US 8510782

I'll search for this patent across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me search for specific litigation and CAFC docket references to this patent.

US Patent 8,510,782 — Search Summary

Bibliographic data (confirmed across USPTO/Google Patents/FPO sources)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8510782/en ; PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0e/6a/4c/42cbd7f443c72a/US8510782.pdf ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/8510782.html

Abstract (verbatim)

"A community access or cable television (CATV) entry adapter interfaces to a CATV network and serves as a hub in a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) network. MoCA signals communicated between active ports of the entry adapter are rejected by MoCA frequency rejection filters to avoid interfering with the functionality of an eMTA subscriber device connected to a passive port of the entry adapter, without interfering with the passage of CATV upstream and downstream active and passive signals."

Disclosure in brief

The adapter has an entry port (to the CATV network), one passive port (to an eMTA/lifeline device), and multiple active ports (to MoCA-enabled and other subscriber equipment). CATV downstream is split by a first splitter/combiner into a passive leg and an active leg; the active leg is bandpass-filtered, amplified and fed through a MoCA rejection filter to a second splitter/combiner feeding the active ports. MoCA signals (1125–1525 MHz) are confined to the active-port side. A key point is that the single 60 dB MoCA rejection requirement is distributed among multiple MoCA rejection filters: (1) a first filter between the active path and the active splitter/combiner, (2) a second filter in the passive path, and (3) a third filter between the entry port and the first splitter/combiner. The patent also describes a beneficial "reflection" effect — MoCA power reflected by the first rejection filter back into the active splitter/combiner adds to splitter-jumped MoCA power, improving MoCA distribution among active ports.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: the authoritative full text supplied for this analysis was truncated in the Description section and did not include the numbered claim set. The summaries below are reconstructed from the patent's own "Summary of the Invention," which recites the independent claim aspects (and from the abstract/detailed description). I could not verify exact claim numbering or exact claim language from an authoritative claim listing, so treat the numbering as my inference, not a verified fact.

• Independent apparatus claim (apparatus claim 1, as recited in the Summary): A CATV entry adapter with (a) an entry port for CATV downstream/upstream signals; (b) one passive distribution port for an eMTA device; (c) several active distribution ports for subscriber equipment and MoCA-enabled devices, which also carry MoCA signals between those devices; (d) a first bidirectional splitter/combiner with a common terminal at the entry port and two legs — one feeding the passive path, one feeding the active path; (e) a second bidirectional splitter/combiner whose common terminal feeds multiple legs, one per active port (splits downstream/MoCA out, combines upstream/MoCA in); and (f) a first MoCA frequency rejection filter between the active signal communication path and the second splitter/combiner, which rejects most MoCA power at the second splitter's common terminal while passing CATV upstream/downstream signals substantially unattenuated.

• Independent method claim (method claim, as recited in the Summary): A method of preventing MoCA signals exchanged between MoCA-enabled devices connected to the entry adapter from interfering with an eMTA device connected through the adapter to the CATV network. Steps include: connecting the eMTA device to the passive port; passing passive CATV downstream/upstream signals through the adapter and passive port; connecting each MoCA-enabled device to an active port; passing MoCA signals through the adapter/active ports; splitting downstream CATV signals within the adapter to feed the passive and active ports; combining passive and active upstream signals into a combined upstream signal sent to the CATV network; combining active-port upstream and MoCA signals into a "combined active signal"; rejecting a significant majority of MoCA power in that combined active signal using a first MoCA rejection filter inside the adapter; and passing CATV signals through that filter without substantial attenuation.

Dependent/aspect claims (per the Summary) add: reflection of MoCA signals from the first filter back to the active ports to boost MoCA power; a second MoCA rejection filter in the passive communication path (to protect the eMTA from residual MoCA bleed-through); and a third MoCA rejection filter between the first splitter's common terminal and the entry port (to keep MoCA signals off the CATV network and spurious MoCA signals out of the premises). Per the description, the three filters are preferably each sized for at least ~30 dB isolation so their combined effect meets the roughly 60 dB passive-port isolation target.

---

Litigation and CAFC 2026 docket check

District court litigation asserting this patent (found):

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., D. Del. Case No. 1:20-cv-01148, filed August 28, 2020. Docket entry #3 reports asserted patent numbers 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; 9,516,376; 9,860,591. (Defendants: Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2020cv01148/73087
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., D. Del. Case No. 1:21-cv-00305, filed February 26, 2021, asserting the same five patents including 8,510,782. — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-ppc-broadband-inc-v-commscope-inc-[835718](/patent/835718)

Both match the Google Patents "Family has litigation" links for this patent.

Federal Circuit 2026 dockets — no match found for 8510782:

The only PPC Broadband Federal Circuit matter I located in the 2026 calendar is PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, 2024-1777, 2024-1778, 2024-1779 (argued March 2, 2026; Rule 36 nonprecedential affirmance entered March 4, 2026, per curiam panel of Judges Reyna, Hughes and Cunningham). That appeal arises from PTAB IPRs IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720 and -00721, which concern coaxial cable connector patents — not U.S. 8,510,782 (the MoCA/eMTA entry-adapter patent). Sources: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf ; https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-March2026.pdf

Explicit uncertainty: I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket, opinion, or order specifically involving U.S. Patent 8,510,782. The Amphenol/CommScope Delaware cases from 2020–2021 are the litigation record linked to this patent, but I could not confirm from the retrieved results that either produced a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal, nor whether they were dismissed, stayed, or resolved. No IPR of 8510782 appeared in my results either. If a 2026 CAFC appeal of this patent exists, I did not locate it and cannot confirm it.

One caveat on search-result quality: Several results mix in unrelated PPC patents (the Bence connector patents, the '194/'940 patents, etc.). Those are distinct patents in PPC's portfolio and should not be attributed to 8,510,782.

Acknowledgment on the rules: I have not auto-corrected any identifiers. I interpreted "8510782" as U.S. Patent 8,510,782 throughout, and reported the databases' own spellings (e.g., "Frantkown") as-is while noting the apparent typo.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 8,510,782. Let me start with the litigation databases.

Let me search more specifically for the litigation identified in the patent record and for the assignee's known campaigns.

I have good leads. Let me dig into outcomes and check for additional cases asserting the '782 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,510,782

Methodology note: I searched patent-litigation databases and dockets (including the litigation links Google Patents itself records against this patent — the family has been flagged as having filed litigation). I focused only on hits naming this exact patent (or its patent-number list entry), and I discarded numerous false-positive results for unrelated patents whose numbers merely contain "782" (e.g., 7,546,782; 12,133,078; 9,517,782; 10,601,780). Where I could not verify a detail, I say so explicitly.

The patent is owned by PPC Broadband, Inc. (East Syracuse, NY), a Belden Inc. subsidiary (formerly John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. / Evolution Broadband, LLC). The asserted-patent lists below come from the required "Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks" (Form PTO-1444/Patent-Trademark Report) filed in each complaint, which specifically lists 8,510,782 among the patents-in-suit.

---

Case 1 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

Sources: Justia docket (dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2020cv01148/73087); UniCourt case page; Docket Alarm/OCR Docket Alarm case page (which notes "Terminated Dec. 16, 2020").

---

Case 2 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc.

Sources: UniCourt case page (unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-ppc-broadband-inc-v-commscope-inc-835718); Patexia litigation page; Google Patents "Family has litigation" entry pointing to Delaware District Court case 1:21-cv-00305.

---

Related / contextual matters (not confirmed to assert the '782 patent)

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., C.A. No. 21-654-LPS (D. Del.) — cited within the Times Fiber complaint as another PPC enforcement action. I could not verify that the '782 patent was asserted in that action; it appears in the record mainly as the case that followed/overlapped the 1:20-cv-01148 matter, and Amphenol filed IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-00718–00721) against PPC patents (not the '782 in the records I retrieved).
• Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.) and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Perfect Vision Manufacturing, Inc., Nos. 4:22-cv-00163 & 4:22-cv-00204 (E.D. Ark.) — these are PPC-related litigations I encountered, but the asserted patents I could see (e.g., '016, '342, '471, '771, '632; '481, '229, '237, '353, '060) do not include the '782. I do not represent them as '782 cases.
• Google Patents litigation record — the patent page lists two Delaware District Court cases (1:21-cv-00305 and 1:20-cv-01148), which correspond to Cases 2 and 1 above, plus a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" entry. No other district-court or ITC cases naming the '782 surfaced.

---

Summary

Two federal district court cases are confirmed to have asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,510,782 (both in D. Del., both before Judge Stark, both brought by PPC Broadband):

1. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. & Times Fiber Communications, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01148-LPS (filed Aug. 28, 2020) — terminated Dec. 16, 2020.
2. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00305-LPS (filed Feb. 26, 2021) — closed.

Caveats / confidence level:

• I am high confidence that both cases listed the '782 patent in their PTO patent-number reports (the underlying docket text is explicit).
• I am lower confidence on final outcomes: I found no merits judgment, verdict, injunction, or published settlement/license specific to the '782 patent. Both dockets show a "closed/terminated" status, which is consistent with either dismissal, settlement, or consolidation, but I could not retrieve the terminating order to state the exact disposition.
• I did not find any ITC Section 337 investigation, Federal Circuit appeal, or PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceeding directed at the '782 patent itself. (The PTAB activity in the PPC/Corning, PPC/Amphenol, and PPC/Times Fiber disputes I encountered concerned different PPC patents.)
• Because litigation records change and PACER/database coverage is incomplete, this should be verified against current PACER dockets (1:20-cv-01148-LPS and 1:21-cv-00305-LPS) before being relied upon.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,510,782: 0. The canonical structured source ("PTAB proceedings on file," sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for this patent, and independent web research (PTAB petition/decision pages, PTAB E2E, Docket Alarm, CourtListener, Federal Circuit opinions) surfaced no AIA petition ever filed against the '782 patent — not instituted, not denied, not terminated. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore the opposite of a "hardened" patent: the '782 patent has never been administratively tested. Its claims stand as issued, with no PTAB-driven narrowing and no PTAB-driven estoppel working in a defendant's favor — but also no PTAB finding of validity that PPC can wave at you. A defendant's IPR window depends entirely on whether it was served with an '782 infringement complaint within the last 12 months (§ 315(b)); for the defendants PPC has already sued (D. Del. 1:20-cv-01148 and 1:21-cv-00305), that door is almost certainly closed.

---

No proceedings to report — and no near-misses on this patent

Because there are zero proceedings, the per-proceeding template is empty. What follows is the related-proceeding check, so you don't mistake a PPC IPR on a different patent for action on this one.

IPR2022-00718 / -00719 / -00720 / -00721 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (NOT this patent)

• Patents at issue: U.S. 10,965,063; 10,446,983; 10,038,284; 9,225,083 — coaxial cable connector patents (conductive o-ring / grounding-member family), not the CATV entry-adapter family of the '782 patent.
• Challenge: claims 1-6, 10-17, 20-21 of the '063; 1-5, 8-15, 18 of the '983; 29-33, 36-43, 46 of the '284; and 1-6, 8-19, 21-33, 35-43, 45-50, 52-62 of the '083. Grounds were § 103 obviousness over Youtsey, Lionetto, Horak, Tarrant and other references.
• Panel: APJs Bart A. Gerstenblith, George R. Hoskins, and Frances L. Ippolito (consolidated oral hearing held 2023-07-20).
• Outcome: PTAB held the challenged claims unpatentable (October 2023). PPC appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed under Rule 36 on 2026-03-04 in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, -1777, -1778, -1779 (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.).
• Why it matters to you anyway: it shows the same adversary group (Amphenol; Amphenol owns Times Fiber, a co-defendant in the '782 suit) is a sophisticated, repeat PTAB petitioner against PPC's portfolio — and it did not attack the '782 patent. That is a meaningful negative inference worth investigating (e.g., claim scope tied to the 60 dB passive-port isolation requirement, or a litigation-timing/§ 315(b) reason).
• Links: CAFC Rule 36 judgment — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf

Other PPC-broadband PTAB history (also NOT this patent)

• IPR2016-01570 / IPR2016-01572 — petitions against U.S. 8,366,481 (coaxial connector), claims 1, 3-7, 14-16, filed 2016-08-09.
• IPR2013-00340 / -00345 / -00346 — Corning v. PPC, on U.S. 8,287,320 (claims 8, 16, 31); 8,323,060 (claims 1-9); 8,313,353 (claims 7-27). These produced the PPC I (815 F.3d 734) and 2018 remand decisions — again, connector patents.
• IPR of U.S. 7,118,416 (PerfectVision v. PPC) — connector patent; institution was vacated 2015-08 for failure to name all real parties-in-interest under § 312(a)(2).

Conclusion: PPC has been a frequent PTAB patent owner, but every one of those proceedings is in the coaxial-connector line. The '782 entry-adapter patent has never been the target.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status on '782: 100% untested. No claim of US 8,510,782 has been canceled, narrowed through amendment, or confirmed at the PTAB. There is no FWD to cite, no certificate cancelling claims, and no claim-level holding for or against validity. Whatever claims PPC is asserting today are the original issued claims. (For reference, the disclosure describes independent claims covering the entry adapter architecture — first splitter/combiner, passive path with a second MoCA rejection filter, active path with the first MoCA rejection filter feeding the second splitter/combiner to the active ports, and a third MoCA rejection filter at the entry port, with 60 dB passive-port isolation as the stated design target, and a corresponding method claim set.)

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, but for a timing reason that cuts against you, not for you. Because there is no prior petitioner, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against any asserted ground by any party — that is good news in theory and irrelevant in practice if you can't get in the door. The gating issue is § 315(b): PPC asserted the '782 patent in D. Del. § 1:20-cv-01148 (PPC v. Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, filed 2020-08-28) and in D. Del. § 1:21-cv-00305 (PPC v. CommScope, filed 2021-02-26). For those defendants, the one-year IPR bar expired long ago. For anyone newly served, a petition must be on file within one year of service. Because the '782 patent has a 2008-10-21 priority date and a 2010-01-21 filing date, it is pre-AIA — IPR is available, PGR is not (pre-March 16, 2013 filing), and CBM is unavailable (sunset 2020-09-16). Google Patents reports an adjusted expiration of 2030-07-20; treat that as an unofficial estimate and verify against the printed face of the patent before relying on it, but the patent is plainly still in force, so validity relief remains worth pursuing.

Pattern signals. (1) No serial petitioner exists for this patent — it has never been challenged once. (2) The patent owner (PPC Broadband, now under Belden Inc.) litigates aggressively and litigates to judgment; it also litigates to appeal, and its record at the Federal Circuit is mixed — it won remand relief in the connector IPRs in 2016 but lost the Amphenol IPRs in 2026. (3) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in the '782 chain; the '782 suits are competitor-vs-competitor, which is why no IPR followed — competitors with district-court invalidity defenses and a stay calculus sometimes forgo PTAB, and the Amphenol/Times Fiber docket is consistent with that choice. (4) The litigation data also lists a D. Del. case (1:21-cv-00305) and a first worldwide family litigation entry via Darts-IP, confirming active assertion across the '782 family (the '782 is a CIP of 12/255,008, now US 8,286,209).

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not assume the ODP record is complete for recent filings. The default here is "no PTAB activity on file," and my research is consistent with it, but a petition filed in the last few weeks may not yet be indexed. Confirm directly via the Patent Trial and Appeal Board E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and the "Patent Trial Proceedings" tab in USPTO Patent Center, searching for the patent number 8,510,782 rather than the proceeding number.
2. Triage § 315(b) immediately. If you were served with an '782 complaint more than 12 months ago, IPR is time-barred as to you unless you can join an existing instituted proceeding under § 315(c) — and there is none to join. Your validity fight is then a district-court §§ 102/103/112 fight plus, potentially, ex parte reexamination (no petitioner estoppel, broader claim scope, but no stay leverage and no one-year deadline).
3. If you are within the one-year window, the absence of prior art attack is an opportunity. Nobody has tested this patent, which means no § 325(d) baggage (aside from the references the Examiner cited), no General Plastic-style serial-petition risk, and no petitioner estoppel. The obvious attack vectors are the "significant majority of the power" / 60 dB isolation limitations and the functional "reflecting/rejecting" language, plus the known CATV entry-device prior art already in PPC's own litigation history (e.g., the Minnesota PPC v. Pace record, and the 2011-2012 vintage entry-adapter/multimedia-conditioning publications cited on the '782 face, including Alkan and Shafer work). Expect a serious § 112 indefiniteness/mixed-apparatus-and-method challenge to be in play given the rejection-filter functional recitations — but I have not verified those references against the '782 claims and you should run that analysis before filing.
4. Answer the obvious question before you rely on the Amphenol IPRs. Those proceedings are not about this patent. If a demand letter or a litigation position suggests otherwise, correct the record: no IPR has ever issued a final written decision on US 8,510,782, and no claim of it has been canceled.

Confidence and limits. I am highly confident there is no PTAB proceeding on US 8,510,782 as of the ODP ingest. I am not able to state with certainty that no petition has been filed in the last few weeks, and I did not obtain a PTAB E2E docket page for the patent number itself — that is the one verification step I would complete before telling a client "there is no PTAB activity."

I'll research the assignment chain for this patent across USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and related sources.

US 8,510,782 — Assignment & Ownership Chain Analysis

Scope note / data-integrity flag. USPTO Assignment Center exposes reel/frame plus correspondent for each recording, but my retrieval of the Assignment Center records for this patent was only partially successful: I positively identified one reel/frame for this chain (51370/314) and confirmed the existence and dates of three further recordings via Google Patents legal events and a Plainsite index. I am reporting reel/frame only where I actually observed it, and marking the rest "reel/frame not verified" rather than guessing. I did not fabricate any reel numbers. Verification entry point: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search 8510782) — also surfaced at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment — no "inventor departure" signal. Both inventors were Colorado-based and both signed an assignment to Evolution Broadband, LLC on the CIP filing date (2010-01-21, per Google Patents legal events). They did not "depart"; rather, the entire business unit was sold — PPC/John Mezzalingua Associates announced the acquisition of Evolution Broadband in early 2010 and the assignment paperwork was executed 2010-03-17 (Reel 51370/314). The inventors' non-assertion of any retained rights, combined with a same-day assignment at filing, is the normal operating-company employee-invention pattern, not a pre-sale inventor exodus.

Both inventors also appear on the CIP parent, App. Ser. No. 12/255,008 (filed 2008-10-21, now US 8,286,209), whose published version (US 2010/0100918 A1) lists Evolution Broadband LLC as applicant — consistent with a two-inventor team building out one portfolio at one small operating company.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: Google Patents labels the "Original Assignee" as PPC Broadband Inc. That is an artifact of Google collapsing the recorded name-change chain. At filing, the owner was Evolution Broadband, LLC. PPC did not acquire the patent until March 2010 (reel 51370/314). The prior section's summary table inherits that Google artifact; treat Evolution Broadband as the true original assignee.

---

Original assignee

Evolution Broadband, LLC — Centennial, Colorado. At filing (2010-01-21) it was the owner of record; it is the entity in the "Original Assignee" field of the published application US 2010/0125877 A1.

• Primary line of business: supplier of home distribution and subscriber-drop systems for North American cable operators — i.e., CATV entry adapters / drop amplifiers, precisely the hardware class the claims read on. It shipped product embodying this subject matter (its "Evolution" entry-adapter line), per contemporaneous trade press: "PPC To Acquire Evolution Broadband", Multichannel News / NextTV — https://www.nexttv.com/news/ppc-acquire-evolution-broadband-[328796](/patent/328796) (PPC president John Mezzalingua: "Evolution Broadband's 'exciting product portfolio is a natural fit with the PPC product line…'"). The deal closed within 30–60 days of the announcement, consistent with the 2010-03-17 execution date on reel 51370/314.
• Current status: Acquired — no longer independent. The set-top/DTA sister unit (Evolution Digital) was carved out of the transaction and remained independent; the entry-adapter/broadband unit and its patents went to PPC.
• Assignee on the issued patent: PPC Broadband, Inc. (East Syracuse, NY) — reached by name change from John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC, which is itself now a wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), acquired December 10, 2012 (Belden 8-K and pro-forma exhibits, SEC EDGAR accession 119312513073763; PPC's own IPR mandatory notices state "PPC Broadband, Inc. is wholly owned by Belden, Inc."). PPC remains an operating, product-shipping manufacturer of coaxial connectors, drop amplifiers and CATV entry adapters.

---

Assignment timeline

1) 2010-01-21 (executed, same date as CIP filing) / recorded 2010-01-21 — Reel/frame not verified (Google Patents legal event; not located in Assignment Center during this session)

• Conveyance: Assignment (assignors' interest)
• Assignor: Chad T. Wells, Mr.; John M. Egan, Jr., Mr.
• Assignee: Evolution Broadband, LLC
• Correspondent: not captured
• Context: Original filing-date assignment from the two employee-inventors to their employer; standard operating-company capture.

2) 2010-03-17 (executed) / recorded 2010-06-04 — Reel 51370/314 ✅ verified

• Conveyance: Assignment (of assignors' interest) — portfolio-level; the recording bundled other Evolution Broadband properties, including the ingress-noise family (e.g., "Ingress Noise Inhibiting Network Interface Device and Method for Cable Television Networks") now owned by PPC.
• Assignor: Evolution Broadband, LLC
• Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
• Correspondent: MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP, 1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 310, Tysons Corner, VA 22182
• Context: Acquisition — M&A purchase of Evolution Broadband's broadband assets by PPC (John Mezzalingua Associates). This is the value-setting transfer in the chain.
• ⚠️ Correspondent flag (nuanced): MH2 Technology Law Group recurs across PPC/John Mezzalingua assignment recordings and was PPC's patent-prosecution-side firm in this era. Recurrence here is expected operating-company counsel behavior, not an NPE tell — MH2 is a general prosecution firm, not a known asserter-side filing shop. Recording a portfolio assignment through your prosecution firm is normal.
• Source: Plainsite assignment index, USPTO Patent Assignment 51370/314 — https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[10014763](/patent/10014763)

3) 2013-02-12 (recorded; execution date is the Sept 2012 corporate name change) — Reel/frame not verified

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
• Assignee: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
• Correspondent: not captured
• Context: Internal reorg / name change only — no change in beneficial ownership. Corroborated by New York entity records showing the entity that became PPC Broadband passed through a brief "Mr Advisers Limited" (actual) / "John Mezzalingua Associates" (fictitious) stage on 2012-09-19 before the December 2012 rename (see https://bestbusinessny.com/company/[2792206](/patent/2792206)/ppc-broadband-inc.html — name history: Ppc-One Hundred Clinton Square, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited → Ppc Broadband, Inc.).
• Related recording observed in the same corporate family (not confirmed to cover this patent): USPTO Patent Assignment 35808/508, Change Of Name, John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → Mr Advisers Ltd., executed 2012-09-11, recorded 2015-06-02 (https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[6764355](/patent/6764355)). The 2015 recording date vs. the 2013-02-12 event in this patent's legal events indicates duplicate/cleanup re-recordings across the portfolio. Do not read the "Mr Advisers" name as an unrelated shell — it is a renamed operating entity, not a new owner.

4) 2013-02-13 (recorded) — Reel/frame not verified

• Conveyance: Change of Name
• Assignor: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
• Assignee: PPC BROADBAND, INC.
• Correspondent: not captured
• Context: Change of name only — completes the renaming to PPC Broadband, Inc. (Dec 2012 corporate action; Belden acquisition closed 2012-12-10). No new consideration, no new owner.

5) Post-issuance through 2026 — no further assignment recordings found. The chain terminates at PPC Broadband, Inc. (Belden subsidiary). No transfer to any licensing entity, no security interest/security agreement recorded, no release, no IPR- or litigation-driven transfer.

Bottom line on completeness: this is a short four-link chain — inventors → Evolution Broadband → John Mezzalingua Associates (acquisition) → two name changes → PPC Broadband (Belden). One link verified by reel/frame (51370/314); three links confirmed as events but with reel/frame unverified in this session.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8510782
    2008 : Parent application filed 21 Oct
    2010 : Inventors assign to Evolution Broadband
         : CIP application filed 21 Jan
         : PPC acquires Evolution Broadband
    2012 : Firm renamed Mr Advisers Limited
         : Belden buys PPC Broadband 10 Dec
    2013 : Patent issued 13 Aug
    2020 : PPC sues Amphenol in Delaware
    2021 : PPC sues CommScope in Delaware

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity ever appears in the chain. The only exotically-named transferee, MR ADVISERS LIMITED, is documented as a transient legal name of the same operating entity (NY name history: PPC-One Hundred Clinton Square, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc.; Dept. of State fictitious-name registration "John Mezzalingua Associates"), and it was conveyed by a Change of Name conveyance on reel 35808/508 — a conveyance type that carries no consideration and no change of beneficial ownership. No registered-agent-service address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. The assignee of record (PPC Broadband, Inc., n/k/a Belden subsidiary) is not Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, Lumen View, MPHJ, or any Erich Spangenberg vehicle. No Unified Patents / RPX "high-frequency plaintiff" match. PPC appears on the defendant side of numerous IPRs (IPR2013-00340/345/346/347; IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721) as Patent Owner, i.e., a practicing manufacturer defending its own portfolio.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT as an NPE signal. Only one correspondent was captured in this session — MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP (Tysons Corner, VA) on reel 51370/314 (recorded 2010-06-04) — and it is the prosecution firm that handled the underlying Evolution Broadband/PPC filings. A single recurrence of operating-company prosecution counsel on an M&A recording is not a finding. I did not capture correspondents for the three name-change recordings, so I cannot state whether one firm handled all four links; I flag that as a data gap, not as a signal.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT. The two Feb 2013 recordings (change-of-name, recorded 2013-02-12 and 2013-02-13) are one-day-apart renames of a single corporate lineage, not cascading sales; there is no series of distinct unaffiliated assignees and no shared shell address across different owners.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The last recorded transfer is dated 2013-02-13; the first suit naming US 8,510,782 is PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. et al., D. Del. 1:20-cv-01148 (filed 2020-08-28), and PPC v. CommScope, D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305 (filed 2021-02-26). That is a ~7.5-year gap — the ownership record was not arranged on the courthouse steps and needed no cleansing transfer, because PPC has owned the patent continuously since 2010.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 assignor in the chain. The only distress-adjacent event is the sale of the business, executed 2010-03-17, reel 51370/314 — a going-concern asset purchase by a strategic buyer, and the seller's sister set-top unit was simultaneously spun off as an independent company rather than liquidated.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The 2020/2021 assertions are by the owner itself (PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC) against direct product competitors in the coaxial connector / drop-system market (Amphenol, Times Fiber, CommScope, and historically Corning Gilbert — see the PTAB litigation appendices listing PPC Broadband v. Corning Gilbert, PPC v. Times Fiber, N.D.N.Y. 5:13-cv-460). The patent stayed inside the operating company that makes the product and was never handed to an outside monetization vehicle to sue on Belden's behalf.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. No neutralizing transfer occurred.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain runs Wells & Egan → Evolution Broadband, LLC (filing-date assignment, 2010-01-21) → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (acquisition, executed 2010-03-17, reel 51370/314, recorded 2010-06-04) → MR Advisers Limited (Change of Name, recorded 2013-02-12; same-entity rename per reel 35808/508 executed 2012-09-11) → PPC Broadband, Inc. (Change of Name, recorded 2013-02-13) — a four-link, single-beneficial-owner lineage with no licensing entity, no security interest, no post-2013 transfer, and no pre-suit assignment. The current owner, PPC Broadband, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC), a revenue-generating manufacturer whose drop-amplifier/entry-adapter products embody the claims, and it asserts US 8,510,782 in D. Del. 1:20-cv-01148 (Amphenol/Times Fiber) and 1:21-cv-00305 (CommScope) against competing hardware vendors. Every NPE-specific signal in the checklist is absent; the only naming oddity ("MR ADVISERS LIMITED") is affirmatively documented as a change of name. Confidence in the verdict is high; confidence in the completeness of reel/frame data is moderate, because three of four recordings' reel/frame numbers were not verified and the corresponding-party fields for those recordings remain uncaptured.

Verification: search 8510782 at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll research the prior-art citations of record for US 8,510,782, focusing on the patent citations listed on the face of the patent and in the USPTO record.

Let me retrieve the full citation lists from the FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents pages.

Let me try to retrieve the complete front-page reference list and the related citations.

Prior Art / Cited References for U.S. Patent No. 8,510,782

0. Scope, method, and a hard data limitation (read first)

I was asked to search the USPTO database for the exact number 8510782 and to analyze each patent citation of record. Here is what I could and could not retrieve, stated plainly:

• Authoritative full text of the patent itself (claims, disclosure) was supplied in the prompt and is treated as ground truth. Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8510782/en
• The complete, ordered front-page "References Cited" list was NOT fully retrievable. I obtained a partial list from FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/8510782.html) which was truncated mid-list (the retrieval ended at "7742777 … 2010 | Strater et al. / 2…"). I could not page into the rest of the list, and I could not open the granted-PDF front page (the storage URL is https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0e/6a/4c/42cbd7f443c72a/US8510782.pdf, but PDFs are not fetchable with my tools).
• Consequence: the list below is incomplete and may be out of order. I am explicitly not representing it as the full citation set. Any reference not appearing here may still be of record, and the examiner-cited subset (versus applicant-cited IDS submissions) cannot be distinguished from what I retrieved.

⚠️ A structural caution about this particular list. Several retrieved entries carry publication dates of 2011–2012 — i.e., after the '782 filing date of January 21, 2010. That is impossible for a true § 102(a)/(b) printed-publication reference against this application. The likely explanations are (i) they are pre-AIA § 102(e) art (a U.S. publication that was filed before 1/21/2010 but published later), or (ii) they are references carried over from the IDS dockets of related family members (this is a large, heavily cross-citing PPC/John Mezzalingua family). I flag this rather than silently "correct" the dates.

---

1. Update to the earlier-generated summary (not a contradiction — a resolution)

The previously generated "Patent summary" flagged that the numbered claim set was unavailable and reconstructed claim 1 from the Summary of the Invention. A search of the RPX/Insight patent record (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US8510782B2](/patent/US8510782B2)) surfaced actual claim 1 and claim 14 text, which confirms the earlier reconstruction and adds one important limitation:

• Claim 1 (apparatus) requires the first MoCA frequency rejection filter to apply "at least 30 decibels of attenuation" to the MoCA signals present at the common terminal of the second bidirectional splitter/combiner. (The earlier summary said "rejects a significant majority" — true, but the claim has a numeric floor of 30 dB.)
• Claim 1 also expressly recites that "the MoCA signals traverse between the signal component legs of the second bidirectional splitter/combiner" (the "splitter jumping" limitation).
• Claim 14 (method) is the independent method claim, and dependent claims 2–13 and 15–20 complete the set (20 claims total).

This matters for § 102 because the 30 dB limitation and the splitter-jumping limitation are the elements most likely to distinguish claim 1 from the retrieved art.

---

2. References cited — what I retrieved (PARTIAL LIST)

Dates are as printed in the FPO list. "§ 102 posture" is my analysis of whether the reference could even qualify as prior art given the 1/21/2010 filing date and the 10/21/2008 priority date (pre-AIA statute applies).

(The list continues past entry 23 in FPO but was truncated in retrieval.)

Non-patent / co-pending documents expressly cross-referenced inside the '782 specification (not "prior art" but part of the procedural record):

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/255,008, filed Oct. 21, 2008 (now US 8,286,209) — the CIP parent.
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/250,227, filed Oct. 13, 2008, "Ingress Noise Inhibiting Network Interface Device and Method for Cable Television Networks" — cited as the preferred form of the ingress noise mitigation circuit 100.

---

3. The most relevant prior art (ranked), and § 102 exposure

Rank 1 — US 8,286,209 B2 (Egan et al.), the parent "Multi-port entry adapter, hub"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent 8,286,209 B2, Egan, Jr. et al., "Multi-port entry adapter, hub and method for interfacing a CATV network and a MoCA network," filed Oct. 21, 2008 (Ser. No. 12/255,008), issued Oct. 2012. Family: US 2010/0125877 A1 (the '782 pre-grant publication's sibling).
• Relevance to claim 1: Discloses elements (a)–(e) — entry/passive/active ports, first splitter/combiner, passive and active communication paths, second splitter/combiner feeding the active ports and carrying MoCA signals between them. This is the closest single reference to the claimed architecture.
• § 102 exposure: Low for a clean anticipation of claim 1, as a matter of priority law. Because '782 is a continuation-in-part of this application and claims its benefit, subject matter common to both is not § 102 art against '782; only new matter added by the CIP (the distributed MoCA-rejection-filter arrangement and, notably, the "at least 30 dB" filter and the reflection/additive-MoCA-power features) is potentially distinguishable over the parent. A § 102 attack resting solely on the parent would therefore have to show the parent discloses the filter placement + 30 dB limitation — which is precisely the CIP's point of novelty.

Rank 2 — US 2010/0146564 A1 (Halik), "CATV Entry Adapter and Method Utilizing Directional Couplers for MoCA Signal Communication"

• Full citation: U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0146564 A1, Halik, published June 10, 2010.
• Relevance: The single most thematically on-point third-party-style reference: an entry adapter that passes MoCA signals among active ports while protecting the passive/eMTA port, using directional couplers rather than the '782's splitter/combiner + rejection filter + reflection.
• § 102 exposure: Potentially § 102(e) if its application was filed before 1/21/2010. Even so, directional-coupler coupling is a different mechanism from the claimed "first MoCA frequency rejection filter connected between the active signal communication path and the second bidirectional splitter/combiner" applying ≥30 dB; that difference makes this a stronger § 103 combination reference than a § 102 anticipation. I could not retrieve the Halik filing date to confirm the § 102(e) date — flagging as unverified.

Rank 3 — US 2012/0081190 A1 (Rijssemus), "Signal splitter for use in MoCA/CATV networks"; and US 2011/0181371 A1 (Alkan), "Band selective isolation bridge for splitter"

• Relevance: Both address frequency-selective isolation within a splitter for coexisting CATV and MoCA networks — the core physical concept behind the '782's MoCA rejection filters at the splitter interface.
• § 102 exposure: Both published after 1/21/2010, so they are § 102(e)-only and only if earlier-filed. They are better cast as § 103 references (frequency-selective splitter isolation was a known technique) than as anticipatory art for claim 1's specific two-splitter + distributed-filter + reflection topology.

Rank 4 — US 2010/0162340 A1 (Riggsby), MoCA-bypass power-divider networks; and US 7,783,195 B2 (Riggsby), smart multitap with MoCA bypass

• Relevance: Establish that MoCA bypass / MoCA handling in CATV distribution hardware was known before the '782.
• § 102 exposure: Qualify as prior art (early filings) but disclose a bypass philosophy (route MoCA around the splitter), whereas claim 1 requires a rejection filter that reflects MoCA power back into the splitter. Not anticipatory.

Rank 5 — US 7,748,023 B2 (Weinstein) and US 7,742,777 B2 (Strater)

• Relevance: Background art for (i) connecting an eMTA-class subscriber device to a wideband/CATV network interface and (ii) upstream ingress-noise attenuation. These map to the passive-port context and element 100 (ingress noise mitigation), not to the distinguishing MoCA-isolation elements.
• § 102 exposure: Qualify as prior art; not anticipatory of claim 1.

---

4. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

No retrieved reference, standing alone, appears to disclose every element of claim 1 (or claim 14) as arranged in the claim. Specifically, I found no single reference that discloses all of: (i) the first splitter/combiner with a passive leg and an active leg; (ii) the second splitter/combiner feeding multiple active ports with MoCA signals traversing its legs; and (iii) a MoCA frequency rejection filter between the active path and the second splitter/combiner applying at least 30 dB of MoCA attenuation while passing CATV signals. The 30 dB floor and the reflection/splitter-jumping limitations are the elements most resistant to a § 102 attack from the art I could retrieve. The realistic challenge posture is therefore § 103 obviousness (e.g., parent '209 or Halik '564 in view of Rijssemus '190 / Alkan '371 frequency-selective splitter isolation), not § 102 anticipation.

---

5. Confidence and verification caveats

1. The cited-reference list is incomplete. My retrieval of the FPO list was truncated; the granted-PDF front page could not be opened. Treat the table in § 2 as partial, and verify against the patent's actual front page / USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" and the IFW "IDS/Considered" documents.
2. Publication-date anomalies are intentional, not errors. Numerous entries postdate the '782 filing date (1/21/2010); I have not altered any dates. Whether each is § 102(e) art depends on underlying filing dates I could not verify.
3. Claim mapping is provisional. I used the verified claim 1 and claim 14 text (RPX/Insight) plus dependent-claim ranges 2–13 and 15–20. I did not have the full text of claims 2–13/15–20 at retrieval time, so per-claim § 102 mapping for the dependents is not exhaustive.
4. No patent number or identifier was auto-corrected. "8510782" is treated throughout as U.S. Patent 8,510,782. Patent-number strings encountered in searches that merely contain "782" (e.g., JP 8510782 T, JP 08-510782 A, US 2006/…782, and unrelated "8510782" journal-article IDs) were excluded as false positives.
5. Litigation/PTAB posture (from the prior sections): two D. Del. suits asserted the '782 (PPC v. Amphenol/Times Fiber, 1:20-cv-01148; PPC v. CommScope, 1:21-cv-00305). No IPR/PGR directed at the '782 surfaced in my searches — so there is no public PTAB prior-art record to cross-check against the list above. I could not independently confirm this beyond the earlier-generated section.

I'll start by checking what prior-art material is actually available, since the "Prior Art section of this page" wasn't included in the material provided to me.

I found the actual claim set and the cited-references list. Let me pull the key prior-art candidates to build the §103 combinations.

⚠️ Scope note before the analysis

I was asked to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." That section was not included in the material supplied to me. The material I received consists of (a) the full text of US 8,510,782 and (b) two previously generated sections (patent summary and litigation summary). Neither contains a "Prior Art" section.

Rather than invent one, I did the following and flag it explicitly:

• I treated the "References Cited" list on the face of the '782 and the closely-adjacent publications/siblings I could retrieve as the de-facto prior-art record.
• The face-of-patent list retrieved from the PDF (Roberts 2,662,217; Le Fevre 3,790,909; Cohinan 3,939,431; Van Alphen 4,027,219; Van der Lely 4,344,499; Hubbard 4,306,403, etc.) is dominated by coaxial-connector and mechanical art and does not appear to be the substantive art for this MoCA/eMTA subject matter. I treat it as low-relevance and do not build grounds on it. (It may be a mis-scraped IDS from a related connector case.)
• Everything below is therefore built on art I could actually verify the content of, and I mark uncertainty where it exists.

I also retrieved the actual issued claim set (via Justia/RPX) that the earlier summary flagged as unavailable, so this analysis is now claim-grounded rather than Summary-of-the-Invention–grounded. That resolves the earlier "uncertainty flag."

---

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. 8,510,782 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

1. Governing law and the effective filing-date problem

The application was filed January 21, 2010 — before March 16, 2013 — so pre-AIA § 102/§ 103 applies, including pre-AIA § 103(c).

This creates three threshold issues that a challenger must resolve:

(a) The claim-1 new-matter problem. The '782 is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 12/255,008 (filed Oct. 21, 2008), now US 8,286,209. The claims of the '782 are directed to a MoCA rejection filter between the active path and the second splitter/combiner applying "at least 30 decibels" of attenuation (claim 1), plus the reflection behavior (claims 2–4) and the second/third filters (claims 5, 8). The parent '008 disclosure describes a MoCA bandpass bypass path, not a rejection filter in that location. If the claim-1 subject matter is new matter introduced in the CIP, the claims are entitled only to the January 21, 2010 filing date, not October 21, 2008. Note that the PTO's adjusted expiration of 2030-07-20 is computed from October 21, 2008 + 20 years + 637 days PTA, i.e., the term is measured from the parent — but term and prior-art date are different questions. This is likely to be a contested issue.

(b) Common ownership under § 103(c). US 8,286,209 / US 2010/0100918 (Egan), US 2010/014564 (Halik) [issued as US 8,429,695], and US 2010/0072472 (Wells) are all PPC/John Mezzalingua family references. Their publications post-date the '782's filing, so they can at best be § 102(e) art — and § 103(c) disqualifies commonly-owned § 102(e) art from an obviousness combination. A challenger therefore cannot build a § 103 ground on the '782's own family. (They remain usable as background evidence of what a POSITA knew, but not as the anticipatory/obviousness reference.)

(c) Consequence. The realistic § 103 attack must be built on third-party art. The strongest such art I could identify is the CommScope/Andrew (Riggsby) family and the broadband subscriber-interface art (Weinstein).

---

2. Claim chart of what must be shown

Key observation: Independent claims 1 and 14 are structurally narrow and do not require either the passive-path filter (claim 5) or the entry-port filter (claim 8). They require only the single rejection filter between the active path and the active-port splitter/combiner. That is the vulnerable core.

---

3. The prior art

Reference A — Riggsby et al., US 2010/0162340 A1 (CommScope/Andrew)

"Power Divider Networks for Cable Television Networks that Include Multimedia Over Coax Bypass Circuits and Signal Amplifiers that Include Such Power Divider Networks."
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100162340A1 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20100162340

Teaches an RF signal amplifier for a CATV network having:

• an RF input port (entry port) and a power divider network (the second splitter/combiner) feeding multiple RF output ports (active ports);
• an active communications path with a power amplifier between the input and the power divider;
• a passive, non-amplified, non-interruptible communications path to a separate RF output port (the passive / eMTA port);
• a MoCA rejection filter between the power divider network and the active communications path — see the family member US 9,699,516, col. 12: "At node 219, the MoCA rejection filter 216 will block the MoCA signal from flowing in the reverse path onto the active communication path 212. As noted above, MoCA rejection filter 216 may be reflective with respect to signals in the MoCA frequency band, and hence may reflect most of the MoCA signal back into the forward path direction. This reflected MoCA signal will split, with some of the MoCA signal energy flowing into the input port of directional coupler 221 where it is then divided by the directional couplers 221-223 and passed in the forward direction to the RF output ports 231-234…"
• MoCA bypass circuits between the directional-coupler output legs so MoCA "will exhibit reduced attenuation when traversing the power divider network" (i.e., the splitter-jumping problem is expressly recognized and solved);
• filters at the input side blocking MoCA from reaching the network;
• disclosure that the refilter is reflective and that reflection adds MoCA energy at the output ports — precisely the '782's claims 2–4.

Date caveat (important). US 2010/0162340 published 2010-06-24. I could not retrieve its exact application filing/priority date from the sources returned. If (as the family structure suggests) it claims a December 2008 provisional, it is 102(e) art against a January 21, 2010 effective filing but not against an October 21, 2008 date. This must be verified from the front page of US 2010/0162340 before relying on it. I flag this as the single most important open factual question in this analysis.

Reference B — Weinstein et al., US 7,748,023 B2

"Device, system and method for connecting a subscriber device to a wideband distribution network."
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7748023
Cited on the face of the '782. Teaches a subscriber interface apparatus with dipslexers/triplexers, split downstream between a legacy-band path to a subscriber device and other paths, non-interruptible passive routing, up/down conversion — i.e., general evidence that frequency-selective routing and passive non-interruptible subscriber paths were well known in CATV premises equipment.

Reference C — the '782's own admissions (usable as prior art)

The '782's Background expressly admits:

• MoCA operates at 1125–1525 MHz, outside CATV bands;
• "Separate MoCA frequency rejection filters have been developed for external connection to CATV entry adapters, in an effort to keep the MoCA frequency signals confined to the subscriber premises";
• the ~60 dB passive-port isolation target is an existing industry requirement;
• "splitter jumping" and its attenuation are known.

These admissions supply the motivation and much of the "known technique" for any combination.

Reference D — Ovadia and the MoCA specification (background)

Confirms POSITA-level familiarity with MoCA power-boost behavior ("a low signal strength will result in the transmitting MoCA interface device increasing the strength of the transmitted signal" — the '782's own description) — relevant to the motivation for adding reflected energy.

Reference E — Egan, US 8,286,209 / US 2010/0100918 (background only; § 103(c)-disqualified)

Discloses the same entry-adapter architecture (entry port, passive port, active ports, two bidirectional splitters/combiners, passive path, active path with amplifier and bandpass filters), a MoCA bypass path with a MoCA bandpass filter, and "a MoCA signal frequency rejection filter connected to the signal splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port … preventing conduction of MoCA signals … onto the CATV network" and "a MoCA signal frequency rejection filter connected at the entry port." Its claim 2 and claim 10 map onto '782 claim 12/claim 8. Because it is commonly owned and only 102(e) art, it cannot be the basis of a § 103 rejection — but it is proof that the entry-port MoCA rejection filter was in the possession of the field.

---

4. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1–4, 12, 13 and 14–17 obvious over Riggsby '340 in view of Weinstein '023 and the admitted state of the art

Claim 1 mapping. Riggsby discloses the entry port, plural active output ports fed from a power divider network (second splitter/combiner), a passive non-interruptible output port (the eMTA port), and — critically — a MoCA rejection filter positioned between the active communications path and the power divider network that is reflective and ≥ 30 dB (the '782 specifies "at least 30 dB"; the family describes ≥ 25 dB isolation in couplers and the filter as blocking the in-premises band). Weinstein supplies the conventional bidirectional splitter/combiner with a passive leg and an active leg feeding a downstream amplifier (the first splitter/combiner 76 of the '782).

Motivation (KSR / pre-AIA Graham factors):

1. Riggsby and the '782 address the identical problem: how to distribute MoCA signals among multiple premises outlets served by an amplified entry device without letting MoCA energy escape onto the CATV network and without letting it degrade non-MoCA service. Same field of endeavor, same problem → KSR "familiar element … same purpose."
2. Riggsby's own text supplies the reflection/boost rationale verbatim: MoCA energy reflected by the rejection filter is re-distributed to the output ports. That is the '782's claims 2–4. A POSITA seeking to improve MoCA distribution at the active ports would predictably place a reflective (rather than absorptive) MoCA rejection filter at exactly that node — the '782 itself acknowledges in describing the directional-coupler sibling that an absorbing rejection filter is the alternative, making the reflective/absorptive choice a design choice with predictable results.
3. Combining with an amplifying entry adapter that has a passive leg (Weinstein; and the '782's own admitted architecture) is the known two-path (passive/active) topology of every lifeline-capable entry adapter; no new principle of operation is required.

Claim 13 (active path split into downstream/upstream sub-paths with a power-consuming active component and band-limiting) is met by Riggsby's power amplifier + diplexer/triplexer arrangement and by Weinstein's diplexers and band-limited paths.

Claim 12 ("one other" MoCA rejection filter between the first splitter's common terminal and the entry port) is met by Riggsby's input-side MoCA-blocking filter ("the MoCA rejection filter … will block the MoCA signal from flowing in the reverse path" toward the input) and is confirmed as conventional by the '782's own background admission that external MoCA rejection filters for connection to CATV entry adapters already existed.

Claims 14–17 (method) are the method counterparts of claims 1–4 and rise and fall with Ground 1.

Weakness / likely rebuttal. Riggsby is an amplifier/multitap disclosure; the '782's eMTA/lifeline framing and the express "≥ 30 dB at the common terminal of the second splitter/combiner" language would need the petition to bridge from "power divider network" to "second bidirectional splitter/combiner." That bridge is short (Riggsby's power divider network is a bidirectional splitter/combiner — its directional couplers pass MoCA in the forward and reverse directions), but it is the point where the patent owner will fight.

---

Ground 2 — Claims 5–7 (and method claims 18–19) obvious over Riggsby '340 in further view of Weinstein '023 and the admitted external-filter art

Claims 5–7 add the second MoCA rejection filter in the passive path between the first splitter's leg 1 and the passive port, sized ≥ 30 dB.

Motivation:

1. The '782's own Background admits that external MoCA rejection filters were already developed for use at CATV entry adapters to keep MoCA inside the premises. Moving that known filter inside the housing and locating it in the passive path is a predictable relocation of a known element to its known use — and the '782 itself states the benefit of internalization (avoiding "unauthorized removal, tampering, negligence in original installation, and physical exposure").
2. The problem to be solved is expressly recognized in the field: non-MoCA-enabled eMTA/lifeline devices are overwhelmed by MoCA energy that "bleeds through typical CATV upstream and downstream bandpass filters." Once the goal is stated as "protect the passive port from residual MoCA bleed-through," placing a MoCA rejection filter in the passive path is the most predictable possible placement — it is the only path to the passive port.
3. Distribution of the filter burden (claims 6, 7, 9, 10) is an obvious design/scale choice: the '782's own specification states the rationale in engineering-optimum terms ("dividing the MoCA frequency rejection functionality among multiple … filters simplifies the manufacturing and achieves equal or better … performance"), which is exactly the kind of known-technique optimization KSR holds obvious. There is no unexpected result — attenuation of cascaded filters is additive by definition.

---

Ground 3 — Claims 8–11 (and method claim 20) obvious over Riggsby '340 in view of Weinstein '023 and the admitted art

Claims 8–11 add the third MoCA rejection filter between the first splitter/combiner's common terminal and the entry port, preventing MoCA from entering the CATV network and blocking spurious MoCA from the network.

Motivation:

1. Preventing MoCA from leaving the premises is the central stated problem of the entire field (privacy/security; interference with an adjacent subscriber's MoCA network). Both Riggsby and the '782 recite it.
2. Riggsby teaches a MoCA-blocking filter on the input side of the active path; Weinstein teaches diplexers at the network interface. Placing a bidirectional MoCA rejection filter at the entry port (blocking in both directions) is the natural, predictable location and is expressly stated as known in the '782's Background ("separate MoCA frequency rejection filters have been developed for external connection to CATV entry adapters").
3. The two-way blocking benefit is inherent in the use of a bidirectional filter — no new motivation is needed beyond the already-recited desire to keep MoCA off the plant and to keep neighbors' MoCA out.

Note on § 103(c): the entry-port MoCA rejection filter is also disclosed in the commonly owned '209 (claims 2, 10). A petitioner should not rely on '209 as the reference; it should rely on Riggsby + Weinstein + the admission. The '209 point is relevant only to rebut any argument that the entry-port filter was somehow inventive.

---

Ground 4 — Alternative/parallel ground using US 2010/0146564 (Halik) — with a date defect

Halik teaches a CATV entry adapter with two bidirectional splitters/combiners and directional couplers establishing a MoCA bypass between passive and active ports, plus "a MoCA signal frequency rejection filter connected between the common terminal of the first signal splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port." Its claim 1 maps closely to '782 claim 12. However, Halik is a commonly-owned PPC/CIP sibling (filed Feb. 12, 2010; pub. June 10, 2010) and is § 103(c)-disqualified for the same reasons as the '209. I include it only to show that the entry-port rejection filter + two-splitter architecture was squarely within the applicant's own field, not as an independent ground.

---

5. Where the patent is most defensible

A well-counseled patent owner would focus validity arguments on the following, and a petitioner should anticipate them:

1. Claims 3–4 (reflection arithmetic). Claim 4 recites a specific quantitative relationship — the attenuation of the filter-reflected MoCA conducted through the second splitter is less than the attenuation the split MoCA suffers by jumping between the second splitter's legs. Riggsby describes the reflection/redistribution qualitatively but does not appear to state this inequality explicitly. If claim 4 survives on that basis, it is a narrow claim of little commercial weight.
2. The ≥ 30 dB recitation in claim 1. A petitioner must show that the art's rejection filter meets 30 dB. This is a routine numerical-limitation issue; 30 dB is well within the ordinary performance of a MoCA rejection filter (the '782 itself says a single 60 dB filter is the industry target, so 30 dB per filter is a deliberate sub-range). Numeric ranges that are merely a design choice are ordinarily obvious absent criticality, which the '782 does not establish.
3. "Significant majority of the power" in the method claims — a functional, relative term that is met by any suitable rejection filter; will be construed broadly.
4. Secondary considerations. None were identified in the supplied material. If PPC proved copying, industry praise, or unexpected results from the multi-filter distribution, that could rebut. The '782's own specification undercuts an "unexpected results" theory by stating that the additive effect of cascaded filters is expected ("because the effect of multiple filters is additive").

---

6. Bottom line

• Independent claims 1 and 14 are the weak point. They require only the single MoCA rejection filter between the active path and the active-port splitter/combiner. Riggsby (US 2010/0162340 and its US 9,699,516 continuation) discloses exactly that element — including the reflective behavior recited in claims 2–4. Combined with the admitted passive/active two-path entry-adapter architecture (Weinstein '023 and the '782's own Background), claims 1–4, 12–14 and 17 present a strong § 103 case.
• Claims 5–7 and 8–11 (and method claims 18–20) are also obvious, but require an extra step: showing that placing a known MoCA rejection filter in the passive path and at the entry port was motivated. That motivation is supplied largely by the '782's own Background admissions that external MoCA rejection filters already existed and that ~60 dB passive-port isolation was the recognized industry requirement. The distribution of that 60 dB across three ~30 dB filters is a predictable engineering optimization (KSR).
• The two infirmities in the case are procedural, not technical: (i) the effective filing date of the claims (Oct. 21, 2008 vs. Jan. 21, 2010) and (ii) the exact priority date of Riggsby '340. If the claims get Oct. 21, 2008, and/or Riggsby's priority is Dec. 2008 rather than earlier, the strongest reference drops out and the petition would have to be rebuilt on other third-party art. Verify both dates on the front pages before relying on this analysis.

---

7. Confidence and open items

Unverified/fabrication-avoidance note: I did not auto-correct any patent number. I treated "8510782" as US 8,510,782 throughout. The exact application number and priority claim of US 2010/0162340 A1, and the exact wording of '782 claims 15–20, are not stated above beyond what the retrieved sources showed; where I state them I have flagged them as infers. Any IPR petition built on this analysis must re-verify those items against the USPTO Patent Center and the front page of each reference.