US 8313345

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

Let me check for any 2026 appellate or district litigation involving this exact patent.

One more check specifically for 2026 activity tied to this patent.

Search scope and caveats

I searched for the literal identifier 8,313,345 / "8313345" paired with USPTO/PTAB and CAFC 2026 terms. Findings:

• No CAFC 2026 docket, opinion, or appeal involving U.S. Patent 8,313,345 was located. I cannot confirm any 2026 appellate activity for this patent. If such a docket exists, I did not find it, and I am explicitly flagging that as an absence of evidence rather than proof of no litigation.
• The only third-party hit tying "8313345" to a contested proceeding was IPR2018-01208 (Cooper Crouse–Hinds LLC v. CMP Products Limited), where "8313345" appears merely as an entry in an exhibit table/file-history listing of connector patents. It does not appear to be the patent under challenge in that IPR. Treat this as a weak, non-dispositive association.
• Google Patents flags the family as "Family has litigation" (Darts-IP family ID 42826565), but that flag does not itself identify a 2026 case.

Everything below is taken primarily from the authoritative full text you supplied, cross-checked against the Google Patents, Justia, and USPTO.report records returned in search.

Bibliographic data

Note on claim text: the granted claims differ from the published application. In the as‑granted claim 1, the continuity member is recited as "a ring‑shaped continuity member being resilient relative to the longitudinal axis." The published US 2011/0021072 A1 version (per Justia) recited only "a continuity member being resilient relative to the longitudinal axis," and its claim numbering differed (an independent claim appeared as claim 9). Use the granted text for infringement analysis.

Abstract (verbatim)

A coaxial cable continuity connector comprising a connector body, a post engageable with connector body, wherein the post includes a flange having a tapered surface, a nut, wherein the nut includes an internal lip having a tapered surface, wherein the tapered surface of the nut oppositely corresponds to the tapered surface of the post when the nut and post are operably axially located with respect to each other when the coaxial cable continuity connector is assembled, and a continuity member disposed between and contacting the tapered surface of the post and the tapered surface of the nut, so that the continuity member endures a moment resulting from the contact forces of the opposite tapered surfaces, when the continuity connector is assembled, is provided.

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Connector with a pre‑loaded continuity member between opposing tapers

The connector has four required pieces working together:

1. A connector body with first and second ends positioned axially opposite each other about the connector's central longitudinal axis.
2. A post that engages the body, where the post's flange has a tapered surface — expressly a "non‑radial face" at a "non‑perpendicular angle" to the central axis.
3. A nut whose internal lip has a tapered surface — likewise non‑radial and non‑perpendicular — and which oppositely corresponds (mirror‑faces) the post's taper when the nut and post are axially positioned in the assembled connector.
4. A ring‑shaped continuity member that is resilient relative to the longitudinal axis, sandwiched between and touching both tapered surfaces, such that it endures a moment generated by the contact forces of the opposed tapers once the connector is assembled.

The gist: instead of relying on the installer fully tightening the connector onto a port to squeeze a conductive element into contact, the opposed tapers flex the resilient ring at assembly, creating a self‑sustaining pre‑load and thus a permanent ground path.

Claim 11 — Connector defined by the continuous ground path it creates

Structurally similar to claim 1 (body; nut rotatable relative to the body with a non‑radial, non‑perpendicular tapered internal lip; post securely engageable with the body whose flange has an oppositely corresponding non‑radial, non‑perpendicular taper). The claim's focus, however, is the continuous ground path located between the nut and the post, achieved by placing the ring‑shaped continuity member between the two tapers so it continuously contacts both under a pre‑load condition and is continuously compressed by the resultant moment between the opposed tapers when the connector is assembled. Claim 11 does not expressly recite the "resilient relative to the longitudinal axis" limitation found in claim 1.

Claim 17 — Method of extending a ground path from cable → connector → port

A three‑step method:

1. Provide a connector as recited (body; post with a non‑radial, non‑perpendicular tapered flange; nut with a non‑radial, non‑perpendicular tapered internal lip oppositely corresponding to the post taper; and a ring‑shaped, longitudinally‑resilient continuity member between and contacting the two tapers so it endures the moment), and as assembled the member maintains continuous physical and electrical contact between post and nut.
2. Attach a coaxial cable to the connector such that the post and the cable's outer conductor are electrically integrated.
3. Install the assembled connector onto an interface port, extending the ground path from the cable, through the post and nut, to the port.

Notable dependent claims

• 3, 12, 18: continuity member is a flat washer (the specification notes this is cost‑beneficial because existing components can be re‑used).
• 4, 13, 19: the flat washer is flexed into a somewhat conical shape by the moment.
• 2, 17 (inherent): continuous physical and electrical contact between post and nut is maintained.
• 5, 14: the member resists axial wiggle movement between post and nut.
• 6, 20: the nut is spaced apart from and does not contact the connector body.
• 7, 15: a body sealing member (O‑ring) between nut and body.
• 8, 16: a fastener member slidably secured to the body with an internal ramped surface that deformably compresses the body's outer surface to secure the cable.
• 9: the ring‑shaped continuity member is a split‑ring lock washer.
• 10: the ring‑shaped continuity member is a broken ring C‑shaped member.

Technical significance (per the specification)

• Known connectors may include conductive implements between nut and post, but those are not pre‑loaded — continuity only arises when the connector is tightened onto a port. The '345 patent asserts continuity from the moment of assembly.
• The opposed tapers provide greater surface area for physical/electrical interaction than perpendicular/radial faces.
• The spring action permits rotation of the coupling nut without loss of ground, and also provides enhanced moisture sealing and resistance to loosening when fully tight.
• FIG. 9 is used to show the ground path persists even when the connector is only partially tightened on the port.

Uncertainty / limitations of this summary

• No authoritative 2026 CAFC source was found for this patent; my conclusion that there is no such docket is based on negative search results and should not be treated as a verified clearance.
• The three quotes returned with "CAFC 2026" content concerned unrelated patents (Dolby/Unified, Rare Breed, VLSI/Intel, etc.) and are not about 8,313,345.
• Assignee is reported inconsistently across sources (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. at grant vs. "PPC Broadband Inc" as original assignee on Google Patents). The reassignment chain in the record supports John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc.
• I did not independently verify the "Expired – Fee Related" status or the 2029‑05‑26 expiration date against USPTO Patent Center; these come from Google Patents and are labeled there as assumptions.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8313345. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the identified case and related litigation.

Let me check PTAB proceedings and PPC's own affirmative cases asserting this patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,313,345

Important caveat up front: I was able to retrieve the patent's full text and several litigation documents, but I could not directly complete a query of PACER, the Unified Patents litigation portal, or Darts‑IP (the Google Patents page for US 8,313,345 shows only a generic "Family has litigation" Darts‑IP link with family ID 42826565, not case detail). The findings below rest on the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/Justia dockets, and the court's own opinion in the E.D. Ark. case. IDs are reported literally as they appear.

1. Identifying the patent (for disambiguation)

Note on look-alikes: Search results repeatedly surfaced other "345" patents that are not US 8,313,345 — e.g., U.S. 7,035,345 (IPR2025‑00727, Smart RF), and the '334/'156 spinal‑implant patents in NuVasive v. Alphatec (S.D. Cal. 3:18‑cv‑00347). Those are unrelated and are excluded here.

2. Known litigation

Case 1 (the only confirmed case specifically involving US 8,313,345)

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8313345 ; CourtListener docket/opinion 4:12‑cv‑00623‑JLH (Doc. 37, filed 06/10/13) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[5500269](/patent/5500269)/37/perfectvision-manufacturing-inc-v-ppc-broadband-inc/ ; Justia — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredce/4:2012cv00623/[91234/102](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=91234-0102)/

Closely related actions (same parties/technology, but '345 not confirmed as asserted)

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Mfg., Inc., No. 5:13‑cv‑0134 (N.D.N.Y.) — filed by PPC on Feb. 5, 2013, asserting the Ehret Patent (U.S. 8,366,481), not '345, plus state‑law claims. This was the mirror‑image offensive suit to the Arkansas DJ action above.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc., No. 4:22‑cv‑204‑DPM (E.D. Ark.) and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PVM, No. 4:22‑cv‑00163‑LPR (E.D. Ark.) — 2022 disputes concerning the Bence patents (e.g., U.S. 8,192,237; 9,484,133 family) and related patents; stayed pending IPR in Nov. 2022. I found no indication '345 was asserted in these.

3. Litigation involving the '345's patent family (context, not the '345 itself)

PPC (as successor to John Mezzalingua Associates) has litigated its "continuity" connector patent portfolio extensively — against Corning/Gilbert, Belden, CommScope, Amphenol/Times Fiber, Charles Industries, PCT International, and PerfectVision. However, the patents asserted in those specific suits that I could verify are different patents, e.g.:

• PPC Broadband v. Amphenol Corp. et al., 1:20‑cv‑01148 (D. Del., filed 8/28/2020) asserted US 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; 9,516,376; 9,860,591 — not '345.
• PPC Broadband v. Charles Industries, LLC et al., 1:22‑cv‑01517 (D. Del., filed 11/21/2022) asserted US 9,008,483 B2 — not '345.
• PPC Broadband v. CommScope (D. Del.) and PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC — continuity‑connector family litigation, '345 not confirmed.

Because the '345 shares a priority chain with US 7,824,216 and US 8,506,326 and is part of the same "continuity connector" family, it is plausible it was asserted in additional suits; I simply could not verify that from the sources available. I do not want to represent it as litigated in those cases without confirmation.

4. PTAB / post‑grant proceedings

• I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding challenging US 8,313,345.
• Corning Optical Communications RF filed a cluster of IPRs against PPC continuity patents in June 2013 (IPR2013‑00340, ‑00342, ‑00343, ‑00345, ‑00346, ‑00347, covering e.g. U.S. 6,676,446; 8,287,320; 8,323,060; 8,313,353). '345 does not appear in that set based on the records I retrieved.
• Beware the decoy: "IPR2025‑00727 … '345 Patent" refers to U.S. 7,035,345, an unrelated patent. Not this one.

5. Summary answer

Bottom line: On the record I could verify, US 8,313,345 has been at issue in a single known litigation — the PerfectVision v. PPC Broadband declaratory‑judgment action, E.D. Ark. No. 4:12‑cv‑00623 — where it was added as one of four newly issued PPC continuity patents in late 2012. I could not confirm any PTAB challenge, and I could not confirm assertion of the '345 in PPC's other (Corning/Amphenol/CommScope/Belden) litigations. If you need PACER‑level certainty, the case to pull is 4:12‑cv‑00623‑JLH (E.D. Ark.), and the Darts‑IP family‑litigation link for family ID 42826565 on the Google Patents page should be checked for foreign and additional U.S. cases.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,313,345: 0 — the structured USPTO ODP block for this patent is empty, and my web searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming U.S. Patent No. 8,313,345. Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated at the PTAB, 0 claims sustained at the PTAB, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is unhardened — no PTAB panel has ever construed its claims, no claim has been canceled, and no petitioner is carrying § 315(e)(2) estoppel. All 20 claims are UNTESTED. The defensive value of PTAB precedent here is zero; whatever invalidity case exists must be built de novo (district court § 282 or a fresh IPR).

Important caveat on confidence. The ODP ingestion is my primary source and it says "none." My independent searches likewise returned nothing for '345. I could not run an exhaustive PTAB E2E docket-by-patent query within this task, so treat this as a high-confidence-but-not-certain negative. The disposition is nevertheless the default the assignment specifies: no PTAB activity on file.

⚠️ Number-collision decoys — these are NOT proceedings on '345

The most dangerous error a defendant can make here is transposing digits. Each of the following is a different patent:

Neither IPR2013-00345 nor IPR 2025-00727 is a proceeding on 8,313,345. Do not cite them as such in a brief.

The Corning Gilbert IPR cluster — sibling patents, not '345 (context only)

Corning Gilbert Inc. filed a six-petition barrage on 2013-06-10 against PPC's sibling continuity-member patents:

• IPR2013-00340 and -00342 — US 8,323,060
• IPR2013-00343 and -00345 — US 8,313,353
• IPR2013-00346 and -00347 — US 8,287,320

Plus later IPR2014-00440 (US 8,597,041) and IPR2014-00441 (US 8,562,366). All ground: § 103 obviousness over Matthews (US 2006/0110977) and Tatsuzuki (JP 2002-015823), and in the '320 case Montana as well. Final Written Decisions issued 2014-11-21 in several of these and invalidated the challenged claims; the Fed. Cir. vacated-in-part, affirmed-in-part, and remanded in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (consolidated appeals Nos. 2015-1361, -1364, -1366, -1368, -1369), holding the Board made no findings on the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation and erred in its secondary-considerations analysis. On remand (2016-11-16, APJ Zecher) the Board maintained its obviousness holding.

None of these names US 8,313,345. The '345 patent (Purdy; App. No. 12/900,140; filed 2010-10-07; granted 2012-11-20; priority 2009-04-02 via provisional 61/166,247) is a continuation of App. No. 12/472,368 (now US 7,824,216) and has one child, US 8,506,326. It sits in the same patent family web but was never pulled into the Corning IPR set.

I found no IPR against the '216 parent either. The only post-grant challenge I can confirm touching this family line is an inter partes reexamination of US 8,192,237 (Control No. 95/002,400) — a different patent, and a reexam, not an AIA trial.

Litigation posture (non-PTAB, for context)

• PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623 (E.D. Ark.) — listed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as involving 8313345; a competitor-initiated declaratory-judgment/invalidity action, not a PTAB filing. (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8313345) I could not verify from the search results which claims were asserted; treat the claim-level detail as unconfirmed.
• PPC's broader campaign against Corning Gilbert ran in N.D.N.Y. (5:11-cv-00761, 5:12-cv-00911, 5:13-cv-00538, 5:13-cv-1310) and the ITC. I found no confirmation that '345 was asserted there — PPC's asserted family members in those cases were the '060, '353, '237, and '229 patents.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For US 8,313,345 specifically: nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, everything is untested. Claims 1–20 (independent claims 1, 11, 17; dependents 2–10, 12–16, 18–20) carry their original scope. Independent claim 1 requires a connector body, a post flange with a non-radial tapered surface, a nut internal lip with an oppositely corresponding tapered surface, and a ring-shaped continuity member resilient relative to the longitudinal axis that "endures a moment resulting from the contact forces of the opposite tapered surfaces." That "moment"/dual-taper language is the heart of the claims and is the natural invalidity battleground — but no tribunal has decided it.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is entirely absent because there is no petitioner and no FWD for this patent. Corning Optical Communications RF (and its privies) is estopped only as to the patents it actually petitioned (the '060, '353, '320, '041, '366). A new defendant is free to raise any prior-art ground — including Matthews/Tatsuzuki, the Corning combination, ASME B18.21.1-1999 lock-washer art, and the pre-2009 connector art — against '345 in a fresh IPR. Note the flip side: because a fresh IPR is available, and because the patent is old and heavily cited (541 cited references), the absence of an IPR on '345 is not evidence of strength; it is more likely an artifact of claim scope and the 2029 expiration runway.

Pattern signals. PPC is a serial, well-funded enforcer that litigates PTAB losses all the way to the Federal Circuit — it overturned or narrowed adverse PTAB outcomes in PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical, 815 F.3d 747. It has never faced an AIA trial on '345. I found no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain for this patent. Also relevant to damages: Google Patents lists the legal status as "Expired – Fee Related" with anticipated expiration 2029-05-26; that label is an assumption, not a legal conclusion, and it is inconsistent-looking with a full 2029 term, so verify maintenance-fee payment history with the USPTO — a lapsed fee would cut off post-lapse damages and, practically, most of the troll's leverage.

Recommended next steps

1. Say it plainly in any defense memo: there is no PTAB activity on US 8,313,345. Nothing to cite, nothing to distinguish, no FWD to hang a § 315(e)(2) argument on.
2. Do not cite IPR2013-00345 against this patent. That proceeding is Corning Gilbert v. PPC Broadband on US 8,313,353 (claims 7–27). If a demand letter or complaint conflates '345 with '353/'060/'320, that is a drafting error worth pinning down in a Rule 11 or § 285 posture.
3. Run the invalidating play yourself. With no estoppel and no prior PTAB construction, a fresh IPR (if you have been served, watch the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of the complaint) lets you litigate the "tapered surface / moment / pre-load" limitations on a clean record. The Corning petitions' Matthews + Tatsuzuki combination is a ready-made starting template — the Board already found that art strong enough to institute against the near-identical sibling claims.
4. Construing the claims under Phillips. The '345 patent's expected expiration (2029-05-26 per Google Patents) matters for standard-of-construction: for expired claims the Board applies Phillips rather than BRI. If your theory depends on the narrower Phillips-style reading of "endures a moment" (compare PPC's successful "maintain electrical continuity" argument in 815 F.3d 747), timing of any IPR relative to the lapse date is a strategic lever.
5. Confirm the maintenance-fee status. Pull the USPTO PatentCenter fee history for 8,313,345. If it lapsed for non-payment, that — not any PTAB ruling — is likely the cleanest answer to an assertion campaign.

Source links: US 8,313,345 on Google Patents · USPTO PTAB E2E · PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, 815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (also on CourtListener — search "PPC Broadband Corning Optical").

I'll research the assignment chain and ownership history for this patent.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the corporate history.

Let me search for the specific reel/frame records and the original inventor assignment.

Note before the analysis: my tool budget for this session was exhausted before I could load the USPTO Assignment Center records directly. I therefore could not capture reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or the recorded correspondent for this patent. What follows relies on (a) the authoritative patent text you supplied, (b) the Google Patents legal-events entries embedded in that text, and (c) verified public corporate records. Reel/frame numbers are omitted rather than guessed. See "Uncertainty" at the end.

Inventors

Findings and patterns:

• Single-inventor patent. US 8,313,345 names only Eric Purdy. By contrast, the sibling PPC connector filings in the same program (e.g., US 8,192,237) name Eric Purdy (Constantia, NY), Noah Montena (Syracuse, NY), and Jeremy Amidon (Marcellus, NY). Purdy is therefore a repeat in-house PPC inventor, not an outside or acquired-in inventor.
• All inventor residences cluster in the Syracuse/Onondaga County, NY area — the location of the assignee's sole facility. There is no geographic dispersion that would suggest an acquired patent, a broker-assembled portfolio, or a hired-for-the-occasion inventor.
• No evidence of inventor departure within 12 months of filing. I found no record of Purdy leaving the assignee, and the patents bears his name as the sole inventor through grant and through the 2013 change-of-name recordings. I could not verify his employment end date, so I mark this not determinable / no adverse signal found rather than affirmatively clean.
• Litigation-context caution: Purdy is a serial PPC inventor whose name also appears on PPC patents subject to inter partes reexamination and IPR. Being the named inventor is not itself a troll signal; here it reinforces that Purdy was a genuine in-house design engineer.

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (East Syracuse, NY), also doing business as "PPC."

• Business: a real, long-operating manufacturer of coaxial cable connectors and broadband outside-plant hardware — compression F-connectors, splitters/taps, terminators, cable and fiber connectivity, amplifier technology, cable moulding/raceways, traps and filters. Founded 1940 (some registries say 1942).
• Product practice: Yes. PPC's own engineering drawings for a "Continuity Member" were produced as an exhibit in the Corning v. PPC IPRs (IPR2013-00345, PPC Exhibit 2084, "PPC Drawing for Continuity Member"), and the connector's dependents recite off-the-shelf hardware (flat washer, split-ring lock washer) that PPC sold in its compression-connector line. PPC markets itself as "holding more patents in this category than any other company in the world." This is an operating manufacturer, not a paper owner.
• Litigation posture of the original assignee: actively enforced its connector patents against actual competitors — e.g., John Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Corning Gilbert, Inc., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:12-cv-00911 (filed June 5, 2012); v. PCT International, W.D. Tex. No. 5:09-cv-00410; v. PACE Electronics / Perfect 10 Antenna, D. Minn. No. 0:10-cv-00064; and an ITC action against Corning.
• Current status: Operating, and acquired. New York entity records show the name trajectory Mr Advisers Limited → John Mezzalingua Associates (fictitious) → PPC Broadband, Inc. (effective 2012-12-07). Public-company records show Belden Inc. announced the acquisition of PPC for $515.7 million in December 2012 (Belden EX-99.1, combined financials for the "Broadband Division of John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC"), and PPC Broadband operates today as a Belden brand and subsidiary. No bankruptcy, no dissolution, no asset-only liquidation.

Assignment timeline

Caveat: the USPTO Assignment Center was not reachable within this session's tool budget, so reel/frame and correspondent fields below are unverified and left blank rather than fabricated. The dates and conveyance types are as reflected in the Google Patents legal-events panel of the authoritative text you supplied. Both post-issuance records are Change of Name conveyances — not asset assignments — which materially changes the analysis (see NPE signals).

1. YYYY-MM-DD (executed, unknown) / recorded 2013-02-12 — Reel /__ (not retrieved)

• Conveyance: Change of Name (see document for details)
• Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
• Assignee: MR Advisers Limited
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Internal corporate reorganization — a name/identity change within the PPC group, not a sale or transfer of the patent to a third party.

2. YYYY-MM-DD (executed, unknown) / recorded 2013-02-13 — Reel /__ (not retrieved)

• Conveyance: Change of Name (see document for details)
• Assignor: MR Advisers Limited
• Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
• Correspondent: not retrieved
• Context: Completion of the same internal reorganization — the entity that had been renamed "MR Advisers Limited" is now named PPC Broadband, Inc., consistent with the December 2012 Belden acquisition and the NY name-change effective 2012-12-07.

No pre-issuance inventor-to-assignee assignment was visible in the record I could inspect. Such a record almost certainly exists (an employment/obligation assignment from Eric Purdy to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., recorded around the May 26, 2009 parent filing or the October 7, 2010 continuation filing), but I could not retrieve it and will not assert its existence or its terms. Flagged as a gap.

Net effect on ownership: the chain is John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc., with no third-party acquirer, no licensing entity, and no asserted transfer outside the corporate family. Today the patent is held within PPC Broadband, Inc. (a Belden Inc. subsidiary).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8313345
    2009 : Priority date Apr 2
         : Parent filed May 26
    2010 : Continuation filed Oct 7
    2012 : Issued Nov 20
         : Belden deal announced Dec
    2013 : Recorded change of name Feb 12
         : Renamed PPC Broadband Feb 13

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does contain an intermediate entity, "MR Advisers Limited," but the recorded conveyance is a Change of Name, not an assignment, and it is immediately followed one day later by a change of name to PPC Broadband, Inc. — an operating manufacturer at a fixed industrial address (6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057) with hundreds of employees and a public product catalog. No point in the chain terminates at a licensing-only LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
None of the assignees (John Mezzalingua Associates, MR Advisers Limited, PPC Broadband, Belden Inc.) appears on the Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, or Erich Spangenberg rosters. PPC Broadband appears in Unified Patents' litigation portal as a plaintiff operating company and as a patent owner/defendant in IPRs — the opposite of an asserter-entity listing.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNVERIFIED.
This is the signal I most wanted to test and could not: the Assignment Center correspondent field for the two 2013 recordings was not retrieved. Do not read my silence as a negative finding. One datum worth flagging for follow-up: Christopher W. Day, PPC Broadband's VP, Legal and Chief IP Counsel (later VP/AGC and Chief IP Counsel at Belden), is the signatory of record on PPC's PTAB Powers of Attorney (e.g., IPR2013-00345, filed July 1, 2013; IPR2014-00736; IPR2022-01088). That is a litigation signature, not proof of assignment correspondentship — if the same name appears in the correspondent field on the 2013 reel/frame entries, that would be ordinary in-house-IP-counsel practice for an operating company, not an NPE tell. Recurrence across a chain of unrelated-looking LLCs is the signal; a single in-house counsel on a single corporate family is not.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT (despite two links in ~24 hours).
There are two consecutive recordings within one day, but both are change-of-name conveyances within one corporate family matching a documented NY entity name history and a documented $515.7M acquisition. This is not a chain of unrelated LLCs sharing a correspondent address or common principals; it is a single reorganization compressed into two filings.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT; the inverse is true.
The litigation did not follow a transfer — it preceded the naming change. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC v. Corning Gilbert, Inc., N.D.N.Y. No. 5:12-cv-00911, was filed June 5, 2012, and PPC was still "John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC" in the caption until the caption was amended. The 2013-02 name changes post-date the suit. There is no 6-months-before-suit transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 record. The original assignee was sold as a going concern to Belden Inc. for $515.7 million in a transaction announced December 2012 — an M&A exit, not a distress liquidation.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
The patents stayed inside the manufacturer and are asserted by the manufacturer against direct competitors in the same market (Corning Gilbert, PCT International, PerfectVision Manufacturing, Amphenol, Times Fiber Communications). There is no NPE asserting on PPC's behalf and no reported SEC or press disclosure of a privateering arrangement.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at an operating manufacturer (PPC Broadband, a Belden subsidiary), which litigates affirmatively. Not neutralized.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The patent never left an operating manufacturer: it issued to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (d/b/a PPC), the only two recorded post-issuance events are Change-of-Name conveyances recorded 2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13 that merely track a documented NY entity name change (Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc., effective 2012-12-07) and the Belden Inc. acquisition of PPC for $515.7M announced December 2012 — not asset transfers to an asserter. The owner asserts against genuine competitors (Corning Gilbert, PCT International, PerfectVision, Amphenol, Times Fiber), and PPC's own engineering drawings for the claimed continuity member appear as IPR exhibits, confirming a shipped product. No shell-entity, known-asserter, cascading-transfer, fire-sale, privateering, or defensive-aggregation signal is present.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "8313345"; confirm reel/frame, execution dates, and correspondent for the two 2013 Change-of-Name records — this is the single open item in my analysis)
• Legacy assignment search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US8313345/en

Uncertainty / limitations

1. No reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondents were retrieved. I could not reach the Assignment Center within this session. Everything in the timeline section is drawn from the Google Patents legal-events panel in the authoritative text you supplied; the executed dates are unknown, and the correspondent field — the key NPE tell you asked me to capture — is unpopulated rather than "none." Treat signal 3 as unresolved.
2. The "MR Advisers Limited" step deserves a second look. A change of name from "John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc." to "MR Advisers Limited" is counterintuitive, since Mr Advisers Limited appears to be the earlier/parallel entity in the NY record (reported as changing 2012-09-19, with John Mezzalingua Associates recorded the same day as a fictitious name). It is possible the recorded conveyances collapse a more complex two-step reorganization, or that the Google Patents conveyance labels are simplified. The underlying assignment documents must be pulled to resolve this. If the actual instrument turns out to be an assignment to an unrelated third party rather than a change of name, the analysis changes — but I found no evidence of that.
3. The pre-issuance inventor assignment (Purdy → assignee) was not located and is presumed to exist. I am not asserting its contents, reel/frame, or recording date.
4. Assignee-of-record inconsistency. The granted face of the patent, per Google Patents, shows "Original Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc." for the priority-family siblings while Google Patents' current-assignee field reads "PPC Broadband Inc." This is not a contradiction in substance — it is the 2012–2013 name change/merger chain reflected at different query times. Your earlier section flagged this; I concur that the reassignment chain resolves it, and that nothing here indicates a third-party transfer.
5. The "Family has litigation" flag (Darts-IP family ID 42826565) is a family-level marker and does not identify a specific 2026 case. Consistent with the prior section, I found no 2026 CAFC activity for this patent.
6. IPR caution. Several PPC patents were challenged at the PTAB, including US 8,313,353 (Corning Gilbert v. PPC, IPR2013-00340/-00342/-00345/-00346/-00347). That is a different patent number from 8,313,345 and should not be conflated with it. I found no evidence in this session that 8,313,345 itself was the subject of an IPR. The IPR2018-01208 (Cooper Crouse-Hinds v. CMP Products) “8313345” hit is, as your prior section correctly found, merely a table entry in an exhibit list and not the challenged patent.

I'll research the USPTO record for this exact patent and work through its citation list.

Let me pull the USPTO.report record and the examiner-cited reference list.

The citation list is large (Google Patents lists 541 references). Let me pull the examiner-cited core and the family's PTAB prior-art record to identify the genuinely material references.

Scope note

I searched for the literal identifier US 8,313,345 / "8313345" in USPTO-derived records (USPTO.report grant record, Google Patents, Justia, PTAB/PTACTS filings, patentimages PDF of the printed patent). Search results also surfaced US 8,313,353, US 8,506,326, US 8,287,320, US 8,192,237, and US 6,042,422. Per your instruction I do not treat those as the same document — 8,313,353 and 8,506,326 are sibling/child patents in the same PPC family, not US 8,313,345. Where I use them below it is expressly as family context, never as a substitute for the '345 record.

Everything below builds on the bibliographic and claim sections already generated; I do not repeat them.

1. The citation universe — scale and why a per-reference §102 table is bounded

The '345 patent's front matter carries an unusually large reference list. The printed front page begins with:

331,169 A 11/1885 Thomas … 1,371,742 A 3/1921 Dringman … 1,667,485 A 4/1928 MacDonald … 1,766,869 A 6/1930 Austin …

and Google Patents' machine-readable citation list for this patent runs to 541 entries, with the USPTO.report grant record continuing the examiner-cited U.S. list from 1978 through the late 1980s and beyond (e.g., 4,131,332 Dec-1978 Hogendobler; 4,585,289 Apr-1986 Bocher; 4,808,128 …). That volume is itself a documented fact about this patent: a PTAB petitioner attacking a PPC family member argued that PPC "buried [the three material references] among the hundreds of other references listed in the IDSs."

Two consequences I must state plainly:

1. I cannot productively produce a §102 row for each of 541 references. Most are cumulative pre-1960s coaxial-connector and washer art, cited en masse in IDSs, never discussed by the examiner, and disclosing nothing about a tapered nut lip / post flange pair or a pre-loaded resilient ring between them.
2. §102 anticipation requires every limitation in a single reference. On the record available to me, no single cited reference discloses all elements of granted claims 1, 11, or 17. The realistic §102 exposure is to dependent claims. I flag this as a conclusion from the reference titles/disclosures I could verify, not a clearance opinion.

I therefore give you the material subset, tiered by relevance, rather than 541 rows of filler.

2. Tier 1 — The genuinely material references (continuity member between nut and post)

These are the references directed at the actual point of novelty (a conductive/resilient member maintaining a nut↔post ground path in an assembled connector).

Tier 1 note (important): In the IPR record against sibling PPC patents, the petitioner expressly conceded that Youtsey does not disclose conductive/compressible o-rings and relied on Lionetto + Horak for that teaching — i.e., a §103 combination, not a §102 hit. By parity of reasoning, this same combination is the most credible invalidity theory against the '345 independent claims, and it is a 103 theory.

3. Tier 2 — Connector coupling / grounding structure (examiner-cited, §103 weight)

These are the substantial connector-structure references in the '345 front-page list. Titles/dates below are as listed on the printed patent; where I only have the title, I say so rather than inventing a disclosure.

Tier 2 bottom line: these references establish that the generic F-connector architecture of claims 1, 11 and 17 (body, post, rotatable threaded nut, post flange, nut internal lip) was old and crowded. They do not, individually, disclose the opposed non-radial tapers + resilient ring-shaped member in pre-loaded compression enduring a moment. Their role is §103, and they make the preamble and structural elements of the independent claims hard to defend as novel.

4. Tier 3 — Washer / lock-washer art (maps only to dependent claims)

The '345 list conspicuously includes old washer patents. These relate only to the dependent claims that specify the continuity member's form.

Critical caveat: a nut-locking washer from 1885 does not disclose a coaxial cable continuity connector, so it cannot anticipate claim 9 by itself (claim 9 depends from claim 1 and incorporates all its limitations). These references matter only as evidence that the washer geometry recited in claims 4, 9, 10, 13 and 19 was old.

5. Claim-by-claim §102 synthesis

6. What I could not do, stated explicitly

• The 541-reference list is too large to itemize row-by-row with defensible §102 conclusions. I analyzed the references I could locate and verify, and grouped the rest by character. I did not invent disclosures for references whose text I did not retrieve.
• I did not verify the content of the Digicon AVL NPL item, CA 2096710 A1, or the Tier 2 connector patents beyond their listed titles and dates. A title is not a disclosure; treat every Tier 2 §102 entry as provisional.
• Lionetto's patent number is unverified. I have the inventor name and the May 29, 1990 issue date only.
• Whether Youtsey 6,042,422 and Lionetto appear on the '345 front page specifically is unconfirmed — I confirmed the three-reference combination from PTAB petitions against sibling PPC patents, and the retrieved '345 front-page extract terminated in the 3,9xx,xxx range. Do not represent these as of-record citations of the '345 patent without checking the printed front page.
• No 2026 CAFC docket for 8,313,345 was found (consistent with the earlier section); the family's only located contested proceeding touching "8313345" is its appearance in an exhibit table in IPR2018-01208 (Cooper Crouse-Hinds v. CMP Products).

7. Contradiction flag

The prior section states "Today's date: 2026‑09‑30" while this task specifies "April 26, 2026." I have not reconciled these; no substantive conclusion here depends on the date. Also, the prior section's note that US 2011/0021072 A1 recited "a continuity member" (no "ring-shaped") while the granted claim 1 adds "ring-shaped" and "resilient relative to the longitudinal axis" is confirmed on the granted text — and it matters here, because every §102 candidate above must be measured against the granted wording, which is narrower than the published version.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art citations listed for this patent's family. Let me pull the citation list and the contents of the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,313,345 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on: the bibliographic and claim-analysis sections already generated (granted claim text, the amendment history adding "ring‑shaped" / "resilient relative to the longitudinal axis," and the plain-language claim summaries). This section assumes those and does not restate them.

1. Analytical frame and prior‑art qualification

Governing statute. US 8,313,345 issued from application 12/900,140, filed October 7, 2010, a continuation of 12/472,368 (filed May 26, 2009), which claims benefit of provisional 61/166,247 (filed April 2, 2009). Because the application was filed before March 16, 2013, pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs; the AIA's 102(a)(2)/"effectively filed" scheme does not apply.

Critical dates.

• § 102(b) statutory‑bar date: ~April 2 / May 26, 2008 (one year before the provisional/parent filing).
• § 102(a)/(e) window: references filed/published between 2008 and the 2009 invention date qualify only under 102(a) or 102(e) — and 102(e)/(f)/(g) art is disqualified for § 103 purposes under pre‑AIA § 103(c) if commonly owned at the time of invention (relevant to the several John Mezzalingua Associates references in this family's citation lists).

What is actually on this page. Three distinct lists appear, and only one is prior art:

Caveat I am flagging explicitly: the Citations (541) list as supplied to me is truncated at US 3,355,698 A (mid‑1965). I therefore evaluated only that portion plus the references named elsewhere on the page. I verified the disclosures of US 3,091,748 A, US 3,194,292 A, and US 3,350,677 A by retrieval; I did not verify the disclosures of US 3,336,563, US 3,292,136, US 3,275,913, US 3,320,575, US 3,321,732, US 3,184,706, US 3,196,382, US 3,015,794, or the pre‑1920 washer patents. Where I rely on them below, I say so.

2. Level of ordinary skill

A PHOSITA here is a mechanical/electrical connector designer with a bachelor's degree in engineering (or equivalent experience) and 2–5 years in RF/coaxial connector design — i.e., someone who knows F‑type connector architecture (threaded nut, tubular post, connector body, compression fastener) as a mature, crowded art, and who routinely selects threaded fasteners, washers, and seals from standard catalogs. Both the Federal Circuit opinions in the parallel PPC/Corning appeals and the PTAB declarations in this space treat the art as one of ordinary mechanical skill in a very well‑developed field.

3. The invention reduced to its actual differences over the art

This is the pivotal step, and the '345 specification supplies most of it as admissions:

1. "Known coaxial cable connectors 100 may include conductive implements located between the nut and the post." — Express admission that placing a conductive element at the nut/post interface was known.
2. The asserted difference is narrow: "when such known connectors are operably assembled, the conductive implements do not reside in a pre‑loaded or otherwise compressed condition between tapered surfaces," so continuity arises only after tightening onto a port.
3. The nut internal lip / post flange interlock is admitted to be conventional — it is described as the standard structure that "restrict[s] axial movement of those two components with respect to each other" while permitting nut rotation.
4. The continuity member is admitted to be an off‑the‑shelf part: "One embodiment of a continuity member 70 is a simple ring washer," and the specification expressly lists "a lock washer, including a split ring lock washer (or 'helical spring washer'), an external tooth washer, and an internal tooth washer."
5. The taper angle is admitted to be uncritical: the tapered surface "forms a non‑radial face and may extend at any non‑perpendicular angle."

So the case collapses to a single question: was it obvious, as of April 2009, to pre‑load a conductive ring at the nut/post interface of a coaxial connector by seating it between two opposing non‑radial faces? Under KSR, that is a textbook predictable‑result / finite‑number‑of‑solutions question.

4. Combination A — the core combination (claims 1, 11, and dependents 2–6, 10, 20)

References combined:

• [P] A coaxial connector having a rotatable coupling nut with an internally projecting lip that traps the flange of the tubular post — e.g., US 3,336,563 A (Amphenol, "Coaxial connectors"), US 3,292,136 A (Gremar, "Coaxial connector"), US 3,275,913 A (LRC Electronics, "Variable capacitor," a coaxial nut‑and‑washer assembly), or US 3,011,169 A (Blonder, "Transmission‑line connector"). Confidence note: I did not verify these four disclosures in this session; the mapping below assumes the routine nut‑lip/post‑flange interlock that the '345 specification itself concedes is conventional.
• [W] US 3,194,292 A — "Lock washer" (Garrett / George K. Garrett Co.) — a frusto‑conical, dished, ring‑shaped stamped spring‑steel washer expressly described as axially resilient solely because of its dished shape, and shown in Fig. 6 compressed between a nut and a work‑piece surface. Retrievable at https://patents.google.com/patent/US3194292.
• [G] A connector reference teaching that a conductive member bridging two relatively movable connector parts extends the ground/shield path — US 3,015,794 A (Bendix, "Electrical connector with grounding strip"), US 2,544,654 A ("Shield for electric plugs"), or US 3,091,748 A (General Dynamics, "Electrical connector"), which shows a coaxial connector in which the outer conductors are "grounded through the connector bodies and panels" and in which washers 37, 41, 43 and an O‑ring 42 are stacked over the cable end and clamped by nut 16 (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3091748A](/patent/US3091748A)/en).

Element mapping for claim 1:

Motivation to combine (why a PHOSITA would do this):

1. The problem is named in the references and in the patent's own background: "ground continuity" of a threaded, rotatable coupler that "often" is "not properly tightened." [G] supplies the known answer (bridge the moving parts with a conductive element).
2. The patentee's own admitted prior art already placed "conductive implements" between the nut and the post — so the placement required no invention. The only remaining problem was holding that implement in contact when the connector is loose — the single problem that spring/lock washers exist to solve.
3. US 3,194,292 supplies the exact teaching required: a ring‑shaped washer that is axially resilient by geometry and that is designed to sit pre‑compressed between a nut and an opposed surface to maintain clamping/contact force. Applying it to the nut‑lip/post‑flange interface is "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" (KSR factor (c)) and "applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement" (factor (d)).
4. Finite, predictable solutions (KSR factor (e)): the field offers dished lock washers, split‑ring/helical spring washers, external‑tooth washers, and internal‑tooth washers — the four alternatives the patent itself lists. No unexpected result is asserted for any one of them.
5. Reasonable expectation of success: nothing in the art taught away from seating a spring washer in a connector; the socket/joint is simply a fastener joint, and spring washers in fastener joints were the single most mature mechanical art there is.

For claim 11 the same mapping applies; the added "continuous ground path," "pre‑load condition," and "continuously compressed by a resultant moment" limitations are the functional description of the same structure and are met by [W]'s permanently compressed dished washer plus [G]'s conductive path.

5. Combination B — claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 18, 19 (flat washer; flexed into a conical shape)

References: [P] + [W] as above, or even [W] alone with [P]: US 3,194,292 discloses a stamped flat sheet‑steel washer that becomes dished/conical. The specification concedes the flat washer is an existing part chosen for cost reasons ("allows the use of already existing components, which reduces cost"). Motivating a low‑cost off‑the‑shelf flat washer, then observing that the tapered seat flexes it conically, is "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" (KSR factor (b)). A flat washer compressed between two non‑parallel faces necessarily assumes a non‑radial, conical orientation; claim 4/13/19 recites a mechanical inevitability, which adds no patentable weight.

6. Combination C — claims 9 and 10 (split‑ring lock washer; broken‑ring C‑shaped member)

References: [W] US 3,194,292 A (dished washer with wedge‑shaped teeth — the external‑tooth species), plus [E] US 3,311,69 A ("Nut‑locking washer," 1885) and [F] US 1,371,742 A ("Nut‑lock," 1921) / US 1,801,999 A and US 1,885,761 A ("Lock washer") as to split/broken‑ring washer forms. The patent itself enumerates these species as interchangeable ("any type of lock washer is contemplated, including countersunk and combined internal/external washers"). Selecting among a small, fully enumerated set of known washer forms with no asserted difference in result is obvious per KSR and In re Harza‑type reasoning on unclaimed distinctions. Caveat: I did not retrieve the pre‑1922 washer patents to confirm each depicts a split ring; the split‑ring form is, however, the plain subject of "Nut‑lock"‑titled art and of the helical spring washer named in the specification.

7. Combination D — claims 7 and 15 (body sealing member / O‑ring)

References: US 3,350,677 A ("Telescope waterseal connector," Elastic Stop Nut Corp.) — an elastomeric‑seal‑based watertight connector expressly aimed at keeping moisture out of a conductor joint (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3350677); and US 3,091,748 A, which shows an O‑ring 42 stacked in the clamping stack at the connector‑body/nut region. Sealing a coaxial connector joint against moisture with an O‑ring was notoriously old and is a design choice. Independent claim 11's own preamble structure plus claim 6/20's "no contact" requirement supplies the placement (between nut and body), and the '345 specification states the seal's function as preventing physical/electrical contact — a purely functional restatement of the known O‑ring seat. Motivation: the "environmental contaminants" problem the specification itself raises.

8. Combination E — claims 8 and 16 (fastener member with internal ramped surface)

References: US 3,184,706 A (ITT, "Coaxial cable connector with internal crimping structure"), US 3,196,382 A (ITT, "Crimp type coaxial cable connector"), US 3,321,732 A (Amp, "Crimp type coaxial connector assembly"), US 3,320,575 A (United Carr, "Grooved coaxial cable connector"), and US 2,549,647 A ("Conductor and compressible insert connector"). Confidence note: I did not retrieve these to verify the ramped‑surface disclosure specifically; a conical ramp that squeezes a compliant body onto a cable is the standard crimp/compression mechanism these titles describe. Decisively, the '345 specification admits the fastening is conventional: the connector "may be fastened to a received coaxial cable 10… similar to the way a cable is fastened to a common CMP‑type connector," and that "other means, such as crimping, thread‑on compression, or other connection structures… may be incorporated." Using the known compression body in the claimed connector is obvious combination of known elements with predictable results.

9. Claim 17 (method of extending a ground path cable → connector → port)

Claim 17 is the claim‑1 structure plus three conventional process steps: assemble; attach cable so the post contacts the outer conductor (the post is dimensioned to be inserted "under the drawn back conductive grounding shield," per the specification — an admitted conventional step); install onto an interface port. Method claims that add only the intended use of a structurally obvious article are obvious where the steps are conventional. The only added limitation of substance is "maintains continuous physical and electrical contact" — treated in §11 below.

10. Consolidated motivation‑to‑combine statement

A PHOSITA facing the named problem — loss of RF ground/shield continuity through a rotatably coupled F‑connector that is frequently not fully tightened — would:

• Recognize the problem and the known solution class (a conductive bridge at the nut/post interface), because the patent's own background admits such implements were already placed there;
• Recognize that the residual problem is contact maintenance under rotation and vibration, the canonical problem solved by spring/dished/lock washers, whose pertinence is undisputed and which [W] US 3,194,292 A addresses directly, including the teaching that a dished ring is axially resilient and is used pre‑compressed between a nut and an opposed surface;
• Have no more than four or five known washer options to select from, all named in the patent itself, with no asserted criticality in taper angle, material, or washer type;
• Expect success with certainty, because the change is a pure fastener‑joint pre‑load, not a change in the electromagnetic function of the connector.

That is combination of known elements with predictable results; use of a known technique on a known device ready for improvement; and selection from a finite set of predictable solutions — the exact rationales the Supreme Court endorsed in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and the PTAB applies under MPEP 2143.

11. Weak points a challenger must confront

(a) Temporal‑continuity claim construction is the real battleground — and it cuts for validity under Phillips. In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016) (aff'g in part/vacating in part IPR2013‑00340, ‑345, ‑346, ‑347 on PPC's US 8,287,320, 8,313,060, and 8,313,353 — sibling continuity‑member patents), the court held that the PTAB's broadest reasonable interpretation of "continuity member" required only contact, but that under Phillips the term would carry a temporal requirement; and it vacated the obviousness holdings for claims reciting that the member "maintain[s] electrical continuity," because the Board made no findings that the prior art disclosed that. See https://natlawreview.com/article/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-commc-n-rf-llc-presumptions-can-apply-inter and https://www.ptablitigationblog.com/federal-circuit-panel-begrudgingly-upholds-ptabs-claim-construction-but-vacates-finding-of-obviousness-on-other-grounds/.
'345's granted claims recite "continuously contact … under a pre‑load condition" (claim 11), "continuously compressed by a resultant moment" (claim 11), "maintains continuous physical and electrical contact" (claims 2, 17), and "endures a moment … when the … connector is assembled" (claims 1, 11, 17). A defendant relying on a prior‑art washer that only contacts when the connector is tightened onto a port — the classical F‑connector arrangement — will hit precisely the wall the Federal Circuit erected. Invalidity therefore depends on prior art showing a statically pre‑loaded resilient ring in the assembled (un‑mated) connector. US 3,194,292 A is the best candidate because its pre‑load is geometric and independent of any mating port, but a challenger must make the record findings the Board failed to make in the PPC IPRs.

(b) Claim 1 was amended during prosecution to add "ring‑shaped" and "resilient relative to the longitudinal axis." Those amendments appear to have been directed at exactly this art. If the examiner allowed over the cited art on those limitations, a challenger must show that the same references (or US 3,194,292, if not of record) disclose a ring‑shaped, axially resilient spring washer — which US 3,194,292 does squarely. Do not assume the amendment created distance from the art; test it.

(c) Candidate § 102(e) references with pre‑2009 priority are attractive but need date and ownership work. US 8,172,612 B2 (Corning Gilbert; priority 2005‑01‑25) and US 8,506,325 B2 (Belden; priority 2008‑09‑30) each appear in '345's own "Cited By" table yet predate the April 2, 2009 priority. As pre‑AIA § 102(e) art they are available only for subject matter supported by an application filed before the applicant's invention date, and US 8,025,518 B2 (2009‑02‑24) and US 8,029,315 B2 (2009‑04‑01) are subject to the pre‑AIA § 103(c) common‑ownership disqualification if commonly owned with '345 at the time of invention. I have not verified the chain of continuations, publication dates, or ownership records for any of these, and the 2008‑9 Belden/Corning references were, in any event, resolved only in the later PPC litigation — nothing on this page establishes that they were applied against '345.

(d) Secondary considerations are genuinely in play, and one precedent favors the patentee. In the same PPC v. Corning appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board on commercial success, holding that where the patentee shows its commercial product (the "SignalTight" connectors) embodies the claims, a rebuttable presumption attaches that the commercial success is due to the invention, and the Board erred by finding non‑embodiment without explanation. It also found long‑felt need, failed attempts, and copying supported by substantial evidence. A challenger to '345 should expect the patentee to invoke the same record and must rebut the nexus.

(e) "Moment" and "different radial locations." The specification's own explanation of the moment — "the opposing surfaces compress the continuity member in different radial locations thereby generating an axial bending force" — is a genuine structural requirement. The prior‑art showing must place one taper in contact with the ring at or near its inner diameter and the other at or near its outer diameter, or rely on the inherent flexing of a dished ring between opposed non‑parallel faces. This is where an obviousness petition is most likely to be attacked on the merits.

12. Bottom line

Verification caveats, stated plainly: (i) the page's Citations (541) list is truncated at US 3,355,698 A in the material supplied to me, so the mid‑1960s‑through‑2009 portion of the examiner's citation list — likely the most probative art — was not reviewed; (ii) I confirmed the subject matter only of US 3,091,748, US 3,194,292, and US 3,350,677; (iii) I found no IPR, reexam, or district‑court validity holding directed specifically at 8,313,345 (only the sibling patents 8,287,320 / 8,313,060 / 8,313,353 were adjudicated), and the sole hit pairing "8313345" with a contested proceeding (IPR2018‑01208) appears to reference it only as an entry in an exhibit/file‑history table — treat that association as non‑dispositive, as previously flagged.