US 11656422

I'll run targeted searches for this specific patent number and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me search specifically for the IPR proceeding and any appeal of it.

One more check on any 2026 appellate or district court activity tied to this patent.

Bottom line first (this changes how you should read everything below)

US 11,656,422 is still shown as "Active" in Google Patents, but all three of its independent claims — 1, 18 and 40 — have been statutorily disclaimed by the patent owner (Belden Canada ULC), and the PTAB entered adverse judgment against the patent on September 8, 2025 in IPR2024-01228. For practical purposes, there is no independent claim left in this patent to assert. I found no 2026 CAFC docket involving this patent.

1. Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/

Family note (do not conflate these): US 11,740,423, US 12,313,896, US 12,332,491, and US 2025/0306324 A1 all share the same 2017‑10‑03 priority. US 11,740,423 was co‑asserted with '422 in the Delaware case. Corresponding Canadian members are CA 3019081, CA 3221590, CA 3221599, CA 3221718.

2. Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A method for organising a tray comprising a front edge in a fiber optic interconnect system is disclosed. The method comprises defining a standard width unit wherein a width of the front edge is substantially evenly divisible by the standard width unit, selecting a plurality of cassettes for installation on the tray from a set of cassettes having a plurality of different cassette widths as measured between outer side edges thereof, wherein each of the different cassette widths is evenly divisible by the standard width unit, and releasably securing said selected cassettes along the front edge of the tray, wherein when arranged on the tray an outer side edge of each of said selected cassettes is directly adjacent an outer side edge of at least one other selected cassette."

Note the mismatch I flag in §5: the abstract describes a method, but all three issued independent claims are tray/apparatus claims, not method claims.

3. Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — "Fiber optic cassette tray…" (tray with a front tray end portion)
A tray that slides into the tray-receiving space of a fiber-optic housing. It is built to hold a mix of cassette sizes side-by-side along its front end, each cassette having multiple fiber-optic plug-receiving receptacles (e.g., LC-type). Adjacency requirement: each cassette's outer side edge sits directly adjacent an outer edge of at least one other cassette. The tray is removably secured to each cassette. Width requirements, quoted literally: the first cassette width is "two, three, four, or six standard width units", and the second cassette width is also "two, three, four, or six standard width units", with the second width different from the first. (Note: claim 1 conspicuously omits "one" width unit, unlike the related '107/'542 claims, which recite "one, two, three, four and six".)

Claim 18 — "Fiber optic cassette tray…" (tray with a "cassette engaging portion")
Substantively the same apparatus as claim 1, but (a) keyed to a "cassette engaging portion" rather than a "front tray end portion," and (b) uses "adjacently faces" rather than "directly adjacent." The width limitation is worded differently — the first and second cassette widths are "of two, three, four, and six standard width units" (conjunctive "and," not "or"), with the second different from the first. The literal "and" wording is a real textual difference between claims 1 and 18.

Claim 40 — "A tray for providing a plurality of different modular fiber optic cassette configurations…"
The broadest-appearing independent claim: it does not require a sliding tray / tray-receiving space, only a tray "configured to fit" the cassette configurations "in a case of a fiber management system." Same adjacency ("adjacently faces") and same "two, three, four, and six standard width units" conjunctive phrasing as claim 18, with the second cassette width different from the first.

Representative dependent claims (context only): '422's dependents add a 12-width-unit tray width (cl. 2, 24, 50–51); four receptacle portions per standard width unit (cl. 4, 26, 53); MPO/multi-fiber connector receptacle on the rear plus interconnecting fibers (cl. 3, 25, 52); magnet fastening (cl. 7, 29, 57); a cable management bracket of one standard width unit with a cable management loop (cl. 8–9, 30–31, 58–59); inverted-"T" tab engaging a slot (cl. 14–15, 36–37, 62–63); and a flexible tab with boss engaging an aperture (cl. 16–17, 38–39, 64–65).

The "standard width unit" (W) is defined in the specification as the footprint of one receptacle module — illustratively an LC Quad (SC Duplex) footprint of four connectors — with cassette sizes 2W/3W/4W/6W on a 12W tray. The specification also contemplates SC Duplex (2 connectors) and MPO-12/‑16/‑24 footprints.

4. Post-issuance legal status — the operative part

IPR2024-01228, CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC (PTAB, Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2874; panel Cocks, Kaiser, McGraw):

• Filed July 26, 2024 by CommScope Technologies LLC; real parties in interest CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, CommScope, Inc. Challenged claims: 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, 64. Grounds based on Fukui, Sauter and Sedor.
• Institution granted February 27, 2025 on all challenged claims and all grounds. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/docs/02-27-2025-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-9-Institution_Decision__Grant.pdf?download=true
• Belden filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend (May 21, 2025) proposing substitute claims 66‑91, then withdrew it (Aug 7, 2025).
• Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) on July 17, 2025, disclaiming claims 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, and 64 — i.e., every challenged claim. Signed by Christopher W. Day, VP/AGC and Chief IP Counsel, Belden Inc. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Statutory_Disclaimer/
• Board entered adverse judgment and terminated the proceeding on September 8, 2025 (status: "Terminated‑Adverse Judgment"). Inter partes review certificate issued December 15, 2025.
• Consequence: claims 1, 18 and 40 — the only independent claims — are gone. The surviving 17 claims (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65) are all dependent claims whose base claims are disclaimed, so none can stand alone.

Related Delaware litigation: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del., Judge Richard G. Andrews). Filed July 27, 2023. The '422 patent was one of four asserted (with US 10,795,107; 11,435,542; 11,740,423). Accused products: CommScope "Propel™" system (PPL‑1U/2U/4U panels, Propel modules/adapters). The case was stayed September 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) pending four related IPRs (IPR2024‑01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382) and then administratively closed, with the court directing the parties to notify it when the PTAB actions resolved.

5. CAFC 2026 docket check

I searched the Federal Circuit's public calendar/orders and general docket material and found no 2026 appeal, petition, or mandamus involving US 11,656,422 (or IPR2024‑01228). This is consistent with the record: the IPR terminated by adverse judgment that Belden itself requested after disclaiming the claims, and an IPR certificate issued December 15, 2025, which indicates the appeal window closed without an appeal.

Do not conflate: CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc., No. 2025‑1428 (Fed. Cir.), dismissed by joint stipulation June 26, 2026, arose from IPR2023‑01056, a different proceeding involving different patents. Separately, Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope in D. Del. No. 1:22‑cv‑00782 concerned US 6,409,547 (structured cabling connectors) and is a different case entirely.

6. Points of uncertainty / accuracy flags

1. Source discrepancy: a third-party litigation summary described claim 1 of the '422 patent as "a method claim." That is wrong on the face of the patent — the abstract and specification recite a method, but issued claim 1 is an apparatus (tray) claim, as are claims 18 and 40. I rely on the claim text.
2. Date discrepancy in the record: the patent record assembled here includes events dated through December 2025 (IPR certificate, Dec. 15, 2025), while your stated current date is April 26, 2026. I have no independently verified sources dated between January and April 2026 for this patent.
3. Post-June-2026 district court activity: I could not confirm whether D. Del. No. 1:23‑cv‑00810 was reopened during 2026 or whether Belden pivoted to its surviving siblings (US 11,740,423; 12,313,896; 12,332,491; 2025/0306324). The Google Patents "litigation" flags and the PACER-derived summaries I retrieved do not resolve this.
4. Claim 1 uses "or" ("two, three, four, or six") while claims 18 and 40 use "and" ("two, three, four, and six"). I have interpreted these literally and flag them as a genuine drafting difference rather than assuming one is a typographical error — note that Belden elsewhere argued for judicial correction of a different typographical error ("the plurality of the plurality of") in the sibling '423 patent.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving this specific patent number, using litigation-tracking portals and court docket sources.

Let me dig into the district court docket and check for any 2026 developments, including appeals.

Let me check for the current status of the D. Del. case in 2026 and whether the '422 claims were dropped after the adverse judgment.

Bottom line

Only one court case is known to have asserted US 11,656,422 — the Delaware action Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810. It was stayed pending IPR and administratively closed, and it has not been confirmed reopened on the record I retrieved. The only other contested proceeding tied to this exact patent is the PTAB IPR2024-01228, which ended in adverse judgment on Sept. 8, 2025 after Belden disclaimed all challenged claims; the IPR certificate issued Dec. 15, 2025.

I found no ITC § 337 action, no second district-court case, and no Federal Circuit appeal in which US 11,656,422 was the patent at issue. Details and the "do not conflate" list are below.

1. Litigation table

2. Case 1 — Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.)

• Plaintiff: Belden Canada ULC.
• Defendants: CommScope, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope Technologies LLC.
• Jurisdiction / judge: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
• Case number: 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (filed under the "UNA" unassigned-judge suffix; complaint document is 1:23-cv-00810-UNA, Doc. 1-1).
• Filing date: July 27, 2023.
• Patents asserted (four, same 2017-10-03 priority family): US 10,795,107; US 11,435,542; US 11,656,422; US 11,740,423. The '422 was charted in Exhibit F to the complaint ("Claim Chart Comparing Accused Products to U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422").
• Accused products: CommScope Propel™ system — PPL-1U / PPL-2U / PPL-4U panels and Propel modules/adapters (e.g., PPL-AP-24-LC-SM, PPL-AP-12-LC-SM), LC and MPO configurations.
• Outcome / current status: Stayed September 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) pending four related IPRs (IPR2024-01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382), then administratively closed with the court directing the parties to notify it when the PTAB actions resolved so the case "may be reopened." Third-party docket aggregators currently render the case status as "Closed." I could not confirm that the case was reopened during 2026, nor that Belden formally dismissed its '422 claims with prejudice.

Practical effect on the '422 in this case: Because the '422's only independent claims (1, 18, 40) were statutorily disclaimed and adverse judgment was entered, there is no independent claim in the '422 left to assert in the Delaware action. I found no docket entry confirming how Belden resolved the '422 counts after the IPR terminated — flagging that as unverified, not as fact.

Source (verbatim order text): PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00810 — reproduced at https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/belden-canada-v-commscope-fiber-optic-patent-infringement-patsnap/ ; docket overview at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:23-cv-00810/belden-canada-ulc-v-commscope-inc

3. Case 2 — IPR2024-01228, CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC (PTAB)

Not Article III litigation, but it is the operative contested proceeding and the source of the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag for this patent.

• Petitioner: CommScope Technologies LLC (RPIs: CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope, Inc.).
• Patent Owner: Belden Canada ULC.
• Patent: US 11,656,422 B2 (application 17/929,566).
• Filed: July 26, 2024. Instituted on all challenged claims and grounds: Feb. 27, 2025.
• Challenged claims: 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, 64 (grounds based on Fukui, Sauter, Sedor).
• Termination: Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) (signed by Christopher W. Day, July 17, 2025) disclaiming all challenged claims, moved to terminate by adverse judgment (Aug. 7, 2025), and the Board entered adverse judgment and terminated the proceeding on Sept. 8, 2025 ("Terminated‑Adverse Judgment"). IPR certificate issued Dec. 15, 2025.
• Status: Terminated/closed; no CAFC appeal of IPR2024-01228 found (consistent with an adverse judgment the patent owner itself requested).

Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01228 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/ ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11656422-B2

4. Related cases that do NOT involve US 11,656,422 (do not conflate)

• IPR2024-01218, ‑01227, ‑01382 (PTAB) — CommScope's parallel IPRs against the sibling patents (e.g., '107, '542, '423). Different patent numbers; not the '422.
• Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00782-RGA (D. Del.) and its Fed. Cir. appeals Nos. 2026‑1255, 2026‑1285, dismissed by agreement June 29, 2026 — the appeal originates from the 22‑782 case, which my prior analysis tied to a different patent family (structured-cabling connectors). I could not confirm the '422 was part of 22‑782; the record ties the '422 to 23‑810 only. https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf
• CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc., No. 2025‑1428 (Fed. Cir.) — dismissed by joint stipulation June 26, 2026; arose from IPR2023‑01056, a different proceeding/patents.
• CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Belden Inc. and PPC Broadband, Inc., C.A. No. 24‑427‑RGA (D. Del.) — concerns US 9,266,697 (coaxial connector), not the '422.

5. Accuracy flags and limits on what I can confirm

1. Complaint characterization: A third-party complaint-analysis page describes the '422 as asserted on "a method claim." That is incorrect on the face of the patent — the '422's issued independent claims 1, 18, and 40 are apparatus (tray) claims; only the abstract/specification recite a method. I rely on the claim text.
2. Reopening of 23‑810 in 2026: Unconfirmed. The PTAB action resolved Dec. 15, 2025 (IPR certificate), which triggered the parties' obligation to notify Judge Andrews, but I found no docket entry showing reopening, voluntary dismissal, or a covenant not to sue as to the '422.
3. Date inconsistency: Your stated current date is April 26, 2026, while the session metadata shows Sept. 26, 2026, and I retrieved documents dated as late as June 29, 2026 (the CAFC order). I am reporting what the sources show literally and flagging this rather than resolving it silently.
4. No other litigation found: I searched litigation trackers (Unified Patents portal), PTAB docket aggregators, D. Del. docket-derived summaries, PACER-derived dockets, and CAFC orders/opinions. Aside from 23‑810 and IPR2024‑01228, no additional case asserting US 11,656,422 was found. I did not obtain a live PACER pull for 23‑810 in this session, so the most current docket status should be confirmed directly via PACER/PatentCenter.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11656422-B2 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01228 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:23-cv-00810/belden-canada-ulc-v-commscope-inc ; https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/belden-canada-v-commscope-fiber-optic-patent-infringement-patsnap/ ; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf ; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1428.ORDER.6-26-2026_2715115.pdf

I'll verify the record against live sources before writing the analysis.

Proceedings overview

There is exactly one AIA trial proceeding on US 11,656,422: IPR2024-01228, and it terminated on 2025-09-08 by adverse judgment against Belden Canada ULC after Belden statutorily disclaimed every challenged claim — so the proceeding status breakdown is 1 terminated/claims-cancelled, 0 active, 0 sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied, and the defensive posture is emphatic: all three independent claims (1, 18, 40) plus 45 dependents are disclaimed/cancelled, meaning any demand letter that cites claims 1, 18 or 40 is citing claims that no longer exist, and the 17 claims that were never challenged are all dependent claims whose only bases were disclaimed.

⚠️ Two threshold flags before the analysis, per my operating rules:

1. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt is wrong. It states "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest" and directs me to default to "no PTAB activity on file." That is contradicted by (a) the authoritative patent text in this same prompt, which lists under the family's litigation flags: "PTAB case IPR2024-01228 filed (Adverse Judgment)" and records legal events for the IPR filing, the § 1.321(a) disclaimer, and the inter partes review certificate issued 2025-12-15; and (b) multiple independent web sources. The ODP ingest has evidently not propagated the case. I therefore depart from the default and report the proceeding.
2. There is no Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01228 — do not look for one. The proceeding ended post-institution by adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) on 2025-09-08, so the record contains no FWD with claim-by-claim patentability holdings. Any source describing an "FWD invalidating the claims" is describing the outcome colloquially, not a document that exists. Claim-level "verdicts" below are therefore taken from the statutory disclaimer and the adverse-judgment entry, i.e., cancellation by disclaimer, not adjudicated unpatentability.

IPR2024-01228 — CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319). Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2874.
• Filed: 2024-07-26 (accorded filing date confirmed by Board notice 2024-08-30).
• Status (verbatim from the patent's own record / Docket Alarm): "Terminated-Adverse Judgment"; termination date 2025-09-08. Google Patents' family flag reads "PTAB case IPR2024-01228 filed (Adverse Judgment)." Plain-English gloss: the patent owner chose to kill its own claims rather than litigate them to a decision.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Josiah C. Cocks, Christopher M. Kaiser, and Kimberly McGraw (McGraw authored the institution decision). A Panel Change Order was entered 2025-05-30, i.e., after institution and around the time Belden filed its Motion to Amend; I could not verify from the public record which APJ was substituted, so treat the post-2025-05-30 composition as unsettled.
• Real parties in interest: Petitioner — CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope, Inc. Patent Owner — Belden Canada ULC and its parent, Belden Inc.
• Petition grounds: 5 grounds against claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64 (48 of 65 claims). Per Belden's Preliminary Response, Grounds 1–2 rely on Fukui (Ex. 1004) as the primary reference and Grounds 3–5 rely on Sauter (Ex. 1006) as the primary reference, all framed as obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additional petition exhibits included U.S. Pat. No. 10,215,944 (Ex. 1005), U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0099064 (Ex. 1010), U.S. Pat. No. 7,509,015, U.S. Pat. No. 9,008,485, U.S. Pat. No. 9,075,216, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0062050, and product literature from Leviton, Corning and Panduit, plus a Declaration of Dr. Stephen Ralph (Ex. 1003). ⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the previously generated summary in this prompt states grounds were "based on Fukui, Sauter and Sedor." I found no "Sedor" reference identified in the '228 petition record; U.S. Pat. No. 10,215,944 ("Modular fiber optic tray") is a plausible candidate for a third reference but I have not verified the inventor-to-exhibit mapping and will not assert it. Treat "Sedor" as unverified.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2025-02-27 on all challenged claims and all grounds ("we institute an inter partes review of all claims of the '422 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition"), applying the § 314(a) reasonable-likelihood standard. Belden's Preliminary Response (filed 2024-12-02) had argued, inter alia, that Fukui discloses only a single-width cassette and thus cannot teach the claimed first/second different widths of independent claims 1, 18 and 40, and that the Board should exercise § 325(d) discretion because the petition relied on substantially the same art and arguments previously considered. The Board rejected those arguments at the institution stage. Institution decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/docs/02-27-2025-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-9-Institution_Decision__Grant.pdf
• Final Written Decision: None issued. The case never reached an FWD. Do not attribute any claim-level patentability holding to the Board.
• What actually happened instead — the operative sequence:
  • 2025-05-21 — Belden filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 66-91 and moving to cancel all challenged claims (Paper 11; Belden Exs. 2001–2004, incl. an Eldering declaration).
  • 2025-07-17 — Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), signed by Christopher W. Day, VP/AGC and Chief IP Counsel of Belden Inc., disclaiming claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64 — i.e., every challenged claim. (Google Patents records the disclaimer event as "DC Disclaimer filed" dated 2025-08-26, effective 2025-07-17; the USPTO receipt timestamp on the disclaimer is 2025-07-17.) Disclaimer: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Statutory_Disclaimer/
  • 2025-08-04 — Board Order authorizing withdrawal of the Motion to Amend and termination, with adverse judgment entered against the petition-challenged claims. CommScope expressly opposed any termination that did not include adverse judgment under § 42.73(b)(2) — a deliberate act by the petitioner to lock in the estoppel/disclaimer consequences.
  • 2025-08-07 — Belden filed (i) the Motion to Withdraw the MTA and (ii) the Motion to Terminate by Adverse Judgment, invoking § 42.73(b)(2) ("Cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial"). CommScope did not oppose. Motion: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Motion__Other-16-PO_Motion_to_Terminate/
  • 2025-09-08 — Board entered adverse judgment (post-institution) and terminated the proceeding.
  • 2025-12-15 — Inter partes review certificate issued (kind code K1; the patent record's legal-event entry is dated 2025-12-23 with effective date 2025-12-15), cancelling the disclaimed claims under § 318(b).
• Settlement / termination terms: Not a settlement. This was a unilateral abandonment by the patent owner. The parties expressly agreed the adverse judgment "should only address the Challenged Claims and should not address the substance of the withdrawn Motion to Amend or the proposed substitute claims" — so the Board never ruled on substitute claims 66-91 and there is no estoppel as to them (they were never in a trial that reached FWD; they were never entered as claims at all).
• Appeal: None. I found no Federal Circuit docket for IPR2024-01228 and no notice of appeal. The issuance of the IPR certificate on 2025-12-15 is consistent with the appeal window lapsing. Separately, note the 2026-06-29 Federal Circuit order dismissing Nos. 2026-1255 and 2026-1285 (Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al.) under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement — that order is from D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-00782 (a different case, the "Reede" / structured-cabling dispute) and has nothing to do with the '422 patent: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf
• Defensive value: This is the strongest possible defense posture short of a merits FWD. Every independent claim of US 11,656,422 has been statutorily disclaimed — under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) a disclaimed claim is treated as if it never existed, and the Board's adverse judgment plus the 2025-12-15 certificate confirm it. A plaintiff cannot assert claim 1, 18 or 40 against anyone. If you receive a demand citing any of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62 or 64, the correct response is a short letter pointing to Ex. 2005 and the IPR certificate — and, if suit is filed anyway, Rule 11 is squarely in play.

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. There are now no live independent claims. All three independents (1, 18 and 40) were challenged, disclaimed under § 1.321(a) on 2025-07-17, and subjected to adverse judgment on 2025-09-08. Forty-five dependents (1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, 64) fell with them. The remaining 17 claims — 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63 and 65 — were never challenged and technically remain "untested", but every one of them is a dependent claim that depends (directly or through another dependent) on claim 1, 18 or 40. A dependent claim cannot survive the cancellation of its base claim; there is no claim left in the patent that can be infringed standing alone. Practically: the patent is functionally dead, even though Google Patents still shows legal status "Active" with an adjusted expiration of 2038-09-27. That "Active" flag is an artifact — status is not updated for adverse judgments and disclaimers in the way one might assume.

Estoppel landscape — the more subtle point. Because § 315(e)(2) estoppel is keyed to a "final written decision" under § 318(a), and IPR2024-01228 terminated by adverse judgment rather than FWD, the estoppel analysis is not the clean textbook case; panel and district-court treatment of adverse-judgment termination as an estoppel trigger is not uniform, and I would not represent to a court that CommScope is definitively estopped on all reasonably-raisable § 102/§ 103 grounds. That nuance, however, is largely academic here: CommScope won what it needed. For a different defendant, the practical landscape is favorable regardless of estoppel, because the claims that could be asserted no longer exist. The real exposure for a new defendant is not this patent — it is the sibling family, discussed next.

Pattern signals — this was a coordinated portfolio war, not an isolated IPR. CommScope filed four IPRs on the same day, 2024-07-26, against four Belden patents sharing the 2017-10-03 priority: IPR2024-01218 ('107), IPR2024-01227 ('542), IPR2024-01228 ('422), and IPR2024-01382 ('423). Belden filed Non-Contingent Motions to Amend in all four on 2025-05-21, filed statutory disclaimers of all challenged claims in all four, withdrew all four MTAs, and accepted adverse judgment in all four in the same August–September 2025 window (the Board handled them in a single consolidated authorization order). Two things then happened that a defendant must understand:

1. Belden replaced the patents rather than defending them. Belden told the Board that two new same-family patents had issued — US 12,313,896 B2 and US 12,332,491 B2 — and that it had filed a second infringement suit against CommScope on them: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, LLC et al., No. 1:25-cv-00870-RGA (D. Del.), filed 2025-07-14. That case is live, with an answer filed 2025-11-10 and a scheduling order entered 2025-11-26 (joint claim construction brief due 2026-12-04; Markman hearing 2027-01-12; fact discovery close 2027-06-18; dispositive motions 2027-12-17; final pretrial 2028-05-05; 5-day jury trial 2028-05-15). Belden also filed continuation application 19/239,502 — now published as US 2025/0306324 A1 — which Belden represented "contains claim elements added in the substitute claims in the motions to amend."
2. CommScope fought that maneuver and left a landed record. CommScope expressly refused to stipulate that "anything in the amended claims or the continuation application or [the newly issued patents] recite anything patentably distinct from the claims challenged in the petitions." That dispute is preserved in PTAB Ex. 3002 and in the Board's order. It is the ammunition for arguing, in any later case on 12,313,896 / 12,332,491 / 19/239,502, that the new claims are not patentably distinct from claims Belden already surrendered — a classic obviousness-type double patenting / recapture-by-continuation attack. A defendant today should be litigating the siblings, not this patent.

Also avoid conflation: no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the '228 chain; the petitioner was CommScope, not a proxy. And the Delaware case in which the '422 was originally asserted — Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.), filed 2023-07-27, asserting the '107, '542, '422 and '423 against the CommScope Propel™ system — was stayed 2024-09-04 pending the four IPRs and administratively closed, with the court retaining jurisdiction; I could not confirm 2026 activity in that case file, and given that all four asserted patents' claims are now disclaimed and all four IPRs terminated adversely, I would expect it to remain closed with the parties litigating 1:25-cv-00870 instead.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and the demand cites US 11,656,422:

• Demand letter received citing claims 1, 18 or 40: do not engage on the merits. Reply citing Belden's statutory disclaimer (37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), filed 2025-07-17, disclaiming "1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64") and the Board's adverse judgment of 2025-09-08 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Motion__Other-16-PO_Motion_to_Terminate/), and demand written confirmation the claim is withdrawn. Note that there is no FWD to quote — the correct citation is the disclaimer exhibit (Belden Ex. 2005) and the IPR certificate issued 2025-12-15, not a Board opinion.
• Suit filed anyway on claims 1, 18 or 40: move to dismiss and seek fees; a disclaimed claim "is treated as though it had never existed," and CommScope itself insisted on adverse judgment precisely to nail down that consequence.
• Suit filed on the surviving dependents (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65): these are the only nominally live claims, and each is a dependent whose base claim is gone. Attack on the straightforward ground that a dependent claim cannot be infringed or sustained independently of its cancelled parent, and demand the patent owner identify any independent claim it contends is still enforceable.

Trial-stage milestones: none pending on this patent — IPR2024-01228 is terminated and the IPR certificate has issued; there is no § 315(b) one-year clock, no oral hearing, no FWD due date to watch. If you are monitoring the family, the relevant calendar is D. Del. 1:25-cv-00870 (Markman 2027-01-12; fact discovery close 2027-06-18; trial 2028-05-15), and the relevant IPR-calendar question would be whether anyone petitions against US 12,313,896, US 12,332,491, US 11,740,423, or US 2025/0306324 A1. I found no AIA petition directed at the '422 by any petitioner other than CommScope, and no post-2025 proceeding on the '422 at all — which is expected, since there is nothing left to challenge.

Accuracy notes / open items: (1) I could not verify the identity of the APJ substituted by the 2025-05-30 Panel Change Order. (2) I could not verify the "Sedor" reference the prior-generated summary attributes to the '228 grounds; the POPR identifies only Fukui and Sauter as primary references. (3) The exact exhibit number of the POPR is Paper 7 (2024-12-02); the institution decision is Paper 9 (2025-02-27); the adverse judgment is Paper 19 (2025-09-08) per Docket Alarm. (4) I could not retrieve a USPTO-hosted PTAB E2E link specific to this case; the PTAB Center entry point is https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and the Google Patents family record is https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en. (5) All of the above is a record analysis, not legal advice.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 11,656,422, starting with the recorded reel/frame entries and correspondent of record.

Good — the disclaimer confirms Reel 063823/0609. Let me now pin down the recorded correspondents and the corporate/product context.

Let me check the prosecution correspondent (Customer No. 181721) and the corporate/SEC context.

Assignment-record analysis — US 11,656,422 B2

Scope note: I retrieved the USPTO assignment data as mirrored in the patent's own legal-events record, plus the Patent Owner's statutory disclaimer (which independently certifies the reel/frame of the operative conveyance). I was not able to retrieve the correspondent-of-record field from the Assignment Center images themselves, so I flag that below rather than guess. Verification entry point: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 11656422) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Inventors

Pattern check — no anomaly. Pilon is the only named inventor on the '422 patent, and the entire right, title and interest was assigned to Belden Canada Inc. by nunc pro tunc instrument effective 2018‑10‑01 — four days after the 2018‑09‑27 filing of the parent application (16/143,831, now US 10,795,107). That is the signature of a routine employee-invention assignment executed contemporaneously with filing, not a distress signature. The "nunc pro tunc" character matters: it is what retroactively reaches the later continuations, including this one (17/929,566, filed 2022‑09‑02), back to 2018‑10‑01.

Departure test: I found no evidence in the record available to me that Pilon left Belden within 12 months of filing, and no serial-inventor / sole-inventor-departure pattern (which typically precedes a portfolio fire-sale). Marked no signal, not "clean" — absence of evidence.

Original assignee

Belden Canada ULC (as printed on the face of the issued patent, and as confirmed immediately below).

• Predecessor on the face of the record: Belden Canada Inc. (Saint‑Laurent, Québec), a Belden operating subsidiary.
• Primary line of business: Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC, St. Louis, MO) is a publicly traded structured-cabling, networking, connectivity and industrial-network manufacturer. Belden Canada ULC is its Canadian operating/manufacturing subsidiary; Belden's own PTAB Mandatory Notices state the real parties-in-interest are "Belden Canada ULC and its parent company, Belden Inc." (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01382/.../Notice__Mandatory_Notice.pdf).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The '422 disclosure is a tray/cassette architecture (2W/3W/4W/6W cassettes on a 12W tray; LC-Quad, SC-Duplex and MPO variants) for Belden's fiber cassette/tray product line. Belden asserted this patent in its own name as a commercial competitor, which is the functional equivalent of a product-shipping attestation: it sued over CommScope's Propel™ system in Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del., filed 2023‑07‑27).
• Current status: Operating. Part of a live, NYSE-listed parent. Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

Correction to a secondary source (flagged, per instructions): the Unified Patents page lists "Parent Company: Belden Canada Ulc" for this patent (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[11656422](/patent/11656422)-B2). Read literally, that would make Belden Canada ULC the ultimate parent — which is wrong. Belden's own Mandatory Notices identify Belden Inc. as the parent. Unified Patents also shows priority date 2017‑10‑02 / filing 2022‑09‑01 where the patent says 2017‑10‑03 / 2022‑09‑02; I rely on the patent.

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments exist. Both were recorded on 2023‑06‑02, and both are intra-Belden.

1. 2018‑10‑01 (executed/effective) / recorded 2023‑06‑02 — Reel 063837/0665

• Conveyance: Nunc pro tunc assignment (recorded doc code AS — Assignment)
• Assignor: Vincent Pilon (individual inventor)
• Assignee: Belden Canada Inc. (Canada)
• Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from available sources. See signal #3 below for the associated counsel I could verify and why I am not treating it as the recorded correspondent.
• Context: Contemporaneous employee-invention assignment — executed four days after the 2018‑09‑27 filing of parent application 16/143,831; the nunc pro tunc form retroactively captures the later continuations, including 17/929,566. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale.

2. 2020‑03‑20 (executed/effective) / recorded 2023‑06‑02 — Reel 063823/0609

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (doc code AS)
• Assignor: Belden Canada Inc.
• Assignee: Belden Canada ULC (Canada)
• Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from available sources.
• Context: Internal corporate reorganization / conversion (Inc. → ULC) within the Belden family. There is no third-party purchaser anywhere in this chain.

Cross-corroboration (this is the strongest single datum in the file): Belden's statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), signed 2025‑07‑17 by Christopher W. Day, VP, AGC and Chief IP Counsel, Belden Inc. (Parent of Belden Canada ULC), certifies:

"The extent of patentee's ownership interest in the above-identified patent is: 100% Ownership Interest — Reel 063823 Frame 0609"
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556427](/patent/1556427)/download-documents?artifactId=8xZDgK6XBTIMiycZH3qbWelawnKbC31CAArZES8K3PyCZqsm0gnCIy0

So the USPTO's own record on the operative conveyance (063823/0609) is confirmed by the patentee as the basis of its 100% title — and the chain terminates there, at an operating company.

Note on what is not in the record: there is no assignment to any licensing entity, holding LLC, trust, or defensive aggregator. The chain is two links long and both links are Belden-family.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11656422
    2017 : Provisional application filed
    2018 : Nonprovisional parent filed
         : Pilon assigns all rights to Belden Canada Inc
    2020 : Belden Canada Inc converts to Belden Canada ULC
    2022 : Continuation filed as 17 929 566
    2023 : Both assignments recorded at USPTO
         : Patent issues
         : Belden sues CommScope in Delaware
    2024 : CommScope files IPR2024-01228
    2025 : Belden disclaims all independent claims
         : PTAB enters adverse judgment
         : IPR certificate issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain never leaves the Belden corporate family: Pilon → Belden Canada Inc. (Reel 063837/0665) → Belden Canada ULC (Reel 063823/0609). Neither assignee is a licensing-only vehicle; both are named as real parties-in-interest alongside the NYSE-listed parent in Belden's own PTAB notices. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC. Negative finding.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither assignee matches any entity on the RPX / Unified Patents / Patent Progress high-frequency-plaintiff lists. Belden appears in PTAB and District Court records as an operating-company plaintiff (Belden v. Superior Essex, Belden v. Berk-Tek, Belden v. CommScope), not as a serial asserter. Negative finding.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not a finding).
I must be explicit: the correspondent-of-record field on Reels 063837/0665 and 063823/0609 was not retrievable from the sources available to me, and I will not fill it in by inference. What I can verify as affiliated counsel:

• Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980), Barclay Damon LLP, Barclay Damon Tower, 125 East Jefferson St., Syracuse, NY 13202 — lead counsel for Patent Owner Belden in IPR2024‑01228 and "AUTHORIZED BY Denis Sullivan" on the '422 application's electronic filing receipt (Customer No. 181721, Attorney Docket 0404.0016‑CON2).
• Thomas Hoehner (Reg. No. 73,474), Barclay Damon; Cory C. Bell (Reg. No. 75,096), Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Boston).
• Christopher W. Day, Belden Inc. Chief IP Counsel — signed the 2025 disclaimer.
  Two observations that are supported: (a) both recorded assignments were lodged on the same day (2023‑06‑02) and bear near-sequential reels (063823 and 063837), i.e. they were filed as a single title-cleanup batch; and (b) that batch was handled through Belden's Customer No. 181721 prosecution channel. But "attorney X filed the assignments" is a claim I cannot support from the record I retrieved, so this is flagged UNCLEAR — insufficient evidence, and not counted as a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Two conveyances total, both intra-family, effective 2018‑10‑01 and 2020‑03‑20. No chained LLCs, no common-principal shells, no sub-24-month cascade. Negative finding.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (in form only; benign).
The assignment recordings fell on 2023‑06‑02, roughly eight weeks before the 2023‑07‑27 Delaware complaint naming this patent — facially inside the 6-month pre-suit window. But the substance defeats the NPE reading: the underlying conveyances were effective 2018‑10‑01 and 2020‑03‑20, years before the CommScope dispute existed; and the transferee is the same corporate family, not an asserter. This is chain-of-title perfection ahead of an enforcement campaign, a routine litigation-readiness step (it cures any standing/ownership challenge), not venue- or standing-shopping to a shell. Recorded as present but non-probative.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceedings, no §363 sale, no assignment out of an estate. Belden Inc. is a going concern listed on the NYSE. Negative finding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
This is the inverse: Belden asserted in its own name, as a commercial competitor, against a rival's Propel™ platform — a textbook operating-company-vs-operating-company suit. No NPE front, no proxy asserter. Negative finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT (but note self-neutralization).
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. That said, the patent is now functionally neutralized by the patentee's own hand: Belden statutorily disclaimed claims 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62 and 64 (2025‑07‑17), the PTAB entered adverse judgment (2025‑09‑08), and the IPR certificate issued 2025‑12‑15. That is self-inflicted neutralization, not defensive aggregation — it must not be scored as signal #8.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: The entire recorded chain is two intra-family conveyances — Reel 063837/0665 (Pilon → Belden Canada Inc., effective 2018‑10‑01) and Reel 063823/0609 (Belden Canada Inc. → Belden Canada ULC, effective 2020‑03‑20) — ending at a subsidiary of the NYSE-listed Belden Inc. (BDC), which Belden itself identifies as a real party-in-interest and which asserted the '422 patent in its own name against a commercial competitor (CommScope) in D. Del. No. 1:23‑cv‑00810. Six of the eight NPE signals are affirmatively absent; the one formally "present" signal (recording inside 6 months of suit) is defeated by the 2018/2020 effective dates and the absence of any third-party transferee.

Three material caveats that sit on top of (not against) this verdict:

1. The patent is commercially dead. All three independent claims are disclaimed; the surviving 17 claims (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65) are all dependent on disclaimed bases and cannot stand alone. There is nothing left to assert here.
2. The "operating company" here is the defendant-side mirror. Belden is a large public company that both practices and litigates — this verdict describes the character of the assertion, not a judgment about its merits (the PTAB instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, which is a substantive signal about the claims themselves).
3. Verification gap. I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent on either reel. Anyone relying on signal #3 should pull the two assignment images directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (recordation numbers 063823/0609 and 063837/0665), where the "Correspondent" block will name the filing attorney/firm — Belden's Customer No. 181721 channel and the Barclay Damon affiliation of Denis Sullivan make that the likely (but unverified) source.

No NPE, no troll pattern, and no post-issuance transfer to any third party has ever been recorded against US 11,656,422.