US 10988342

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related litigation/docket activity.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit appeal activity and the current legal status.

Let me search for the specific Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR that invalidated these claims.

Summary — US 10,988,342 B2

Caveat on scope of verification: I did not find a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket or opinion specifically directed to U.S. 10,988,342 or to its IPR (IPR2022-00946). I did find a nonprecedential CAFC Rule 36 judgment dated March 4, 2026 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026), aff'd — but that appeal arises from IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, and -00721, i.e., different proceedings, not IPR2022-00946. I cannot confirm from the sources I retrieved that the ’342 patent itself is on a 2026 CAFC docket. Treat that point as unverified.

I also note a date discrepancy in the materials I was given: the task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the authoritative patent record I was furnished was fetched 2026-09-29. I have not attempted to reconcile these.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative Google Patents record, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10988342/en)

Abstract (literal)

"A system for using a cable reel apparatus that includes providing components of a separable cable reel for assembly of a cable reel apparatus. The components include a first frame, a second frame, and the second frame is separate from the first frame. A first flange is configured to engage the first frame. The outer side of the first flange faces the first frame when the first flange is engaged therewith. A second flange is configured to engage the second frame. The outer side of the second flange faces the second frame when the second flange is engaged therewith. The system also includes providing a pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable that is separate from the separable cable reel. The first and second flanges are configured to releasably couple with one another to support the pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable therebetween."

Plain-language overview of the three independent claims

Claim 1 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus" (frame + flange + bag + reel-less coil)
This claim is written as a kit/system (a set of "providing" steps). It requires: (a) components of a separable reel — a first frame and a separate second frame; a first flange that engages the first frame with its outer side facing that frame; a second flange that engages the second frame with its outer side facing that frame; (b) a bag having a base and a cover, sized to hold the assembled reel, with the first frame shaped to sit in the base and the second frame shaped to sit at/near the cover; and (c) a pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable that is separate from the reel. The two flanges must be able to releasably couple to each other to hold the coil between them.

Claim 12 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus" (dual-hub version)
Same general kit idea, but here each flange carries a hub portion on its inner side. It requires first and second (separate) frames, a bag with base and cover (first frame in the base, second frame at/near the cover), and a pre-wound, reel-less cable coil. The two hub portions must (i) be sized to fit within the inner diameter of the coil and (ii) releasably couple to each other to form a hub member that supports the coil between the flanges.

Claim 19 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus" (bag as a reel component; horizontal payout orientation)
The broadest-in-scope structural version, in which the bag itself is one of the "components of the separable cable reel." It requires: a bag sized to hold the assembled reel; a first frame disposed in the base; a second frame disposed at the cover; a first flange and a second flange configured to engage those frames (outer sides facing the frames); and a hub portion extending from the inner side of one of the flanges. A pre-wound, reel-less coil is provided separately. The flanges releasably couple to support the coil on the hub therebetween. Finally, the claim adds a use limitation: positioning the bag (with the reel inside) horizontally so the reel's longitudinal axis is horizontal, with the base of the bag having a payout opening for dispensing cable once horizontal.

Representative dependent claims:

• On claim 1: assembling (2) and disassembling (3); payout opening in the bag base (4); substantially square frame geometry (5); disc-shaped flanges smaller than the frames (6); a hub portion receivable in the coil's inner diameter (7); hub extending transversely from the inner side (8); hub as an elongated wall (9); one-piece flanges (10); flanges configured to interlock (11).
• On claim 12: coil prepackaged with plastic wrap (13); inner/outer friction surfaces forming a friction fit (14); one hub is an elongated annular wall and the other a truncated annular wall, both perpendicular to the flange plane (15); one-piece flange/hub (16); assembling the hub portions (17); disassembling them (18).
• On claim 19: assembling (20); disassembling (21); hub portion is an elongated wall (22).

Note: claim 13 ("prepackaged with plastic wrap") was not challenged in the IPR; claims 1–12 and 14–22 were.

Litigation / post-grant status (important nuance)

• District court: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.), filed Dec. 27, 2021, asserting the ’342 patent together with U.S. 10,941,016; 11,001,471; 10,906,771; and 10,913,632 (the "cable reel" family).
• PTAB: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., IPR2022-00946 (filed May 27, 2022; instituted Dec. 7, 2022). The Final Written Decision (Dec. 6, 2023) held claims 1–12 and 14–22 unpatentable as obvious over PPC's "Brochure" (Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco) in view of Blunt, and in further combinations with Johanson (US 7,938,357) and/or Fontana (US 6,145,606/6,145,780 as cited in briefing). Grounds and outcome are summarized at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2 and the decision text at http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf.
• Caution: Google Patents still displays legal status "Active." That status label should not be read as confirming that the ’342 claims survived the IPR; the Final Written Decision cancelled the challenged claims. I have not verified whether a statutory disclaimer, certificate, or appeal reinstated any of them.
• Family note: a later continuation in this family issued as US 12,269,706 B2 (Times Fiber Communications, Apr. 8, 2025) — this post-dates the ’342 patent and is a different document.

Where I lack confidence

1. Whether a 2026 CAFC appeal exists specifically for US 10,988,342 / IPR2022-00946 — not confirmed. The only 2026 CAFC item I found involving these parties (2024-1776 et seq., Rule 36 affirmance, Mar. 4, 2026) stems from IPR2022-00718–-00721.
2. The precise current enforceability status of the ’342 claims after the IPR and any subsequent appeal — the record I retrieved does not resolve this, and the "Active" tag on Google Patents is a machine-generated assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10988342/en (authoritative full text); https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf; http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/PPC-Broadband-Inc-et-al-v-Times-Fiber-Communications-Inc-id-[164075](/patent/164075).

I'll search for litigation involving US 10,988,342 specifically, checking patent litigation portals and court sources.

Let me search for the district court case status and any additional litigation or appeal activity.

Let me verify the district court outcome and check for any Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,988,342 ("the '342 patent")

Bottom line: I identified one district-court litigation in which U.S. 10,988,342 was a patent-in-suit, plus a closely related cluster of PTAB proceedings (which are not "litigation" in the district-court sense but directly adjudicated the '342 claims). I did not find any other infringement suit, declaratory-judgment action, or ITC investigation naming the '342 patent.

1. District-court cases where the '342 patent was asserted

Procedural history of note:

• Mar. 18, 2022 — Amphenol filed IPR petitions on all asserted claims; the parties stipulated to stay the Delaware case pending at least the PTAB institution decisions (stay entered Apr. 6, 2022). See stipulation at the PTACTS record.
• Apr. 13, 2022 — case referred to Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge for discovery/scheduling; a protective order was entered.
• Dec. 6, 2023 — PTAB Final Written Decision cancelling the '342 claims (see §3 below). The Delaware case is recorded as closed on Dec. 20, 2023, i.e., two weeks after the Final Written Decision and the same date the redacted FWD was docketed.

Caution: I could not retrieve the specific closing document (e.g., dismissal/settlement order) for 1:21-cv-01823. The "Closed 12/20/23" status comes from litigation-database aggregators (Unified Patents; Ex Parte), not from the court's own docket text, so treat the reason for closure as unverified.

Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=[10589957](/patent/10589957) ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:21-cv-01823/times-fiber-communications-inc-v-ppc-broadband-inc ; complaint (Ex. 1008 in IPR2022-00946) at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/docs/05-27-2022-Petitioner/

2. Related party litigation that does not involve the '342 patent (flagged to avoid confusion)

These cases involve the same two parties (and Amphenol) but assert different patents — coaxial connector patents, not the cable-reel family. I list them only because search results conflate them with the '342 matter:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del.) — PPC's mirror-image connector suit against Amphenol/TFC (referenced in the '342 complaint at ¶8 as "C.A. No. 21-654-LPS").
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation, No. 5:21-cv-00504-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.) — dismissed by joint stipulation (Oct. 4, 2021); a similar 2013–2015 N.D.N.Y. action (5:13-cv-00460) was dismissed with prejudice in 2015.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., N.D.N.Y. — an even older connector dispute, dismissed with prejudice July 8, 2015.

None of these names U.S. 10,988,342.

3. Post-grant proceedings that adjudicated the '342 patent (not district-court litigation, but directly on point)

Companion IPRs on sibling patents in the same family (relevant because the Delaware case asserted the whole family):

• IPR2022-00947 — U.S. 11,001,471 (FWD issued contemporaneously)
• IPR2022-01087 — U.S. 10,941,016 (FWD issued)
• IPR2022-01088 — U.S. 10,906,771 (FWD issued)
• IPR2022-00830 — U.S. 10,913,632 (institution denied after Patent Owner cancelled all challenged claims)
• IPR2022-00831 — U.S. 10,589,957 (institution denied after Patent Owner cancelled all challenged claims)

Sources: Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00946, Paper 46 (Dec. 6, 2023), at http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/ ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00946 ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2

4. What I could not confirm (explicit gaps)

1. No Federal Circuit appeal of IPR2022-00946 that I could verify. IPR2022-00946 is recorded as "terminated" with its last substantive activity (an expunge order) in April 2024, and I found no notice of appeal or CAFC case number tied to the '342 patent. The only 2026 CAFC item matching these parties — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026) (Rule 36 affirmance) — arises from IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721, i.e., a different set of proceedings, not the '342 IPR. Whether a CAFC appeal exists specifically for the '342 patent remains unverified.
2. No other district-court defendant. I found no second infringement suit, no DJ action, and no ITC §337 investigation naming U.S. 10,988,342.
3. No case number or court document confirming the reason 1:21-cv-01823 closed on Dec. 20, 2023 — the closure is reported by aggregators only.

5. Date discrepancy (flagged per the governing rules)

The task states today is April 26, 2026, but the authoritative patent record supplied to me was fetched 2026-09-29. I have not reconciled these; all "status" statements above reflect the most recent docket/gazette entries I could retrieve (through roughly mid-2024 for the PTAB docket and Dec. 20, 2023 for the district-court closure), and none later.

Summary table

No other litigation involving U.S. 10,988,342 is known to me.

I'll verify the AIA trial landscape for this patent, since the structured block conflicts with the prior section's finding of IPR2022-00946.

Let me verify the appeal path and check for any additional proceedings on the '342 patent.

Let me check the Federal Circuit appeal path and any later-filed IPRs against this patent.

Proceedings overview

There is exactly one AIA trial proceeding directed at US 10,988,342: IPR2022-00946 (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.), which went to a Final Written Decision on 2023-12-06 and held every challenged claim — claims 1–12 and 14–22 — unpatentable. One proceeding; status = claims invalidated; zero sustained; zero settled; zero institution denials on this patent (the two institution denials in the family, IPR2022-00830/-00831, involved different patents — US 10,913,632 and US 10,589,957 — and were denied only after Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims).

Defensive posture: the patent is a dead letter on the merits. All three independent claims (1, 12, and 19) were canceled, along with every dependent claim except claim 13, which was the only claim not challenged. Any demand letter built on claims 1–12 or 14–22 is asserting claims that a PTAB panel has already held unpatentable over a competitor's own product brochure plus Blunt, Johanson, and Fontana.

⚠️ Contradiction with the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — flagged per instructions. That block states the USPTO Open Data Portal API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is wrong or stale. The authoritative Google Patents record itself carries a litigation link: "PTAB case IPR2022-00946 filed (Final Written Decision)," and the FWD text, the oral-hearing transcript, and the Board's own post-FWD order are all publicly available. The block's hedge ("web search may surface older… proceedings the ODP hasn't indexed yet") applies squarely here: IPR2022-00946 was filed 2022-05-27 and terminated 2023-12-06, so it is an older proceeding. Treat the structured block as incomplete and use the proceeding below as the operative list.

IPR2022-00946 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–318); Tech Center 3600, Art Unit 3619
• Filed: 2022-05-27 (Petition, Paper 2)
• Patent: US 10,988,342 B2 (Ex. 1001)
• Real parties-in-interest: Petitioner identified PPC Broadband, Inc. and Belden Inc.; Patent Owner identified Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
• Status (verbatim from the record): "Final Written Decision"; docket status "Terminated Dec. 6, 2023." Plain English gloss: trial completed, all challenged claims held unpatentable; the proceeding is closed.
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith, George R. Hoskins, and Frances L. Ippolito. The Final Written Decision was authored by Judge Ippolito; the post-FWD expungement order (Paper 51, 2024-04-09) was authored by Judge Hoskins.
• Petition grounds — four grounds, all § 103 obviousness, all directed at claims 1–12 and 14–22 (claim 13 not challenged):
  • Ground 1: Brochure (PPC's own "Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco" reel-tote brochure) in view of Blunt (US 2012/0168554 A1).
  • Ground 2: Brochure in view of Blunt and Johanson (US 7,938,357).
  • Ground 3: Brochure in view of Blunt and Fontana (US 6,145,780).
  • Ground 4: Brochure in view of Blunt, Johanson, and Fontana.
  • Petitioner's theory: the Brochure disclosed the bag/frame/payout structure and an implicit second frame; Blunt supplied the separable two-component hub that lets a pre-coiled, reel-less supply be loaded; Fontana supplied the "prepackaged, pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable" limitation; Johanson supplied explicit duplicate end-plates.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-12-07 as to all challenged claims (1–12, 14–22) on all four grounds. (Petitioner's § 325(d) arguments were briefed; institution followed within the 6-month statutory window.)
• Final Written Decision: 2023-12-06, Paper 46. Disposition, quoted verbatim: "Having reviewed the arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–12 and 14–22 of the '342 patent are unpatentable."
  • Canceled: independent claims 1, 12, and 19, and dependent claims 2–11, 14–18, and 20–22 — i.e., the entire challenged set.
  • Not addressed / not canceled: claim 13 is the only claim of the 22-claim patent that was not challenged and therefore not adjudicated. It depends from claim 12, which was canceled.
  • No claims held patentable among those challenged. The contested issue was narrow: the "prepackaged, pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable" limitation (principally claim 7). Patent Owner conceded or did not dispute the art mapping for claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14–22 and argued only the prepackaged limitation plus objective indicia.
  • On secondary considerations, the panel found Patent Owner failed to establish a presumption of nexus between its commercial product and the challenged claims because Patent Owner's own marketing materials highlighted multiple unclaimed features as part of the product's "innovative design." The Board also rejected the commercial-success argument.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — decided on the merits. Post-judgment, Patent Owner filed unopposed motions to expunge confidential information (including the sealed, unredacted FWDs). By Order, Paper 51, 2024-04-09, the Board granted the motions in part and denied expungement of the Final Written Decisions, holding there is "an expectation that information will be made public where the existence of the information… is identified in a final written decision following a trial." Redacted versions remain public; the sealed/unredacted versions were retained.
• Appeal: Not confirmed. This is a genuine gap, and I am flagging it rather than filling it. Times Fiber (as the losing patent owner) would have had until roughly early February 2024 to notice appeal to the Federal Circuit. I did not locate a CAFC docket or opinion specifically from IPR2022-00946. The one 2026 appellate item I was able to retrieve — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026), Rule 36 aff'd — arises from IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721, a different patent family (and PPC is the appellant there, meaning PPC lost below). Do not cite that Rule 36 judgment as the appellate disposition of the '342 patent. Caveat: I hit a research-step limit before exhausting CourtListener/PTAB E2E for a 2024 Times Fiber notice of appeal; verify the appeal status directly before relying on "no appeal" as a conclusion.
• Defensive value: Enormous. Claims 1–12 and 14–22 — including all three independent claims — have been held unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Any infringement theory built on claims 1, 12, or 19 is asserting canceled claims; pressing them after a final judgment is exactly the fact pattern that invites Rule 11 / § 285 exposure. If your demand letter identifies claims beyond claim 13, it is resting on claims a PTAB panel has already invalidated.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. Every challenged claim of US 10,988,342 is canceled: 1–12 and 14–22. No challenged claim survived. The only claim not adjudicated is claim 13, which recites a coil "prepackaged with plastic wrap" and depends from canceled claim 12. Because its parent claim 12 was canceled, claim 13 cannot be asserted as an independent cause of action; it is a dependent ornament hanging from a dead claim. Practically, there is no assertable independent claim left in this patent. (Note the contradiction with the machine-generated "Active" legal-status tag on Google Patents: that tag is an assumption, not a legal conclusion, and it does not reflect the FWD's cancellation of the claims.)

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), estoppel attaches to Petitioner PPC Broadband, Inc. and its real party-in-interest Belden Inc., barring them from asserting in the Delaware action any ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in IPR2022-00946. A different defendant is not personally estopped by that judgment — but practically it is estopped by reality: the art is on the public record, the FWD is preclusive-looking evidence, and a fresh petition on the same Brochure/Blunt/Johanson/Fontana combinations would face § 325(d) discretionary denial and General Plastic follow-on estoppel. For a new defendant, the free-standing defenses are: (i) the canceled claims cannot be asserted; (ii) claim 13 is unassertable standing alone; and (iii) § 282 invalidity in district court on the FWD record.

Pattern signals. This is a one-shot, one-petitioner patent. PPC Broadband (with Belden) filed a coordinated wave of IPRs across the cable-reel family — IPR2022-00830 ('632), -00831 ('957), -00946 ('342), -00947 ('471), -01087 ('016), -01088 ('771) — a classic competitor defending itself after being sued by Times Fiber in D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-01823 (filed 2021-12-27). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears anywhere in this chain; the challenger is a market competitor, PPC Broadband, with its own Perfect Tote / NexReel products. Patent Owner Times Fiber did not prevail on any adjudicated claim here and litigated aggressively through oral hearing (Latham & Watkins for PO; Finnegan + Barclay Damon for Petitioner).

Note on the structured data conflict. If you are building a docketing record, do not rely on the ODP-based "no proceedings" block. The proceeding is real, the FWD is downloadable, and the Google Patents record lists it under "Family has litigation."

Recommended next steps

1. Get the FWD itself and quote its disposition. Paper 46 (2023-12-06) is available via the public file — e.g., the posted copy at http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf. The dispositive sentence is: "Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–12 and 14–22 of the '342 patent are unpatentable." Also pull the record from USPTO PTAB E2E / PTAB Center (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and cross-check the docket at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/. For CAFC activity, search CourtListener and the Federal Circuit docket directly — this is the one item I could not close.
2. If you are the defendant: do not engage on claims 1–12 or 14–22 at all; point to Paper 46 and the cancellation, and note that the Board additionally rejected Times Fiber's nexus/commercial-success evidence. The only residual claim, claim 13, is a dependent claim whose base (claim 12) was canceled — treat it as non-assertable and say so in any response.
3. Check for a certificate of cancellation. After the FWD and the exhaustion (or absence) of appeal, the Director issues a certificate canceling claims 1–12 and 14–22. I did not retrieve a certificate number; confirm the issuance date and number in Patent Center before representing the patent's status in writing — that certificate is the cleanest single citation for "these claims no longer exist."
4. No pending trial-stage milestones to track on this patent. IPR2022-00946 is terminated; the statutory 1-year § 316(a)(11) clock is irrelevant now. The live proceeding in the neighborhood — the one from your prior summary and from the claims about a "communication cable payout bag" (e.g., a 2027 district-court trial date referenced in a later petition) — concerns a different patent and should not be conflated with the '342.
5. Bookkeeping caveat for the file: your own structured source and the machine-generated "Active" status both mislead here. Either could cause a downstream analyst to tell a client the patent is alive with 22 live claims. Correct both to: "One IPR (IPR2022-00946); claims 1–12 and 14–22 canceled by FWD 2023-12-06; only unadjudicated claim is 13, a dependent of canceled claim 12."

Sources

• Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00946, Paper 46 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2023) — http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf
• Order Granting-in-Part/Denying-in-Part Motions to Expunge, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2024) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/04-09-2024-Board/
• Oral Hearing Transcript, Paper 45 (hearing held Sept. 20, 2023; entered Nov. 1, 2023) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/11-01-2023-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-45-Other__Hearing_transcript/
• Docket overview, IPR2022-00946 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/
• Case summary (claim-level institution/invalidation) — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/PPC-Broadband-Inc-et-al-v-Times-Fiber-Communications-Inc-id-164075
• Petition/grounds summary — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2
• Google Patents record for US 10,988,342 (litigation link to IPR2022-00946) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10988342/en
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776 et al., Rule 36 Judgment (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2026) — different IPRs (2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721); not the '342 appeal — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,988,342 from USPTO Assignment Search and cross-reference sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, correspondent, and the Amphenol/Times Fiber corporate relationship.

Inventors

Six named inventors, per the face of the patent (Ex. 1001 in IPR2022-00946) and the Google Patents record. Their listed residences cluster tightly around Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (an Amphenol company) facilities, which is strong circumstantial evidence of the filing-time employer:

Pattern note (anti-signal): the contrary of the "inventors flee within 12 months" pattern. This is a stable, in-house engineering group that stayed with the operating company. Inventor Thakare personally executed a sworn declaration in March 2023 defending the patent on behalf of the owner (Times Fiber) — i.e., the inventors remained aligned with the asset holder through at least 2023. No evidence of inventor departure preceding a sale.

Original assignee

Amphenol Corporation (Wallingford, CT) is the assignee named on the issued ’342 patent (field (71) "Applicant," as reproduced in the IPR exhibit).

• Primary business: Amphenol is a large, publicly traded (NYSE: APH) manufacturer of interconnect, sensor, antenna, and cable products. The relevant unit is the Amphenol Cable Group / Amphenol Broadband Solutions, operated through Times Fiber Communications, Inc., a wholly-owned Amphenol subsidiary (confirmed by inventor Thakare's declaration: "Times Fiber Communications is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation").
• Product embodying the claims — YES: the "Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag" (Tech Service Bag I/II) with a reusable reel and pre-wound reel-less coaxial cable coil. This is the commercial embodiment Amphenol/Times Fiber relied on for secondary-considerations evidence in the IPRs (commercial success; adoption by Charter Communications, standardized by 2017; adoption by Cox, etc.). This is a genuine, shipped product, not a paper patent.
• Current status: Operating. Amphenol is a going concern; Times Fiber remains an active Amphenol subsidiary (current assignee of record). There is no bankruptcy, dissolution, or wind-down anywhere in this chain.
• Direction of use: Amphenol/Times Fiber asserted these patents offensively against a real competitor (PPC Broadband) — the hallmark of an operating-company assertion, not an NPE.

Assignment timeline

Two post-issuance assignment events are recorded on the Google Patents legal-events feed. Caveat: I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center detail (reel/frame numbers and correspondent-of-record) in this session — the Assignment Center search returned no extractable reel/frame or correspondent field, and no third-party index I reached reproduced them. I therefore report the events that ARE documented and explicitly mark the reel/frame and correspondent fields as not retrieved rather than inventing them.

• Executed date not retrieved / recorded 2021-08-12 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: Barry Holt; Caichun Song; Paul Richard Boucher; Phillip Stanley Bowen; Marvin Bryant; Rakesh Thakare (all six inventors)
  • Assignee: Amphenol Corporation (Wallingford, CT)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (USPTO Assignment Center detail not obtained)
  • Context: Initial assignment of inventors' rights to their employer / operating company — the routine, expected first link. Note the execution date was evidently later than the 2015 filing (the group of continuations was consolidated under Amphenol); recording ~6 years after priority.

• Executed date not retrieved / recorded 2022-04-19 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Amphenol Corporation
  • Assignee: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (Wallingford, CT)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization / intra-group transfer — parent Amphenol moving the family to its wholly-owned operating subsidiary Times Fiber. This is corroborated by the district-court complaint ("The '342 Patent is assigned to TFC") and is not a sale to a third party.

No other recorded assignments exist in the chain. In particular, there is no assignment to any licensing LLC, no security agreement, no merger, and no transfer to an NPE. (For context, non-assignment owner-side counsel appearing in the IPRs — e.g., Richard G. Frenkel for Amphenol and Michelle Streifthau-Livizos, later withdrawn, for Times Fiber — are litigation counsel of record, not assignment correspondents, and should not be conflated with the recording correspondent field.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10988342
    2015 : Priority application filed by Amphenol
    2021 : Patent issued April 27
         : Inventors assign to Amphenol Corp
         : Times Fiber sues PPC Broadband
    2022 : Amphenol transfers to Times Fiber
         : PPC files IPR against the 342 patent
    2023 : PTAB cancels challenged claims

(Note on the diagram: the "PTAB cancels challenged claims" line reflects the Dec. 6, 2023 Final Written Decision discussed in the prior section; the ownership/assignment chain itself is unchanged by that outcome.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The one non-inventor transfer (recorded 2022-04-19) moves the patent from Amphenol Corp down to its wholly-owned operating subsidiary Times Fiber — the opposite of a transfer to a licensing-only shell. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures" entity, no registered-agent service address, no single-member LLC appears anywhere.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Amphenol Corporation nor Times Fiber Communications appears on the standard NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, etc.). Both are operating manufacturers; Times Fiber is the Amphenol cable subsidiary.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT RETRIEVABLE. I could not obtain the recording correspondent field for either event from the Assignment Center, so I cannot assess whether one attorney filed both recordings. This signal is unresolved, not negative — but with only two recordings, both internal to one corporate family, the signal lacks the multi-link pattern it is designed to detect.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs — NOT PRESENT. Two assignments total, both within the same corporate family, spanning ~8 months (2021-08-12 → 2022-04-19). No chain of unrelated LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (as an NPE tell). The 2022-04-19 Amphenol→Times Fiber transfer post-dates the Dec. 27, 2021 Times Fiber v. PPC complaint (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01823). The ownership shift here is a housekeeping parent→subsidiary reorg in a family the plaintiff already controlled, not an arm's-length purchase arranged to manufacture standing or venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No bankruptcy of any assignor/assignee; Amphenol and Times Fiber are both solvent operating companies.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Because the asserter (Times Fiber) is itself the operating manufacturer of the Tech Service Bag that practices the claims, this is direct self-assertion against a competitor, not an operating company outsourcing assertion to an NPE it does not control.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Times Fiber (an operating subsidiary), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The full recorded chain is only two links — six inventors → Amphenol Corporation (recorded 2021-08-12) and Amphenol → its wholly-owned operating subsidiary Times Fiber Communications (recorded 2022-04-19) — with no shell LLC, no licensing entity, and no third-party buyer anywhere. The asserted owner is a going-concern manufacturer (Amphenol/Times Fiber) that ships a product embodying the claims (the Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag, sold to Charter and Cox) and sued a genuine commercial competitor (PPC Broadband, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01823) over it. Zero of the eight NPE signals is affirmatively present (one — repeat correspondent — is merely unretrieved), so this is the textbook "current assignee ships products embodying the claims and is suing actual competitors" outcome.

Verification link (USPTO Assignment Center search by patent number): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (enter "10988342" as the patent number). The correspondent-of-record and reel/frame numbers for the two events above should be pulled from that search to close the one open field in this report.

Open items / confidence limits:

• The execution dates and correspondent-of-record for both recorded assignments were not retrievable here and are marked "not retrieved" rather than guessed.
• The earlier-generated summary and this section agree on the substance of the chain; no contradiction found. I note only that the earlier section's "Active" status caveat still stands — the PTAB's Dec. 6, 2023 Final Written Decision cancelled the challenged claims, so "still owns/asserts the patent" (ownership finding) is distinct from "claims are enforceable" (validity finding).

I'll search for the patent on USPTO and gather details on its cited prior art.

Let me research the key prior-art references applied against this patent, including the ones the PTAB relied on.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,988,342 B2

Patent under analysis: Cable Reel and System of Use, Appl. No. 17/073,449, filed Oct. 19, 2020, granted Apr. 27, 2021; earliest priority Feb. 27, 2015; inventors Thakare et al.; current assignee Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
Independent claims: 1, 12, 19 (system claims). Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10988342](/patent/US10988342)/en (front page "Citations (52)" list and full text).

Search note: USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB records were located via the USPTO PTACTS document repository (ptacts.uspto.gov) and the Google Patents mirror of the USPTO record. The '342 patent's own front-page citation list comprises 52 U.S./foreign references, plus 8 "Family Cites." I treat each below. I flag where an item is a design patent, a family member of the same applicant (not prior art), or a post-priority reference (not § 102 art at all).

A. Threshold legal point that governs the answer

None of the cited references anticipates claims 1, 12, or 19 alone under § 102. Each independent claim requires, in a single reference: (i) two separate first/second frames, (ii) a bag with a base and cover sized to hold the reel, with the frames disposed in the base and at the cover, and (iii) a pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable separate from the reel that the two flanges releasably couple to hold therebetween. No single cited reference discloses all three. The claims were instead invalidated by the PTAB as obvious under § 103 in IPR2022-00946 (Final Written Decision, Dec. 6, 2023, holding claims 1–12 and 14–22 unpatentable). The closest single-reference § 102 candidate — Fontana (US 6,145,780) — was applied by the Examiner during prosecution to original claim 1, but the applicant amended claim 1 to add the "first frame … in the base of the bag" / "second frame … at or near the cover" limitations, and those limitations are what distinguish Fontana (a rigid box with wheels, not a base/cover bag). See IPR2022-00946 Petition/Reply discussion of the '342 prosecution history (Ex. 1003).

So: the references below are ranked by how close each comes to § 102 anticipation, with the honest note that most are § 103 (combination) art, not § 102 art.

B. Tier 1 — The references actually relied on to invalidate the claims (IPR2022-00946)

These four are the most relevant prior art of record. Per the PTAB/IPR record (Petitioner PPC Broadband, Inc.):

PTAB grounds (from the IPR record): Ground 1 — claims 1–12, 14–22 obvious over Brochure + Blunt; Ground 2 — further in view of Johanson; Ground 3 — further in view of Fontana. Final Written Decision (Dec. 6, 2023) found claims 1–12 and 14–22 unpatentable. Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2 ; http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf ; Petition exhibits 1002/1004 (Blunt) via docketalarm.com.

C. Tier 2 — Front-page citations with direct claim-element correspondence

D. Tier 3 — Remaining front-page patent citations (full list, brief descriptions)

The following complete the 52-citation list. For each, § 102 posture is noted; none anticipates claims 1/12/19, and these are chiefly background/§ 103 art. Dates are as listed on the '342 record (publication date / filing date).

Family Cites (8) — mostly foreign/early art:

E. Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

1. No cited reference anticipates claims 1, 12, or 19 individually. Each such claim requires the frame-in-base / frame-at-cover bag plus the separate pre-wound, reel-less coil — a combination no single reference shows.
2. Closest single-reference § 102 candidate: Fontana, US 6,145,780 — male/female mating flanges, frusto-conical central wall with ribs engaging the coil bore, and a reel-less pre-wound coil loaded between the flanges. It was the Examiner's anticipation ground against original claims; the claims survived only after amendment adding the bag-frame limitations (prosecution history Ex. 1003).
3. Blunt (US 2012/0168554 A1) and Ripplinger (US 5,465,171) are the closest § 102 art for the two-part / releasable mating hub elements of dependent claims 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 — but each lacks the bag and reel-less-coil elements.
4. The actual invalidation was under § 103, in IPR2022-00946 (Final Written Decision Dec. 6, 2023): claims 1–12 and 14–22 unpatentable over Brochure + Blunt (+ Johanson and/or Fontana). Claim 13 (plastic-wrap prepackaging) was not challenged.

F. Contradiction flagged for the record

The previously generated "Patent summary" section states the current date as April 26, 2026, while the authoritative patent record it relies on was fetched 2026-09-29, and this task restates the current date as April 26, 2026. I have not reconciled these; dates in this section are taken from the patent record and the cited publications as printed. Also, that prior summary could not confirm a 2026 CAFC appeal specific to the '342 patent — the only 2026 Rule 36 affirmance found involved different IPRs (2024-1776 et seq., from IPR2022-00718–-00721), so the current enforceability status of the '342 claims after the IPR remains unverified here.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10988342/en (authoritative front page + full text); https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120168554 (Blunt); https://patents.google.com/patent/US7938357 (Johanson); http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/da/fb/95/b560940969ca92/US6145780.pdf (Fontana); https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2 ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549577](/patent/1549577) (IPR2022-00946 petition/exhibits); http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6145780.html.

I'll ground my § 103 analysis in the actual prior-art references used in the record, so let me confirm details of the key references before drafting.

Let me confirm the Fontana reference and the Board's treatment of the bag-orientation limitation in claim 19.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. 10,988,342 B2

Building on the previously generated summary, claim overview, and litigation/PTAB status sections. The factual predicate used here is the prior-art record of IPR2022-00946 (PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.), which is consistent with the "Citations," "Families Citing," and prosecution-history entries on the authoritative Google Patents page at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10988342](/patent/US10988342)/en. I flag one point of tension with the earlier section at the end.

I. Analytical framework

A claim is obvious under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The inquiry asks (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious where the prior art teaches or suggests the elements, where a POSITA would merely use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or where the combination is a predictable variation of a known product with a recognized design incentive.

Level of ordinary skill (per the IPR record): a POSITA here would hold at least a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent) and approximately two to four years of experience in cable-handling/payout packaging design, or less formal education with additional relevant experience. Both parties' experts applied an essentially conventional mechanical-arts skill level, and the Board did not disturb it. The relevant field is portable cable payout containers, reels/spools, and separable-hub reel designs.

II. The prior-art roster

The obviousness case rests on a small, tightly related set of references from the record, several of which the earlier-generated summary already identified (Blunt, Johanson, Fontana). Reading them together:

Also cited on the face of the patent and in the record: Southwire US 6,352,215 ("Payoff device for a reeless package"), Campbell US 6,241,181 ("Reusable wire distribution spool"), Vandor US 6,234,421 ("Reel having secured flanges"), Ripplinger US 5,464,171 ("Mating spool assembly"), Vislocky US 6,045,087 ("Spool assembly for snap fit of flanges"), Windy City Wire US 8,016,222, and Perfectvision US 9,908,737 ("Cable reel and reel carrying caddy"). These confirm the crowded, well-developed nature of the field and that separable/mating-hub reels and reusable payout packages were a recognized design space long before 2015.

III. Claim 1 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus"

Claim 1 is a kit/system claim requiring: (a) separable-reel components — first frame, a second frame separate from the first, a first flange engaging the first frame with its outer side facing it, and a second flange engaging the second frame with its outer side facing it; (b) a bag with a base and a cover, sized to hold the assembled reel, the first frame shaped for the base and the second frame shaped for placement at/near the cover; and (c) a pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable separate from the reel; the flanges releasably couple to support the coil therebetween.

Primary combination — Brochure + Blunt.

• Brochure supplies the bag-with-base-and-cover, the frame and frame hub, the reel with a flange center hole, the payout opening, and the instruction to seat the reel on the hub — the container/frame/flange sub-combination. As Petitioner argued and the Board credited, a POSITA reading the Perfect Tote instructions would understand that Step 1's "frame hub" (inserted into the flange center hole while the cover is open) is not the cover-side hub of Step 2, but a duplicate hub in the base of the bag; otherwise the reel cannot be rotatably supported in a balanced way, and the soft fabric bag would collapse inward on the reel when lifted. This directly meets the "first frame … second frame … separate from the first frame" requirement.
• Blunt supplies the separable/releasable two-flange, two-hub-portion reel (flange 42″, core 36″, separate flange 40″, stub 52″) that is opened to load a reel-less, pre-coiled supply of cable and replenished thereafter — i.e., the "configured to releasably couple" and "pre-wound, reel-less coil … separate from the separable cable reel" limitations.

Why a POSITA would combine them (motivation, per KSR):

1. Same field, same problem, same function. Both Brochure and Blunt disclose containers holding a two-flange cable reel with central flange openings, used to transport and pay out cable without removing the reel. Substituting one known cable reel for a functionally similar improved reel is the paradigm "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way."
2. Explicit market/design incentive — recyclability. Brochure advertises the Perfect Tote as "Environmentally-Friendly"; Blunt expressly frames its separable, replenishable reel as reducing waste and enabling reuse "in an environmentally friendly manner." A POSITA thus had an articulated reason (reduce waste; reuse the reel instead of discarding it with the spent coil) to adopt Blunt's separable structure in Brochure's bag.
3. Predictable result. The reel's flanges still seat on the frame hubs; nothing about Brochure's payout function is disturbed.

Reasonable expectation of success is high: the modification merely swaps one reel type for another in a standard payout bag, using known mating/seating techniques.

This was Ground 1, and the Board found it established claim 1. Secondary reference Johanson (US 7,938,357) reinforces the "duplicate/symmetric second frame" element expressly: Johanson teaches a pair of identical end plates positioned in mirror-image on opposite sides of the box, each with an inwardly projecting hub — exactly the "first frame in the base / second frame at the cover" architecture. Its motivation is cost/efficiency (one molded part instead of two) plus balanced rotational support, both classic KSR rationales.

IV. Claim 12 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus" (dual-hub version)

Claim 12 requires each flange to carry a hub portion on its inner side, the two hub portions being sized to fit within the coil's inner diameter and configured to releasably couple to form a hub member supporting the coil between the flanges, plus the same bag/frame/separate-reel-less-coil elements.

Combination — Brochure + Blunt (as in Ground 1), optionally + Johanson.

Blunt's annotated Figure 3 maps directly: flange 42″ = first flange; core 36″ = first hub portion; flange 40″ = second flange; stub component 52″ = second hub portion — i.e., two hub portions on the inner sides of the two flanges that couple to define the support for the coil. The Petition's mapping (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91–93, 65–75; Ex. 1004 ¶ 96, Figs. 3, 11) satisfied the Board. The "sized to fit within the inner diameter" limitation follows from the coil being slid onto the core/stub.

Motivation and expectation of success are the same as for claim 1, and dependent claim 15's "elongated annular wall / truncated annular wall … perpendicular to the flange plane" is squarely met by Blunt's cylindrical core 36″ + stub 52″ nested structure, and corroborated by Fontana's frusto-conical mating central parts 29.

Claim 13 (prepackaged with plastic wrap) was not challenged — but note it would also be met: Fontana explicitly discloses a coil wrapped in a "packaging thin film," and Chadwick supplies the reason (protect against corrosion/damage).

V. Claim 19 — "system for using a cable reel apparatus" (bag-as-component; horizontal payout)

Claim 19 differs from claim 1 in two respects: (i) it recites the bag itself as one of "the components of the separable cable reel," a first frame disposed in the base, a second frame disposed at the cover, and a hub portion extending from the inner side of one flange; and (ii) it adds a use limitation — "positioning the bag … in a horizontal orientation such that a longitudinal axis of the separable cable reel is horizontal," with the base of the bag having a payout opening.

Combination — Brochure + Blunt (Ground 1 reaches claim 19).

• The structural elements map as for claim 1, with Blunt supplying the "hub portion extending from the inner side of one of the flanges" (core 36″/stub 52″).
• The horizontal-orientation limitation is disclosed/suggested by Brochure itself: its instruction to seat the flange center hole on the side-panel frame hub and to have "the cable pay[] straight across the bottom of the reel and out the opening of the bag" necessarily places the reel's longitudinal axis horizontal relative to the bag's base, with payout through an opening at the base region. This orientation is also the natural resting/carry orientation and is confirmed by Fontana's Fig. 6 sequence (place loaded spool in the container; carry via shoulder strap; pay out through the lateral opening 22).
• The Board's treatment of the corresponding limitations in the sibling patents (see the Fontana-mapping prosecution-history exhibits, Exs. 1054/1056, mapping "central longitudinal axis … horizontal" to Fontana Step 8) shows this element was treated as squarely disclosed in the art.

Motivation to combine: same recyclability/reuse rationale, plus the practical need to seat the reel on both frame hubs (which drives the horizontal axis). Expectation of success: high.

VI. Dependent claims (2–11, 14–18, 20–22)

These are conventional implementation details, each disclosed or rendered obvious by the same combination:

• 2, 3, 17, 18, 20, 21 (assembling/disassembling the flanges or hub portions): Blunt's separable reel is by definition assembled for loading and separated for replenishment; Fontana Step 2 (thread coil onto first flange, then add the second flange) is an express teaching of assembly.
• 4 (payout opening in bag base): Brochure's bag opening / Fontana's container opening 22.
• 5, 6 (substantially square frame geometry; smaller disc-shaped flanges): Brochure shows a rectangular/square frame holding a round reel; Johanson shows duplicate framed end plates sized larger than the spool.
• 7, 9, 22 (hub receivable in coil inner diameter; hub as elongated wall): Blunt core 36″; Fontana central parts 29.
• 8 (hub extends transversely from inner side): Blunt/Johanson inwardly projecting hubs.
• 10, 16 (one-piece flange/hub): ordinary molding design choice; Blunt's flange/core integration.
• 11 (flanges configured to interlock): Blunt's mating flange/core/stub; also Vislocky US 6,045,087 ("snap fit of flanges") and Ripplinger US 5,464,171 ("mating spool assembly").
• 13 (plastic wrap prepackaging — unchallenged): Fontana thin film + Chadwick motivation.
• 14 (inner/outer friction surfaces forming a friction fit): Fontana's frusto-conical interference ribs 36/37 "block[ing] the innermost turns"; Blunt's friction engagement.
• 15 (one hub elongated annular wall, other truncated annular wall, both perpendicular): Blunt core/stub; Fontana flanges 30/32.

Each is either expressly disclosed or an obvious, result-effective design choice with no unexpected result — the KSR "predictable variation" category.

VII. Motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success (consolidated)

Three independent, record-supported rationales support every ground:

1. Known technique improving similar devices, in the same way each was designed to work — installing a known separable/reusable reel in a known payout bag, both already used to transport and pay out cable with central-opening flanges seated on frame hubs (KSR).
2. Articulated, pre-existing market/design incentive — Brochure's stated "Environmentally-Friendly" benefit and Blunt's express reuse/replenishment teaching supply the reason to move to a separable, refillable reel; Fontana supplies both the reel-less, prepackaged coil and its "reduce costs / more ecological" rationale; Johanson supplies the cost/symmetry rationale for duplicate frames.
3. Predictability / no changed principle of operation — the substituted components perform the same functions (rotatable hub support, flange-guided payout, frame seating), yielding a predictable, low-risk improvement.

Nothing in the claims adds an unexpected structure or result; the alleged invention is an arrangement of known parts performing known functions.

VIII. Objective indicia of non-obviousness

Patent Owner advanced four secondary considerations, all of which the Board rejected for lack of nexus and/or evidentiary deficiency:

• Commercial success (the Times Fiber "Tech Service Bag") — no established nexus between sales and the merits of the claimed combination (the claims are kit/system claims broad enough to read on prior-art structure; market success attributable to unclaimed features/packaging).
• Long-felt, unresolved need / industry adoption — the need was already addressed by the art (Blunt's replenishable reel; Fontana's reel-less coil).
• Copying — failed on both factual and nexus grounds.
• Presumption of nexus — held factually and legally erroneous because the commercial product was not shown to be coextensive with the claims.

Accordingly, the objective evidence does not overcome the strong prima facie obviousness case.

IX. Conclusion

The challenged claims of U.S. 10,988,342 B2 (claims 1–12 and 14–22) are obvious under § 103 over the following combinations:

• Brochure (Perfect Tote™ 500 Eco) + Blunt (US 2012/0168554 A1) — the core combination disposing of claims 1–12 and 14–22;
• + Johanson (US 7,938,357 B2) — reinforcing the duplicate symmetric frame element;
• + Fontana (US 6,145,780) — supplying the express "prepackaged, pre-wound, reel-less coil" and friction-fit elongated/truncated hub walls (claims 7, 13, 14, 15, 22);
• + Chadwick (secondary) — supplying the motivation to wrap the coil for transport/storage protection.

The motivation to combine is grounded in shared field/purpose, an express environmentally-friendly reuse incentive, and KSR's "known technique / predictable variation" rationales; the expectation of success is high because the combination merely substitutes one known reel type into a known payout bag. Claim 13 (not challenged) would likewise be obvious over the same references. The Board's Dec. 6, 2023 Final Written Decision cancelled all challenged claims on these grounds.

X. Caveats and one flag

• Consistency with the earlier section: the earlier section reported the IPR as filed May 27, 2022, instituted Dec. 7, 2022, with a Final Written Decision of Dec. 6, 2023 cancelling claims 1–12 and 14–22 and leaving claim 13 unchallenged. My analysis is consistent with that. (One retrieved docket snippet referenced a Dec. 20, 2023 redacted FWD for the sibling IPR2022-00947; that date belongs to the sibling proceeding, not IPR2022-00946 — worth noting so the two are not conflated.)
• "Brochure" is a printed publication, not a patent. Its § 102(a)(1)/102(b) status rests on the Firmani/Mullin declarations (public distribution and display at SCE Cable-Tec Expo 2014, Sept. 22–25, 2014; metadata showing Feb. 5, 2014 creation), which pre-date the Feb. 27, 2015 priority date. I did not independently re-verify the underlying exhibits beyond the search excerpts.
• Dates/identifiers are reported literally. I did not auto-correct any reference number (e.g., Fontana is 6,145,780, "Portable device for dispensing cables," Italiana Conduttori S.R.L., matching Ex. 1005).
• Unresolved (unchanged from the earlier section): whether the ’342 claims are currently enforceable after the IPR and any appeal/statutory disclaimer — the record I retrieved does not resolve this, and Google Patents' "Active" tag is a machine-generated assumption, not a legal conclusion.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10988342/en (authoritative full text, claims, and citation list); https://patents.google.com/patent/US20120168554 (Blunt); https://patents.google.com/patent/US7938357 (Johanson); https://uspto.report/patent/grant/6145780 and https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6145780.html (Fontana US 6,145,780); http://www.ppc-online.com/hubfs/DOWNLOADABLE%20DOCUMENTS/Product_Spec_Sheets/perfect-tote-13535-01_spec-sheet.pdf (Perfect Tote); http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PTAB-IPR2022-00946-47.pdf (FWD text); https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2022-00946/doc/summary/2 (grounds summary); https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/ (petition, POR, reply, and exhibits).