web search confirms a fully-litigated IPR went to a Final Written Decision, was appealed, and was affirmed. The ODP ingest is stale/missing for this patent; do not rely on it. The proceeding below is real and dispositive, and I flag it per instructions.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding on file for US 10,446,983 — IPR2022-00719 — which went to a Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged claims (1–5, 8–15, 18); the cancellation was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-04. Breakdown: 0 active, 1 claims-invalidated, 0 claims-sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. Defensive posture: the two independent claims (1 and 9) and every challenged dependent claim are dead, so any demand letter built on claims 1–5, 8–15, or 18 has no case; the only residual exposure is the four unchallenged dependent claims (6, 7, 16, 17), which were never before the Board and which I could not confirm have been independently asserted or tested (see Strategic summary).

IPR2022-00719 — Amphenol Corp. (with Times Fiber Communications, Inc. and Holland Electronics, LLC) v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2022-03-18 (Petition, Paper 2, 102 pages)
• Status: Verbatim from the record — "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" (Paper 35, 2023-10-23); docket status shown as "Final Written Decision – Appealed"; now affirmed by the CAFC (2026-03-04). Plain-English gloss: every claim that was challenged is canceled; the patent owner lost at the Board and lost the appeal.
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith (writing), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito. Argued as a consolidated hearing with IPR2022-00718/-00720/-00721 on 2023-07-20 (transcript Paper 34).
• Petition grounds (both § 103(a) obviousness; no § 112 challenge):
  • Ground 1 — claims 1–5, 8–15, 18 unpatentable over Youtsey (US 6,042,422) in view of Lionetto (US 4,929,188) and Horak (US 3,879,102) (Exs. 1007–1009).
  • Ground 2 — claims 1–5, 8–15, 18 unpatentable over Tarrant (US 5,083,943) in view of Bell (Ex. 1011). (I confirmed Ex. 1010 = Tarrant; I did not verify Bell's patent number in the record retrieved, so I do not state one.)
  • Supporting evidence: Declaration + Supplemental Declaration of Dr. James Dickens (Exs. 1005, 1026). Patent Owner relied on Dr. Charles A. Eldering (Exs. 2001, 2042).
• Institution decision: Instituted on all claims and grounds — 2022-10-24 (Paper 11, 75 pages). The panel applied § 314(a) and granted review of the full challenge; the parties also filed an authorized Preliminary-Response reply/sur-reply (Papers 8, 10) before institution.
• Final Written Decision (2023-10-23, Paper 35):
  • Held unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 — this is the full challenged set. The Board's summary: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18 of the '983 patent are unpatentable."
  • Independent claim 1 was analyzed element-by-element (1[a]–1[d]), with the key disputed element being 1[d], the "conductive grounding portion comprising a compliant ring… configured to provide an electrical path between the body portion and the conductive coupling portion." The Board found the difference over Youtsey was the coupler-to-body grounding path and the conductive O-ring, and found a motivation to modify Youtsey (e.g., maintain the ground shield in a loose connector; crevasse susceptible to RFI), rejecting Patent Owner's three asserted disadvantages (inferior environmental seal; increased resistance to rotation; increased cost) — the panel credited Petitioner's evidence that a conductive O-ring needs no increased compression and is not meaningfully more expensive.
  • Claims 2–5, 8–15, 18 were dispatched together as dependent claims riding on the independent claims (FWD § III.B.4). Independent claim 9 and its dependents (10–15, 18) fell under the same analysis; Ground 2 (Tarrant + Bell) provided an independent path to the same result.
  • No challenged claim was held patentable. I found no claim that survived.
  • The FWD also contains a collateral estoppel section (~p. 96). I did not retrieve the full text of that subsection and therefore do not characterize its holding.
• Settlement / termination: None. The case was not settled or terminated early; it ran the full statutory trial to FWD. (No settlement terms exist to disclose.)
• Request for rehearing: Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing of the FWD on 2023-11-22; denied 2024-02-28 (Paper 37). The rehearing request is where Patent Owner argued the Decision (a) invented a "redundant second grounding path" motivation not advanced by Petitioner, and (b) "made up and relied upon four new arguments about the prior art" (Lionetto, Horak, Bell, Campbell). The panel rejected both, holding the arguments were not raised earlier (e.g., "we did not overlook or misapprehend Patent Owner's argument, because it was not raised.").
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal filed 2024-04-29 (Paper 38) → CAFC No. 2024-1777, consolidated with 2024-1776, -1777, -1778, -1779 (the four Amphenol IPRs). Issues on appeal (per the Notice): (1) whether Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak renders claims 1–5, 8–15, 18 obvious; (2) Administrative Procedure Act violations — whether the FWD and Rehearing Decision were "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or in excess of the Board's jurisdiction"; (3) substantial-evidence challenges to the Board's factual findings. Disposition: AFFIRMED, per curiam (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham), nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment entered 2026-03-04. Appellant argued through Finnegan (Robert King High III, Cory C. Bell, J. Michael Jakes); Appellee Amphenol through Latham & Watkins (Gabriel K. Bell, Richard A. Lowry, Richard G. Frenkel). Because it is a Rule 36 summary affirmance, there is no written opinion explaining the reasoning — do not attribute reasoning to the CAFC beyond "no reversible error found."
• Defensive value: Decisive. Claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 of the '983 patent are canceled, and cancellation is final after the 2026-03-04 affirmance. Any infringement allegation premised on claim 1 or claim 9 — or on the dependent claims that were adjudicated — is now unwinnable and, if pressed after notice of the FWD, risks Rule 11 exposure. Note the practical caveat: the patent's statutory term expired 2024-11-24 (20 years from the 2004-11-24 priority date), so the only conceivable damages window is § 286's six-year lookback; that window is already largely coextensive with the period the canceled claims were being litigated.
• Key links:
  • PTAB record/decisions (retrievable in PTAB E2E / PTACTS under IPR2022-00719); the FWD + Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal are bundled at the Board's public document viewer: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents?artifactId=RfQL2PfptmoeBTMfv4LllmCzdJtEFGAaf8kufhRSEd3Y6FnbcTesF7c
  • Consolidated hearing transcript (Paper 34): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/09-18-2023-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-34-Other__Hearing_transcript.pdf
  • CAFC Rule 36 judgment (2024-1776 et al., 2026-03-04): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf
  • CourtListener docket, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., No. 24-1776: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72350195/ppc-broadband-inc-v-amphenol-corp/

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Of the 14 claims challenged, all 14 were held unpatentable, and the FWD's judgment line is "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." That kills the two independent claims — claim 1 and claim 9 — and their adjudicated dependents: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18. No claim was sustained. What remains ontested are the claims the Petition never touched. Because the challenge set is 1–5, 8–15, 18 and claim 18 exists, claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 fall in the gaps and were never adjudicated by the Board; the Patent Owner's claim charts I retrieved show claim 8 depending from claim 5 and claim 18 depending from claim 15, which strongly implies claims 6–7 depend from the claim-1 family and claims 16–17 from the claim-9 family — but I did not independently verify their dependency chains, and you should pull the patent's claim listing before relying on that inference. Practically, a dependent claim that incorporates a limitation the Board found obvious over the same art is not a safe assertion target, but it is not estopped from being asserted the way a canceled claim is: the patent owner retains the burden of proof if it tries to resurrect them, and no § 315 estoppel runs against a patent owner. Treat claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 as the only remaining theoretical exposure, and treat the expired term (2024-11-24) as capping it.

Estoppel landscape. Under § 315(e)(2), Amphenol, Times Fiber Communications, and Holland Electronics — the three real parties in interest — and their privies are barred from asserting in litigation any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00719. For a different defendant facing assertion today, the analysis is more favorable than estoppel law: you do not need the estoppel statute, because the claims themselves are canceled. The practical point is that the strongest prior-art combos are now public, judicially blessed record: Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak and Tarrant + Bell. If any residual claim (6, 7, 16, or 17) is asserted, those same references remain fully available to you — estoppel binds the petitioner, not the rest of the industry — and the Board's reasoning on motivation, reasonable expectation of success, and the rejection of the "inseparable seal / increased torque / increased cost" disadvantages is now a ready-made invalidity narrative. The Patent Owner's appellate theories (new-argument/APA and substantial evidence) were rejected, so there is no residual appellate hook for the patent owner to exploit against a similarly framed follow-on challenge.

Pattern signals. Amphenol ran a coordinated four-patent campaign against PPC's connector family on the same 2022-03-18 filing date: IPR2022-00718 (US 10,965,063), IPR2022-00719 (this patent, US 10,446,983), IPR2022-00720 (US 10,038,284), and IPR2022-00721 (US 9,225,083) — all sharing the Gerstenblith/Hoskins/Ippolito panel, both sides' experts (Dickens for Amphenol, Eldering for PPC), and the same two obviousness combinations. PPC litigated hard rather than settling: Preliminary Response, authorized preliminary reply/sur-reply, full Patent Owner Response and Sur-Reply, a motion-to-strike/gripe-letter fight over improper reply evidence, oral argument, and a Request for Rehearing, then a consolidated Federal Circuit appeal that the CAFC disposed of under Rule 36 on 2026-03-04. The campaign was piggybacked on a parallel Delaware action, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.), identified as a related proceeding in the Board's records. This is a competitor-vs-competitor fight, not a defense-aggregator case — the Unified Patents PTAB link on the Google Patents page is merely Unified's database hosting the ODP record, not Unified acting as petitioner. I found no evidence of any second, separately-filed IPR on the '983 patent by another petitioner, but I was unable to run an exhaustive nationwide check before exhausting my search budget — verify independently if a second front matters to your strategy.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and the demand letter cites claims 1–5, 8–15, or 18: you win on the papers. Cite the FWD's judgment line verbatim — "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" — and the affirmance, "THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered… AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36" (entered 2026-03-04), then quote the Board's dispositive finding: "we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18 of the '983 patent are unpatentable." Link the FWD bundle at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549312/download-documents?artifactId=RfQL2PfptmoeBTMfv4LllmCzdJtEFGAaf8kufhRSEd3Y6FnbcTesF7c and the CAFC judgment at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf. Add the expiry point: the '983 patent's term expired 2024-11-24, so forward-looking injunctive relief is off the table and only § 286 past damages are even arguable.
2. If the patent owner pivots to claims 6, 7, 16, or 17: pull the issued claim set from the patent's own text, confirm their dependency chains, and map them against the FWD's claim-1 and claim-9 analyses. Any dependent claim whose only added limitation was already addressed in the FWD's element-by-element treatment is vulnerable on the same Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak combination; you are not bound by any estoppel and the petitioner's estoppel does not help the patent owner.
3. No active proceedings — nothing to calendar. Trial-stage milestones are moot: institution was 2022-10-24, trial closed with the FWD on 2023-10-23 (within the § 316(a)(11) one-year clock), rehearing was denied 2024-02-28, the appeal was docketed as 2024-1777 on 2024-04-29, and the mandate-issuing affirmance came 2026-03-04. The next administrative step in the patent's life is the Director's issuance of a certificate canceling claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 under § 318(b) — worth checking for in PTAB E2E / Patent Center to confirm the cancellation has been formally recorded.
4. Fix your data pipeline. The ODP "no proceedings" result is wrong for this patent. If your tooling ingests the ODP AIA-trial feed, IPR2022-00719 is falling through it — reconcile the feed against the Google Patents "Family has litigation / PTAB case" field before you tell anyone this patent is untested.

Confidence notes: proceeding number, filing date, claim set, grounds, institution date, FWD date and disposition, rehearing denial, appeal number, and CAFC affirmance are all corroborated across at least two independent sources. Items I could not verify and therefore do not assert: the Bell reference's patent number, the dependency chains for claims 6, 7, 16, and 17, the Board's specific collateral-estoppel holding, and whether any additional IPR on the '983 exists.

I'll research the assignment record and litigation history for US 10446983 before assembling the report.

Let me get the specific assignment/legal-event records for US 10446983 and verify the corporate name-change chain.

Important data-provenance note before the findings

I was unable to complete a live query of USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or the legacy Assignment Search (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) during this session — targeted searches returned no Assignment Center results for this patent number. What follows therefore separates (a) what is documented on the patent face and in Google Patents legal events for this family, from (b) what I could not verify. I have not invented any reel/frame numbers; the three reel/frame entries below are real records I confirmed on sibling family members, and I flag that provenance explicitly.

Inventors

Pattern notes (kept to what the record supports):

• All three are career connector-product engineers at the same East Syracuse, NY employer. Montena has been named on John Mezzalingua / PPC connector patents continuously since at least the 2004 priority application in this chain; Krenceski and Mathews are the materials/elastomer side of the family (Krenceski is also a named inventor on the related conductive-elastomer work, e.g. US 8,071,174, "Conductive elastomer and method of applying a conductive coating to elastomeric substrate"). This is a normal captive-R&D pattern, not a fire-sale precursor. There is no evidence that any inventor left PPC Broadband within 12 months of filing.
• The absence of evidence matters here: because inventors are salaried employees of a large operating company and the application is a 14-year-deep continuation chain, the "all inventors depart before a portfolio sale" tell does not apply.

Original assignee

PPC Broadband, Inc., 454 East Syracuse, NY — the entity named under (73) Assignee on the issued patent, and also the (71) Applicant. (The chain's earliest owner was John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., which is the same business pre-rename — see the timeline.)

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. PPC Broadband is a manufacturer of coaxial-cable connectors, drop/hardline connectors, splitters, taps, fiber and in-home networking gear sold to CATV/broadband operators and installers. The patented subject matter (a coated, compliant grounding ring maintaining a ground path through the connector under flex/loose-nut conditions) is core commercial connector architecture, not a paper asset. PPC's patents are listed across Justia's assignee page for PPC Broadband with product-oriented abstracts (e.g. https://patents.justia.com/assignee/ppc-broadband).
• Primary line of business: Broadband/CATV coaxial connector and premises-network hardware.
• Entity status: Large entity (large-entity maintenance fees paid on family members). Status: operating. Aggregator data describes PPC Broadband as "A Belden Brand" (e.g. https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_10446983_Connector_having_a_grounding_member-NYR9MDN/issues); I was not able to verify the Belden relationship against a primary SEC filing (10-K/8-K) in this session, so treat that affiliation as medium-confidence and unconfirmed.
• Post-issuance ownership change: none evident. The patent still names PPC Broadband, Inc., and no assignment to any third party appears in the sources I could reach.

Assignment timeline

Records confirmed against this patent's family (not verified as recorded on application 16/050,726 itself)

• 2008-06-17 (effective) / recorded 2008 — Reel 021106/0478

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Noah Montena (individual inventor)
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., New York
  • Correspondent: not captured in the legal-events record I retrieved — flagged as unknown rather than guessed.
  • Context: routine inventor-to-employer assignment on an earlier application in the same continuation chain; this is the origin of the chain, not a post-issuance transfer.

• 2012-09-11 (effective) / recorded 2012 — Reel 029800/0479

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: MR ADVISERS LIMITED, New York
  • Correspondent: not captured.
  • Context: internal corporate rename only — no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2012-11-05 (effective) / recorded 2012 — Reel 029803/0437

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Assignee: PPC BROADBAND, INC., New York
  • Correspondent: not captured.
  • Context: second step of the same internal rebrand; beneficial owner unchanged throughout.

Attribution caveat: I confirmed reels 021106/0478, 029800/0479 and 029803/0437 in the Google Patents legal-events blocks of John Mezzalingua/PPC sibling patents (e.g. the US7753705 family page). They are portfolio-wide recordings covering the East Syracuse connector portfolio, and the '983 patent — filed 2018-07-31, six years after the second rename completed — was filed directly in the name of PPC Broadband, Inc. So these records describe how the chain got to PPC Broadband, not transfers of the '983 asset itself.

For US 10,446,983 specifically

There is no post-issuance assignment, security interest, license, release, merger or correction record evidenced for application 16/050,726 in any source I could reach. Prosecution counsel of record is Oliff PLC (patent face, item 74) — that is prosecution representation, not assignment correspondence, and I am not treating it as an assignment-correspondent finding.

If Assignment Center in fact shows no records for this patent, the correct reading is the one you flagged: the original assignee still owns it — here, PPC Broadband, Inc. That is consistent with everything else in the record and is the expected outcome for a captive continuation filed by a company that never divested the family.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10446983
    2004 : Family shell filed
         : John Mezzalingua Associates
    2008 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2012 : Rename to MR Advisers Limited
    2012 : Rename to PPC Broadband Inc
    2018 : Continuation filed by PPC
    2019 : Patent issues to PPC Broadband
    2021 : PPC sues Amphenol in Delaware
    2022 : Amphenol files IPR
    2023 : All claims held unpatentable
    2024 : PPC appeals to Federal Circuit

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
The only "unusual-looking" name in the chain, MR ADVISERS LIMITED, arrives by a Change of Name conveyance (reel 029800/0479, effective 2012-09-11), not an Assignment, and it is immediately followed by a second Change of Name to PPC Broadband, Inc. (reel 029803/0437, effective 2012-11-05). There is no transfer out of the operating business, no "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, and no licensing-only LLC. The corporate form in the record is "Inc." on both ends.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
PPC Broadband, Inc. matches none of the listed NPE directories (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). To the contrary, PPC appears in those ecosystems as the target/patent owner opposing an NPE-style challenge — Amphenol Corp. filed IPR2022-00719 against this patent, and a third party (Unified Patents' public portal) indexes the family. PPC is a high-volume patent plaintiff (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., No. 1:21-cv-00654-LPS, D. Del.), but it litigates in its own name as a manufacturer against a competitor.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / cannot be established.
I could not retrieve assignment-correspondent fields for the three reel/frame entries above, so there is no basis to assert (or deny) a repeat-player attorney running multiple links. The only attorney-side name I can ground is Oliff PLC as prosecution counsel on the patent face — a single firm doing ordinary prosecution work, which is expressly not the recurrence signal you described. Additional Assignment Center lookups are required to close this out.

4. Cascading transfers — not present as an NPE tell.
The two 2012 recordations are ~8 weeks apart, which superficially fits a "<24 months chained transfer" pattern. But both conveyances are Change of Name, and the "assignor" of the second is the "assignee" of the first — administrative rename bookkeeping, not transfers through chained LLCs with shared principals or addresses. No LLC-to-LLC assignments appear.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
The Delaware suit was filed in 2021 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A21-cv-00654), roughly 2.5 years after the 2018-07-31 filing and ~2 years after the 2019-10-15 grant. No assignment within 6 months before suit; there is no assignment at all after issuance. The chain was not arranged to manufacture standing, because no chain was needed.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
No Chapter 7/11 proceeding is associated with PPC Broadband, John Mezzalingua Associates, or MR Advisers Limited anywhere in the material reviewed.

7. Privateering — not present.
PPC asserts this patent directly and in its own name against Amphenol, a named competitor. There is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer, and no third-party assertion vehicle. The IPR2022-00719 caption is literally Amphenol Corp. et al. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. et al. (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00719), i.e. competitor-on-manufacturer litigation, the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present.
The chain terminates at an operating manufacturer (PPC Broadband, Inc.), not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Note the nuance: the patent has been materially neutralized — by invalidation, not by defensive aggregation. In IPR2022-00719 the Board instituted on 2022-10-24 and issued a Final Written Decision on 2023-10-23 determining all challenged claims (1–5, 8–15, 18) unpatentable; PPC's request for rehearing was denied 2024-02-28 and PPC noticed appeal on 2024-04-29, docketed at the Federal Circuit as 24-1777 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1777).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The patent issued on 2019-10-15 directly to PPC Broadband, Inc. (East Syracuse, NY), a large-entity manufacturer of coaxial connectors, and the only assignment-type event I could substantiate pre-dating it is the internal 2012 Change of Name pair (reels 029800/0479 effective 2012-09-11 and 029803/0437 effective 2012-11-05), which changed nothing beneficially. There is no assignment, no shell-entity transfer, no known asserter, and no defensive aggregator in the chain; PPC has instead asserted the patent in its own name against a direct competitor, Amphenol, in D. Del. 1:21-cv-00654, and Amphenol's IPR2022-00719 invalidated all challenged claims on 2023-10-23 (now on appeal, Fed. Cir. 24-1777). Two of your signals are simply unresolvable from the data I could reach — repeat assignment correspondent and the precise recording dates — so this verdict rests on the record-verified facts, not on absence of evidence alone.

Verify at: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 10446983) and https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/. If Assignment Center returns zero records for 10446983, that confirms the reading above: PPC Broadband, Inc. remains the owner of record and no post-issuance transfer occurred.

Caveats I want on the record: (1) I did not personally query Assignment Center, so reel/frame coverage for this exact patent is unconfirmed; (2) assignee correspondents were not captured, so signal 3 is open; (3) the "Belden brand" affiliation for PPC Broadband is aggregator-sourced and unverified against an SEC filing.

I'll research US Patent 10446983 and its prior art citations.

Let me look specifically for the cited references of US 10,446,983.

Let me get the specific citation data for US 10,446,983 from patent databases.

Prior‑Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,446,983 (“Connector having a grounding member”)

1. The patent you asked about (verified, not auto‑corrected)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10446983B2](/patent/US10446983B2)/en ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/[ptab](/ptab)/case/IPR2022-00719

2. Methodology / important limitation (stated up front)

The authoritative full‑text you supplied is the specification, not the patent’s front‑page “References Cited” list. The USPTO PatentCenter/Google Patents “Citations” data for 10,446,983 itself was not fully retrievable through the search tool within this session. What is retrievable with confidence:

• The face‑of‑patent “References Cited” list for U.S. 9,570,859 (the immediate sibling continuation in the same chain, filing 2016‑04‑08, sharing the identical specification). Google Patents reports 8 patent citations for it.
• The prior art actually asserted against 10,446,983 in IPR2022‑00719 (Amphenol v. PPC), which is the operative invalidity art for this patent.

I therefore give you (a) the 8 family “References Cited” entries and (b) the IPR art, and I flag clearly where I cannot confirm an entry is printed on the 10,446,983 front page itself. Red‑flag rule followed: I will not fabricate a citation list.

Source for the 8 citations: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9570859

3. “References Cited” (US patent documents) — the family list

Read‑through: entries 6–8 are the applicant’s own priority chain (they appear as “Related U.S. Patent Documents”/cross‑references, not as examiner prior art). That leaves five genuinely third‑party documents (1–5), none of which discloses the claimed combination of (i) a body portion with a first grounding‑member contact surface, (ii) a post portion with a flange forming a mating interface, (iii) a conductive coupling portion with an opposing contact surface and lip, and (iv) a compliant/conductively‑coated grounding ring between those surfaces. On their face they are §103 background, not §102 anticipatory art.

4. The operative prior art — IPR2022‑00719 (Amphenol v. PPC Broadband)

This is the art that actually mattered for 10,446,983. The PTAB instituted on claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18, with a Final Written Decision entered Oct. 23, 2023 (Paper 35, 100 pp.). Petitioner’s two grounds:

Ground 1 — Youtsey in view of Lionetto and Horak

Source: Petitioner’s Demonstratives, IPR2022‑00718/‑00719/‑00720/‑00721, July 20, 2023 — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549313](/patent/1549313)/download-documents?artifactId=z86chXjAEziMFzLmuceyXVOAnpVTxhfz17zrOdMPIxkIVa0Oe3Ct1Nw

Ground 2 — Youtsey in view of Tarrant

• Tarrant — U.S. Patent No. 5,083,943 (Tarrant) — “Coaxial cable connector,” pub. Jan. 1992. (Appears on the family reference list as “5083943 … Tarrant.”) Used as the second combination reference.

5. §102 anticipation — claim‑by‑claim assessment

Because the claims of 10,446,983 are directed to the combination of a body portion, a post portion with a flange forming a mating interface, a conductive coupling portion with an opposing contact surface/lip, and a compliant ring (conductive grounding portion) between the two contact surfaces providing an electrical path, the anticipation picture is as follows. (Claim set: at least claims 1–18; the claims at issue in IPR2022‑00719 were 1–5, 8–15, 18.)

Bottom line: No single cited reference appears to anticipate the full scope of the independent claims of 10,446,983 under §102. The genuinely threatening art is the §103 combination of Youtsey + Lionetto (+ Horak) — i.e., O‑ring structural sealing from Youtsey plus conductive‑elastomer grounding from Lionetto — with Tarrant in the alternative ground. That is why the challenge was framed as obviousness, not anticipation.

6. What I could not confirm (stated explicitly)

1. The exact front‑page “References Cited” list printed on U.S. 10,446,983 B2 itself. I retrieved the 8‑reference family list (from U.S. 9,570,859, same continuation chain and specification). Verify the identical list against the 10,446,983 PDF before relying on it as that patent’s own citation list.
2. The precise patent number for “Youtsey” (Ex. 1007). The record refers to “Youtsey”; the family reference list contains “6,042,422 … Youtsey.” I have not independently confirmed Ex. 1007 = US 6,042,422 with high confidence — treat the number as provisional.
3. The Final Written Decision outcome of IPR2022‑00719 (which claims were held unpatentable and in what final form, and any Federal Circuit disposition in 24‑1777). The decision exists (Paper 35, Oct. 23, 2023); I do not have its substantive holdings confirmed and will not guess at them.
4. The full, literal text of claims 1–18 of 10,446,983. The specification you supplied includes the claim‑supporting disclosure but not the issued claim set. The §102 mapping above is therefore framed at the level of claim limitations rather than verbatim claim language.

Recommended next step for a bulletproof §102 chart: pull the USPTO PatentCenter “References Cited” page and the full claim set for 16/050,726, and pull Exhibits 1007–1009 from IPR2022‑00719 on the PTAB PTACTS portal to fix the Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak/Tarrant identities and dates.

I'll research the specific prior-art references and claim text before constructing the §103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the actual claim language and the specific IPR2022-00719 grounds.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,446,983 B2 ("Connector Having a Grounding Member")

Builds on the prior two sections; does not repeat their content. The litigation/PTAB history is summarized only where it bears on the § 103 analysis.

0. Analytical caveats (stated up front)

1. The authoritative source text supplied for the '983 patent still does not include the claims. The Google Patents fetch terminates mid‑specification. I therefore analyze the claim scope as characterized in the IPR record (challenged claims 1–5, 8–15, 18) and by reference to the verbatim claim language of the two sibling patents whose claims Amphenol actually quoted in the consolidated petitions: '063 patent claim 1 and '083 patent claim 1. I do not invent '983 claim language.
2. The '983 claim set appears to be the "grounding member / conductive seal" branch of the family, consistent with (a) the abstract's "inner core configured to flex… outer conductive coating… flex from a first state to a second state," (b) general aspects 1–4, 7–9 and 11 in the specification, and (c) the fact that Amphenol challenged it with the same two grounds used against the sibling patents.
3. Effective priority date matters. Google records a 2004‑11‑24 priority date. But the conductive‑coating subject matter was added by the CIP branch (Ser. No. 12/418,103, filed 2009‑04‑03, now US 8,071,174 — "Conductive elastomer and method of applying a conductive coating to elastomeric substrate"). Under § 120/§ 112 written‑description principles, claims that recite a conductively coated (as opposed to bulk‑conductive) member are at most entitled to the 2009‑04‑03 date; claims reciting only a conductive member may reach back to 2004‑11‑24. This distinction does not change the outcome, because every reference relied on below pre‑dates both dates by decades.

1. Governing legal framework

• 35 U.S.C. § 103: a claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") at the effective filing date.
• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): scope and content of the prior art; differences between the prior art and the claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination is obvious where it is the product of "ordinary creativity," where a known technique is used to improve a similar device in the same way, or where a simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results. A rigid "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" requirement is inconsistent with § 103.

PHOSITA (as construed in the parallel Amphenol IPRs): a person with a mechanical or electrical engineering background and several years of experience designing coaxial cable connectors, including familiarity with F‑type/CATV connectors, moisture sealing (O‑rings, gaskets), and RFI/EMI shielding.

2. The claim limitations to be accounted for

Synthesizing the '983 specification's general aspects, the sibling claim language, and the challenged‑claim set, the independent claims require (some combination of):

3. Ground 1 — Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak

These are the three references Google's own "Prior Art" link set and the IPR record identify as Amphenol's primary combination. They are cited in the record as IPR2022‑00718/‑00719/‑00720/‑00721, Ex. 1007 (Youtsey), Ex. 1008 (Lionetto), Ex. 1009 (Horak).

3.1 The references

(a) Youtsey — U.S. 6,042,422 ("Coaxial cable end connector crimped by axial compression," PCT‑Phoenix Communication Technologies‑USA, 2000-03-28).

• Teaches element D's structure: a first O‑ring 82 in an O‑ring groove, and a second O‑ring 84 positioned around the small exterior diameter portion of the outer barrel intermediate the second flange and the intermediate portion — i.e., an annular elastomeric member seated at the coupler/body interface.
  • Youtsey at 5:45‑56: "The O‑rings 82 and 84 seal the interior of the coaxial cable end connector 10 from moisture and other corrosive agents in the ambient environment when the female connector 10 is engaged to the male connector 16. The O‑rings 82 and 84 also function to retain the parts of the coaxial cable end connector 10 together until the connector 10 is fixed to the end of a coax cable by crimping."
• Teaches the connector architecture of elements A–C (outer barrel/body, inner tube/post with flange, rotatable female receptacle/coupling nut). Youtsey claim 7 recites the "female receptacle having internal threads… allow[ing] said female receptacle to rotate freely relative to said outer barrel and said inner tube."
• Silent on the O‑ring material — which is exactly the gap Lionetto and Horak fill. (The Amphenol demonstratives state the point expressly: "Not Disputed: Youtsey discloses a coupler‑body o‑ring that seals out moisture (silent on material composition).")

(b) Lionetto — U.S. 4,929,188 ("Coaxial connector assembly," M/A‑Com Omni Spectra, 1990‑05‑29).

• Teaches element D's conductivity function. Fig. 1 and col. 3: "the electrical contact is essentially through the leaf spring 22 and a conductive elastomer 34 against which the tapered surface 27 abuts."
• Claim 3 in terms: "an electrically conductive elastomer gasket ring, carried on said male member… providing continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression."
• Lionetto's stated purpose is expressly the same problem the '983 patent addresses: "assur[ing] shielding of the inner coaxial conductor from radio frequency interference." That is a direct teaching that a conductive elastomeric ring at a connector interface performs both a sealing and an RFI‑shielding/grounding function.

(c) Horak — U.S. 3,879,102 ("Entrance connector having a floating internal support sleeve," 1975‑04‑22).

• Teaches the "make the sealing ring conductive" step in a CATV coaxial connector. The specification states that "Additional security from RFI is obtained in the preferred embodiment by using a conductive rubber for the ring 18" and that "a conductive rubber ring 18 is preferred for additional protection from RFI."
• Horak thus supplies precisely the substitution the '983 patent claims as novel: replacing a plain rubber sealing ring with a conductive rubber sealing ring so that the same part both seals and completes the ground/shield path.

3.2 Element‑by‑element mapping

3.3 Motivation to combine

1. Same field of endeavor. All three are coaxial‑cable connectors, two of them expressly for CATV/broadband (Horak, Youtsey). KSR requires no more for analogous art.
2. Same problem, same solution type. Each reference independently identifies moisture ingress and/or RFI/EMI as the problem at the connector interface. Youtsey solves it structurally with an O‑ring; Lionetto and Horak teach that the O‑ring/gasket should be electrically conductive so that it also provides "continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression" (Lionetto cl. 3).
3. Simple substitution, predictable result. KSR: substituting a known conductive elastomer for a known non‑conductive rubber in a known sealing‑ring location yields the predictable benefit of simultaneous moisture sealing and ground‑path/EMI continuity. Horak states the benefit in so many words ("additional security from RFI").
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Neither Lionetto nor Horak reports any difficulty selecting or using a conductive elastomer; the Board itself previously observed in the '053 reexamination that "Bell discloses the use of a conductive O‑ring 34 in a coaxial connector… without mentioning any particular difficulties encountered with its selection and use."
5. Recognition in the art of the interchangeability of these parts. Lions: the family's own '053 reexamination was decided on this same Youtsey‑led combination, and Amphenol argued § 325(d) did not apply precisely because the Examiner "did not substantively address" these references. (Petition, § VII.)

3.4 This combination had already been adjudicated

The Amphenol demonstratives state the point explicitly: PPC "failed to disclose the '053 reexam, including the Board's determination that substantially similar claims were unpatentable over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak." Because the '983 shares the specification and the claim architecture of the '053/'063/'083 siblings, that prior Board determination is strong evidence that the combination is legally sufficient, not merely facially plausible.

4. Ground 2 — Tarrant + Bell (+ secondary references)

This is the second ground Amphenol advanced, and it is the more complete ground because it supplies the grounding‑member/continuity limitations directly and even independently of Youtsey's O‑ring.

(a) Tarrant — U.S. 5,083,943 ("CATV environmental F‑connector," Amphenol Corp., 1992‑01‑28).

Tarrant is an Amphenol patent, and the Amphenol petition maps the '983‑family claim elements onto it nearly 1:1:

• Connector couples a prepared coaxial cable (center conductor 6, dielectric 4, braid 5, jacket 3) to an interface port, Fig. 5a.
• Body member = "outer ferrule 7" (radially crimped metal).
• Post member = "inner body 15," engaging and not integral with the body member.
• Coupling member = "coupling nut 22," rotatable relative to post/body, with internal threads to engage the port.
• O‑ring 12 in groove 11 between the coupling nut 22 and the inner body 15 — Tarrant 3:48‑50: "Waterproofing is also aided by second o‑ring [12]." Tarrant also describes the O‑ring preventing "moisture infiltration" via an "o‑ring seal" that is evenly "compressed" (1:46‑56) and preventing "possible shearing of the ring and RF leakage."
• Tarrant's own object statement: "to ensure good engagement between the shield element of the coaxial cable and the conductive connector body for the purpose of electrical signal transmission," and to "provide[] excellent RF shielding."

(b) "Bell" (the conductive‑O‑ring reference used in the consolidated IPRs).

The petition record states: "Bell discloses the use of a conductive O‑ring 34 in a coaxial connector (see col. 2, ll. 19‑20)…" and "Bell 2:18‑21; 3:13‑18, 3:29‑31" is cited as providing "a similar level of detail for implementing a grounding, sealing o‑ring… without disclosing any specific difficulties with its selection and use."

⚠️ Honesty flag: the record identifies "Bell" by name and column/line citations but the authoritative material I was able to retrieve does not give me confidence in a specific Bell patent number. I am not going to supply a number. What matters legally is the content: Bell discloses a conductive O‑ring used as a combined sealer and grounding member in a coaxial connector — i.e., it supplies the material substitution for Tarrant's O‑ring 12.

(c) Corroborating secondary references cited in the same ground (all squarely in the connector/EMI field):

• U.S. 3,739,076 (Ex. 1020): an "annular coil spring… which acts as a grounding member," and "conductive elastomeric material may be used instead of a coil spring" (Fig. 1, 2:66‑67, 5:18‑22).
• U.S. 5,769,662 (Ex. 1021): O‑rings "including between the body and the nut," which "provide for a reduction in the degradation of RF signal performance between the connector pieces when they are mated together" (Fig. 1, 4:61‑67).
• U.S. 6,089,912 (Ex. 1022): an arrangement using "an O‑ring in various locations" where "all components of the connector can be fabricated from any number of materials [i]ncluding… metals such as brass" (Fig. 7, 6:28‑63).

These three references independently establish that, as of the critical date, using a conductive/compliant ring as a combined seal + grounding member at a connector interface was a well‑known technique.

4.1 Motivation to combine (Ground 2)

• Express functional motivation in Tarrant itself. Tarrant states its objective is not merely sealing but "excellent RF shielding" and engagement between the cable shield and the conductive connector body. A PHOSITA reading Tarrant would readily perceive that the already‑present O‑ring 12 sits in an RF‑susceptible gap between the nut and the body and could be made conductive.
• KSR "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way": Bell and the secondary references show the technique of making an interface sealing ring conductive to double as a ground path. Applying that technique to Tarrant's O‑ring 12 is the paradigmatic KSR combination.
• Predictable, dual benefit. One part, two known functions (sealing + continuity), with no change in geometry — a strong obviousness rationale.
• Amphenol's stated reasoning: "A POSA would thus have been motivated to use a conductive, compressible o‑ring like Bell's o‑ring 34 in Tarrant's connector to protect against moisture intrusion and electromagnetic interference (RFI) at the same time," with a reasonable expectation of success because it "would have simply applied the same known technique… to achieve the same predictable result."

5. The "conductively coated member" limitation (element E) — the hardest limitation

This is the only limitation with genuine § 103 bite, because:

• Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant, and Bell all disclose or suggest bulk‑conductive elastomeric rings; and
• the '983 abstract emphasizes a specific architecture: an inner core (e.g., non‑conductive silicone rubber) with an outer conductive coating (e.g., silver‑based conductive ink thinned with a liquid‑silicone‑rubber topcoat) that flexes from a first state to a second state while maintaining the conductive path.

Obviousness arguments available on this record:

1. "Coated" vs. "bulk" is a design choice with predictable results. Once a PHOSITA is taught (Lionetto, Horak, Bell) to place a conductive elastomeric ring at a connector interface, selecting between a homogeneously conductive elastomer and a conductive skin on an elastomeric core is a matter of routine optimization driven by known trade‑offs (cost of conductive filler, compression set, sealing resilience, surface conductivity). Post‑KSR, identifying a design need and pursuing "known options within [the PHOSITA's] technical grasp" is obviousness.
2. Conductively coated elastomeric seals were themselves known in the connector/EMI arts. Amphenol's own record cites U.S. 3,739,076's teaching that "conductive elastomeric material may be used instead of a coil spring" and U.S. 6,089,912's "O‑ring in various locations… materials… metals such as brass." To the extent a claim requires a coating, the general practice of metallizing/coating elastomeric EMI gaskets and O‑rings is well‑documented in the sealing and EMI‑gasket literature of the period.
3. PPC's own family disclosures are not prior art, but they are corroborative of the state of the art. US 8,071,174 ("Conductive elastomer and method of applying a conductive coating to elastomeric substrate") was filed 2009‑04‑03 — the same date the coating disclosure entered the '983 family — so it can only be § 102(a)(1) prior art for a later date, and it is in any event PPC's own work. It should not be relied on as prior art without confirming its publication date and status.
4. No unpredictable result is asserted. The '983 specification claims only the predictable result (a flexible conductive skin that maintains continuity as the ring compresses) — i.e., the very property that makes a conductive elastomer ring work in the first place.

⚠️ Candid weakness: If an independent claim of the '983 patent expressly requires the two‑state flexing of an outer conductive coating on a non‑conductive inner core (rather than merely a "conductive member" or "conductive seal"), then Ground 1/2 as described establish the conductive ring but do not, on their face, disclose the coating‑on‑core architecture. For that limitation, the obviousness case would rest on (a) design‑choice/routine‑optimization reasoning and (b) evidence that coated elastomeric EMI seals were known. I cannot confirm from the retrieved record which formulation the '983 independent claims use. The fact that Amphenol won on the same two grounds used against the siblings suggests the '983's independent claims are not meaningfully narrower in this respect — but that is an inference, not a verified fact.

6. Dependent claims (1–5, 8–15, 18)

The dependent claims challenged in IPR2022‑00719 track the patterns Amphenol mapped in the sibling IPRs, all of which are met by the above combinations:

• "First/second grounding member contact surfaces move axially relative to each other and slide over a surface of the conductive grounding portion" — Tarrant's coupling nut 22 and outer ferrule 7 move axially as the nut is tightened/loosened against the port, and the nut lip/frame slides over the O‑ring 12.
• "Outwardly facing cylindrical contact surface / inwardly facing cylindrical contact surface" — Tarrant: "Each of the parts shown in FIGS. 1‑5 is cylindrical in shape, the cross‑sections being taken along a plane which axially bisects the connector" (2:62‑64).
• "Outwardly facing cylindrical surface rotationally slides over a surface of the grounding portion" — friction between the rotating coupling nut 22 and the outer surface of O‑ring 12.
• "First RF cavity disposed radially outboard of the mating interface" and "second RF cavity" — the conductive ring at the coupling/body junction produces the RF cavity.
• "Body portion, post portion, and conductive coupling portion comprise separate structures" — Tarrant: "The three parts are the inner body 15… the outer ferrule 7… and coupling nut 22" (2:57‑68).
• "Flange and lip", "compliant ring" — Tarrant Figs. 1a/4a and the O‑ring 12.

Each such dependent claim adds only conventional structure already shown in Tarrant, and is therefore obvious for the same reasons as the independent claims plus the additional teaching of the reference.

7. Secondary considerations / Graham factor 4

• No nexus evidence appears in the record. Amphenol's petition states: "There are no secondary considerations known to Amphenol that affect—let alone overcome—the strong cases of obviousness set forth above."
• Any asserted commercial success must be tied by nexus to the claimed subject matter, not to PPC's overall connector line or to features present in the prior art. The '983's claimed feature (a conductive ring at the body/coupler or post/coupler interface) was old (Youtsey/Tarrant structure + Lionetto/Horak/Bell material).
• Copying / industry praise evidence, if any, was not credited in the IPRs.

8. What actually happened (brief — the prior sections cover the docket in detail)

The § 103 analysis above is not academic. In IPR2022‑00719, the Board issued a Final Written Decision on October 23, 2023 holding all challenged claims of the '983 patent unpatentable under § 318(a), and that decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on March 4, 2026 (Rule 36, nonprecedential) in consolidated Appeal Nos. 24‑1776 through 24‑1779. This is consistent with the analysis: the art that the Board credited (Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak and Tarrant‑led combinations) supplies every limitation of the connector and method claims, including the grounding/continuity function, with strong KSR motivations to combine.

9. Bottom line

The claims of US 10,446,983 would have been obvious under § 103 for at least two independent reasons:

1. Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak — Youtsey supplies the coaxial connector architecture and a coupler‑body sealing O‑ring; Lionetto expressly teaches a conductive elastomer gasket ring at the connector interface "providing continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression"; and Horak expressly teaches using conductive rubber for the sealing ring "for additional protection from RFI." Substituting a known conductive elastomer for a known rubber sealing ring, in the same location, for the same dual purpose, with a predictable result, is obvious under KSR.
2. Tarrant + Bell (+ US 3,739,076, US 5,769,662, US 6,089,912) — Tarrant supplies a full F‑connector with an O‑ring 12 between body and coupling nut and states its objective as "excellent RF shielding"; Bell and the corroborating references teach making that ring conductive so it doubles as a grounding/continuity member.

Confidence levels:

• High that the two identified grounds are the grounds actually litigated and that they were sustained (FWD + CAFC affirmance).
• High as to the content of Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, and Tarrant (I retrieved and quoted their own claim/specification text).
• Medium as to Amphenol's precise claim‑limitation mapping for the '983 specifically, because I could not retrieve the '983 claims verbatim and relied on the sibling claim language quoted in the consolidated petitions.
• Low/uncertain as to the exact identity of the "Bell" reference and as to whether any '983 independent claim imposes the two‑state coating‑on‑an‑inner‑core requirement; both are flagged above and should be verified against the '983 claim listing (USPTO PatentCenter, App. 16/050,726) and the IPR2022‑00719 record before being relied on for any legal purpose.