US 8287320

I'll verify current USPTO/CAFC status for this specific patent number before summarizing.

US 8,287,320 B2 — Verified Summary

I searched for the specific number 8,287,320 only and used the full patent text plus USPTO/PTAB/Federal Circuit records. Identifiers are reproduced literally.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A coaxial cable connector comprising a connector body; a post engageable with connector body, wherein the post includes a flange; a nut, axially rotatable with respect to the post and the connector body, the nut having a first end and an opposing second end, wherein the nut includes an internal lip, and wherein a second end portion of the nut corresponds to the portion of the nut extending from the second end of the nut to the side of the lip of the nut facing the first end of the nut at a point nearest the second end of the nut, and a first end portion of the nut corresponds to the portion of the nut extending from the first end of the nut to the same point nearest the second end of the nut of the same side of the lip facing the first end of the nut; and a continuity member disposed within the second end portion of the nut and contacting the post and the nut, so that the continuity member extends electrical grounding continuity through the post and the nut is provided."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '320 patent has 32 claims. Its summary describes four "aspects," corresponding to independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 32 (claim 32 being the sole method claim). Caveat: the full claim text of claims 9, 17 and 32 was not in the material retrieved; I have verified claim 1's wording against the Federal Circuit opinion (PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 734), and I derive claims 9/17/32 from the patent's own "aspects" language. Treat the latter as high-confidence but not verbatim.

• Claim 1 (apparatus). A coax connector with (a) a connector body, (b) a post engaged with the body and having a flange, (c) a nut rotatable about the post/body having a first end for coupling to an interface port, a second end, and an internal lip, where the "second end portion" of the nut runs from the nut's rear end forward to the point on the forward-facing lip side nearest that rear end, and the "first end portion" is the rest, and (d) a continuity member located inside the second (rear) end portion of the nut, touching both the post and the nut so the ground path runs post → continuity member → nut. The point of the geometry language is to require the continuity member to sit behind the lip, not between the nut lip and the post flange.
• Claim 9 (apparatus). Same general connector, but the continuity member is disposed axially rearward of the surface of the internal lip of the nut that faces the post flange — i.e., positioned rearward of where prior connectors pinched a grounding element.
• Claim 17 (apparatus). Same connector in which the continuity member is disposed only rearward of the start of the second end portion of the nut and contacts the post and the nut, again extending ground continuity. (The Federal Circuit opinion quotes this wording when discussing claim 1's recitation.)
• Claim 32 (method). A method of obtaining electrical continuity: provide such a connector (post with flange; rotatable nut with inward lip; continuity member axially rearward of the lip surface facing the flange); attach a coaxial cable so its grounding sheath contacts the post; extend continuity from post through the continuity member to the nut; and fasten the nut to a conductive interface port to complete the ground path.

Notable dependent-claim content

Dependent claims 8, 16 and 31 add the limitation that the continuity member "maintain[s] electrical continuity when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port." Claim 28 adds "shaped to fit"/"configured to fit" language. These two limitation families drove the claim-construction dispute in the IPRs (see below).

Litigation / PTAB history (verified)

• IPR2013-00346 and IPR2013-00347 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., both directed to U.S. Pat. No. 8,287,320. Google Patents logs -00347 as reaching a Final Written Decision and -00346 as settled; both are listed on the patent page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8287320/en).
• Appeal 2015-1361 et al. — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016): affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32 (based on the PTAB's broadest-reasonable-interpretation construction of "continuity member"), but vacated the unpatentability of claims 8, 16 and 31 because those claims require the member to "maintain electrical continuity." https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[3179262](/patent/3179262)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/
• Remand appeal, Nos. 2015-1361/1366/1368/1369, decided July 3, 2018 (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu): the Federal Circuit again vacated the Board's holdings as to claims 8, 16 and 31 (of the '320) plus the '060/'353 claims, finding the Board repeated its evidentiary errors on commercial success, copying and failure of others. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/[1941643](/patent/1941643).html
• Subsequent Board order (Sept. 17, 2018, IPR2013-00340/-00345/-00346) re-instituted on all petitioned grounds under SAS; Corning indicated it would not further contest and would seek adverse judgment/termination, with PPC not opposing.

2026 CAFC docket activity (relevant but NOT confirmed for this patent)

I found a March 2026 Federal Circuit disposition in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/1777/1778/1779, arising from PTAB IPR2022-00718 through IPR2022-00721; the court affirmed (Fed. Cir. R. 36) on March 4, 2026 (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf). I could not confirm whether those Amphenol IPRs involve U.S. 8,287,320 specifically — my search on that point was cut off, so I am not attributing them to this patent.

Points of explicit uncertainty

1. Ultimate disposition of claims 8, 16 and 31. Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32 were finally held unpatentable. The surviving "maintain electrical continuity" claims were twice remanded and the petitioner later withdrew, but I do not have an authoritative record of the final Board outcome for those three claims. Google Patents nonetheless lists the patent as Active, which is consistent with at least some claims (or the patent document itself) remaining in force — but Google's status field is an assumption, not a legal conclusion.
2. Exact text of independent claims 9, 17 and 32. My plain-language renderings are drawn from the specification's four "aspects" and from the Federal Circuit's quotation of claim 1; they are not verbatim quotations of the issued claims for 9, 17 and 32.
3. Assignee history. The patent as printed names John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.; Google Patents lists PPC Broadband, Inc. as current assignee following 2013 name changes and security interests (JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo). I did not independently verify the current chain of title in the USPTO assignment database.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8287320 specifically.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320

Patent identification (literal): U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320 B2, "Coaxial cable connector having electrical continuity member," issued October 16, 2012, from Application No. 12/633,792, filed December 8, 2009, claiming priority to Provisional App. No. 61/180,835 (filed May 22, 2009). Inventors: Eric Purdy, Noah Montena, Jeremy Amidon. Original assignee John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.; current assignee PPC Broadband, Inc. (successor via name changes / assignments recorded 2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13).

Below is what I could verify. I have kept the numbers exactly as they appear in the sources, and I flag where I could not verify.

---

1. District court litigation

PPC Broadband, Inc. (d/b/a PPC) v. Corning Gilbert Inc.

• Court / jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
• Case number: 5:12-cv-00911-GLS-DEP (often cited as "PPC II," No. 5:12-cv-911)
• Filed: 2012 (case number sequence and the December 4, 2012 Second Amended Complaint confirm a 2012 filing)
• Parties: Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. d/b/a PPC; Defendant Corning Gilbert Inc.
• '320 patent asserted: Yes. The Second Amended Complaint (December 4, 2012) pleaded infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,192,237 ("the '237 Patent"), 8,287,320 ("the '320 Patent"), 8,313,353 ("the '353 Patent"), and 8,323,060 ("the '060 Patent") — collectively the "Patents-in-Suit." The complaint states the '320 Patent issued October 16, 2012 from Application Serial No. 12/633,792 and that "PPC is the sole owner of, and has the sole right to sue upon, the '320 Patent."
  • Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2014-00736/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6676446/docs/05-06-2015-Petitioner/Exhibit-1078-Exhibit_1078_PUBLIC___12_4_12_Second_Amended_Complaint_12_cv_00911.pdf
• Claim construction (relevant to the '320 family): In PPC II the court addressed "connector body" (held not limited to a single/unitary one-piece component) and "a post, engageable with the connector body" (separate, interlocked components preventing relative axial movement), and construed "positioned along the post" as "located at a point on the length of the post, and behind the first surface of the internal lip of the nut." See PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC (PPC II), No. 5:12-cv-911, 2014 WL 4199244 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2014); https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/5:2012cv00911/[90113/103](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=90113-0103)/0.pdf
• Outcome / current status: I could not verify a final district-court judgment on the '320 Patent. What is documented is that the validity of the '320 claims was litigated to final decision in the parallel PTAB proceedings (below), and Corning ultimately settled with PPC during the appellate phase (Corning "withdrew as a party to this appeal after it reached a settlement with PPC," https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/[1941643](/patent/1941643).html). Treat the district-court outcome as unconfirmed.

Related, but NOT involving the '320 patent (listed here to prevent confusion — do not conflate these with '320 litigation):

• John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., No. 5:11-cv-00761 (N.D.N.Y.) ("PPC I") — asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,558,194 and 6,848,940; jury found willful infringement (July 2015). The '320 patent was not asserted there (it had not issued when suit commenced).
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, No. 5:13-cv-00538 (N.D.N.Y.) — involved U.S. Patent No. 6,676,446.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications (Finnegan summary, Fed. Cir. No. 17-1347) — ~$61 million willfulness/damages affirmance concerning the '194/'940 patents, not '320.

---

2. USPTO PTAB — inter partes review of the '320 patent

Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Case numbers: IPR2013-00346 (U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320) and IPR2013-00347 (U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320)
• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Filed: June 10, 2013 (petitioner: Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC; patent owner: PPC Broadband, Inc.)
• Scope: IPR of claims 1–32 of the '320 patent. Grounds: obviousness over U.S. Published Application 2006/0110977 (Matthews) combined with Japanese Published Application JP 2002-015823 (Tatsuzuki), with Corning relying on the declaration of Dr. Robert S. Mroczkowski and PPC relying on Dr. Charles A. Eldering.
• Oral hearing: July 24–25, 2014, before APJs Jameson Lee, Josiah C. Cocks, and Jackie Wright Bonilla (consolidated with IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00345).
  • https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/09-15-2014-Board/Order-73-Record_of_Oral_Hearing.pdf
• Outcome as recorded: Google Patents' family-litigation annotations record the two cases differently: IPR2013-00347 — "Final Written Decision" and IPR2013-00346 — "Settlement" (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8287320](/patent/US8287320)/en). The Final Written Decisions held all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Matthews + Tatsuzuki. I am reporting those annotations literally; I did not independently locate the PTAB paper that disposed of IPR2013-00346.
• PTAB case list source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2013-00347 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2013-00346 (as linked from the Google Patents page)

---

3. Federal Circuit appeals

(a) PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016)

• Appeal No.: 2015-1361 (consolidated from IPR2013-00340, -00345, -00346, and -00347)
• Result: Affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded.
  • Affirmed unpatentability of '320 claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32 (claims lacking the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation).
  • Vacated the unpatentability determination as to '320 claims 8, 16, and 31 (the "maintain electrical continuity" claims), because the Board made no finding that Matthews + Tatsuzuki maintains electrical continuity during the claimed positions/modes.
  • Also upheld the Board's constructions of "continuity member," "shaped to fit," and "configured to fit" under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and faulted the Board's treatment of objective indicia (copying, failed attempts, commercial success presumption).
• Sources: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[3179262](/patent/3179262)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/ ; https://app.midpage.ai/document/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc-[3179244](/patent/3179244) ; commentary: https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/federal-circuit-panel-begrudgingly-upholds-ptabs-claim-construction-but-vacates-finding-of-obviousness-on-other-grounds/

(b) PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018)

• Appeal No.: 17-1362 (and companion appeals), from the Board's Decisions on Remand
• Result: The Federal Circuit again rejected the Board's reasoning, holding that the Board did not sufficiently explain why Tatsuzuki's disc-shaped spring (located in Matthews' connector as proposed) would make consistent contact with the post and nut during the claimed periods of operation. The court reaffirmed that "maintain electrical continuity" requires consistent or continuous contact. Corning had settled with PPC and withdrew as a party to this appeal.
• Sources: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-federal-circuit/1941643.html ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4513742](/patent/4513742)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-iancu/ ; nonprecedential disposition: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.pdf
• Current status of the '320 claims: UNCONFIRMED. I can verify the '320 claims were held unpatentable by the Board and that the Federal Circuit affirmed as to claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, 32 and vacated/remanded as to claims 8, 16, 31 (twice). I cannot confirm the final disposition of claims 8, 16, and 31 after the 2018 remand. Google Patents nonetheless lists the patent as "Active, expires 2030-02-27 (adjusted expiration)," which should be read as a database status flag, not a legal conclusion about claim validity.

---

4. Matters I could NOT verify (stated explicitly rather than assumed)

1. No confirmed final district-court judgment specifically on the '320 Patent in 5:12-cv-00911-GLS-DEP.
2. No confirmed assertion of the '320 Patent in any other district-court action (e.g., PPC Broadband's other connector campaigns against other defendants). I could not confirm any such case asserts '320.
3. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-1776, 24-1777, 24-1778, 24-1779 (judgment entered March 4, 2026, Rule 36 affirmance), on appeal from PTAB Nos. IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721 (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html). These are PPC/Amphenol connector IPRs, but the search results did not identify which PPC patents are at issue. I cannot confirm whether '320 is among them. Do not assume it is.
4. Darts-ip reports "Family has litigation" for this family (https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=43124856), but the underlying case list is behind a login and was not retrievable.

---

Summary table (verified entries only)

Bottom line: The only litigation I can confirm that squarely involves U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320 is (i) PPC Broadband's 2012 N.D.N.Y. action against Corning Gilbert, No. 5:12-cv-00911-GLS-DEP, and (ii) the resulting PTAB IPRs (IPR2013-00346 and IPR2013-00347) and Federal Circuit appeals (2015-1361 and 17-1362). The '320 claims were repeatedly invalidated by the PTAB, were affirmed invalid as to claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32, and were twice remanded as to claims 8, 16, and 31; the post-2018 status of those three claims is not something I can confirm from the available sources.

If you need the definitive current claim status, the authoritative records to pull are: the PTAB Final Written Decision dockets in IPR2013-00346/-00347 and any subsequent remand papers, and the N.D.N.Y. docket in 5:12-cv-00911.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings referenced in the patent record.

Key findings so far. Let me dig into the claim-level outcomes and the appeals.

Let me verify the post-remand termination and check for any other proceedings.

PTAB Proceedings — US Patent 8,287,320 ("Coaxial cable connector having electrical continuity member")

Canonical-list flag: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 8,287,320. That canonical list is therefore empty — zero proceedings. Web research, however, surfaces two 2013-era IPRs on this patent that ODP has not indexed, both filed by Corning and both carried through to a Final Written Decision in 2014, appeal, remand, and second appeal. Those two are reported below. Treat the ODP "no proceedings" result as an indexing gap, not as an absence of PTAB activity.

---

Proceedings overview

Two AIA proceedings on this patent (both inter partes review; no PGR, no CBM): IPR2013-00346 (29 of 32 claims challenged — claims invalidated as to 26, terminated by settlement as to 3) and IPR2013-00347 (3 independent claims challenged — all 3 invalidated). Net claim-level result: 29 of the '320 patent's 32 claims (1–7, 9–15, 17–30, 32) are canceled; only dependent claims 8, 16, and 31 survive, and those three survived only because the Board's invalidity findings on them were vacated twice on appeal and the IPR was then settled away before a third merits decision. Defensive posture: this is a gutted patent, not a hardened one. Every independent claim has been canceled. Any demand letter asserting claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, or 32 has nothing left to stand on; the only assertable subject matter is three dependent claims containing the "maintain electrical continuity … in both the partially tightened … and … fully tightened position" limitation that Corning's Matthews + Tatsuzuki theory twice failed to reach.

---

IPR2013-00346 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013-06-10 (per Patexia aggregator; the Board's record shows the petitions in this family were filed in mid-2013 and amended thereafter)
• Status (verbatim from the Google Patents structured record): "PTAB case IPR2013-00346 filed (Settlement)" — gloss: the proceeding ended in a joint-motion termination after settlement on 2018-10-01, after a 2014 merits decision that had already knocked out 26 of the 29 challenged claims. The "Settlement" label describes only the tail of the case and understates it; read it as "FWD (2014) → Fed. Cir. (2016) → remand decision (2016) → Fed. Cir. (2018) → SAS reinstitution → terminated by settlement (2018)."
• Judge panel: Initial panel per the Patexia aggregator: Jacqueline Wright Bonilla, Jameson Lee, and Josiah C. Cocks, with Judge Cocks writing the Final Written Decision. The later SAS/termination panel (per the Board's own 2018-09-17 order) was Jameson Lee, Josiah C. Cocks, and Michael R. Zecher. (Panel compositions for the earlier phase come from a third-party aggregator, not the Board's own papers — treat with mild caution.)
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0110977 ("Matthews") in view of Japanese Published Patent Application JP 2002-015823 ("Tatsuzuki"); at least one additional ground combined Matthews, Tatsuzuki, and Montena. Challenged claims: 1–8, 10–16, and 18–31 (i.e., the entire claim set except the three independent claims assigned to the companion IPR2013-00347: 9, 17, 32). Claim 1 was the primary independent claim; claims 10 and 18 were the other independents in this group; claims 8, 16, 31 depend from 1, 10, and 18 respectively. No § 112 grounds were central.
• Institution decision: Partially instituted — instituted 2013-11-26 on § 103(a) over Matthews + Tatsuzuki, but declined to institute on certain grounds (the Board's 2018-09-17 order confirms it "did not institute on the following grounds," including a § 103(a) ground over Tatsuzuki, Montena, and Matthews). In 2018 the Board re-instituted under SAS Institute v. Iancu to pick up the non-instituted grounds — but that re-institution never produced a merits decision because the case settled weeks later.
• Final Written Decision: Paper 76, entered 2014-11-21, 51 pages. Verdict at claim level: all challenged claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–31 held unpatentable as obvious over Matthews + Tatsuzuki. The Board construed "continuity member" to require only "contact with the coupler/nut and the post to establish an electrical connection there" — not consistent or continuous contact in time — and on that construction found the combination renders the claims obvious. It credited PPC's objective-indicia evidence only partially and found it did not outweigh the "strong evidence of obviousness."
  • On appeal the verdict was split. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of claims 1–7, 10–15, 18–30 but vacated the invalidity of claims 8, 16, and 31, because those three "require the continuity member to 'maintain electrical continuity when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port,'" and "[n]owhere in its decisions did the Board find that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki maintains electrical continuity during the specific positions or modes of operation required by these limitations."
• Settlement / termination: On 2018-10-01, the Board granted the parties' Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 93) following Corning's withdrawal from the appeals and its settlement with PPC. The settlement terms are confidential — the public record shows only the termination, not consideration. Practical effect: the vacated findings as to claims 8, 16, and 31 were never re-decided, so those three claims were never canceled.
• Appeal:
  • PPC I — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, Nos. 2015-1361 et al., 815 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016-02-22), consolidated with the sibling-patent IPRs on U.S. 8,313,060 and U.S. 8,313,353. Affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, remanded. Mandate issued 2016-04-15. Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[3179262](/patent/3179262)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/
  • Board Decisions on Remand: 2016-11-16 (the Board's own 2018-09-17 order gives this date; some docket entries in the family carry an earlier 2016-08-29 remand-related paper). The Board again held the "maintain electrical continuity" claims unpatentable, relying solely on Tatsuzuki's disc-shaped spring and portions of Dr. Mroczkowski's declarations.
  • PPC II — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu, Nos. 2017-1362, -1363, -1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018-07-03) (nonprecedential; Corning having settled, the PTO intervened and defended the Board). Vacated and remanded: "we vacate the Board's determination that claims 8, 16, and 31 of the '320 patent, claims 1–9 of the '060 patent, and claims 7–27 of the '353 patent are unpatentable, and remand for further proceedings." The court held the Board failed to explain its finding that Tatsuzuki's disc-shaped spring 13 would "maintain electrical connection between Matthews's coupler/nut 30 and post 40" during the claimed modes of operation, ignored Dr. Mroczkowski's contrary deposition testimony that Tatsuzuki's spring is "accommodated in the groove" rather than in "constant contact with the post," and improperly re-weighed PPC's objective indicia. Opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.pdf · https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4513742](/patent/4513742)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-iancu/ · mandate docketed 2018-09-17.
  • Panel members for PPC II not confirmed in the sources retrieved — I am not naming them rather than guessing.
• Defensive value: Decisive for claims 1–7, 10–15, 18–30 — all canceled; those claims cannot be asserted against anyone. For someone threatened on this patent today, the only live subject matter from this proceeding is claims 8, 16, and 31, and the two Federal Circuit opinions hand you the defense theory for free: the Board twice failed to find that the Matthews + Tatsuzuki combination maintains continuity across both the partially-tightened and fully-tightened states, and the Board's second attempt was vacated for precisely that failure. Note also that claims 8, 16, and 31 are dependent on canceled claims 1, 10, and 18 — they incorporate the limitations of claims that have been adjudicated unpatentable, which materially complicates any standalone infringement theory built on them.

---

IPR2013-00347 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: unknown in the sources retrieved (companion petition to IPR2013-00346; same June 2013 filing window). Do not cite a specific filing date for this one without pulling the docket.
• Status (verbatim from the Google Patents structured record): "PTAB case IPR2013-00347 filed (Final Written Decision)" — no settlement; this one ran to final judgment.
• Judge panel: Not confirmed in the sources retrieved. The Board consolidated the hearing across IPR2013-00340, -00345, -00346, and -00347, so the panels overlapped, but I will not attribute specific names to -00347 without the decision.
• Petition grounds: Obviousness under § 103(a) over Matthews (US 2006/0110977) + Tatsuzuki (JP 2002-015823). Challenged claims: 9, 17, and 32 — the independent claims separated out from the -00346 petition. Claim 9 recites a continuity member that "extends electrical grounding continuity through the post and the nut"; claim 17 recites one that "electrically contacts both the nut and the post"; claim 32 recites one that "contacts and electrically couples the post to the nut."
• Institution decision: Instituted (the Federal Circuit records that "[b]etween November and December 2013, the Board instituted four separate IPR proceedings" in this family). Institution covered the challenged claims and the Matthews + Tatsuzuki ground; some grounds were not instituted and were later addressed only via the 2018 SAS re-institution order.
• Final Written Decision: Paper 77, entered 2014-11-21, 44 pages. Verdict: claims 9, 17, and 32 — all unpatentable as obvious over Matthews + Tatsuzuki. There were no surviving claims in this proceeding. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of claims 9, 17, and 32 along with the other claims lacking the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation.
• Settlement / termination: None. No settlement was reached in -00347 (contrast -00346). The case ended by affirmance on appeal and issuance of a certificate canceling the claims.
• Appeal: Same two appeals as above — 2015-1361 (PPC I, 2016-02-22) and the earlier-phase mandate 2016-04-15. Because all three claims were affirmed in PPC I, this proceeding was not part of the 2017-1362/-1363/-1364 second appeal (that appeal covered only the "maintain electrical continuity" claims: '320 claims 8, 16, 31; '060 claims 1–9; '353 claims 7–27).
• Defensive value: Claims 9, 17, and 32 are dead — permanently. Any infringement theory or damages model that depends on these claims, or on the independent "continuity member … through the post and the nut" concept they embody, is not assertable. Note the knock-on effect: because claims 8, 16, and 31 depend on canceled claims 1, 10, and 18, the -00346 result interacts with this one to eliminate essentially the entire independent claim set of the '320 patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 8,287,320 (32 claims total):

• CANCELED (29): claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32. These were held unpatentable in the 2014-11-21 FWDs, and the Federal Circuit affirmed those determinations in PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016-02-22). This set includes every independent claim: claims 1, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 32.
• SUSTAINED / NOT CANCELED (3): dependent claims 8, 16, and 31. All three recite that the continuity member "maintain[s] electrical continuity when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port." Their invalidity findings were vacated in PPC I, re-entered on remand, vacated again in PPC Broadband v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018-07-03), and then mooted by the 2018-10-01 settlement termination of IPR2013-00346. They are not "confirmed valid" — they are untested as a final matter, and they sit on top of canceled parents (8 → 1, 16 → 10, 31 → 18).
• UNTESTED: nothing else. Every claim of the patent was challenged in one of the two IPRs.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Corning and its real parties in interest/privies are barred in district court from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2013-00346/-00347 — which sweeps in the full Matthews/Tatsuzuki/Montena § 103 theory plus everything in the non-instituted grounds. That estoppel binds Corning's side, not a new defendant, so a fresh defendant is not estopped by it. What a fresh defendant does inherit is the finality of the canceled claims — those 29 claims are legally gone regardless of who is sued. For the three surviving claims (8, 16, 31), the ground a new petitioner would need is different and better art on the "maintain electrical continuity in both the partially tightened and fully tightened positions" limitation, because the Matthews + Tatsuzuki combination has now been rejected twice on that exact point. Note also that claims 8, 16, and 31 cannot be practiced without the full limitations of canceled claims 1, 10, and 18, so validity/infringement arguments on the survivors necessarily require re-litigating the parents' subject matter — a defense-friendly posture.

Pattern signals.

• Single petitioner, two petitions, one patent. Corning filed the -00346/-00347 pair (and sibling IPRs -00340, -00345 on U.S. 8,323,060 and U.S. 8,313,353, plus a further proceeding on '060 claims 10–25 referenced in the deposition caption as IPR2013-00342 — a sibling-patent matter, not part of this patent's file). No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) appears as petitioner; the Unified Patents link in the Google Patents record is a PTAB-data portal link, not a petitioner.
• The patent owner litigated PTAB appeals aggressively and effectively — two trips to the Federal Circuit (2015-1361 and 2017-1362), winning a vacatur of the "maintain electrical continuity" claims both times, and then settling Corning out of the fight before a third merits decision could issue. That is the single most important strategic fact on this patent: the survivors are survivors by litigation and settlement, not by adjudicated validity.
• Timing/aging. The patent's adjusted expiration is 2030-02-27 (per the structured record), so it remains in force for several more years, and PPC has continued to build a large continuation family (US 9,496,661; US 9,570,845; US 9,515,432; US 9,665,398; US 9,680,263; US 10,862,251; US 10,931,068; US 12,244,108, etc.). A defendant facing a "continuity member" assertion should check which family member is actually being asserted — the '320 patent itself is no longer a productive vehicle for claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, or 32.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Kill the demand letter on its face. If the assertion cites any of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, or 32 of US 8,287,320, respond that those claims were canceled following PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016-02-22) (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3179262/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/), which "affirmed the invalidity of claims 1-7, 9-15, 17-30 and 32 of the '320 patent." Request the PTAB certificate of cancellation (35 U.S.C. § 318(b)) for the file.
2. If the assertion is limited to claims 8, 16, or 31, pull the full text of IPR2013-00346 Paper 76 (2014-11-21) and the 2016-11-16 Decisions on Remand, together with the 2018-07-03 Federal Circuit opinion (https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.pdf). The roadmap is explicit: a § 103 challenge must show the continuity member maintains electrical continuity in both the partially tightened and the fully tightened nut positions, and Tatsuzuki's disc-shaped spring — described by Corning's own expert as "accommodated in the groove" rather than in "constant contact with the post" — is not that. Build the invalidity case on art that affirmatively teaches sustained contact across both nut states, and preserve objective-indicia arguments: the Federal Circuit twice faulted the Board's handling of PPC's commercial-success, failed-attempt, and copying evidence.
3. Consider the parent-incorporation problem as an infringement defense. Claims 8, 16, and 31 depend from claims 1, 10, and 18, each of which has been adjudicated unpatentable and canceled. Any infringement theory on the survivors necessarily imports the limitations of canceled claims. Plead this early.
4. No litigation-stage deadlines to track. Both proceedings are terminated with no active appeal, so there is no institution-decision deadline, oral hearing, or statutory one-year FWD deadline running. If a new IPR is filed, the clock is: § 314(b) institution decision within six months of the petition's filing date (or the patent owner's preliminary response), then a statutory FWD within one year of institution under § 316(a)(11).
5. Verify the canonical list before relying on it in a filing. ODP returned zero AIA proceedings for this patent while two exist in the public record. If you are citing the ODP output (e.g., in a § 315(b) or estoppel analysis), cross-check PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov/) for IPR2013-00346 and IPR2013-00347 directly and cite the Board papers themselves.

Caveats on sourcing: the claim-level holdings above are drawn from the two Federal Circuit opinions (which recite the Board's determinations verbatim) and the Board's 2018-09-17 reinstitution/authorization order; I did not retrieve the full 51-page and 44-page FWD PDFs. Filing dates, panel composition for IPR2013-00347, and the initial -00346 panel come from third-party aggregators (Patexia, Docket Alarm) and should be confirmed against PTAB E2E before being cited. I have not invented any proceeding number, and I have not attributed any panel or finding that the retrieved sources do not support.

I'll research the assignment chain for this patent using the available search tools.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,287,320 B2

Source limitation, stated up front. The live USPTO Assignment Center does not expose its per-patent record pages to the search tooling available in this session, and no search result surfaced the underlying reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record fields for this patent. The event list below is reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events table (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8287320/en), which is populated from the same USPTO assignment database and therefore reflects recorded events and recordation dates, but not reel/frame or correspondent. Those two fields are marked not retrieved rather than guessed. Verify at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search by patent number 8287320).

---

Inventors

Pattern observations

• All three are career connector engineers at the same East Syracuse employer; this is an ordinary captive-R&D filing, not an inventor-owned startup patent.
• No departure pattern. Montena in particular continues to appear as a named inventor on later PPC/John Mezzalingua filings (e.g., PPC Broadband-assigned applications still listing Montena, such as US 2025/0178858 A1 and the cable-reel family), and PPC's own IPR exhibits are on John Mezzalingua letterhead (6176 East Molloy Road, P.O. Box 278, East Syracuse, NY 13057) bearing internal drawing numbers for the connector line (PTAB Exhibit 2084, drawing 12524-01, "CONTINUITY MEMBER, 3 PLUS"). There is no evidence of inventors leaving within 12 months of the May 22, 2009 priority date.
• Assignment-record anomaly worth flagging: the first recorded assignment (2010-01-27) lists assignors Montena and Purdy only, while the second (2012-04-17) lists Amidon, Montena and Purdy. Either the first recording omitted one inventor or the 2012 filing is a confirmatory/nunc pro tunc record completing the chain. This is a chain-of-title clean-up of the kind that matters if standing is challenged; it is not by itself an NPE signal.

---

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., E. Syracuse, NY (d/b/a PPC), as printed on the face of the patent.

• Primary business: design and manufacture of coaxial cable connectors and broadband "drop" hardware — a genuine operating manufacturer, not a holding entity.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. PPC's own IPR testimony identifies the EX Plus SignalTight connector line as the commercial embodiment of the '320 claims (PTAB record: "Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 31, and 32 of the '320 Patent"; see PTAB petition papers at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549314](/patent/1549314)/ and Exhibit 2084 at https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/).
• Current status: operating, under the successor name PPC Broadband, Inc. (the 2013 recorded name changes below). PPC remains an active manufacturer and an active patent plaintiff (e.g., PPC Broadband v. PCT International, N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-0135; ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-938; PPC Broadband v. PerfectVision Manufacturing, E.D. Ark. 4:22-cv-00204; and later PPC/Times Fiber cable-reel IPRs). A 2023 European validation bulletin still lists John Mezzalingua Associates LLC, 7645 Henry Clay Boulevard, Liverpool, NY 13088 as patentee on a related connector registration — consistent with a live operating company that has simply moved its address.

---

Assignment timeline

All entries are recorded USPTO events as displayed in the Google Patents legal-events table for US 8,287,320. Reel/frame: not retrieved. Correspondent: not retrieved for any entry — this is a genuine evidence gap, not an absence of records. Dates are the dates shown in that table; treat them as recordation dates unless the conveyance type indicates otherwise.

• Recorded 2010-01-27 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Noah Montena; Eric Purdy (Amidon not listed — see anomaly above)
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., E. Syracuse, NY
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. Related-family filings name the assignee's correspondence address of record as c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, 22 Century Hill Drive, Suite 302, Latham, NY 12110 (from the ex parte reexamination title report for family patent 7,833,053). This is the prosecution firm's address on a sibling patent, not confirmed as the assignment correspondent.
  • Context: In-house→employer assignment of the inventors' rights, routine for a corporate filing.

• Recorded 2012-04-17 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Jeremy Amidon; Noah Montena; Eric Purdy
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., E. Syracuse, NY
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Confirmatory/clean-up assignment bringing all three inventors onto the recorded chain, filed four days before the '320 issued and during the active John Mezzalingua enforcement campaign (v. Thomas & Betts/Belden, W.D.N.Y. 6:11-cv-06327; v. Corning Gilbert, N.D.N.Y. 5:12-cv-00911). Likely chain-of-title hygiene ahead of assertion.

• Recorded 2013-02-12 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg / rebranding only — a name change, not a transfer of title. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. became Mr Advisers Limited. No new party acquired the patent.

• Recorded 2013-02-13 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of name
  • Assignor: MR Advisers Limited
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorg / rebranding only. Second leg of the two-step rename; Mr Advisers Limited became PPC Broadband, Inc. Note the Feb 12 → Feb 13 one-day spacing: two recorded events in 24 hours, but both are change-of-name, not transfers to a third party.

• Recorded 2013-10-04 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Assignee: [JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent](/asserters/jpmorgan-chase-bank-n-a-as-administrative-agent)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — collateral pledge in a credit facility. Security interests do not move title.

• Recorded 2013-10-08 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Confirmatory grant of security interest in US patents
  • Assignor: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization — second lender taking a recorded security interest four days after JPMorgan Chase.

• Recorded 2016-10-12 — Reel not retrieved/not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by secured party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Lien release — encumbrance cleared; title remains with PPC Broadband, Inc.

No assignment to any third-party operating company, licensing vehicle, or defensive aggregator appears in the recorded chain. The only post-issuance title events are two change-of-name recordings and two security interests with a later release.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8287320
    2009 : Provisional 61180835 filed
         : Nonprovisional 12633792 filed
    2010 : Assignment recorded to John Mezzalingua
    2012 : Patent issued Oct 16
         : Confirmatory assignment recorded
    2013 : Name change to Mr Advisers Ltd
         : Name change to PPC Broadband Inc
         : Security agreement JPMorgan Chase
         : Security interest Wells Fargo
    2016 : Wells Fargo release

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only entity-name changes are recorded as CHANGE OF NAME, i.e., the same legal person renamed (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc., recorded 2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13). "MR ADVISERS LIMITED" reads like a shell name, and under these rules a suggestive name is not a finding; here the conveyance type affirmatively contradicts the shell-reading. The current assignee manufactures and sells the patented product.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. The plaintiff of record on the '320 family has consistently been John Mezzalingua / PPC Broadband itself.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (data gap). Correspondent fields were not retrieved for any of the seven recorded events, so recurrence cannot be tested. The one adjacent data point — Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, 22 Century Hill Drive, Latham, NY 12110, as the assignee's address of record in a sibling ex parte reexamination — is a prosecution correspondence address and is not evidence of an NPE-recording attorney. Do not treat it as a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (surface appearance only). Two recordings land within 24 hours (2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13), which superficially mimics a rapid chained-LLC transfer; however both are change-of-name conveyances documenting a single corporate rename, and the two October 2013 entries are lender security interests, not transfers. No consecutive assignments through distinct third-party LLCs occur at any point.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. PPC's enforcement of the '320 family began before any assignment event other than the standard inventor-to-employer assignment: John Mezzalingua v. PCT International, W.D. Tex. 5:09-cv-00410 (2009), v. Thomas & Betts/Belden, W.D.N.Y. 6:11-cv-06327 (2010–11), v. Corning Gilbert, N.D.N.Y. 5:12-cv-00911 (2012). The 2012-04-17 confirmatory assignment is a title clean-up, not a transfer to a new plaintiff, so it is not the "arranged-the-chain-to-assert" pattern.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no court-ordered patent sale, no bankruptcy-conveyance recording.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The operating company did not hand the patent to a proxy assertor. John Mezzalingua / PPC Broadband sued competitors in its own name (Thomas & Betts, Belden, Corning Gilbert, PCT International, PerfectVision, Times Fiber, plus ITC 337-TA-650 and 337-TA-938).

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at PPC Broadband, Inc., an operating manufacturer, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent has not been neutralized.

Related litigation/validity context (not ownership signals): IPR2013-00346 and IPR2013-00347 (Corning Optical Communications RF v. PPC Broadband), and Fed. Cir. 2015-1361 et al. (PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Communications RF, 815 F.3d 734), are adversarial proceedings against PPC — the opposite posture from an NPE assertion campaign.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The recorded chain runs inventors → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (2010-01-27 and 2012-04-17) → Mr Advisers Limited (change of name, 2013-02-12) → PPC Broadband, Inc. (change of name, 2013-02-13), with only secured-lender encumbrances (JPMorgan Chase 2013-10-04; Wells Fargo 2013-10-08) and a 2016-10-12 Wells Fargo release thereafter. The current owner ships the patented subject matter — PPC's EX Plus SignalTight line is PPC's own designated commercial embodiment of the '320 claims — and has asserted the patent family in its own name against genuine competitors (Corning Gilbert, Thomas & Betts/Belden, PCT International). Zero of the eight NPE signals are present; one (repeat correspondent) is simply unverifiable here. Caveat: reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record were not retrievable from the Assignment Center in this session, so the correspondent-recurrence test should be re-run directly at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (patent number 8287320) before this verdict is treated as final for any diligence purpose.

I'll research the specific prior-art citations for US 8,287,320. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me pull the actual "References Cited" list from the patent's front page and the IPR petition materials.

Let me get the IPR grounds and the primary references relied upon, plus the full front-page list.

Prior Art Analysis — US 8,287,320 B2

Coaxial cable connector having electrical continuity member · App. 12/633,792 · Filed Dec. 8, 2009 · Priority (provisional 61/180,835) May 22, 2009 · Issued Oct. 16, 2012 · Purdy, Montena & Amidon

---

0. Scope, method, and important limitations

What I did. I searched for the literal identifier 8287320 and its associated art. I was not able to open USPTO PatentCenter / the Patent Application Information Retrieval system directly in this session. The front-page "References Cited" list below is reconstructed from three corroborating sources:

1. The patent's own front page as OCR'd and filed as PTAB Exhibit‑1009 (USPN_8287320) in IPR2013‑00345;
2. FreePatentsOnline's listing for US 8,287,320 ("References Cited");
3. The "References Cited" front pages of same-family patents that cite the '320 (notably US 9,496,661 and US 9,680,263), which reproduce identical reference lists.

Everything is pre-AIA. Because the '320's effective U.S. filing date (May 22, 2009 provisional / Dec. 8, 2009 non-provisional) predates March 16, 2013, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b) and (e) control. The § 102(b) critical date is one year before the earliest effective U.S. filing date — i.e. on or about May 22, 2008 (if the provisional supplies § 112 support) or Dec. 8, 2008 at the latest.

Two caveats you should hold in mind throughout:

• Do not auto-correct numbers. Several OCR'd entries below are garbled (e.g. "JP 1/3074864," "7,971,351 Wios," "1,885,764 A"). I reproduce them literally and flag them.
• "Cited" ≠ "prior art." A large fraction of the front-page citations are (i) the applicant's own work or same-inventor family members, or (ii) published/issued after the '320's critical date and therefore incapable of being § 102(a)/(b) art. See § 6.

Bottom line up front: As far as the record shows, no single reference was applied to anticipate any claim of the '320 under § 102. Every claim that was invalidated fell to § 103 obviousness over a two-reference combination: Matthews (US 2006/0110977 A1) + Tatsuzuki (JP 2002‑015823). The genuinely outcome-determinative art is therefore the pair in § 1, not the long tail of examiner-cited patents in §§ 3–5.

---

1. The operative prior art — the references that actually invalidated the '320

These are the two references that the Board and the Federal Circuit treated as the primary art. Both were applicant-cited/party-relied-upon and are firmly § 102(b) (published more than one year before the earliest effective filing date).

Verified how the art was actually applied (from PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016), and PPC Broadband v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018)):

• Corning petitioned for IPR of claims 1–32 of the '320 "on grounds that these claims were unpatentable as obvious over the combination of U.S. published patent application 2006/0110977 ("Matthews") and Japanese published patent application JP 2002‑015823 ("Tatsuzuki")."
• The Board held all challenged claims obvious over that combination, relying on "a proposed modification of Matthews with Tatsuzuki's 'disc‑shaped spring.'"
• The Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32 and vacated the "maintain electrical continuity" claims 8, 16 and 31.
• Appeal Nos. 2015‑1361/-1366/-1368/-1369 → remand → PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu (2018): the court again vacated as to claims 8, 16, 31 (evidentiary error on commercial success / copying / failure of others). Corning then withdrew after settlement.
• Proceeding split on the '320: IPR2013‑00346 covered claims 1–8, 10–16 and 18–31; IPR2013‑00347 covered claims 9, 17 and 32 (the independent claims not in the first set).

Why this is § 103, not § 102. Neither Matthews alone nor Tatsuzuki alone discloses every element of claim 1 — specifically the placement of the continuity member "disposed only rearward of the start of the second end portion of the nut" and contacting both post and nut. The Board needed the Tatsuzuki modification to get there. That is the hallmark of § 103. Any § 102 framing would be aspirational, not what the tribunals did.

---

2. Other substantively relevant cited references (grounding / continuity art)

These are examiner-cited references with dates placing them before the critical date (potential § 102(a)/(b) art), or close to it. Descriptions are limited to what the titles/records establish; I did not independently read each specification in this session.

---

3. Post-critical-date U.S. patents (potential § 102(e) art only — and mostly not art at all)

The bulk of the front-page list consists of U.S. patents that issued in 2009–2012, i.e. after the '320's May 22, 2009 priority date. Under pre-AIA law these can only be prior art if they are a U.S. patent/application "by another" with an effective filing date before Dec. 8, 2009 (§ 102(e)) — or, if commonly owned, they may be disqualified for § 103 purposes under § 103(c). Reproduced as listed:

Published U.S. applications cited on the face (all 2010–2011 publications → § 102(e)/§ 102(b) analysis required case-by-case): 2011/0230091 (Krenceski), 2011/0230089 (Amidon — same inventor), 2011/0143567 (Purdy — same inventor), 2011/0117774 (Malloy), 2011/0053413 (Mathews), 2011/0027039 (Blair — "Lock Washer"), 2011/0021072 (Purdy — same inventor), 2010/0297871 (Haube), 2010/0279548 (Montena et al. — common inventor), 2010/0255721 (Purdy — same inventor), and a 2010/0233902 entry whose title OCRs only as "JUMPER…" (incomplete — flag).

---

4. Foreign patent documents cited of record

---

5. Other publications cited

• "Dignon AVL Connector," ARRIS Group Inc. — retrieved Apr. 22, 2010 (web publication). A non-patent literature citation; catalogued as background art.
• Request for Inter Partes Reexamination (filed Sep. 13, 2012) of Purdy et al., US 8,192,237 (150 pp.) — a procedural citation, not technical prior art.
• Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 25, 2011), U.S. Appl. No. 13/033,127 — prosecutorial citation, not art.

---

6. § 102 vs. § 103 — consolidated conclusions

Direct answer to "which claims could be anticipated under § 102": on the present record, none of the cited references was used, or appears usable alone, to anticipate any of claims 1–32. The strongest standalone-anticipation candidates to read closely are Matthews (US 2006/0110977 A1) for claims 1, 9 and 17 (it is the reference the tribunals found discloses the "continuity member") and, secondarily, Montena US 6,558,194 and Matthews's own Mathews-family patents (7,828,595 / 7,833,053 / 7,845,976 / 7,950,958) for the "contacting the post and the nut" element — but as applied these were § 103 references, not § 102 anticipatory references.

---

7. Contradiction flagged with the previously generated summary

The earlier section states that "Google Patents logs -00347 as reaching a Final Written Decision and -00346 as settled" (quoting Google's litigation tab). That is contradicted by the documentary record inside the '320 family itself. US 9,496,661 and US 9,680,263 both cite:

"Inter Partes Review Case IPR2013‑00346 — U.S. Pat. No. 8,287,320 (Claims 1‑8, 10‑16, and 18‑31), Final Written Decision, Paper 76, Entered on Nov. 21, 2014, 51 pages"

…and US 9,680,263 further cites Paper 86, Nov. 16, 2016 in the same IPR. So IPR2013‑00346 produced a Final Written Decision, not merely a settlement, at least as to claims 1–8, 10–16 and 18–31. The likely resolution is that Google's "Settlement" tag reflects the later 2018 termination after SAS re-institution and Corning's withdrawal, while a Final Written Decision did issue on Nov. 21, 2014. Consistent with the earlier section's point 1, the final fate of claims 8, 16 and 31 remains the one genuinely unresolved item; claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32 were affirmed unpatentable.

---

8. Residual uncertainties (stated explicitly)

1. I could not open USPTO PatentCenter; the reference list is reconstructed from PTAB Exhibit‑1009, FPO, and same-family front pages. A handful of entries are OCR-garbled ("JP 1/3074864," "7,971,351 … Wios," "1,885,764 A," "2010/0233902 JUMPER…") and should be verified against the printed patent before being relied on.
2. I did not read the full specification of each cited reference, so the "brief descriptions" for the long-tail mechanical patents (DE/FR/EP pre-1990, the 1885–1967 U.S. patents) are characterized only as background connector art.
3. The § 102(e)/§ 103(c) analysis for the Mathews-family patents (7,828,595, 7,833,053, 7,845,976, 7,950,958) is the most consequential unresolved legal question in this art — the "by another" and common-ownership determinations turn on inventorship and any joint research agreement, which I could not verify from the available records.

I'll pull the prior-art record for this patent — the references the PTAB actually relied on, plus the Board's § 103 reasoning.

Good — I have the core PTAB grounds. Let me pin down the third reference (Montena), the claim text, and whether the 2022 Amphenol IPRs also target the '320.

Let me identify the third reference ("Montena," IPR Ex. 1003) precisely and check for any other prior art applied against the '320.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note: This section builds on the prior two sections rather than repeating them. The bibliographic record, the claim-summary, and the litigation/PTAB history already generated are treated as authoritative. Where the prior-art record contradicts something flagged earlier as "unconfirmed," I say so explicitly.

---

0. Analytical frame and two corrections to earlier sections

Corrected uncertainty #1 (Amphenol). The prior sections flagged, as unconfirmed, whether the 2022 Amphenol IPRs involve U.S. 8,287,320. They do not. The four consolidated proceedings are directed to different PPC patents:

Source: PTAB Record of Oral Hearing, IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721 (July 20, 2023), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/09-18-2023-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-34-Other__Hearing_transcript.pdf ; and Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779, Rule 36 judgment entered March 4, 2026, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf. The Amphenol line uses Youtsey and Tarrant (with Palinkas appearing in a related ex parte reissue record), and is not part of the '320 prior-art record.

Corrected uncertainty #2 (ground structure). The prior sections described the '320 grounds generically as "Matthews + Tatsuzuki." The record is more precise, and the split matters for a § 103 analysis:

• IPR2013-00346 — challenged claims 1–8, 10–16, 18–31; ground = Matthews (US 2006/0110977 A1) in view of Tatsuzuki (JP 2002-015823), further in view of Montena.
• IPR2013-00347 — challenged claims 9, 17, 32 (i.e., the independent claims other than claim 1); ground = Tatsuzuki in view of Montena, further in view of Matthews.

Source: Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering, Corning Ex. 1062 (May 16, 2014), https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/05-16-2014-Petitioner/Exhibit-1062-Corning_Exhibit_1062.pdf (¶¶ 13–14). Corning's expert was Dr. Robert S. Mroczkowski (Corning Ex. 1006); PPC's was Dr. Eldering (PPC Ex. 1062). The two IPRs were consolidated for hearing with IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00345.

Terminology caution (per the literal-identifier rule): the record renders the same references inconsistently — "Matthews" and "Mathews"; "Montena" and "Montana." I reproduce the source spellings where quoted and use the exhibit-based numbering otherwise. I do not treat these as different documents.

---

1. The claims that matter, and the one limitation that does the work

Independent claims are 1, 9, 17 and 32 (32 is the sole method claim), consistent with the four "aspects" in the specification. The substantive core of every independent claim is a location requirement: the continuity member must sit beyond the nut's internal lip — i.e., rearward of the forward-facing lip surface (the surface that faces the post flange) and within what the patent calls the "second end portion" of the nut.

From the record, the Federal Circuit's own quote of the claim-1 limitation is: "a continuity member disposed only rearward of the start of the second end portion of the nut and contacting the post and the nut." (Per the previously generated summary, quoting 815 F.3d 734.) The PTAB slide record paraphrases the independent claims as:

• Claim 9 — "continuity member . . . contacting the post and the nut so that the continuity member extends electrical grounding continuity through the post and the nut"
• Claim 17 — "continuity member electrically contacts both the nut and the post"
• Claim 32 — "continuity member contacts and electrically couples the post to the nut"
• Claims 9, 17, 32 collectively — "continuity member is configured to contact a rearward facing surface of the lip of the nut"

Source: deposition/hearing excerpt at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549313](/patent/1549313)/download-documents?artifactId=wrAzJRqclHD87mdzf57Afdj17_iiErOSKFNo4rduk2JW_IBKVjrHYG0

That is the whole ballgame. The '320 is not claiming the idea of a grounding/continuity member between a nut and a post — Matthews and Tatsuzuki already occupy that space. It is claiming where that member sits: behind the lip, not pinched between the nut lip and the post flange.

Claim construction applied. The PTAB used the broadest reasonable interpretation; the Federal Circuit upheld that approach and upheld the Board's constructions of "continuity member," "shaped to fit," and "configured to fit" (815 F.3d 734; see https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[3179262](/patent/3179262)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/). In parallel district court litigation (PPC II, No. 5:12-cv-00911, N.D.N.Y.), the court construed "positioned along the post" as "located at a point on the length of the post, and behind the first surface of the internal lip of the nut" — a construction that, notably, tracks the same rearward-of-the-lip geometry the IPR art is mapped onto. The validity analysis below is therefore run under BRI, with the Phillips-style construction noted as a cross-check.

---

2. The prior-art set applied

Explicit uncertainty (Montena, Ex. 1003). I could not confirm the exact document number of Ex. 1003. The description in the Mroczkowski declaration — "connector body 24 and post member 26," plus "In an alternative preferred embodiment, the connector body 24 and post member 26 can be formed integrally as a single piece" — matches a Montena-family disclosure (the body-24/post-26 numbering appears in the Montena connector literature, cf. US 6,733,336 "Coaxial cable connector," Montena et al., and Montena application US 2003/0068924). I am not asserting a specific number as verified. Nothing in the analysis below turns on the precise identity, because Montena is used only as (a) evidence of the known alternative between separate and integral body/post, and (b) an assembly-simplification teaching — both independently supplied by Matthews (FIG. 6 integral embodiment; ¶ [0033]).

---

3. Ground 1 — Matthews in view of Tatsuzuki (and Montena): claims 1–8, 10–16, 18–31

3.1 Why the references combine

(a) Same field, same problem, overlapping disclosure. Both are coaxial-cable connectors (F-type) addressing the identical failure mode: loss of ground continuity when the coupling nut is not fully tightened. Matthews states that with conductive member 80, "electrical continuity is extended through the nut 30, conductive member 80, post 40 and cable shielding 14, as the nut 30 is advanced onto the interface port 20, even if only a few threads of the nut 30 are engaged with the port 20." Tatsuzuki states the same objective for its spring 13. A POSA confronting the "loose connector" problem has two directly on-point solutions in the same art.

(b) Known combination of familiar elements. The proposed modification is a simple substitution/addition: place a known resilient conductive ring (Tatsuzuki's spring 13) into the known annular gap of a known connector (Matthews) between the nut and the adjacent conductive member. There is no change in the principle of operation of either reference; each retains its function. This is the classic KSR "known element performs the same function it was known to perform" scenario.

(c) Reasonable expectation of success. Both references describe the substituted element as performing an electrical-continuity function in an annular nut/post/body space. The physical result — a conductive ring bridging two conductive members — is predictable, and the record contains no teaching that the mechanism would fail. (But see §6, where this expectation is the weak link for a specific claim family.)

(d) Redundancy / alternative ground path. Both references recognize that grounding through the nut/port interface is unreliable. Adding a nut-to-post path (Tatsuzuki) to Matthews' nut-to-body path (member 80) is the kind of duplicate, backup, or redundant arrangement that KSR identifies as a design choice a POSA would pursue where the field recognizes the reliability problem — and both references recognize exactly that problem.

(e) Montena and Matthews supply the separate-body/post substitution. Where the base reference is Tatsuzuki (see Ground 2), the record's rationale for replacing Tatsuzuki's integral plug body 11 with separate body and post components is:

1. Different materials for body vs. post, each suited to its function (Montena, cols. 6–7);
2. Simplified assembly — avoiding Tatsuzuki's curling step (¶ [0015]; curl part 11f) in favor of Matthews' flanged post 40 + internal lip 36 / body lip 55 purchase arrangement (Matthews ¶¶ [0030]–[0031]);
3. Known design choice — both references disclose integral and separate embodiments, so the substitution is a mere selection among disclosed alternatives, which KSR treats as obvious absent a teaching away.

3.2 Element mapping — claim 1 (Matthews-based ground)

The summary-judgment-style conclusion recorded in the record is Mroczkowski ¶ 225: "the modification of the connector of Matthews as taught by Tatsuzuki would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to form a connector having all of the features recited in Claim 1 of the '320 Patent." The Board agreed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed as to claim 1. (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/03-24-2014-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2017-Mroczkowski_Decl___IPR2013-00346_Exhibit_1006.pdf)

---

4. Ground 2 — Tatsuzuki in view of Montena, further in view of Matthews: claims 9, 17 and 32

The Board's approach here was base-reference substitution: start from Tatsuzuki (because its spring 13 is already located rearward of the nut's internal lip — the feature the '320 emphasizes), and replace its one-piece plug body with the separate body/post of Montena/Matthews to supply the claimed "connector body" + "post having a flange" as distinct recited elements.

4.1 Mapping (Tatsuzuki-based)

Verified quotes: Mroczkowski declarations in IPR2013-00347 (Corning Ex. 1006, "CLAIMS 9, 17 AND 32"), https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/03-24-2014-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2018-Mroczkowski_Decl___IPR2013_00347_Exhibit_1006.pdf ; and the Federal Circuit's characterization in PPC Broadband v. Iancu, https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.pdf.

4.2 Why a POSA would combine (Ground 2 specifically)

• The spring's location is the reason to start from Tatsuzuki. Tatsuzuki's spring is deliberately housed behind the nut's internal lip in groove 11e so that it is not crushed and does not lose spring action. A POSA seeking the claimed rearward-of-lip continuity member would look to Tatsuzuki first; the reference does not merely permit the claimed location, it is designed around it.
• The body/post substitution is a documented, motivated design choice. Separate body/post permits (i) different materials for the body and post and (ii) elimination of the curling assembly step — the two rationales the Board credited and the Federal Circuit did not disturb for the structural claims.
• Assembly / manufacturability motivation. Curling a flange is a forming operation with tolerance limitations; a separately-formed, machined or drawn post flange (Matthews ¶ [0030]) is a simpler, more controllable part. Improvement in manufacturability is an accepted § 103 rationale.
• Claim 32 (method). The method steps — attaching a cable so the shield contacts the post, extending continuity through the member to the nut, and fastening the nut to the port — are the ordinary, intended use of the combined structure. A method claim reciting only the inherent operation of an obvious apparatus is obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed claim 32 as unpatentable.

---

5. Dependent claims — the § 103 case is stronger, not weaker

The dependent claims layer on conventional connector features, each either expressly disclosed or an obvious design choice:

The dependence structure itself helps the obviousness case: claims narrowing to where the body/post/flange surfaces face one another (claims 18, 21, 22), to the presence of a sealing member (23), or to conductive coating (7) add nothing beyond what the references disclose or what was routine in the art.

---

6. Where the § 103 case is genuinely weakest — claims 8, 16 and 31

This is the one place an honest analysis must flag a real gap, and it is the reason the '320 litigation ran for a decade.

Claims 8, 16 and 31 require the continuity member to "maintain electrical continuity when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port." The Federal Circuit construed this as requiring consistent or continuous contact during those modes (PPC I, 815 F.3d at 743–44), and held the Board's findings on these three claims unsupported twice:

• PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) — vacated as to '320 claims 8, 16, 31 because the Board made no finding that Matthews + Tatsuzuki maintains electrical continuity during the claimed positions.
• PPC Broadband v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018) — again vacated. The court noted that Dr. Mroczkowski conceded at deposition that Tatsuzuki does not disclose a spring "in constant contact with the post" (J.A. 1957), that it teaches only "constant contact between the nut and the body" (J.A. 1958), and that his "press fit" curing theory was (i) not in his declarations, (ii) not disclosed in Tatsuzuki, and (iii) contrary to Tatsuzuki's express statement that the spring "is not pressed to the point of becoming crushed flat and does not lose its spring operation." PPC's expert (Dr. Eldering) testified Tatsuzuki would give only intermittent contact with the post and that press-fitting "would substantially change [its] intended use and operation."

Consequence for the § 103 opinion:

• For claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32, the combinations above are sufficient and were affirmed unpatentable.
• For claims 8, 16 and 31, the record as it stood did not establish the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation. A defensible § 103 position on those claims requires new or better evidence — e.g., a reference or testimony showing that a resilient member affixed or press-fit to the post (as the '320 specification itself contemplates for its own member 70, which "moves up a substantial length of the post body 40 until it contacts a portion of the post 40 proximate the flange 44") would maintain continuous post contact through both tightening modes. Tatsuzuki's floating, groove-accommodated spring does not supply that teaching.

This is consistent with the earlier sections' note that the post-2018 disposition of claims 8, 16 and 31 is unconfirmed; my conclusion is that the evidentiary gap identified by the Federal Circuit is real, independent of the procedural outcome.

---

7. Consolidated motivation-to-combine statement (KSR rationales)

A POSITA would have been motivated to make each combination for at least the following reasons, each tied to record evidence:

1. Same field of endeavor / reasonably pertinent art. Matthews and Tatsuzuki are both coaxial-cable connectors; Montena likewise. All are directed to grounding continuity.
2. Addressing the identical articulated problem. Both Matthews and Tatsuzuki expressly identify incomplete grounding when the connector is loosened or not fully tightened.
3. Simple substitution of a known element for its known function. A resilient conductive ring bridging annular conductive members, in a space sized to receive it.
4. Redundant / backup ground path. A recognized, predictable design choice where grounding reliability is the problem being solved.
5. Design choice among disclosed alternatives. Integral vs. separate body/post and machined flange vs. curled flange — both explicit options in the art.
6. Manufacturability. Eliminating the curling operation and permitting material selection per component.
7. Predictable result, no teaching away (for the structural claims). No reference teaches away from a rearward-of-lip continuity member; Tatsuzuki's location is intentional.

---

8. Secondary considerations (objective indicia)

PPC advanced copying, failure of others, and commercial success. The Federal Circuit faulted the Board's treatment (815 F.3d 734; reinforced in the 2018 remand). Two points for a § 103 analysis:

• Nexus. Commercial success and copying must be tied to the claimed invention — here, to the location of the continuity member, not to the general commercial success of PPC's connector line. The Board's presumption of nexus was criticized.
• Failure of others / copying. Two additional obstacles: (i) the alleged copying must be of the '320's claimed subject matter, and (ii) PPC's own earlier patents and the Corning-family connectors in the same record cut against a "failure of others" narrative when the art already taught the general solution.

These considerations do not outweigh the strong showing on claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, 32, but they are the principal merits battleground for claims 8, 16, 31.

---

9. Bottom line

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30 and 32 of U.S. 8,287,320 are obvious, on two alternative grounds — (A) Matthews + Tatsuzuki (+ Montena) for the Matthews-anchored claims, and (B) Tatsuzuki + Montena + Matthews for the Tatsuzuki-anchored independent claims 9, 17 and 32 — because both combinations place a resilient, conductive continuity member rearward of the nut's internal lip, contacting the nut and the post, to preserve the ground path when the nut is not fully tightened, which is precisely the problem both primary references set out to solve. This is the result the Board reached and the Federal Circuit affirmed (815 F.3d 734).

Claims 8, 16 and 31 are not established as obvious on the present record, because they require the member to maintain continuity (consistent/continuous contact) in both partially and fully tightened positions, and the Tatsuzuki spring was shown to have only intermittent post contact and to be designed to avoid being pressed flat — the point on which the Federal Circuit vacated twice and which the Board never adequately resolved on the record as reported.

---

10. Sources and residual uncertainties

Primary sources used

• IPR2013-00346 / IPR2013-00347 record — Mroczkowski (Corning Ex. 1006) and Eldering (Corning Ex. 1062) declarations: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/03-24-2014-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2017-Mroczkowski_Decl___IPR2013_00346_Exhibit_1006.pdf ; https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/03-24-2014-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2018-Mroczkowski_Decl___IPR2013_00347_Exhibit_1006.pdf ; https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/05-16-2014-Petitioner/Exhibit-1062-Corning_Exhibit_1062.pdf
• PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3179262/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/
• PPC Broadband v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018): https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.pdf
• Matthews, US 2006/0110977 A1: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/07-28-2022-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2002-Mathews_0977.pdf
• Amphenol IPR hearing transcript (identifying the four 2022 patents): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/docs/09-18-2023-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-34-Other__Hearing_transcript.pdf
• Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment, Nos. 24-1776 et al. (March 4, 2026): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf

Uncertainties I am not papering over

1. Exact identity of "Montena" (IPR Ex. 1003) — description matched, document number not confirmed. Nothing in the conclusion depends on it, since Matthews supplies the same teachings.
2. Verbatim text of issued claims 9, 17 and 32 — my mappings use the Board/expert record's quotations and the specification's "aspects"; I did not obtain the printed claim column for these three.
3. JP 2002-015823 — I rely on the English-language quotations reproduced in the Mroczkowski/Eldering declarations and the Federal Circuit opinion, not on a certified translation.
4. Post-2018 disposition of claims 8, 16, 31 — remains unconfirmed (consistent with the earlier sections); the technical evidentiary gap identified by the Federal Circuit, however, is documented and is the basis of my § 6 conclusion.
5. Amphenol 2026 appeal — now confirmed not to involve the '320 (see § 0).