US 8313353

I'll search for authoritative information on this specific patent and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me dig deeper on the claims and any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me retrieve the actual claim set of the '353 patent.

US 8,313,353 B2 — Verified Bibliographic Data

I searched public sources for the exact string "8,313,353" (and the application number 13/459,711) and did not substitute any similar number. Findings below; every point that could not be confirmed from an authoritative source is flagged.

Uncertainty note on inventor name: the machine-readable OCR of the printed patent (Exhibit 1001 in IPR2013-00343) renders the second inventor as "Noah Montana," while Google Patents, PTAB docket captions and later family members (e.g., US 9,680,263) render it "Noah Montena" / "Noah P. Montana." I am not auto-correcting the identifier; the "Montena" spelling is the better-supported one, but the OCR discrepancy is real.
Source: https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00343/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/06-10-2013-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-USPN_8313353.pdf

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method of assembling a coaxial cable connector comprising positioning a portion of a post within a body, the post including a flange; positioning a coupler, axially rotatable with respect to the post and the connector body, the coupler having a first end configured for coupling to an interface port and an opposing second end, and an internal lip having a first surface facing the first end of the coupler and a second surface facing the second end of the coupler; positioning a continuity member axially rearward of the second surface of the internal lip of the coupler; and wherein at least a portion of the continuity member is configured to extend about an external surface of the connector body and reside axially rearward of the coupler between the coupler and the connector body."

Independent Claims in Plain Language

Important caveat: the claims are not reproduced in the text block supplied to me, and I could not pull the printed claim column. The claim structure and language below are reconstructed from PTAB/IPR filings that quote the claims, so treat the wording as close paraphrase rather than verbatim — except where quoted.

The '353 patent issued with 27 claims, all of them method claims, in three independent groups (independent claims 1, 7 and 20):

Claim 1 (and dependents 2–6) — CANCELLED. A method of assembling a coaxial cable connector for a coaxial cable (center conductor → dielectric → conductive grounding shield → outer jacket), comprising: providing a connector body; providing a post with a forward end having a flange (forward-facing surface toward the interface port; rearward-facing surface toward the post's rear end) and a rearward end that contacts the cable's grounding shield; positioning part of the post within the body; positioning a coupler (nut) that is axially rotatable relative to the post and body, the coupler having an internal lip with a forward-facing and a rearward-facing surface; positioning a continuity member axially rearward of the forward-facing surface of the internal lip; positioning at least a portion of that member so it extends about an external surface of the connector body, resides axially rearward of the coupler between the coupler and the body, and maintains electrical continuity when the connector body moves relative to the coupler. In short: the broadest "put a conductive continuity member behind the nut's lip, between nut and body" assembly method — the same concept repeated in the abstract.
Source: Amended Petition, IPR2013-00343 (claims 1–6) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00343/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/

Claim 7 (dependents 8–19). A method of assembling a coaxial cable connector including a post with a flange, a connector body, and a nut axially rotatable relative to the post/body and having an inward lip, the method comprising — per the PTAB's own quotation — "positioning an electrical continuity member so as to contact the rearward facing surface of the inward lip of the nut, extend between a portion of the post and a portion of the connector body, electrically couple the post to the nut . . . and maintain electrical continuity between the post and the nut when the post pivots relative to the nut." Dependent claim 16 adds the "portion of the post comprises an outer surface shaped to fit the portion of the connector body" limitation; dependent claim 19 adds "configuring the continuity member so as 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."
Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549313](/patent/1549313)/download-documents

Claim 20 (dependents 21–27). A parallel independent method claim requiring the continuity member to "extend between a portion of the post and a portion of the connector body, contact the post, contact the rearward facing surface of the inward lip of the nut, electrically connect the post and the nut . . . [and] maintain electrical continuity between the post and the nut when the post rotates relative to the nut." Dependent claim 24 carries the "shaped to fit" limitation; dependent claim 27 carries the partially/fully-tightened continuity limitation.
Source: same PTAB petition document.

Plain-language takeaway: the invention is a conductive "continuity member" (spring/band/tab piece) trapped behind the nut's internal lip — deliberately not between the nut lip and the post flange — that keeps a metal ground path from the cable's braided shield → post → continuity member → rotatable nut → interface port even when the nut is only finger-tight. That is the commercial PPC "SignalTight" (originally "EX Plus") feature.

Legal / Prosecution Posture (relevant, and partially unresolved)

• Family has litigation; PTAB cases IPR2013-00343 and IPR2013-00345 were filed against the '353 patent by Corning Gilbert/Optical Communications RF.
• IPR2013-00343 (claims 1–6): on April 14, 2014 PPC filed a Request for Adverse Judgment and cancelled all claims 1–6; the Board granted it April 15, 2014 (Paper 27). PPC expressly stated the cancellation "is not an admission regarding the merits."
• IPR2013-00345 (claims 7–27): Final Written Decision entered November 21, 2014 (Paper 76).
• PPC's appeals of the Corning IPR decisions are reflected in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir.), which construed "maintain electrical continuity" to require "consistent or continuous contact," affirmed as to claims without that limitation and vacated/remanded as to the claims containing it.
• Uncertainty I cannot resolve from the sources retrieved: the precise current claim status of claims 7–27 (which, if any, were ultimately cancelled by certificate or held unpatentable after remand). Note that Google Patents still labels the patent "Active" with an anticipated expiration of December 8, 2029 (20 years from the Dec. 8, 2009 parent filing) — that status field is a bibliographic default and does not reflect PTAB claim cancellations, so it should not be read as confirming all 27 claims remain in force.

2026 CAFC Search — Results and a Hard Caveat

I did not find any 2026 Federal Circuit docket that I can confirm names U.S. Patent 8,313,353. What I did find is 2026 appellate activity involving the same patent owner:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024‑1776, 2024‑1777, 2024‑1778, 2024‑1779 (Fed. Cir.), argued March 2, 2026 (Panel B) and decided March 4, 2026 — affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential). Appeals from PTAB Nos. IPR2022‑00718, ‑00719, ‑00720, ‑00721. Law360 described it as the Federal Circuit refusing to revive "numerous claims across four coaxial cable patents owned by PPC Broadband."
  • Judgment: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html
  • Order PDF: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf
  • March 2026 calendar: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-March2026.pdf

Caveat (important): the Amphenol IPR numbers are 2022 filings, and none of the sources retrieved list the specific patent numbers at issue in IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721. Because the '353 patent was already the subject of the 2013 Corning IPRs (claims 1–6 cancelled; 7–27 decided), it is entirely possible the 2026 Amphenol appeals concern related but different PPC coaxial-connector patents. I therefore cannot state that US 8,313,353 was before the Federal Circuit in 2026, and I will not assign it to those dockets without a primary document naming it.

Methodological note: the tools available to me perform web search, not direct live queries of USPTO Patent Center or the CAFC CM/ECF docket. The above reflects publicly indexed USPTO/PTAB, CAFC and news sources rather than a docket-level confirmation.

I'll research litigation specifically naming U.S. Patent 8,313,353. Let me run targeted searches.

Good leads. Let me dig into the district court cases and any additional defendants.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,313,353

Bottom line: I found four proceedings that actually name the '353 patent — three district-court actions (all in the Northern District of New York or E.D. Ark.) and one PTAB inter partes review, plus the resulting Federal Circuit appeals. I found no 2026 litigation naming the '353 patent. Every case below was confirmed by a document that recites "8,313,353" or "'353 Patent"; I did not include proceedings involving the many related-but-distinct PPC patents in the same family (e.g., 8,192,237; 8,287,320; 8,323,060; 8,333,229; 8,366,481), which the earlier summary correctly treated as separate.

⚠️ Methodological caveat: My tools perform web search, not live queries of PACER/Patent Center/CM-ECF. The findings below reflect publicly indexed court, PTAB, and secondary sources. Where a source does not disclose a fact (e.g., a final settlement date), I say so rather than infer it.

---

1. District Court Cases Asserting the '353 Patent

Detail

1. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., 5:12-cv-00911-GLS-DEP (N.D.N.Y.)

• Plaintiff: PPC Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.), East Syracuse, N.Y.
• Defendant: Corning Gilbert Inc. (later Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC).
• Patents asserted: U.S. 8,192,237; 8,287,320; 8,313,353; 8,323,060 (Second Amended Complaint, ¶ 1).
• '353 allegations: ¶¶ 20–23 recite that the '711 Application (Ser. No. 13/459,711) issued Nov. 20, 2012 as the '353 patent, that PPC is sole owner, and that Corning Gilbert had actual notice via a Nov. 20, 2012 letter from PPC's counsel.
• Outcome: Corning responded by filing the six IPRs against PPC (IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00343, -00345, -00346, -00347). The '353 claims were resolved through the IPR/adverse-judgment route rather than a district-court judgment. I could not confirm from the retrieved sources a separate final district-court disposition of the '353 count (e.g., dismissal or stay order), so I flag that as unresolved here.
• Sources: Second Amended Complaint (Ex. 1078) and Institution Decision in IPR2013-00343.

2. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., 5:13-cv-00460-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y.)

• Plaintiff: PPC Broadband, Inc. Defendant: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. ("TFC").
• Filed: April 25, 2013 (confirmed by the filed complaint and the later Report & Recommendation).
• Patents originally in suit: 8,192,237; 8,313,353; 8,323,060; 8,333,229. The '353 was pleaded as Count III (Infringement of the '353 Patent), ¶¶ 42–46, seeking injunctive relief, compensatory/enhanced (treble) damages, fees, and a willfulness finding.
• Outcome/status: On January 23, 2015, Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe approved a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss, without prejudice, the claims and counterclaims relating to the '237, '353, and '060 patents. The litigation continued only on the '229 patent (claims 14, 16, 19).
• Sources: govinfo R&R (USCOURTS-nynd-5_13-cv-00460); the complaint text as reproduced at docshare/insight.rpxcorp.

3. PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (E.D. Ark.)

• Plaintiff: PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. Defendant: PPC Broadband, Inc.
• Filed: October 4, 2012 (declaratory-judgment action over PerfectVision's "SignaLoc"/"PV6SL" connector).
• '353 role: The original complaint named six different PPC patents (8,192,237; 7,845,976; 7,950,958; 8,075,338; 8,157,589; 8,167,646). On Dec. 6, 2012, PerfectVision moved to amend to add four newly issued PPC patents — U.S. 8,313,353, 8,313,345, 8,323,053, and 8,323,060 — plus the then-pending "Ehret" application (later 8,366,481). The court granted leave to amend on June 10, 2013 (denying PPC's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss and its transfer request).
• Status / nuance: The Aug. 29, 2014 claim-construction opinion identifies the six patents then at issue as 8,366,481; 8,469,740; 8,475,205; 8,480,430; 8,480,431; 8,485,845 — i.e., not the '353. The opinion notes the parties had earlier agreed to a consent judgment resolving "ten of PerfectVision's claims." This strongly suggests the '353 declaratory-judgment count was resolved or dropped before the Markman stage, but I could not retrieve the specific order disposing of the '353 count, so I flag this as not fully confirmed.
• Sources: CourtListener/Casetext opinions in 4:12-cv-00623 (Doc. 37 filed 6/10/13; Doc. 102 filed 8/29/14).

(Related but NOT '353 cases — named to prevent confusion: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Mfg., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-0134 and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PCT Int'l, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-0135 (N.D.N.Y.), both concerned the "Ehret" patent (8,366,481), not the '353. )

---

2. PTAB Proceedings Naming the '353 Patent

Google Patents' litigation flags corroborate both: "PTAB case IPR2013-00343 filed (Adverse Judgment)" and "IPR2013-00345 filed (Settlement)."

---

3. Federal Circuit Appeals Naming the '353 Patent

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Consolidated appeals incl. Nos. 2015-1361, -1366, -1368, -1369, plus 2015-1364). Held, among other things: affirmed unpatentability of claims lacking the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation; vacated the Board's determination that claims 7–27 of the '353 patent were unpatentable and remanded, because the Board never found that Matthews+Tatsuzuki maintain continuity during the claimed positions/modes of operation ("maintaining electrical continuity requires consistent or continuous contact").
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir., No. 2017-1362, decided July 3, 2018). Follow-on appeal after the remand decisions; Corning withdrew after settlement, and the PTO intervened. The opinion restates that the "maintain electrical continuity" claims require consistent or continuous contact and addresses the Board's treatment of objective indicia (SignalTight commercial success, copying). I did not retrieve the ultimate disposition line of this 2018 opinion from the indexed sources; the earlier section likewise flagged the precise post-remand claim status of claims 7–27 as unresolved.

---

4. 2026 Activity — None Confirmed for the '353

I found no 2026 litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit proceeding naming U.S. 8,313,353. The only 2026 appellate activity surfaced involves the same patent owner but different patents: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776 through 2024-1779 (Fed. Cir., Rule 36 judgment Mar. 4, 2026), on appeal from IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721. As the prior section correctly flagged, no retrieved source lists the specific patent numbers in those Amphenol IPRs, so I will not attribute them to the '353.

---

Consolidated Case List (with the requested fields)

---

Items I could not confirm (stated explicitly rather than inferred)

1. A final district-court judgment/disposition of the '353 count in PPC v. Corning Gilbert (5:12-cv-00911) separate from the IPR proceedings.
2. The specific order disposing of the '353 declaratory-judgment count in the PerfectVision case.
3. Whether any PPC coaxial-connector patent from this family (let alone the '353) was among the four patents in the Amphenol IPRs (2022) / 2026 Fed. Cir. appeals.
4. The exact current claim-by-claim status of '353 claims 7–27 after the 2018 appeal (the Google Patents "Active / expiration 2029-12-08" field is a bibliographic default and does not reflect PTAB cancellations).

If you want docket-level certainty on items 1–4, the next step would be a direct PACER/Patent Center/CM-ECF pull, which is outside what my search tools can reach.

I'll verify the actual PTAB record before writing, since the canonical ODP block (no AIA proceedings) conflicts with what the earlier section and public records indicate.

Now let me pin down the institution dates, panels, the post-remand outcome, and the appellate dispositions.

Two more checks: the 2018 appellate disposition and what finally happened to claims 7–27, plus whether any later (2022) IPRs name this patent.

⚠️ Source conflict flagged up front

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US 8,313,353. That is wrong or incomplete for this patent. Two AIA trials on the '353 patent are documented in PTAB records, Federal Circuit opinions, and the PTAB's own orders in sibling IPRs: IPR2013-00343 and IPR2013-00345. The PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00342 expressly states: "On April 15, 2014, we granted PPC's request in IPR2013‑00343 to cancel claims 1–6 of the '353 patent."

Legacy pre-2014 trials are frequently missing from the modern ODP/PTAB "proceedings" datasets. I am overriding the block's default with the documented record below, and flagging the discrepancy rather than silently ignoring either source. Every proceeding number below is one I actually retrieved — none is invented.

Secondary flag: the earlier generated section states that PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu "construed 'maintain electrical continuity' to require 'consistent or continuous contact,' affirmed as to claims without that limitation and vacated/remanded as to the claims containing it." *That construction and that affirm/vacate split come from the earlier decision — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("PPC I") — not from Iancu.* Iancu, 739 F. App'x 615 (Fed. Cir. 2018), was the appeal from the Board's decisions on remand and vacated those decisions too. The earlier section conflates the two; the sequencing matters a great deal for the defensive posture, so I correct it here.

---

Proceedings overview

There are 2 AIA trial proceedings on US 8,313,353: both Inter Partes Reviews, both filed by the Corning petitioner on 2013-06-10 — one ended in cancellation of claims 1–6 via adverse judgment (IPR2013‑00343), and one held all of claims 7–27 unpatentable (IPR2013‑00345) on a determination that was vacated twice on appeal and, as of the sources I could retrieve, has never been finalized by an IPR certificate. Net posture for a defendant: claims 1–6 are dead and cannot be asserted — if a demand letter cites them, that theory is dead on arrival. Claims 7–27 are not cancelled: they twice walked to the brink of cancellation at the Board, but the only Federal Circuit rulings on them were APA-style reversals for the Board's failure to explain its obviousness findings — not holdings of patentability. So you get a fully litigated, publicly mapped invalidity roadmap (Matthews + Tatsuzuki) that two Board panels accepted and no court has rejected on the merits, coupled with a hard procedural history your new petition must navigate.

---

IPR2013-00343 — Corning Gilbert Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

Most impactful: these claims are cancelled.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2013-06-10 (amended petition; institution reached on the amended petition)
• Status: Final decision entered — Request for Adverse Judgment granted; claims 1–6 cancelled
• Judge panel: Jameson Lee, Michael R. Zecher, Jacqueline Wright Bonilla (Bonilla authored the institution decision)
• Petition grounds: Directed at claims 1–6 (the broadest independent method claim and its dependents). Petitioner's exhibit set included US 2006/0110977 (Matthews), US 4,795,360, US 6,558,194, JP 2002-15823 (Tatsuzuki), and the Mroczkowski declaration (Exhibit 1006). The petition was evidently a § 103 obviousness challenge on the Matthews/Tatsuzuki line used across the petitioner's six-petition campaign; I did not personally read the full -00343 institution decision, so I do not attribute a specific, exhaustive ground list to it beyond that.
• Institution decision: 2013-12-05, Paper 14 — instituted as to claims 1–6. Grounds: as above.
• Final Written Decision: No FWD issued. PPC filed a Request for Adverse Judgment on 2014-04-14 (Paper 26); the Board granted it 2014-04-15 (Paper 27), cancelling claims 1–6 — all claims at issue in the proceeding. PPC expressly stated the cancellation was not an admission on the merits. The PTAB in IPR2013‑00342 confirms the event verbatim: "On April 15, 2014, we granted PPC's request in IPR2013‑00343 to cancel claims 1–6 of the '353 patent, i.e., all claims at issue in that proceeding, as well as PPC's request for entry of adverse judgment against it in that case."
• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement — a patent-owner-initiated adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Its practical effect is identical to a cancellation.
• Appeal: None. Nothing to appeal; PPC walked away from the claims rather than defend them.
• Defensive value: Claims 1–6 are cancelled and cannot be asserted. Any infringement theory, damages model, or demand letter built on claims 1–6 is baseless. Note the tactical read: PPC chose to give up the broadest claims rather than litigate them to a written decision, which is itself useful context if the patent owner later argues the '353 family was "vindicated" on appeal.

Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00343/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/
Institution decision (PDF): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00343/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/12-05-2013-Board/Institution_Decision-14-Decision___Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review.pdf

---

IPR2013-00345 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

The real fight — and it is still not over.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013-06-10
• Status: Contested, appealed twice, twice vacated. Board found all claims 7–27 unpatentable (FWD 2014-11-21); Federal Circuit vacated (2016); Board re-found them unpatentable on remand (2016); Federal Circuit vacated again (2018). No IPR certificate cancelling claims 7–27 appears in the sources I retrieved.
• Judge panel: Jameson Lee, Josiah C. Cocks, Jacqueline Wright Bonilla (confirmed from the Board's 2014-07-11 conduct order in this case; Lee authored that order).
• Petition grounds: Claims 7–27 — i.e., every remaining claim of the patent (independent method claims 7 and 20 and all dependents). Statutory basis: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), obvious over US 2006/0110977 (Matthews) in view of JP 2002-015823 (Tatsuzuki), with US 7,114,990 (Bence) cited as evidence of the level of ordinary skill (per the Board's FWD at 32–33). Other grounds in the petition were not instituted and were later held waived under PGS Geophysical when PPC and the PTO declined a SAS-based remand. Claim terms at issue: "continuity member," "maintain electrical continuity," "shaped to fit"/"configured to fit."
• Institution decision: December 2013 — the Federal Circuit records that "Between November and December 2013, the Board instituted four separate IPR proceedings" (PPC I, 815 F.3d at 734). I could not retrieve the exact institution date or Paper number for -00345 from the sources returned, so I am not asserting one.
• Final Written Decision: 2014-11-21, Paper 76, 57 pages — the Board held claims 7–27 unpatentable as obvious over Matthews and Tatsuzuki, accepting Dr. Mroczkowski's proposed modification of Matthews with Tatsuzuki's "disc-shaped spring 13." On objective indicia, the Board found that Corning failed to manufacture a saleable connector with a continuity member and copied PPC's SignalTight connectors (weighing for non-obviousness) but concluded PPC's commercial-success evidence did not overcome the "strong evidence of obviousness." No claim of the '353 was held patentable in this FWD.
• Settlement / termination: The petitioner settled out mid-appeal. Corning filed an Unopposed Motion to Withdraw on 2017-06-30; the Federal Circuit granted it 2017-07-10 (ECF No. 24). Terms are confidential; the settlement is significant because it left the PTO (Director) as the sole intervening respondent in the 2018 appeal. There is no court-approved settlement resolving the parties' claim validity dispute, and no Joint Request for Adverse Judgment in -00345.
• Appeal: Yes — twice.
  • First appeal: PPC filed its Notice of Appeal on 2015-01-17 (challenging the § 103(a) unpatentability determination, the Board's BRI construction, and the secondary-considerations findings). Consolidated result: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("PPC I"), decided 2016-02-22 — AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED. The court held "maintaining electrical continuity requires consistent or continuous contact" under any construction standard, and vacated the unpatentability determination as to claims 8, 16, and 31 of the '320 patent, claims 1–9 of the '060 patent, and claims 7–27 of the '353 patent — i.e., the entire '353 claim set, because every one of claims 7–27 depends from independent claims 7 and 20, which recite "maintain electrical continuity." Reasoning: "Nowhere 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." The court also held that failing to manufacture and copying SignalTight weigh toward non-obviousness and that commercial success of SignalTight is presumed attributable to the patented invention.
  • Remand: Board Order 2016-05-20 (Paper 79); Board Order 2016-08-04 (Paper 82) denying further briefing and additional evidence and closing the record to new issues (expressly refusing to entertain a new § 312(a)(2) real-party-in-interest challenge). The Board then issued Decisions on Remand again holding the "maintain electrical continuity" claims — for the '353, all of claims 7–27 — unpatentable over Matthews and Tatsuzuki.
  • Second appeal: Nos. 2017-1362, -1363, -1364 (PTO intervening after Corning's withdrawal). Decided 2018-07-03: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu, 739 F. App'x 615 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential) — VACATED AND REMANDED; costs to PPC. The court found the Board repeated its errors: it relied on Tatsuzuki's "stated objective" and on Dr. Mroczkowski's pre-construction opinion without explaining the required "consistent or continuous contact" finding, ignored Dr. Mroczkowski's adverse deposition testimony that Tatsuzuki's spring was "accommodated in the groove" and provided only "constant contact between the nut and the body," and ignored Dr. Eldering's contrary opinion.
• Defensive value: This is the crown jewel for a defendant — and the trap. The Board's reasoning has now been rejected twice by the Federal Circuit as unsupported by the record, so you cannot simply re-run Matthews + Tatsuzuki and cite the 2014 FWD; the FWD is vacated and non-precedential as to these claims. But the claim construction is now settled in your favor — "maintain electrical continuity" means consistent or continuous contact, which is exactly the kind of limitation the reference art struggles to meet on this record. Build the petition around affirmatively proving continuous contact (e.g., a press-fit or biased-spring configuration in the primary reference), and expect PPC to deploy its strong PPC I objective-indicia record (Corning's copying of SignalTight, failure to design around, commercial success presumption).

Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/
PPC I: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[3179262](/patent/3179262)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc/
Iancu (2018): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4513742](/patent/4513742)/ppc-broadband-inc-v-iancu/ · https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1362/17-1362-2018-07-03.html
Remand visibility order: https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/08-04-2016-Board/Order_Conduct_of_Proceeding-82-Order___Denying_the_Parties_Requests_for_Further_Briefing.pdf
PTAB E2E (verify current file state): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab-ui/

---

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status.

Explicit limits on what I can confirm. I could not retrieve (a) any Board decision in IPR2013‑00345 issued after the 2018-07-03 remand, (b) any IPR certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) cancelling claims 7–27, or (c) confirmation that the third pass through the Board occurred at all — it is possible the matter was resolved by the PPC–Corning settlement, by a Board decision I could not surface, or is otherwise dormant. Google Patents lists the patent as "Active" with an anticipated expiration of 2029-12-08, but that field is a bibliographic default and does not track PTAB claim cancellations — it does not contradict anything above and should not be read as confirming that claims 1–6 survive. Verify the current file state on PTAB E2E before relying on any of this in a filing.

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)). Statutory estoppel runs against Corning/Optical Communications RF and its privies, not against a new defendant. Corning is barred from asserting in district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in -00343 and -00345 — including the non-instituted grounds, which it waived by declining a SAS remand. Conversely, a new defendant has no § 315(e)(2) bar and may re-run Matthews + Tatsuzuki, but should expect the Board to exercise § 325(d) discretion and to measure any new petition against the vacated FWDs. Practical consequence: the obviousness theory is not estopped for you, but it is also not free — you must supply the "consistent or continuous contact" fact findings the Board twice failed to make, and you should consider different primary art or a § 112 written-description/definiteness theory that was never reached. Note also that claims 1–6 cannot be part of any new petition (cancelled claims cannot be reviewed), and that the district court in the parallel NDNY case construed "positioned along the post" as limited to continuity members behind the first surface of the nut's internal lip — a charge of prosecution-disclaimer-grade narrowing that a new petitioner can exploit for non-infringement.

Pattern signals. The same petitioner (Corning) filed a six-petition campaign on the PPC continuity-member family (IPR2013‑00340/‑00342 on the '060, ‑00343/‑00345 on the '353, ‑00346/‑00347 on the '320, plus later IPR2014‑00736 on US 6,676,446) — a coordinated validity attack characteristic of a defendant in real litigation risk, not a defensive aggregator. Unified Patents is not in this chain; the only third-party docket analytics are aggregator listings, not filings. PPC is an aggressive appellate litigant: it took the '353 to the Federal Circuit twice and won both times on the merits of the Board's explanation, then continued asserting the family broadly enough that a 2022 Amphenol IPR wave and 2026 Rule 36 affirmances show up in the record. On that last point: the earlier section's Amphenol appeals (Nos. 2024‑1776 through ‑1779, decided 2026-03-04) are appeals from IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721, and I could not confirm from any retrieved source that those IPRs are on the '353 patent. I do not assign them here. My attempt to identify the patents in those four IPRs was cut off before I obtained a confirming source, so treat the 2026 Amphenol activity as PPC-family context only, not as '353 history.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Before drafting anything, pull the live file for IPR2013-00345 on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptab-ui/) and check for (i) any decision after 2018-07-03, and (ii) an IPR certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b). That single check resolves the only material open question — whether claims 7–27 are cancelled or alive. Also request the certificate for IPR2013‑00343 to confirm the cancellation of claims 1–6 was certified.
2. If claims 1–6 appear in a demand letter: respond that they were cancelled 2014-04-15 by adverse judgment in IPR2013‑00343, quoting the Board's Paper 27 and the PTAB's corroboration in IPR2013‑00342 ("we granted PPC's request in IPR2013‑00343 to cancel claims 1–6 of the '353 patent"). An assertion of a cancelled claim is sanctionable.
3. If claims 7–27 are asserted: deploy the two Federal Circuit vacaturs — PPC I, 815 F.3d 734 (2016-02-22) and Iancu, 739 F. App'x 615 (2018-07-03) — for the proposition that the Board has never articulated a sustainable "consistent or continuous contact" finding on this record. That is your non-infringement and invalidity framing, and it is fully public. Then decide between (a) a fresh IPR built to prove continuous contact affirmatively, mindful of § 325(d) and the objective-indicia record PPC I credited to PPC, or (b) a different art combination / § 112 theory the Board never reached.
4. Preserve your § 315(b) clock. No new proceeding exists yet, so the one-year bar runs from service of a complaint asserting the patent. If you intend to file an IPR, calendar it from the complaint date rather than waiting for the patent owner's infringement contentions.
5. No PTAB activity beyond the two 2013 proceedings is confirmed. If your prior-art search turns up IPR2022‑00718 through ‑00721 or any post-2018 filing naming the '353, treat that as new information and update this analysis — I could not confirm or exclude it, and I will not invent a proceeding number to fill the gap.

I'll research the assignment record for this patent using the available search tools, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me search for the specific assignment records and correspondent details.

I was able to confirm the ownership chain from the authoritative patent record and related public sources, but I was not able to pull the individual reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent fields for this patent before exhausting my search budget. I flag every gap explicitly rather than guessing.

Inventors

Corroboration of employer: a sibling John Mezzalingua filing (PCT/US2012/031185, "Continuity Maintaining Biasing Member," published as WO2012/135482) lists "MONTENA, Noah … 123 Buckingham Ave., Syracuse, New York 13210" as inventor and names the applicant as "JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC. … 6176 East Molloy Rd, East Syracuse, New York 13057," with in-house agent Stephen R. Yoder as the (74) agent of record. That is direct evidence the '353 inventors were in-house/captive inventors of the assignee, not independent inventors who later sold out.

Unusual-pattern check: I found no evidence of the inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a portfolio fire-sale. All three are career connector engineers associated with the PPC/John Mezzalingua engineering group. I cannot positively confirm employment continuity beyond the filing window from the sources retrieved — mark this not confirmed rather than "clean." (The name-spelling discrepancy in the OCR'd printed patent is discussed in the previously generated bibliographic section and is not auto-corrected here.)

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., E. Syracuse, NY (doing business as PPC).

• Line of business: U.S. manufacturer of coaxial-cable connectors, splitters, amplifiers and CATV/broadband drop hardware — a genuine operating company, not a holding vehicle. It has been a serial plaintiff in connector litigation since at least 1997 (e.g., John Mezzalingua Assocs. v. Thomas & Betts, v. Corning Gilbert, v. PCT International, v. Arrow Communication Labs), which is consistent with a product company enforcing its own manufacturing IP.
• Product embodying the claims: yes. The patent's continuity-member concept corresponds to PPC's commercial compression connectors (the EX® / EX Plus line and the later "SignalTight" ground-continuity feature). PPC's own litigation filings state it "first shipped its EX® connectors in November 1997" and that its connectors are sold under operator-approval programs to MSOs — i.e., a shipped commercial product, not a paper patent.
• Current status: The original assignee did not go bankrupt or dissolve. It changed its legal name (see timeline). It operates today as PPC Broadband, Inc. I did not find a bankruptcy, Chapter 7/11, or an asset sale in any retrieved source. Its ultimate corporate parent as of 2026 was not determinable from the sources I retrieved — flag as unconfirmed.

Assignment timeline

Basis: the legal-events block of the patent record itself. Recording dates are given; execution dates and reel/frame numbers could not be retrieved with the tools available and are left blank rather than fabricated.

• YYYY-??-?? (execution date not retrieved) / recorded on or about 2009-2010 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor-to-corporate)
  • Assignor: Eric Purdy; Noah Montena; Jeremy Amidon
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. (Note: sibling John Mezzalingua filings in this family route through in-house agent Stephen R. Yoder, John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., 6176 E. Molloy Rd., E. Syracuse, NY — not confirmed for the '353.)
  • Context: standard employment/obligation assignment of invention to employer.

• about 2012-09-11 (executed) / recorded 2013-02-12 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: MR Advisers Limited
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. A plainsite index of a Mezzalingua→MR Advisers change-of-name document (Assignment 47520/170; paperwork executed Sept. 11, 2012; recorded Aug. 23, 2018) lists correspondent MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP, 1951 Kidwell Dr., Suite 310, Tysons Corner, VA 22182 — but that specific recording is indexed to a different patent, so I do not attribute reel 47520/0170 or that correspondent to the '353.
  • Context: internal reorganization / rebranding only — the conveyance type is "Change of Name," so no change in beneficial ownership occurs on this link. The "MR Advisers Limited" name is transient (one day on the record) and is a naming artifact, not a licensing entity.

• 2013-02-13 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MR Advisers Limited
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: completion of the same internal rebranding; again no ownership change.

• 2013-10-04 — Reel 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: financing/securitization lien on the patent portfolio (collateral), not a transfer of title.

• 2013-10-08 — Reel 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: companion/confirmatory security grant in the same credit facility (JPMorgan collateral-agent role later released). Again a lien, not a transfer.

• 2016-10-12 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. (release back to grantor)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: lien release / payoff — clears the encumbrance; title never left PPC.

Bottom line on the record: every recorded event is either an inventor-to-employer assignment, a name change of the same legal person, or a bank security interest and its release. There is no assignment that moves the patent to a third-party acquirer. Reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record names for the '353 specifically remain unretrieved — verify at the USPTO Assignment Center by searching patent number 8313353.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8313353
    2009 : Inventors assign to John Mezzalingua Associates
         : Priority provisional filed
    2012 : Patent US 8313353 issued
    2013 : Name change to MR Advisers Limited
         : Name change to PPC Broadband Inc
         : JPMorgan security interest recorded
         : Wells Fargo security interest recorded
    2016 : Wells Fargo releases lien
    2026 : PPC Broadband remains owner

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only "new" names in the chain (MR Advisers Limited, PPC Broadband, Inc.) appear under conveyance type Change of Name, which by definition leaves beneficial ownership with the same legal person; the patent never moves to a separate licensing LLC. No reel evidences a sale to an "IP/Holdings/Ventures" entity.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. No assignee in the chain matches any entity on the Acacia / Marathon / IV / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock / Spangenberg lists. PPC Broadband is an operating connector manufacturer; it appears in litigation as a product company plaintiff (and as a defendant in PerfectVision Mfg. v. PPC Broadband, E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623, a product-company suit per the Stanford NPE database).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not retrievable. I could not extract the correspondent-of-record fields for the '353 recordings. The only correspondent name surfaced (MH2 Technology Law Group, for a separate Mezzalingua change-of-name recording) is not confirmed to attach to this patent, so it is not a finding. The one in-family correspondent I can corroborate is Stephen R. Yoder (in-house, John Mezzalingua Associates) on a sibling 2012 PCT filing — again not confirmed for the '353's assignment records.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present (qualified). Two recordings occur within 24 hours (Feb 12–13, 2013) and two more within four days (Oct 4 & Oct 8, 2013), which superficially looks like churn. But they are (a) sequential name changes of one entity and (b) security interests from one grantor (PPC) to two lenders, not a chain of acquisitions. No common-principal LLC hopping. This is a corporate-refinancing signature, not an assertion-chain signature.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. PPC/John Mezzalingua asserted the '353 family as the record owner (the 2013 IPRs were filed against "PPC Broadband, Inc." as patent owner, and PPC asserted patents against Corning Gilbert, PCT International, Times Fiber, etc.). No assignment is dated within six months before a suit naming the '353.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11, no trustee sale, no §363 asset sale surfaced. The assignee remained a going concern and is still the owner.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from an operating company to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. PPC both makes the product and litigates the patent itself.

8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents indexes this patent with assignee "PPC Broadband Inc." (i.e., Unified tracks it as a target of defensive activity, not an end-owner).

Note on the security interests: the JPMorgan (2013-10-04) and Wells Fargo (2013-10-08) recordings are collateral liens securing a credit facility. They are sometimes mis-read by automated screeners as "transfers to a financial NPE." They are not — a lender taking a security interest in a borrower's patents is ordinary secured financing, and the 2016-10-12 "Release by Secured Party" confirms title never left PPC.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the current assignee, PPC Broadband, Inc. (successor by name change to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. per the 2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13 Change-of-Name recordings), is a genuine connector manufacturer that ships products embodying the claims (EX/EX Plus, later "SignalTight") and has sued actual competitors (Corning Gilbert/Optical Communications RF, PCT International, Times Fiber) rather than being a non-practicing licensor. Every other entry in the chain is either the inventors' employment assignment, an internal name change, or a bank security interest (JPMorgan 2013-10-04; Wells Fargo 2013-10-08) later released (2016-10-12) — none of which moves title to an asserter. Because I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or correspondent fields for this specific patent, the ownership shape is high-confidence but the document-level citations are incomplete; those are the only items that remain open.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 8313353; the legacy mirror is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Cross-check the legal-events block on the patent page: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US8313353](/patent/US8313353)/en.

Explicit caveats (things I could not confirm): (i) individual reel/frame numbers for any of the six recorded events; (ii) the recorded correspondent for each event; (iii) the exact execution dates of the security agreements and releases; (iv) the ultimate corporate parent of PPC Broadband, Inc. as of 2026; and (v) whether the '353 specifically appeared on the Sept. 11, 2012 Mezzalingua→MR Advisers change-of-name document indexed at reel 47520/0170. None of these gaps changes the conclusion that the patent remained with the operating company.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 8,313,353. Let me search authoritative sources.

Let me pull the full "References Cited" list from the printed patent.

Let me retrieve the specific cited references from the patent's front page and Google Patents citation list.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,313,353 B2

Scope and method. I searched for the exact string "8,313,353" and application 13/459,711 and retrieved (a) the printed patent front page as OCR'd in IPR Exhibit 1001 (Corning, IPR2013‑00343/‑00345), (b) the Google Patents/Justia/RPX listings, and (c) the PTAB and Federal Circuit record for the two Corning IPRs. I did not auto‑correct any identifier.

Two candid retrieval caveats you need before reading the tables:

1. I could not retrieve the complete (56) "References Cited" list. The front page of the '353 patent carries an unusually long examiner‑cited list (the OCR fragments I pulled run from US 331,169 (1885) through the 1960s and continue well beyond, plus at least one foreign document, CA 2096710 A1). I confirmed the early portion and the foreign citation, but I did not obtain the modern coaxial‑connector references that would be the substantively relevant ones. Those are reconstructed below from the IPR record, and I label each one's source.
2. Treat "cited on the face" and "relied on in the IPR" as different categories. The patents that actually put the '353 claims at risk were petitioner art in IPR2013‑00343/‑00345, not necessarily examiner‑cited art. Where I cannot confirm a reference appears in column (56), I say so.

---

A. The substantively relevant prior art

Bottom line on anticipation: in the entire PTAB/CAFC record, exactly one reference (Matthews) was ever asserted to anticipate any '353 claim under §102, and it was asserted only against claims 1–6 (§102(b)) — and those six claims were cancelled by Request for Adverse Judgment (granted Apr. 15, 2014) before any final §102 ruling. Claims 7–27 were challenged only under §103 (obviousness), not §102.

---

B. The bulk of the (56) references — general coaxial-connector art

The examiner‑cited list is dominated by pre‑1960s general electrical‑connector patents. The ones I could confirm from the OCR include:

§102 assessment for this group: none of these is a candidate to anticipate claims 7–27. Every '353 claim is a method of assembling a connector in which a continuity member is positioned (i) rearward of the internal lip of the nut/coupler and (ii) so as to contact both the post and the nut and extend continuity between them. The pre‑1960s references are directed to mechanical connector/inner‑conductor retention and do not disclose a discrete continuity member disposed behind the nut's lip, nor the "maintain electrical continuity when the post pivots relative to the nut" step. They are at best §103 background.

(I could not confirm the modern references in the (56) list — e.g., the Montena "Flexible RF seal" publication US 2008/0248689 A1 and any Szegda/Matthews‑family coaxial references — because the OCR I retrieved cut off. Do not treat the table above as exhaustive.)

---

C. §102 mapping summary (as asserted and as assessed)

---

D. Discrepancies / things I will not assert

• "Tatsuzuki" identifier conflict. The Federal Circuit opinion uses JP 2002‑015823; Corning's own amended petition (IPR2013‑00343) uses JP 2002‑158231, both dated Jan. 18, 2002. Per my operating rules I am not auto‑correcting either string; treat the number as disputed and verify against the exhibit before citing it.
• I did not confirm that Matthews (US 2006/0110977) appears in column (56) of the '353 patent. It was the petitioner's primary reference. If it is not on the face of the patent, that is itself a notable prosecution-history point (examiner‑cited art did not include the reference the PTAB found anticipatory).
• I did not retrieve the examiner of record, art unit, or the intervening rejections/allowance reasons, so I cannot report what the examiner actually relied on to allow the claims.
• Bence (US 7,114,990) disclosure detail is unverified beyond its citation and date; I described it at a high level only.
• Aujla (US 4,156,554) is confirmed in the sibling IPR2016‑01573 record, not confirmed for the '353.

If you want, I can next attempt to pull the complete (56) list directly from the OCR exhibit PDF (ocr.docketalarm.com/.../Exhibit-1001-USPN_8313353.pdf) to fill in the modern references I could not confirm here.

I'll ground this obviousness analysis in the actual prior art relied upon in the IPR challenges to the '353 patent and related family litigation. Let me search.

Let me pin down the secondary references (Newman, Montena) and confirm the primary reference details.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,313,353 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Preliminary notes and one flagged inconsistency

Date discrepancy (flag). The task header states "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the operative system date is 2026-09-30, and the previously generated section was produced on that later date and already reported March 2026 CAFC activity. I will treat the analysis as current through 2026-09-30 and note that the April 26, 2026 date in the prompt is inconsistent with the record already generated. I am not auto-correcting either date; I am simply flagging that they conflict.

Basis. There is no discrete "Prior Art" section in the patent text supplied to me (the Google Patents capture includes the "References Cited" list of old U.S. patents and a single foreign document, CA 2096710 A1, but no substantive prior-art discussion). The operative prior-art record for this patent is therefore the art actually relied upon in the IPR challenges to the '353 patent, which I retrieved and use below. Where a reference's full citation could not be independently confirmed, I say so.

Correction/supplement to the previously generated section. The earlier section flagged as unresolved "the precise current claim status of claims 7–27." The primary documents now retrieved sharpen that picture, and one earlier statement should be qualified:

• The PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2013-00345 (claims 7–27) found all of claims 7–27 obvious over Matthews + Tatsuzuki.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("PPC I") vacated that finding as to claims 7–27 because the Board made no findings on the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation (which it construed to require "consistent or continuous contact").
• On remand, the Board (Paper 86, Nov. 16, 2016) maintained the obviousness holding.
• On the second appeal, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir., nonprecedential, 17-1362, July 3, 2018) vacated the decisions on remand again, for failure to supply a reasoned explanation under In re Zurko/In re Lee.

So, as of the last primary document I retrieved, claims 7–27 had not been finally cancelled; the obviousness determination had been vacated and remanded. Combined with the prior section's finding that claims 1–6 were cancelled in April 2014 by adverse judgment, the practical posture is: claims 1–6 gone; claims 7–27 unadjudicated in final form. This matters for § 103 because a § 103 challenge to cancelled claims is moot, while the live dispute is entirely about the "maintain electrical continuity" claims 7 and 20 and their dependents.

---

1. Governing legal standard

Under § 103, the question is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("PHOSITA") at the effective filing date (here, no later than the May 22, 2009 provisional, with the Dec. 8, 2009 parent). The Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), factors apply: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), supplies the combination rationales: known elements combined according to known methods yielding predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; and design incentives/market pressure yielding a finite set of predictable solutions.

The patent is a method claim set, so each § 103 ground must show the steps were known or suggested, not merely the resulting apparatus.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art

The record supplies a concrete definition. Corning's expert, Dr. Robert S. Mroczkowski, opined that the PHOSITA is a person with a working knowledge of RF electromagnetic transmission via cables — e.g., a mechanical engineer with RF instrumentation knowledge, or an electrical/communications engineer with mechanical-systems knowledge — and more specifically an engineer with a bachelor's degree plus several years of experience in coaxial-connector design and manufacture, with ten or more years of experience a permissible substitute for the degree. (Mroczkowski Decl., IPR2013-00346/-00347, ¶ 15, discussing the sibling '320 patent, same family and same specification.)

Bence — U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 ("Coaxial cable connector with grounding member") — was not relied on as invalidating art but as evidence of the level of ordinary skill, and the Federal Circuit expressly upheld use of Bence in that role. (Corning Response to Order on Remand, IPR2013-00345, n.3, citing PPC I, 815 F.3d at 743–47.) A PHOSITA therefore knew that loosening of a connector on a port interrupted the ground path, and knew that resilient conductive members had been placed between connector components to bridge that path.

3. Scope and content of the prior art

Note on Matthews: I confirmed its bibliographic data and disclosure directly from the publication text (FreePatentsOnline and the PTAB Exhibit 2002 copy filed in the 2022 Amphenol proceeding). Note on Montena: the full-citation confirmation I obtained is from the Mroczkowski exhibit table in the sibling IPRs; the '353-specific use of Montena is documented in the Amended Petition's table of contents. Note on Newman: I confirmed its role (claim 3 sealing ring) from the Amended Petition outline, but I did not independently confirm its patent number or issue date; the identifier "Newman" should be treated as literal but its full citation as unverified.

---

4. Ground-by-ground § 103 analysis

4.1 Matthews alone — anticipation-adjacent (§ 102/§ 103 overlap), claims 1, 2, 4, 5

Corning's Amended Petition asserted claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are anticipated by Matthews, element-by-element, including the core step "positioning a continuity member axially rearward of the forward facing surface of the internal lip of the coupler" and "reside axially rearward of the forward facing surface of the internal lip of the coupler between the coupler and the connector body." (Mroczkowski Decl. outline, IPR2013-00343 Exhibit 1006, §§ A.1–A.4.)

Because anticipation is not § 103, I treat this as background: it establishes that the broadest claim 1 concept — a conductive member trapped between the coupler and the connector body behind the lip's forward-facing surface — was already disclosed in a single reference. A fortiori it cannot be non-obvious once a second reference supplies the one thing Matthews arguably lacks (direct post contact). These claims, however, were cancelled by PPC's adverse judgment in IPR2013-00343 (granted April 15, 2014), so a § 103 analysis of claims 1–6 is now moot. I flag this rather than analyze dead claims at length.

4.2 Claims 1–6 (moot) — the combinations of record

For completeness of the record, the combinations Corning pleaded were:

• Claim 3 → Matthews + Newman. Newman supplies the sealing ring between coupler and connector body; motivation is the well-known desirability of environmental sealing at the coupler/body juncture (expressly a stated concern in both Matthews and the '353 specification). This is a textbook KSR "known element for its known function" combination.
• Claim 6 → Matthews + Montena. Montena supplies the additional structure recited in claim 6. Motivation: same field, same component (coaxial connector coupler/post interface).
• Claims 1–6 (alternative) → Tatsuzuki + Montena, further in view of Matthews. This reorders the primary reference; its relevance is the same as Ground 4.3 below.

4.3 Claims 7–27 (live claims) — Matthews + Tatsuzuki

This is the ground that was actually litigated to a Final Written Decision and twice reviewed on appeal, and it is the only § 103 ground that matters for the surviving claims.

Element mapping

Motivation to combine (why a PHOSITA would have done it)

1. Same field, same problem, same location. Both references are coaxial-cable connectors addressing ground/EMI continuity between the rotatable nut and the post/body. Matthews already places its conductive member 80 at the nut/body juncture; Tatsuzuki places its spring 13 at the nut/post juncture. A PHOSITA modifying Matthews to add Tatsuzuki's spring would therefore be doing nothing more than "us[ing] a known technique [Tatsuzuki's resilient disc-shaped spring] to improve a similar device [Matthews's connector] in the same way" — a KSR-recognized rationale. (Corning's articulation: adding Tatsuzuki's spring to Matthews "would provide both the original ground path … as well as an alternate ground path … directly between the rearward facing surface of the inward lip of the nut and the post via the continuity member." IPR2013-00342 FWD discussion of Corning's argument.)
2. Predictable result / finite set of solutions. The problem — a ground path that survives a loosened nut — was known for decades (PPC's own Amidon declaration describes "loose connectors" as "pervasive over many decades, and very costly to the entire cable and connector design industries"). Placing a resilient conductor in the annular space at the nut/post interface is one of a small number of identified, predictable solutions.
3. The prior art predicted exactly the claimed benefit. Tatsuzuki's stated objective (grounding not incomplete when loosened) is the precise functional result claims 7/20 and 19/27 require, so the combination's success was not merely "reasonably expected" but expressly taught.

Net: for the apparatus/element content, the Matthews + Tatsuzuki ground is strong; the Board so found twice, and the PPC I panel did not disturb the Board's finding that "it would have been obvious to combine the prior art."

---

5. Where the § 103 ground actually fails — the "maintain electrical continuity" limitation

This is the decisive weak link, and it is important not to overstate the strength of the obviousness case:

• PPC I construed "maintain electrical continuity" to require "consistent or continuous contact" — a temporal requirement — under both the BRI and Phillips standards, 815 F.3d at 743–44, unlike the term "continuity member," which the panel held does not carry a temporal limitation under BRI.
• Claims 7, 19, 20, 23, and 27 of the '353 contain "maintain electrical continuity." (Corning Response to Order on Remand, identifying columns 22–24 of Ex. 1001.)
• The Board's finding failed on this point: it "declined to require the continuity member to 'maintain[] a continuous electrical connection'" and made no findings that Matthews + Tatsuzuki achieve continuous contact during the specified modes of operation. PPC I, 815 F.3d at 747.
• On the second appeal, the Federal Circuit held the Board's remand decisions still failed: the Board relied on Tatsuzuki's "stated objective" and on Mroczkowski's opinion, but did not engage the record evidence that Tatsuzuki's spring is merely "accommodated in the groove," that it is a "thin piece of metal" not shown to be press-fittable onto the post, and that Tatsuzuki "teaches away from" crushing it flat. PPC Broadband v. Iancu (17-1362, July 3, 2018) (vacating again).

Therefore the honest § 103 conclusion is:

• As to the structural/positional limitations (member behind the nut's lip; between post and body; contacting both; capable of being tightened only partially), the combination of Matthews + Tatsuzuki renders claims 7–27 prima facie obvious, with a strong, articulated motivation.
• As to the temporal limitations ("maintain electrical continuity … when the post pivots/rotates," and "in both the partially tightened and fully tightened position"), a petitioner must do more: it must adduce evidence that the combined structure actually maintains consistent/continuous contact with the post and nut during operation. The record as it stood (Tatsuzuki's spring "accommodated" loosely in a groove; Mroczkowski's untested "press-fit" theory) did not carry that burden at the Federal Circuit.

To render the "maintain" claims obvious, a stronger combination would be needed — e.g., pairing Matthews/Tatsuzuki with art expressly disclosing a resilient, radially-biased member that stays in continuous contact with the post (the kind of structure later claimed in PPC's own family, e.g., the flexible-finger and arched-disc embodiments at Figs. 33–53 of the '353, and Corning's later U.S. Pat. No. 9,153,911 grounding member "which may be maintained between coupler and post … without restricting rotation"). The art may support that; the record I retrieved shows only that Corning did not successfully prove it.

---

6. Objective indicia (secondary considerations)

PPC's evidence, and its treatment, cuts both ways:

• Commercial success / nexus. PPC proffered its SignalTight connectors as commercial embodiments. The PTAB found PPC had not established that the product met all claim elements; the Federal Circuit held that finding unsupported and announced that, in an IPR (an adversarial proceeding), a patentee that shows its product practices the claims gets a rebuttable presumption that commercial success is due to the invention, which the petitioner must rebut. PPC I; McKool Smith summary; PPC Broadband v. Iancu (same).
• On remand, the Board nevertheless found no commercial success (no market-share increase; ambiguity whether SignalTight was a true alternative or a replacement). National Law Review, "PTAB Maintains Obviousness Position after Remand" (Nov. 16, 2016).
• Copying and failure of others weighed for PPC and were affirmed on substantial evidence — Corning neither manufactured a continuity-member connector for sale nor sold it, and copied SignalTight. PPC Broadband v. Iancu.

Effect: the strongest non-obviousness case is the copying + failure-of-others + long-felt-need cluster, not commercial success. But copying and a decades-old industry problem do not by themselves overcome a combination whose elements, placement, and stated result are all expressly disclosed.

---

7. Summary of § 103 grounds

Bottom line. The '353 patent's claims 7–27 were — and on the structural limitations remain — obvious over Matthews in view of Tatsuzuki, with Bence supplying the level of skill and the "loose-connector ground loss" problem being a well-known industry issue supplying the motivation. The one place a § 103 challenge has repeatedly failed is the temporal "maintain electrical continuity" limitation in claims 7, 19, 20, 23, and 27. A well-supported § 103 case today would keep the Matthews + Tatsuzuki combination as the backbone but must add record evidence (not attorney argument) that the combined structure maintains consistent contact with the post and nut during partial tightening and post/nut relative motion — precisely the showing the Board failed to make on remand and for which the Federal Circuit twice vacated.

---

Caveats on this analysis

• The claim text I quote for the "maintain electrical continuity" and "shaped to fit" limitations is from PTAB/CAFC quotations of Ex. 1001 at columns 22–24, not from a claim column I could directly open; treat it as authoritative for those phrases but not as a full verbatim reproduction of all 27 claims.
• The Newman citation is unverified beyond its role in Corning's petition outline.
• I did not find any document naming U.S. Pat. No. 8,313,353 in the 2026 Federal Circuit PPC Broadband v. Amphenol appeals (Nos. 2024-1776–1779); those concern different PPC coaxial patents, and I do not assign the '353 to them.
• IPRs are decided on preponderance, not clear-and-convincing, and under BRI at institution time; a district-court § 103 analysis under Phillips may reach a different result on the temporal limitations, as PPC I itself noted.