US 10906771

I'll search for the specific patent number and related litigation activity.

Let me search for CAFC 2026 docket activity on this patent.

US Patent 10,906,771 — Summary

Caveat on scope: I searched Google Patents/Patents Public, PTAB dockets (PTAB-CTS/Docket Alarm/Unified Patents), and the CAFC public calendar and opinions feed. I found solid authority for the patent's bibliographic data and its PTAB history. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry naming this patent, so I flag that explicitly below rather than infer one.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Continuity: It is a continuation of Ser. No. 16/804,577 (filed Feb. 28, 2020), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/833,091 (now US 10,589,957), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 15/433,789 (now US 9,862,566), which is a divisional of Ser. No. 14/634,007 (now US 9,695,008, filed Feb. 27, 2015). The patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer and had a Certificate of Correction issued November 9, 2021 (correcting, e.g., the Abstract and claim 6's "the second frame being" → "the second flange being").

Data conflict note: Third‑party databases (e.g., the Unified Patents portal page) list this patent with a priority date of 2015‑02‑26, application date 2020‑09‑15, grant date 2021‑02‑01, and expiration 2035‑02‑26 — one day earlier across the board. Per the operating rule to prefer the authoritative source, I treat the patent's own front page and Google Patents legal‑events table (Feb. 27, 2015 / Sept. 16, 2020 / Feb. 2, 2021 / Feb. 27, 2035) as correct and note the discrepancy.

Abstract (as issued)

"A kit of separate components for assembly of a cable reel apparatus that includes a pre-wound coil of cable, a bag, first and second frames having a geometry configured to fit inside of the base of the bag, and first and second flanges. The first flange is configured for engaging the first frame and has a first hub portion on the inner surface of the first flange. The second flange is configured for engaging the second frame has a second hub portion on the inner surface of the second flange. The first and second hub portions are sized to fit within the inner diameter of the coil of cable and are configured to releasably couple with one another to form a hub member for supporting the coil of cable between the first and second flanges."

(The Abstract was amended by the November 2021 Certificate of Correction; the operative wording reads "…the second frame and has a second hub portion…".)

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

The patent has three independent claims — 1, 6, and 14 — all directed to a kit of separate components for assembly of a cable reel apparatus. Notably, the issued claims as granted are kit claims; the "method of installing" subject matter that dominates the specification appears in sibling family members (e.g., US 10,589,957, US 9,862,566) and in abandoned/other continuations, not in these 21 claims.

Claim 1 — "reel‑less coil" kit.
Covers, as a set of separate parts:

1. a prepackaged, reel‑less, pre‑wound coil of cable having an inner diameter;
2. a bag sized to hold that coil, with a base and a cover;
3. a first frame shaped to fit inside the base of the bag;
4. a second frame shaped to fit on an inside surface of the bag's cover;
5. a first flange (inner and outer surfaces) that mates with the first frame so the outer surface faces that frame; and
6. a second flange that mates with the second frame the same way;
7. the key limitation: at least one of the two flanges has a wall sized to fit inside the coil's inner diameter, and that wall is configured to releasably couple to the other flange.

In plain terms: a cable coil sold without any spool, plus a bag and two end frames/flanges, where one flange's cylindrical wall plugs into (and releases from) the other flange to make the hub the coil rides on. This is the "reel‑less cable in a bag" concept.

Claim 6 — "two‑wall hub" kit.
Also a kit, but framed around the two‑part hub and a size relationship between flanges and frames:

• a bag with first and second inside surfaces (base/cover);
• first and second frames each placed on one of those inside surfaces;
• a first flange with a first hub portion and a central opening that engages the first frame, with the flange sized smaller than the frame's geometry;
• a second flange with a second hub portion and central opening engaging the second frame, likewise sized smaller than the frame's geometry (as corrected, the claim text reads "the second flange being sized to be smaller than the geometry of the second frame");
• the defining feature: one hub portion is an elongated wall, the other is a truncated wall, and the two are configured to releasably couple to form the hub member that supports the coil.

In plain terms: same bag‑and‑two‑frame architecture, but the inventive core is claimed as a mating long‑wall/short‑wall hub pair, plus the requirement that each flange fit inside its frame.

Claim 14 — "square‑frame, two‑part hub" kit.
Narrows the frame geometry and adds cross members:

• a pre‑wound coil of cable with an inner diameter, plus a bag with base and cover;
• a first frame with a substantially square geometry, having an outer frame portion and at least one cross member, fitting inside the base;
• a second frame, also substantially square with an outer frame portion and at least one cross member, fitting on the cover's inside surface;
• a first flange engaging the first frame, sized smaller than the square geometry, carrying a first hub portion on its inner surface;
• a second flange engaging the second frame, sized smaller than the square geometry, carrying a second hub portion on its inner surface;
• the hub portions are sized to fit within the coil's inner diameter and releasably couple to form a hub member supporting the coil between the flanges.

In plain terms: the same kit idea, but requiring the square, cross‑braced support frames shown in Figs. 2 and 6, with a two‑piece releasable hub.

Dependent claims add: elongated annular wall (2, 18), coupling to the other flange's inner surface (3), one‑piece flange‑and‑hub construction (4, 12, 20), plastic‑wrap prepackaging (5, 16), transverse/annular wall orientation (7), truncated wall fitting within the elongated wall's receiving area and more than half its length (8, 9), interlocking hub portions (10), substantially square frame geometry (11), bag payout opening (13, 21), prepackaged without a reel (15), friction‑fit inner/outer surfaces (17), and flange‑in‑frame sizing (19).

Litigation and PTAB posture (searched; specific to 10,906,771)

• District court: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21‑cv‑01823‑UNA (D. Del.) — identified in the PTAB filings as the related litigation (Google Patents also lists a Delaware case at 1:21‑cv‑01823).
• PTAB — directly on this patent: IPR2022‑01088, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., petition filed June 24, 2022; instituted December 21, 2022; consolidated oral hearing September 20, 2023 (with IPR2022‑00946, ‑00947, ‑01087); Final Written Decision entered/terminated December 20, 2023 (paper dated Jan. 2, 2024), holding the challenged claims — 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21 — unpatentable as obvious over the Perfect Tote™/PPC "Brochure" in view of Blunt and related references. Judges: Gerstenblith, Hoskins, Ippolito. Petitioner's real parties‑in‑interest: PPC Broadband, Inc. and Belden Inc. Note that claims 5, 16, and 20 were not among the challenged claims listed.
• Related IPRs on sibling family patents: IPR2022‑00830 ('632, institution denied after disclaimer), ‑00831 ('957, same), ‑00946 ('342), ‑00947 ('471), ‑01087 ('016) — each with a final written decision of unpatentability.

CAFC 2026 — what I could and could not confirm

Confirmed but not this patent: I found a Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024‑1776, ‑1777, ‑1778, ‑1779, argued March 2, 2026 and affirmed per curiam on March 4, 2026 (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.). Those appeals arise from IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721, i.e., different PTAB proceedings and different patents — not US 10,906,771. I mention it specifically so it is not mistaken for an appellate ruling on the '771 patent.

Not confirmed: I did not locate a Federal Circuit docket entry, merits opinion, or Rule 36 judgment in 2026 that names US 10,906,771 or IPR2022‑01088. Because the IPR2022‑01088 Final Written Decision issued in late December 2023/early January 2024, a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit from that decision would be expected (the statutory window would have run in early 2024, yielding a 2024 docket number and a likely 2025–2026 decision), but I have no authoritative record of such an appeal, its briefing status, or its disposition. I cannot state with confidence that any CAFC 2026 activity exists for this patent, and I decline to fabricate a case number. If a live Docket Alarm/PACER or CAFC CM/ECF query were run directly against the PTAB's IPR2022‑01088 record, that would resolve the point definitively.

Bottom line on status: the patent's front‑page legal status remains "Active" with anticipated expiration 2035‑02‑27 and current assignee Times Fiber Communications, Inc., but every challenged claim (1–4, 6–15, 17–21) was cancelled by the PTAB's IPR2022‑01088 Final Written Decision. That is a material caveat to any assertion that the patent's claims are currently enforceable as issued, and it is the most important thing to verify in a live database before relying on this patent.

I'll research litigation involving US 10,906,771 specifically. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the district court case status and the IPR outcome.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,906,771 ("the '771 patent")

I ran targeted searches across Unified Patents' litigation and PTAB case lists, the PTAB docket mirror (Docket Alarm/PTActs), Ex Parte's district‑court docket summaries, and the Google Patents page for US10906771B2 (which itself carries the litigation links). Here is what I can confirm. Note on scope: I am reporting only hits tied to the literal number 10906771. The patent belongs to a 15‑member U.S. family (see below), and most of the "noise" in search results concerns those sibling patents — I have kept those clearly separated.

1. District court litigation (the only district‑court case found)

Sources: Google Patents US10906771B2 litigation link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware District Court/case/1:21-cv-01823; Unified Patents litigation caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist, filtered to these patents) showing 1:21-cv-01823 | 2021-12-26 | Closed | Delaware District Court | Times Fiber Communications Inc | PPC Broadband Inc | Infringement; Ex Parte docket summary https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:21-cv-01823/times-fiber-communications-inc-v-ppc-broadband-inc; the complaint itself as Exhibit 1008 in the PTAB proceedings.

2. PTAB / administrative litigation

Sources: Unified Patents PTAB caselist https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent.patent_number=10906771&sort=-filing_date; Patexia/GreyB IPR summaries (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/PPC-Broadband-Inc-et-al-v-Times-Fiber-Communications-Inc-id-164578, https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-01088).

Important caveat on the '771 outcome: I could retrieve the filing/institution/FWD dates and the panel, but I could not retrieve the operative holding text of the IPR2022‑01088 Final Written Decision within this search window, so I will not assert whether the challenged claims of the '771 patent were held unpatentable or were upheld. The closely related sibling proceedings that were heard at the same September 20, 2023 consolidated oral hearing are documented, and one of them is explicit: in IPR2022‑01087 (U.S. 10,941,016), the Board entered a "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." The district court case was closed the same day. Given the parallel posture, the '771 FWD outcome is very likely adverse to TFC, but that is an inference, not a confirmed fact — verify the FWD text at the PTAB record before relying on it.

3. Live links recorded on the face of the '771 patent itself

The Google Patents record for US10906771B2 lists exactly these litigation events, which corroborate the above:

• "Family has litigation" (Darts‑IP family link, https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=56798668…)
• "US case filed in Delaware District Court" → case 1:21‑cv‑01823
• "PTAB case IPR2022‑01088 filed (Final Written Decision)"

No other litigation (no ITC § 337 action, no other district‑court case, and no CAFC appeal of the '771 IPR) surfaced for the '771 patent in these searches.

4. Context — same‑family proceedings (do NOT attribute these to the '771 patent)

The '771 patent is one of a 15‑application U.S. family claiming 2015‑02‑27 priority, including U.S. 9,695,008; 9,862,566; 9,873,588; 10,589,957; 10,611,598; 10,906,770; 10,913,632; 10,941,016; 10,988,342; 10,988,343; 11,001,471; and 12,269,706. The same PPC v. TFC IPR campaign against sibling patents includes IPR2022‑00946 ('342 patent), ‑00947 ('471 patent), ‑01087 ('016 patent), and ‑00831 ('957 patent — institution denied 10/24/2022). These are not proceedings against 10,906,771 and should not be reported as such.

Also noted but not actionable here: the complaint in 1:21‑cv‑01823 references PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., C.A. No. 21‑654‑LPS (D. Del.), a separate PPC‑filed action pleaded for personal‑jurisdiction/venue purposes.

Bottom line

For US 10,906,771 specifically, the record shows one district court case (Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21‑cv‑01823, D. Del., filed Dec. 27, 2021, stayed July 1, 2022, docket closed Dec. 20, 2023) and one PTAB proceeding (IPR2022‑01088, PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber, filed June 24, 2022, instituted Dec. 21, 2022, Final Written Decision entered Jan. 2, 2024). If you need the exact disposition of the '771 FWD and the subsequent disposition of the D. Del. case (e.g., dismissal, judgment, or settlement), pull the redacted FWD (PTAB Paper in IPR2022‑01088) and the D. Del. CM/ECF docket entries around Dec. 20, 2023 — that specific outcome detail is the one gap in this report.

I'll start by reconciling the structured "no proceedings" block against the litigation signals embedded in the patent record itself, which already references a PTAB case.

Key hit: there is an IPR on file — IPR2022-01088. Let me pin down the Final Written Decision outcome at claim level.

The FWD appears to be Paper 43. Let me confirm its exact disposition and check for a Federal Circuit appeal.

⚠️ Structured-data conflict — flagged per instructions

The "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 10,906,771. That ingest is stale/wrong. The patent's own Google Patents record lists "PTAB case IPR2022-01088 filed (Final Written Decision)," and the PTAB record confirms a full inter partes review that went all the way to a Final Written Decision. I am treating IPR2022-01088 as the canonical proceeding and not applying the "no PTAB activity" default.

One related trap worth naming: the Google Patents page attributes IPR2022-01088 to a link on portal.unifiedpatents.com. Unified Patents is the data source for that link, not the petitioner. The petitioner was PPC Broadband, Inc. There is no defensive aggregator in this chain.

Proceedings overview

One (1) AIA trial proceeding on US 10,906,771: IPR2022-01088, terminated by Final Written Decision on 2023-12-20 holding all 19 challenged claims (1–4, 6–15, 17–21) unpatentable; zero settled, zero institution denials, zero sustained claims — the bottom line for a defendant is that every independent and almost every dependent claim of this patent has been adjudicated invalid, and any demand letter citing claims 1–4, 6–15, or 17–21 is citing claims that no longer exist.

The only claims of the '771 patent not canceled are claims 5 and 16, which were never challenged and never reached by the Board. They are narrow dependent claims adding "prepackaged with plastic wrap" and they depend on canceled claims 1 and 15 — so they provide no independent assertion foothold (see Strategic summary).

IPR2022-01088 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319), U.S. Patent No. 10,906,771 B2 ("Cable reel")

• Filed: 2022-06-24

• Status: Final Written Decision (terminated 2023-12-20) — plain English: trial completed, all challenged claims held unpatentable.

• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith (opinion author), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito — Administrative Patent Judges. Tech Center 3600, Art Unit 3619.

• Petition grounds: 19 claims challenged — claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21 (claims 5 and 16 were not challenged). All grounds are § 103 obviousness:

  • Ground 1 — the challenged claims over PPC's "Brochure" (Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco Cable Tote brochure, asserted prior art as of 2014-09-22/25) in view of Blunt (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0168554 A1).
  • Ground 2 — Brochure in view of Blunt and Johanson.
  • Grounds 3–4 — Brochure in view of Blunt and Fontana (Ground 3), or Blunt, Johanson and Fontana (Ground 4), directed at the "prepackaged"/"pre-wound" claims (Petition TOC groups these as claims 1–4, 14–15, 17–21; Patent Owner's Response contested Grounds III/IV only as to claims 1–4 and 15).
  • No § 102 anticipation ground and no § 112 ground was the basis of the challenge; this was an all-obviousness case.

• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-12-21 on the full petition (the FWD resolves all four grounds and all 19 challenged claims and no claim was excluded from trial). I did not retrieve the text of the institution decision itself, so I am not quoting its reasoning — treat "instituted on all claims/grounds" as inferred from the FWD's structure rather than a verbatim finding.

• Final Written Decision (see key procedural history below): issued 2023-12-20 (Paper 43; redacted public version docketed 2024-01-02). Disposition, quoted verbatim from the decision:

  "Having reviewed the arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-21 of the '771 patent are unpatentable."

  Claim-level result:

  • Independent claims 1, 6, 14 — CANCELED (unpatentable).
  • Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 — CANCELED (unpatentable).
  • Claims 5 and 16 — not challenged, not addressed. The FWD's judgment runs only to "the Challenged Claims."
  • No claim was held patentable.
  • Merits reasoning: the Board rejected Patent Owner's argument that Blunt lacks a "prepackaged reel-less coil of cable" and credited Petitioner's expert (Dr. Eldering) that Blunt's frangible sheet discloses prepackaging. It also rejected PO's objective-indicia case for lack of nexus, holding PO's product (the Times Fiber/Amphenol "Tech Service Bag") was not coextensive with the claims because it contained unclaimed snap-engagement features claimed in sibling patents '008 and '566. From the record: PO "did not dispute any of the explanations in the Petition regarding claims 6-14 and 17-21," so the merits fight centered on the "prepackaged" limitation.

• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The proceeding ran to a contested Final Written Decision after a consolidated oral hearing on 2023-09-20 (heard jointly with IPR2022-00946, -00947, and -01087 against the same Patent Owner). A protective order was entered 2023-04-19 sealing PO's commercial-success evidence (Exs. 2006, 2010–2013, Charter Communications sales data).

• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal identified. The FWD issued 2023-12-20; the 37 C.F.R. § 90.3 notice-of-appeal window would have closed in early 2024. I found no CAFC docket or opinion for the '771 IPR. I could not confirm this to a certainty within the research available — flagging it explicitly rather than assuming. Post-decision activity on the docket (PO's Updated Mandatory Notices, 2024-03-29) is not indicative either way.

• Defensive value: This is a complete defensive win handed to you by someone else's money. Claims 1–4, 6–15 and 17–21 of the '771 patent stand adjudicated unpatentable, and under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) the Director issues a certificate canceling those claims — a later defendant does not need to file its own IPR to get the benefit; it cites Paper 43 and the certificate. Any infringement theory built on claims 1, 6, or 14 is effectively sanction-bait.

Strategic summary

Claim status of US 10,906,771 after IPR2022-01088

There is no surviving independent claim in the '771 patent. Claims 5 and 16 are the only formally uncanceled claims, but each incorporates all limitations of canceled claims 1 and 15, so they cannot be broader than claims already held unpatentable over the same art. Treat the '771 patent as dead as an assertion vehicle. The '771 patent remains listed "Active" in bibliographic databases only because patent term status is tracked separately from claim survival — do not read "Active" as "enforceable claims."

Estoppel landscape. PPC Broadband, Inc. is now subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel: in the co-pending district court action it cannot assert, against Times Fiber, any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised — i.e., the Brochure/Blunt/Johanson/Fontana obviousness combinations, and by extension any § 102/§ 103 ground based on art in the same family of teachings. That estoppel runs to PPC and its privies only. A different defendant is not estopped, but has no reason to file: the claims are canceled, and the FWD is a public, citable adjudication. If you are a new defendant and some family member's claims are asserted instead, the Freed-relevant takeaway is that the '771 art set (Brochure, Blunt, Johanson, Fontana) has already been accepted by a panel as rendering the core "prepackaged reel-less coil + two-frame bag" concept obvious — a strong § 103 starting point against sibling continuations.

Pattern signals. Same petitioner, six parallel IPRs against the same patent family (IPR2022-00830/'632, -00831/'957, -00946/'342, -00947/'471, -01087/'016, and -01088/'771), consolidated for hearing, with the Board invalidating the '342, '471, and '016 claims and, in PPC's own later filings, characterizing IPR2022-01088 Paper 43 as "affirm[ing] that claims to a communication cable payout bag having a pair of frames supporting a cable reel within the bag are not patentable." Two of those proceedings (the '632 and '957 IPRs) died at institution because Times Fiber statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims — i.e., Patent Owner has a demonstrated willingness to cut claims loose rather than defend them. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) filed; this was a straight competitor-vs-competitor fight arising out of Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.), where TFC asserted the '016, '342, '471, '771, and '632 patents. Patent Owner shows no sign of aggressively appealing adverse PTAB decisions.

Where the real exposure moved. The family did not stop. Times Fiber continues to prosecute continuations — US 12,269,706 B2 issued 2025-04-08 ("Cable reel," Times Fiber Communications as assignee) — and Amphenol has pursued newer subject matter such as US 2023/0202782 A1 ("Cable reel with axially adjustable coupling mechanism," 2022 priority). Those are new claims, not reviewed in IPR2022-01088, and they are the likely vehicles for any re-assertion of this technology. Do not assume "the '771 patent is dead" equals "no exposure."

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant being asserted on the '771 patent: pull IPR2022-01088 Paper 43 (2023-12-20) and quote the disposition — "Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-21 of the '771 patent are unpatentable" — then confirm the resulting § 318(b) certificate in USPTO Patent Center before filing anything that characterizes the claims as canceled. Docket and FWD:
  • https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01088/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/
  • https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-01088
  • PTAB PTACTS document repository for the proceeding: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549765](/patent/1549765)/
  • Cross-reference confirming the contemporaneous '771 FWD: '016 FWD, IPR2022-01087 Paper 46, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-01087/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/docs/01-02-2024-Patent_Owner/Other__other-46-Redacted_Final_Written_Decision.pdf
• On claims 5 and 16 specifically: they were never challenged and never adjudicated. Before you rely on "all claims canceled," verify in Patent Center whether a § 318(b) certificate issued and whether claims 5/16 remain. Even if they do, they cannot support a standalone infringement theory because they depend from canceled claims 1 and 15 — but do not represent to a court that claims 5 and 16 were invalidated, because they weren't.
• If you are a defendant facing a sibling family patent ('008, '566, '588, '598, '632, '342, '471, '016, '964, '343, or US 12,269,706): the IPR2022-01088 record is the cheapest validity roadmap you will find — Brochure, Blunt, Johanson, and Fontana are already Board-tested, and Blunt/Fontana were the references that killed the "prepackaged reel-less coil" limitation here. Note that § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not bind you (you are not PPC's privy), so those grounds remain available to you in your own IPR.
• Milestones to monitor: no active trial-stage deadlines — IPR2022-01088 terminated 2023-12-20, comfortably inside the statutory one-year clock from the 2022-12-21 institution date. The live watch item is whether Times Fiber appeals or asserts a newer family continuation; a CAFC appeal of the '771 FWD was not identified in this review, and I flag that as unconfirmed rather than as a finding.

I'll research the assignment record and ownership chain for US 10,906,771.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and correspondents.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,906,771 (Cable Reel)

Source note / limitation: I grounded the ownership chain on the Google Patents legal-events table embedded in the authoritative patent text (the same data that feeds USPTO Assignment Center) plus the IPR record. I was not able to retrieve the specific Assignment Center reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record for the two recordings through the searches available to me. I flag that gap explicitly rather than invent reel numbers. Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#!/result?q=%2210906771%22 (search by patent number).

Inventors

Pattern note — the inverse of the usual red flag. This is not a case of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months. The record is the opposite: at least one named inventor (Thakare) was still an Amphenol/Times Fiber employee in 2023, 8 years after the 2015 priority filing, and testified as Patent Owner's declarant in the IPRs. Inventors are clustered at the Chatham, VA / Callands, VA coaxial‑cable manufacturing site, which is the actual product‑development locus. This is a captive‑inventor, operating‑company pattern, not a fire‑sale precursor.

Original assignee

Amphenol Corporation (Wallingford, CT) is named on the issued patent as applicant/assignee. Amphenol is a publicly traded NYSE‑listed interconnect company (ticker APH) and one of the world's largest connector/coaxial‑cable manufacturers. It ships products embodying the claims: the "Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag" (a.k.a. Tech Service Bag II) is the commercial embodiment, sold to Charter Communications and other MSOs, with reel‑less coaxial cable coil sales documented from 2015 onward (Thakare Decl.; TFC complaint ¶13).

Current owner: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (TFC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation — confirmed in the IPR record ("Times Fiber Communications is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation," Thakare Decl., IPR2022‑00947 ¶3). TFC is the Amphenol Broadband Solutions coaxial‑cable operating unit (historically "the world's second‑largest maker of coaxial cable," Courant 1995), headquartered at 358 Hall Avenue, Wallingford, CT — the same corporate address as Amphenol. TFC is operating, not dissolved or in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

Records confirmed from the patent's legal‑events table (Google Patents / USPTO Assignment Center feed). Reel/frame numbers not retrievable in this session.

• 2021‑08‑12 (recorded) — Reel frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (original inventor assignment)
  • Assignor: Barry Holt; Caichun Song; Paul Richard Boucher; Phillip Stanley Bowen; Marvin Bryant; Rakesh Thakare (all six named inventors)
  • Assignee: Amphenol Corporation (Wallingford, CT)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (prosecution correspondent of record for the family is Blank Rome LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW, Washington DC 20006; the Certificate of Correction was docketed to WashingtonDocketing@blankrome.com / J. Yeddo — recurring across the whole 15‑member family).
  • Context: Original employment/assignment recording. Notably late — recorded ~6 months after the Feb 2, 2021 issue date. Because this is a continuation filed 2020‑09‑16 off a 2015 priority chain, this entry reads as a corrective/late recording to capture the new application's inventors, not a fresh transfer of ownership.

• 2022‑04‑19 (recorded) — Reel frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Amphenol Corporation
  • Assignee: Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization — transfer from parent to its wholly owned operating subsidiary (TFC), i.e., an intra‑corporate title‑cleaning so the operating entity, not the parent, holds record title. Recorded ~4 months after TFC filed suit (see below), making it a curative assignment to perfect chain of title post‑filing, not a pre‑suit transfer to enable assertion.

If Assignment Center returns no additional entries, that is consistent with the above: exactly two recordings (one founder assignment, one intra‑group transfer) and no third‑party chain. That itself is the finding — ownership never left the Amphenol corporate family.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10906771
    2015 : Priority filing by Amphenol
    2020 : Continuation filed
    2021 : Patent issued Feb 2
         : Inventors assign to Amphenol
    2021 : Times Fiber sues PPC Broadband
    2022 : Amphenol assigns to Times Fiber
    2023 : IPR final decisions against claims

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only post‑issue transfer runs parent→wholly‑owned operating subsidiary (frame recorded 2022‑04‑19). Assignee is "Times Fiber Communications, Inc.," a real coaxial‑cable manufacturer, not an "IP Holdings/Ventures" vehicle. No registered‑agent address; TFC's address is Amphenol's corporate HQ (358 Hall Avenue, Wallingford CT).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Amphenol Corporation nor Times Fiber Communications appears on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / WiLAN / Conversant / Pendrell / Round Rock / Spangenberg lists, nor on RPX or Unified Patents high‑frequency‑plaintiff directories. Unified Patents classifies the plaintiff entity type as "Operating Company" (litigation case list; PTAB case list for 10906771 lists Owner = Times Fiber Communications, Industry "Other," Petitioner = PPC Broadband, "Large Operating Company").

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / not confirmable. Assignment‑record correspondents were not retrievable here. The prosecution correspondent, Blank Rome LLP, recurs across the entire 15‑member family (Certificate of Correction for '771 docketed to Blank Rome). Blank Rome is a large general‑practice firm doing both operating‑company and defense work; a recurrence here reflects Amphenol's outside‑counsel panel, not an NPE‑routing lawyer. No finding without the assignment correspondents themselves.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. A single post‑issue transfer, not a chain of LLCs. No common‑principal layering, no <24‑month cascade through multiple assignees.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (inverted). Suit was filed 2021‑12‑27 (TFC v. PPC, D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑01823); the Amphenol→TFC recording is 2022‑04‑19, i.e., after filing. This is the signature of a curative title‑perfection assignment, the opposite of arranging a chain to gin up venue/standing.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT. Amphenol is a solvent NYSE‑listed company; no Chapter 7/11 event; patents never sold in a proceeding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The asserting entity (TFC) is the operating affiliate suing an actual competitor (PPC Broadband, a Belden Inc. subsidiary — named RPI in the IPRs) in its own product market (coaxial cable + reusable‑reel bags). This is competitor‑on‑competitor litigation, not an operating company farming patents to a separate NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at an operating company, not RPX/AST/LOT/OIN.

Material caveat (non‑NPE but outcome‑defining): Every challenged claim of '771 — 1–4, 6–15, 17–21 — was held unpatentable in IPR2022‑01088 (PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber), Final Written Decision entered Dec 20, 2023 / Jan 2, 2024 (Brochure=PPC Perfect Tote™ + Blunt, with Johanson/Fontana variants). Claims 5 and 16 were not among the challenged set. So while the ownership profile is cleanly operating‑company, the enforceability of the asserted claims was largely negated.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain never leaves the Amphenol corporate family: the six inventors assigned to Amphenol Corporation (recorded 2021‑08‑12), and Amphenol then transferred record title to its wholly owned operating subsidiary, Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (recorded 2022‑04‑19) — an internal reorganization supported by the IPR testimony that TFC is an Amphenol subsidiary and by TFC's own sales of the reel‑less "Tech Service Bag." TFC asserted '771 as one of five patents against PPC Broadband, a direct competitor in coaxial cable and reusable‑reel bags, in Times Fiber Communications v. PPC Broadband, D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑01823 (filed 2021‑12‑27) — a classic operating‑company‑v‑operating‑company product‑market suit, with zero NPE signals (no shell LLC, no listed asserter, no cascade, no bankruptcy sale, no defensive aggregator).

Verification: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search 10906771; confirm the two recordings (2021‑08‑12 and 2022‑04‑19) and capture the reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents, which I could not retrieve here.

I'll verify the patent record and research the cited prior art before analyzing § 102 relevance.

Good — I've confirmed the IPR prior-art grounds. Let me research the key cited references and IPR secondary references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,906,771

1. Exact-number confirmation (USPTO record)

I searched for the literal number 10,906,771. The exact match is:

Excluded as "similar numbers" (family siblings, not the query): 10,906,770; 10,913,632; 10,941,016; 10,988,342; 10,988,343; 11,001,471; 12,269,706; 9,695,008; 9,862,566; 9,873,588; 10,589,957; 10,611,598. Prior-art hits to those numbers are not reported as art against the '771 patent.

⚠️ Flag against the earlier sections: The litigation section stated that claims "5, 16, and 20" were not among the challenged claims. That is internally inconsistent — the petition (confirmed below) challenges "claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-21," so the unchallenged claims are 5 and 16 only (20 was challenged). The earlier "Patent summary" section stated it correctly; the litigation section's parenthetical is the error.

2. Analytical framework — an important § 102 caveat

Independent claims 1, 6, and 14 are all kit claims requiring, at minimum:
(a) a bag with base + cover sized to hold a coil of cable;
(b) two separate frames respectively fitting the base and the cover;
(c) two separable flanges that engage those frames; and
(d) a hub wall sized to the coil's inner diameter that releasably couples.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a single reference must disclose all of these, arranged as claimed. Reviewing all 51 cited references (plus the secondary list), no single patent citation discloses the complete claimed kit. The cited patents are substantially § 103 (obviousness) art — they teach sub-combinations (reel-less coils, mating/expanding hubs, snap-fit spool flanges, payout bags/caddies, square frame supports). The only reference actually applied on the record under § 102(a)(1) is a printed publication — PPC's Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco brochure — and even that was used in combination with Blunt under § 103, never as a standalone anticipation (§ 3.6 below).

I therefore report each citation with a § 102 relevance rating:

• [102-candidate] = plausibly discloses enough to warrant element-by-element anticipation mapping;
• [103-only] = teaches an element or sub-combination, no § 102;
• [background] = peripheral/technological-context only.

3. Reference-by-reference analysis

3.1 The 51 citations of record (as printed on the '771 patent)

Additional references appearing in the enlarged "examiner-cited" list (60 refs) but not in the 51: US 6,145,780 (Italiana Conduttori, Portable device for dispensing cables), GB 1,031,350, GB 1,417,961, DE 4001250 A1, JP 2007-090707 A, US 2009/0008494 A1 (Maley, Spool assembly for dispensing a coil of wire), US 2012/0318939 A1 (Windy City Wire), US 10,065,668 B2 (Lake Cable, Cable dispensing system and apparatus). Of these, US 2009/0008494 (Maley) and US 10,065,668 (Lake Cable) are the most substantively relevant to the "spool assembly / dispensing system" concept and should be reviewed alongside Tier 1 above.

3.2 Tier-1 detail: the cited patents with real § 102 potential

US 2012/0153069 A1 (ADC GmbH), pub. 2012-06-21, filed 2010-12-15 — "Assembly for dispensing cable" [verified]
Discloses (a) a spool having a drum made of first and second parts and two flanges couplable to respective opposed end sections of the drum, where the drum end sections mate with locking sections of the flanges, with castellated ledges and locking keys in slots; and (b) an assembly for dispensing cable having cross-members with locking flanges and receiving sections. This is the closest patent citation to claim 6 — it has the two-flange, mating-coupling architecture and cross-member frame. Gap for § 102: no "bag" with base/cover, and no prepackaged reel-less coil, and the flanges couple to a drum, not to each other via a wall sized to the coil's inner diameter. Best § 102 mapping if one insists: claim 6 (elements (b)–(d) argued), but it fails on the "bag" limitation → no anticipation; § 103 art.

US 2012/0168554 A1 (Blunt), pub. 2012-07-05, filed 2011-01-04 — "System for storing a bulk supply of cable for controlled payout" [verified]
Discloses a container (peripheral wall bounding a storage space, top opening, side payout opening), a wrapped supply of cable turnable about an axis in the container, a reel 34 with core 36 and flange 40 that "may be selectively separated" to add pre-wound cable, and a frangible sheet 98 wrapped around the cable to prevent unravelling (§§ [0010], [0047], [0087]). Gap for § 102: the container is a tote/bucket, not a bag with base+cover frames; the coil is not "reel-less" (it is on reel 34); and the frangible sheet is applied after the cable is reeled, so it is not a prepackaged reel-less coil. This was nevertheless the operative primary reference in the IPR — but in a § 103 combination, not as a standalone anticipator.

US 6,352,215 B1 (Southwire), 2002-03-05, filed 2000-02-09 — "Payoff device for a reeless package" [verified]
Discloses a reeless package (coil without a spool), a support frame, a shaft, and an expansion/contraction clamp assembly with a mobile hub + fixed hub, scissor linkage driving clamp pads radially outward against the interior surface of the reel-less package, a removable coil-retention end plate, and a brake to prevent unwanted rotation. § 102 mapping: teaches with particularity the reel-less coil + radially-expanding hub + braking concepts central to the '771 specification. But claims 1/6/14 require a bag, two frames, and two separable flanges — absent here. → § 103 art; no anticipation.

US 9,908,737 B2 (PerfectVision), 2018-03-06, filed 2012-10-05 — "Cable reel and reel carrying caddy" [verified]
Discloses a portable housing with a base and a hinged top forming an enclosure for a reel (i.e., a bag-like base/cover), end caps with bearing races, and a two-piece spindle having a removable hub portion fitted to an internal socket. § 102 mapping: closest single patent to the "housing + separable hub" concept, but the cable is wound on a reel/spool (not a reel-less prepackaged coil), and the housing is a rigid caddy, not a bag with two separate frames. → § 103 art; no anticipation.

US 2010/0314484 A1 (Houston), 2010-12-16, filed 2009-06-15 — "Communications cable payout bags"
A bag for paying out communications cable. Directed at the bag-payout element only; the patent text is insufficient (in the record available here) to show the two-frame/two-flange releasable hub. → [103-only]; verify specification before using.

US 5,464,171 A (Ripplinger) 1995-11-07 and US 6,045,087 A (Vislocky) 2000-04-04 — mating spool halves and snap-fit flange/spindle couplings. → [103-only] (teach the "releasably couple" and "mating hub" sub-features).

US 6,234,421 B1 (Vandor) 2001-05-22 — reel with flexible fingers urged against the core inner surface by a locking ring. → [103-only, high value] (reads on the "flexible segments expanding against the coil" concept, though actuated by a different structure).

US 8,016,222 B2 (Windy City Wire) 2011-09-13 and US 2015/0321876 A1 (Southwire) 2015-11-12 — dispensing container with arbor-hole/axle reels, and rotatable cable reel. → [103-only, high value] (bag/carton + reel + payout).

US 4,657,073 A (Young) 1987-03-17 — electric cable container and dispenser. → [102-candidate, limited]; single-reference mapping fails because the container/reel is integral and there is no two-flange releasable kit.

3.3 Tier-2: bag/caddy/container payout references (§ 103 only)

US 5,139,210; US 5,775,621; US 6,523,777; US 2005/0035240; US 2006/0157366; US 2006/0231672; US 2007/0018031; US 7,204,452; US 7,938,357; US 2010/0078514; US 2010/0320309; US 2012/0091249; US 8,251,212; US 2014/0312159; USD 641,163; USD 641,161; USD 686,907; EP 2 017 211; EP 0 922 003. These establish a crowded field of payout bags, caddies and cartons — strong motivation-to-combine evidence (§ 103) but no single-reference anticipation of the kit claims.

3.4 Tier-3: early wire-handling / reel-holder art (§ 103/background)

US 1,990,135; US 2,033,578; US 2,268,547; US 2,400,417; US 2,952,420; US 2,965,331; US 3,693,784; US 3,696,697; US 3,836,093; US 4,667,896; US 5,704,479; US 5,810,283; US 6,328,238; US 7,891,601.

3.5 Tier-4: unrelated / mis-cited

US 7,140,598 (windlass governor); US 8,230,996 (medical seal dispenser); US 8,371,519 (stem packing dispenser); US 2011/0240791 (strap spool); US 2015/0312159 A1 (Microsoft, packet filtering) — an evidently anomalous citation in the database that has no bearing on cable reels and should be disregarded.

3.6 The reference that actually matters — not a patent citation

PTAB records for IPR2022-01088 (PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber, on the '771 patent) show the ground was built on:

Grounds: 1–2 Brochure + Blunt; 3 Brochure + Blunt + Fontana; 4 Brochure + Blunt + Johanson + Fontana. The Brochure is § 102(a)(1) art because it is PPC's own pre-filing publication showing a tote bag with a frame in the cover and a payout opening; but it does not alone disclose a prepackaged reel-less coil, which is why Petitioner combined it with Blunt — i.e., the FWD is an obviousness (§ 103) holding, not a § 102 anticipation. The parallel Board decision (IPR2022-00946/‑00947) confirms the Board adopted Petitioner's element-by-element findings and rejected Patent Owner's argument that prepackaging must be preserved (PO's Fontana "inoperability" theory).

4. Claim-by-claim § 102 conclusion

Bottom line on the question asked: Across the patent citations, no single reference anticipates any claim under § 102. The citations are, in the aggregate, § 103 material. The one reference the PTAB record actually treats as § 102(a)(1) art is a non-patent printed publication — PPC's Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco brochure — and even it was applied only in combination with Blunt under § 103, yielding a Final Written Decision of unpatentability for claims 1–4, 6–15, 17–21 (claims 5 and 16 unchallenged, per the petition's own claim list). That outcome, not any patent citation, is the dispositive prior-art development for this patent.

5. Notes, gaps, and honesty flags

1. Verified vs. unverified: I directly verified the disclosures/dates for US 2012/0153069 (ADC), US 2012/0168554 (Blunt), US 6,352,215 (Southwire), US 9,908,737 (PerfectVision), US 10,239,725 (PerfectVision continuation), and the IPR2022-01088/‑00946 record. The remaining citations are characterized from the authoritative citation table on the '771 patent and from their titles/assignees (per the operating rule to treat the patent text as authoritative) — I did not pull each of those 40+ specifications, so the "brief description" for those rows is title-based and should be confirmed against the full text before being relied on in any validity contention.
2. § 102 vs. § 103 restated: anticipation requires every element in one reference; the closest cited patents each miss at least the "bag + two separate frames + separable flanges" combination, so § 103 is the realistic invalidity theory, consistent with how the PTAB actually decided the family.
3. Non-patent art is the key: the most relevant prior art for the '771 patent is not in the patent's citation list at all — it is the PPC Perfect Tote™ Brochure and the Blunt publication, plus the Fontana/Johanson/Chadwick secondary references. Any prior-art study that looks only at the 51 patent citations will materially understate the art.
4. Family/litigation cross-reference (consistent with the earlier sections): the art and reasoning above are those of IPR2022-01088 (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01823 stayed pending the IPRs; docket closed 2023-12-20). I found no 2026 Federal Circuit activity naming US 10,906,771 in this search window and decline to invent a case number.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the '771 patent, so I need to verify what each reference discloses. Let me pull the key ones.

Let me pull the remaining key references and the IPR2022-01088 record, which directly bears on the obviousness question.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,906,771 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on posture: The '771 patent issued from Application No. 17/022,534, filed September 16, 2020, claiming priority to February 27, 2015. Every application in the chain was filed after March 16, 2013, so the AIA versions of §§ 102/103 govern. The "Prior Art" face of the '771 patent supplies the operative art: the Citations (51) list (examiner/third‑party cited) and the Family Cites Families (9) list. All 51 primary citations carry priority/publication dates well before February 27, 2015.

1. Reconciliation of the two previously generated sections (two flags)

Before reaching the merits I must flag a direct contradiction between the two earlier sections, and a minor factual correction.

Flag 1 — the disposition of IPR2022‑01088. The "Patent summary" section asserted that the Final Written Decision held claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–21 unpatentable. The "Litigation summary" section expressly declined to make that assertion, stating the FWD holding text "could not be retrieved." The Patent summary is correct and the Litigation summary's caveat is now resolved. The FWD text states verbatim:

"Having reviewed the arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1‑4, 6‑15, and 17‑21 of the '771 patent are unpatentable."

Source: PTAB FWD document, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549765/download-documents?artifactId=x8ecgjBG78lJwoVdF5u92V17QsVuOc_im3Bo3ZxKofUybHsqeoPbxGE. The same document confirms the Board's jurisdictional statement (35 U.S.C. § 6/§ 318(a)) and that Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21‑cv‑01823‑UNA (D. Del.) is the related matter — consistent with both earlier sections.

Flag 2 — claim 20 was challenged. The "Patent summary" stated that "claims 5, 16, and 20 were not among the challenged claims listed." That is incorrect as to claim 20. The Patexia docket summary and the FWD both list the challenged claims as 1‑4, 6‑15, 17‑21. The only claims never challenged are 5 and 16 — both of which recite "the coil of cable is prepackaged with plastic wrap." This matters: it is the single most fragile pair of claims in the patent, and it is precisely the limitation Times Fiber leaned on.

2. Governing law and the person of ordinary skill

• Framework: 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 the improvement is "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions," or where there is a "design need or market pressure" and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. KSR also authorizes "obvious to try" reasoning in predictable mechanical arts.
• POSITA (as stipulated in IPR2022‑01088, undisputed): "at least a bachelor's degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable as of the earliest priority date," with "[a]dditional education substitut[ing] for professional experience and vice versa." Source: Patent Owner's Response, quoted in PPC Ex. 1062, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/06-27-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1062-PPC_Exhibit_1062_Public_Version_of_PPC_Exhibit_1053/. This is a low-to-moderate skill level in a highly predictable mechanical art (B65H 49/20, 49/32, 75/14, 75/22, 75/24) — which cuts strongly toward obviousness under KSR.

3. The critical scope observation: the issued claims are broader than the specification's flagship embodiment

This is the analytical key to the §103 exposure, and it is why the IPR succeeded.

The '771 specification's Summary describes a cable reel with (i) flexible segments in an elongated wall, (ii) a tapered outer surface that expands the segments into the coil's inner diameter, and (iii) an off‑center braking gear member engaging an internal gear to prevent over‑payout.

None of that is in issued claims 1, 6, or 14. The independent kit claims require only:

• a coil with an inner diameter (claims 1, 14);
• a bag with a base and a cover;
• first and second frames on the base/cover;
• first and second flanges engaging those frames; and
• "at least one of the first and second flanges has a wall sized to fit within the inner diameter of the coil of cable, and the wall is configured to releasably couple with the other of the first and second flanges" (claim 1).

No taper. No flexible segments. No expansion. No braking gears. No over‑payout prevention. The claims recite, in substance, a bag + two frames + a two‑piece releasable hub sized to a coil's ID. Each of those five elements was independently known and commercially ubiquitous by 2014.

4. The ground that actually succeeded: PPC "Brochure" in view of Blunt

The Board's unpatentability finding tracked the Petition's Grounds I–IV. Two points are documented:

1. Primary reference: the PPC "Brochure" — a one‑page brochure for PPC's Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco Cable Tote, asserted as a printed publication publicly available September 22–25, 2014. Per Times Fiber's own characterization: "Brochure shows a cable tote for carrying a plastic cable reel holding 500 feet of cable, where the reel consists of at least one flange and fits over a frame hub" (PPC Ex. 1062, above).
2. Secondary reference: Blunt, listed literally on the '771 face as US 2012/0168554 A1, Randy Blunt, "System for storing a bulk supply of cable for controlled payout and method of using the system," priority 2011‑01‑04, published 2012‑07‑05. Ground I (claims 1‑4 and 15) was expressly "Brochure and Blunt."

Why that combination is obvious. The Brochure supplies a tote, a frame hub, and a flange‑bearing reel that mounts over the hub — i.e., elements (B), (C)/(D), and (E)/(F) of claim 1. Blunt supplies a bulk cable storage/payout system for controlled payout of an unrestrained bulk supply — i.e., the element (A) context and the payout/tension problem the '771 patent itself identifies in its Background ("The installer may, however, payout too much cable if the installer pulls too hard"). Both are in the identical field and address the identical problem. Combining a known tote‑and‑frame payout architecture with a known bulk‑cable controlled‑payout system is the paradigm KSR case of "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

Notably, the Brochure is PPC's own prior commercial product. That is devastating on two fronts: (a) it establishes that the accused infringer was marketing a tote‑based cable payout platform before the February 2015 priority date, and (b) it destroys any argument that the asserted commercial success (the Perfect Flex® reusable‑reel bags pleaded in the Delaware case) is attributable to the patented kit rather than to the prior art platform.

Times Fiber's counter‑argument and why it failed. The POR argued that "PPC's proposed combination does not disclose a 'prepackaged' limitation… The prior art relied on in the Petition does not disclose the subject matter of the Prepackaged Claims" (claims 1‑4 and 15), and that for Grounds III–IV the Petition "impermissibly used the '771 patent's claims as a template to fashion a patchwork of modifications to Brochure." The Board rejected both. The "patchwork" objection is a classic §103 argument that fails where, as here, each modification is independently suggested by the art and the art is fully commensurate in scope with the claims.

5. Independent §103 combinations I construct from the '771 patent's own cited art

The following combinations are drawn exclusively from the Citations (51) / Family Cites Families (9) lists on the patent's face. They are offered as alternative grounds independent of the Board's record.

Combination A — Claim 1 (primary combination for the "reel‑less coil in a bag" kit)

Motivation to combine A. (i) All references are in the portable cable/wire payout art and address the identical field‑use problem. (ii) Cash '215 supplies an express design incentive for reel‑less coils — weight and volume reduction — which is the very "prepackaged reel‑less coil" element claim 1 recites. (iii) Houston supplies an express replaceability/refill incentive: "when the reel of cable 122 is empty… the empty reel may be removed from the removable insert 124 and replaced with a new reel of cable," reducing packaging consumption. A POSITA seeking to exploit that refill benefit with a reel‑less coil would necessarily arrive at a reusable, releasable flange pair that grips the coil ID — exactly claim 1's element (G). (iv) Vislocky and Ripplinger supply the known technique (snap‑fit / stepped mating hub) for making such a flange pair tool‑lessly assemblable and knock‑down shippable — the classic "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" rationale (MPEP § 2144.01(C)). (v) There is no teaching away: nothing in Houston, Cash, Vislocky, or Ripplinger criticizes substituting a reel‑less coil for the reel of Houston's insert, or substituting a snap‑fit hub for a separate spindle.

Combination B — Claim 1 (alternative, container‑centric)

US 4,650,073 A (Young, "Electric cable container and dispenser") or US 2005/0035240 A1 (Micasa Trading, "Container for a roll of a wire like component… and a method of paying the component from the roll") or US 3,693,784 A (Holmes, "Wire package") or US 2,965,331 A (Nagy, "Dispensing container for roll material") + US 5,464,171 A (Ripplinger) + US 6,352,215 B1 (Cash). The container references teach a base/cover container with a payout opening holding a roll/coil; Ripplinger teaches the two‑half flange‑and‑tube spool with mating stepped diameters; Cash supplies the reel‑less‑coil incentive. This is a three‑reference combination in a single crowded art unit — the kind of combination courts routinely hold obvious under KSR.

Combination C — Claim 1 (case/caddy‑centric)

US 2012/0091249 A1 (John Mezzalingua Associates, "Cable carrying case") + US 2010/0320309 A1 (Windy City Wire, "Multiple reel cable carton") + US 6,045,087 A (Vislocky). The carrying case supplies a portable bag/cover architecture for cable payout; the carton supplies internal frame/reel support; Vislocky supplies the releasable two‑flange hub. Motivation: portability of a bulk cable supply for field installers — the exact market pressure the '771 Background recites.

Claim 6 — the "two‑wall hub plus size relationship" kit

Claim 6's additions over claim 1 are: (i) each flange has a central opening engaging its frame; (ii) each flange is "sized to be smaller than the geometry of the" respective frame (as corrected by the November 9, 2021 Certificate of Correction — the earlier sections correctly identified the as‑issued claim 6 typo); and (iii) one hub portion is an elongated wall, the other a truncated wall, which "releasably couple to form a hub member."

• Element (iii) is taught by Ripplinger US 5,660,354 (a long insert tube mated to a complementary receiver tube) and by US 2014/0312159 A1 (Niehoff, "Spool for receiving winding material and spool part system") and DE 4001250 A1 (a reel "constructed from frustra of cones, which can be separated then stacked one upon another") — the last expressly teaching a truncated/conical hub wall that separates and re‑assembles. DE '250 is especially on‑point for the elongated‑wall/truncated‑wall pairing combined with releasability.
• Element (i) is taught by US 6,045,087 A (Vislocky expressly recites "a first central borehole can be disposed in the first flange for allowing placement of the first flange on a bearer axis") and by Cash '215 (coil mounted on a shaft supported by a frame).
• Element (ii) — a flange smaller than its frame — is a mere size relationship. Under In re Rose and In re Kuhle, a recitation of relative size that produces no new or unexpected result is not patentably distinguishing. Where, as in the '771 patent's Figs. 1–2, the flange simply nests inside a square outer frame portion, the size relationship is the inherent geometric consequence of the frame's function.

Motivation to combine: the same field/concept as Combination A, plus the express availability of a collapsible/stackable reel (DE '250) for shipping economy — a recognized design incentive.

Claim 14 — the "square frame with cross members" kit

Claim 14 adds: frames with substantially square geometry, each having an outer frame portion and at least one cross member; flanges sized smaller than the square geometry; hub portions "sized to fit within the inner diameter of the coil."

• The square outer frame with cross members and a central flange support is the routine wire‑cage/caddy architecture: see US 5,775,621 A (We Cousins, "Combination reel caddy and stand for cable spools"), US 6,523,777 B2 (Gaudio, "Portable wire spool caddy"), US 8,016,222 B2 and US 2010/0320309 A1 (Windy City Wire), and US 2010/0078514 A1 (Thompson, "Portable wire spool holding device").
• The PPC Brochure's tote likewise shows a frame hub within a tote, providing the base/cover frame pairing.
• Motivation: a square, cross‑braced frame is the ordinary structural expedient for (a) bearing the weight of a coil and (b) fitting a squarish bag or carton snugly; a POSITA would adopt a square geometry for a base‑and‑cover bag as a matter of mechanical design choice, with predictable results (KSR; In re Aller).

6. Dependent claims — element‑by‑element obviousness

7. Motivation‑to‑combine rationales (MPEP § 2144.01)

1. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Bag/container payout + frame support + two‑piece spool hub are all known; their combination performs exactly its expected function (KSR).
2. Simple substitution of one known element for another. Reel‑less coil for a reeled coil (Cash '215); snap‑fit/stepped hub for a separate spindle (Vislocky '087, Ripplinger '354).
3. Known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Knock‑down, tool‑less spool assembly (Vislocky: "without the use of tools or adhesives"; Ripplinger: two molded halves) applied to a payout bag's hub.
4. Design incentive / market forces identified in the prior art and in the '771 Background itself. Portability for installers; tangle/over‑payout control; refillable/reusable components; reduced packaging volume and weight.
5. Obvious to try. Only a finite number of predictable hub‑coupling approaches (snap fit, friction fit, stepped/telescoping walls, interlocking tabs) existed for a two‑piece hub sized to a coil ID.
6. Express motivations in the references. Houston '484 (replace empty reel with a new reel; less packaging; recyclable insert); Cash '215 (reel‑less preferred for weight/volume reduction; collapse the clamp assembly to receive a replacement reel); Vislocky '087 (low‑volume shipping); Ripplinger '354 (multi‑piece assembly for manufacture).

No teaching away. The only "teaching away" argument advanced (by Times Fiber, via In re Houston's prosecution) was that a flexible bag is "incompatible with inserts." That argument fails on the '771 patent's own specification, which puts the frames in a flexible bag, and it fails because Houston '484 itself, in a later-issued claim (US 9,266,697, claim 10), recites exactly a flexible main compartment with a removable insert and a reel of communications cable closed inside it.

8. Anticipated patent‑owner counter‑arguments and their weaknesses

1. "Kit of separate components" framing. Arguments that no single reference discloses a kit fail under §103: a kit of individually known components is obvious where the components are known to be combinable, which the prior art (Vislocky, Ripplinger, Houston) establishes. The Board so held.
2. "Prepackaged reel‑less" limitation. The only limitation Times Fiber pressed. Weak because Cash '215 expressly teaches a reel‑less package and explains why it is preferred, and because "prepackaged with plastic wrap" (claims 5, 16) is a packaging condition, not a structural difference from the art. Preserve this as the only live claim family.
3. "Patchwork"/bodily‑incorporation arguments. These fail under KSR/In re Keller: the test is what the combined teachings suggest, not whether the references would be physically bodily combined.
4. Secondary considerations. Times Fiber argued "secondary considerations of nonobvious" in the POR, and the Board still found all challenged claims unpatentable — meaning the nexus failed. The Brochure being PPC's own prior product (public Sept. 22–25, 2014) strongly undercuts any nexus between the asserted commercial product and the claimed kit.

9. Residual uncertainty and recommended verification

• Appeal status is the key unknown. The FWD issued December 20, 2023 (paper docketed January 2, 2024). A notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit would have fallen due in early 2024, yet the prior "Patent summary" section could not locate any CAFC docket naming the '771 patent or IPR2022‑01088, and I likewise cannot confirm one. Do not assume the claims are cancelled. Claims are not cancelled by an FWD until the decision is final (appeal exhausted/waived) and a certificate issues under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). The earlier statement that the claims were "cancelled" overstates the current legal effect.
• The § 315(e) estoppel and district‑court consequence. The D. Del. docket is recorded closed December 20, 2023 — the same day as the FWDs. The precise disposition (dismissal, judgment of invalidity, or stipulation) remains unverified in my searches; that is the one substantive gap carried forward from the Litigation summary.
• Primary reference content. My characterization of Blunt (US 2012/0168554 A1) rests on its literal title on the '771 face plus its documented role in Ground I, not on a full read. A merits‑grade analysis should pull the Blunt specification and the four grounds' claim charts (Petition, Ex. 1001–1009) before relying on the mapping.
• Sources consulted: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10906771B2/en; PTAB FWD (ptacts.uspto.gov/.../1549765/...); PPC Ex. 1062 (public POR of the '771); https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?patent.patent_number=10906771; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-01088; https://patents.justia.com/patent/6352215; https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100314484; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6045087; https://patents.google.com/patent/US5464171A/en; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b4/c6/a5/d69baa62ed7c60/US5660354.pdf.

Bottom line: the issued claims of US 10,906,771 are, on this record, obvious under §103 on at least the Brochure + Blunt ground already adjudicated by the Board (claims 1–4, 6–15, 17–21 held unpatentable), and, independently, on Houston '484 + Cash '215 + Vislocky '087 (with Ripplinger '354 / DE 4001250 A1 for the mating‑wall limitations). The claims are vulnerable precisely because they recite only the bare kit architecture — a bag, two frames, and a releasable wall sized to the coil's inner diameter — and omit every one of the specification's distinguishing features (tapered expanding wall, flexible segments, braking gears). The only claims the record has not tested are 5 and 16 ("prepackaged with plastic wrap"), which is where any remaining defensive value in this patent is concentrated.