US 11001471

I'll search for authoritative records on US 11,001,471.

Let me check the PTAB proceeding and any appellate docket for this patent.

Let me check for any Federal Circuit appeal arising from the IPR.

US 11,001,471 B2 — "Cable Reel"

Caveat on scope of this search: Below is what I could ground in the patent document itself (patents.google.com text supplied) plus live USPTO/PTAB-related search results. I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket, opinion, or Rule 36 judgment specifically tied to patent 11,001,471. Any statement I could make about a 2026 appeal would be speculation, so I am not making one. Details on that below.

Bibliographic data

Continuity (per the patent's Related U.S. Application Data): This is a continuation of 16/804,577 (filed Feb. 28, 2020), which is a continuation of 15/833,091 (now US 10,589,957), which is a continuation of 15/433,789 (now US 9,862,566), which is a divisional of 14/634,007 (now US 9,695,008), filed Feb. 27, 2015. The family also includes the "Cable reel with braking" line (US 9,873,588; US 10,611,598) and several method-of-installing patents.

Minor source discrepancy: Unified Patents' portal lists the filing date as 2020-10-18 and priority as 2015-02-26, and grant as 2021-05-10 — off by one day from the patent document. These are almost certainly timezone/normalization artifacts. I treat the patent document (Oct. 19, 2020 filing; Feb. 27, 2015 priority; May 11, 2021 issue) as authoritative.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A cable reel apparatus that has a cable reel for holding a coil of cable and includes a central longitudinal axis. A first flange is configured to be rotatably coupled to a first frame and has opposite inner and outer sides. A second flange that is separate from the first flange is configured to be rotatably coupled to a second frame and has opposite inner and outer sides. One of the first and second flanges includes a hub portion that extends transversely from the inner side thereof. The first and second flanges are configured to be releasably coupled to one another for supporting a coil of cable on the hub portion between the first and second flanges along the central longitudinal axis of the cable reel and are configured to be decoupled from one another when replacing the coil of cable once dispensed from the cable reel apparatus."

Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — "cable reel apparatus" (the two-flange, two-frame bag combination):
A cable reel for holding a coil of cable, with a central longitudinal axis, comprising:

• a first flange rotatably couplable to a first frame (inner/outer sides);
• a second flange, separate from the first, rotatably couplable to a second frame;
• at least one flange has a hub portion sticking out transversely from its inner side;
• the two flanges releasably couple to each other to hold the coil on the hub along the axis, and can be decoupled so the spent coil can be replaced;
• the coil's inner diameter receives the hub portion;
• the bag is set up so the second flange can be removed from the first flange's hub, letting the coil be loaded and unloaded;
• the first frame is in the bag's base and the second frame at the bag's cover — closing the cover releasably couples the second frame to the second flange; opening the cover decouples them (this is what allows payout from the bag);
• the coil of cable is prepackaged without a cable reel (i.e., a reel-less coil is the claimed workpiece).

Notable drafting quirk: claim 1 refers to "the bag" before the bag is first introduced (the bag is introduced later in the same claim). That antecedent-basis oddity is a fair target for an indefiniteness argument, and it is worth flagging as a real feature of the claim as issued.

Claim 4 — "cable reel apparatus" (frame/flange sizing + means-plus-function):
A cable reel with a central longitudinal axis, comprising:

• a first flange rotatably couplable to a first frame, outer side facing the frame, and the first flange is smaller in size than the outer frame portion of that frame;
• a second flange (separate) couplable to a second frame, outer side facing that frame, and the second flange is smaller than the outer frame portion of the second frame;
• "means for releasably coupling" the two flanges to support a pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable between them along the axis, and for decoupling them when replacing the coil — a means-plus-function limitation under § 112(f), whose corresponding structure in the specification is the mating elongated/truncated hub walls and friction fit (¶¶ describing the first hub portion 150 / second hub portion 152);
• the same base-frame / cover-frame bag geometry as claim 1: closing the cover rotatably couples the second frame to the second flange; opening the cover decouples them.

Dependent claims: 2 (hub portion is an annular elongated wall), 3 (flanges coupled by friction fit), 5 (each flange has a central opening for rotatable coupling to its frame), 6 (each flange is one-piece), 7 (the "means" is a frictional fit), 8 (the pre-wound reel-less coil is prepackaged), 9 (the coil is prepackaged with plastic wrap).

Specification gist (for context): a first hub portion with a slotted, tapered, flexible elongated wall receives a tapered truncated second hub portion; inserting the second into the first expands the flexible segments to grip the coil's inner diameter and forms a friction fit, backed up by snap arms/tabs. A separate braking mechanism is described (offset, off-center gear teeth between the frame's middle flange support and the flange's central arbor opening) that creates friction and a clicking action to limit over-payout — but note the braking features are not recited in the claims of this patent; they are claimed in the sibling "Cable reel with braking" patents (US 9,873,588; US 10,611,598).

Litigation and PTAB posture (verified findings)

• District court: Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.) — a US case for the family, per Google Patents' litigation links. The PTAB FWD records that on July 1, 2022 the district court stayed the litigation pending the IPRs.
• IPR2022-00947: Petition filed by PPC Broadband, Inc. (real parties-in-interest: PPC Broadband, Inc. and Belden Inc.) against claims 1–8 of the '471 patent. Institution decision Dec. 7, 2022. Oral hearing Sept. 20, 2023. Final Written Decision dated Dec. 20, 2023 (Paper 47): all challenged claims 1–8 held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Claim 9 was not challenged, so it was not part of that judgment.
• Related IPRs in the same campaign: IPR2022-00946 (US 10,988,342), IPR2022-01087 (US 10,941,016), IPR2022-01088 (US 10,906,771), and IPR2022-00830 / IPR2022-00831 (institution denied after patent owner cancelled/amended). The Board has cited its holdings in -00946 and -00947 as affirming that "claims to a communication cable payout bag having a pair of frames supporting a cable reel within the bag are not patentable."
• April 9, 2024 PTAB expungement order (entered in the four related IPRs) states that "no party has appealed any of the Final Written Decisions and the deadline for such an appeal has passed." That is the last appellate-status evidence I could verify for the '471 patent, and it points against a pending appeal as of April 2024.
• Downstream: a later PTAB petition in the related technology space (petition documents referencing the '697 patent) notes a district court trial scheduled to begin May 17, 2027 in that separate matter; that docket is not the '471 IPR appeal.

Explicit uncertainties

1. No CAFC 2026 activity for 11,001,471 located. I searched for Federal Circuit 2026 dockets/opinions referencing this patent and found none. I cannot state that an appeal exists, that one was affirmatively resolved, or that the FWD was vacated. Treat "no 2026 CAFC docket identified" as a search result, not a legal conclusion.
2. "Active" legal status is unreliable here. Google Patents shows legal status "Active" with expiration 2035-02-27, but that status field does not appear to have been updated to reflect the Dec. 2023 IPR cancellation of claims 1–8. The distinction between "claims held unpatentable in an IPR that issued a final written decision" and "patent administratively cancelled" (which requires the appeal window to lapse) matters, and I do not have an authoritative post-2024 USPTO certificate-of-correction or cancellation record in hand.
3. Assignee chain (Amphenol → Times Fiber) is supported by the reassignment records surfaced in the Google Patents page and by the PTAB caption, but I did not independently pull the USPTO assignment abstracts.

I'll research the litigation history for US 11,001,471 using the available sources.

Let me search for the specific IPR proceeding and the Delaware case.

Let me get the Unified Patents litigation caselist for this patent and check for any appeal.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,001,471 ("Cable Reel")

Patent identified literally as US 11,001,471 B2 — titled "Cable reel," application No. 17/073,446, filed Oct. 19, 2020, granted May 11, 2021, priority date Feb. 27, 2015, current assignee Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (originally Amphenol Corporation). All of the following litigation was located by matching the specific number 11,001,471 (and its asserted co-plaintiff patents), not similar numbers.

1. District Court Litigation

Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

Key development: The case was docketed alongside PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 21-654 (VAC) (D. Del.) — an associated companion case that PPC brought against Amphenol/Times Fiber on PPC's own patents (not the '471 patent). Note the '471 patent was asserted by TFC in 1:21-cv-01823, not in the 21-654 case.

Sources: D. Del. complaint (TFC v. PPC, C.A. No. 21-cv-01823) as reproduced at Docket Alarm (PPC Ex. 1008 in IPR2022-00946); Unified Patents litigation caselist ("1:21-cv-01823 | 2021-12-26 | Closed | Delaware District Court | Times Fiber Communications Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc | Infringement"); ExParte case page (status "Closed (12/20/23)").

2. PTAB Post-Grant Proceedings

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., IPR2022-00947

The Board's decision relied on, among other things, "Brochure" (Ex. 1006) and "Blunt" (Ex. 1004), plus Johanson and Fontana in various ground combinations. Five related IPRs challenged sibling patents (IPR2022-00830 re 10,913,632; IPR2022-00831 re 10,589,957; IPR2022-00946 re 10,988,342; IPR2022-01087 re 10,941,016; IPR2022-01088 re 10,906,771).

Sources: PTAB Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00947, Paper 47 (Dec. 20, 2023), as reproduced on Docket Alarm and on PTACTS/USPTO; Google Patents litigation banner for US11001471 (link to portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00947); Patexia "PPC Broadband, Inc. et al. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.," Case No. IPR2022-00947.

3. Related / Adjacent Matters (for context — the '471 patent was not directly asserted)

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 21-654 (VAC) (D. Del.): PPC's mirror-image action against the '471 patent's owner/affiliate. The parties stipulated to stay litigation (so-ordered April 6, 2022) pending Amphenol's March 18, 2022 IPR petitions on the patents asserted in that case. This case involves PPC's own patents, not the '471 patent, and is listed only because the Delaware VAC order treated 21-654 and 21-823 as "Associated Cases."
• Google Patents' "Family has litigation" flag references a Darts-IP "First worldwide family litigation filed" entry (family ID 56798668) — consistent with the Delaware action above; no separate non-U.S. litigation for the '471 patent is identified in the sources retrieved.

Caveats and Open Items

1. No separate litigation beyond the above was found naming US 11,001,471 as an asserted patent. The only two proceedings identified are the Delaware action (1:21-cv-01823) and IPR2022-00947.
2. The precise reason for closure of 1:21-cv-01823 on 12/20/2023 (dismissal, consent judgment, or voluntary dismissal following the PTAB decision) is not confirmed in the retrieved materials. The closure date coincides with the IPR final written decision invalidating all '471 claims, but I have not verified a dismissal order on the docket, so I state that with only moderate confidence.
3. Federal Circuit appeal status: I could not confirm whether the IPR2022-00947 final written decision was appealed to the CAFC. No CAFC docket for this patent appeared in the searches. This is unverified — do not treat absence of an appeal as confirmation that none was filed.
4. All case numbers, dates, and identifiers above are reproduced literally as found in the sources; where databases disagree (e.g., filing dates 12/26 vs. 12/27/2021; decision dates 12/6 vs. 12/20/2023), both values are noted rather than reconciled.

I'll start by verifying the one PTAB reference that appears in the patent's litigation metadata (IPR2022-00947) plus check for any other proceedings.

Key finding: the patent page's own litigation metadata and web sources show IPR2022-00947 (PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber) — a Final Written Decision canceling claims. Let me nail down claim-level outcomes, the IPR certificate, and any appeal.

Now let me pin down the IPR certificate (claim cancellation) and whether any Federal Circuit appeal was taken.

Proceedings overview

Count: one (1) AIA trial on record against US 11,001,471 — IPR2022-00947 — and it went to a Final Written Decision that held every challenged claim (claims 1–8) unpatentable. A footnote on sourcing first: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is inconsistent with both (a) the Google Patents page for US11001471 itself, which carries a "PTAB case IPR2022-00947 filed (Final Written Decision)" entry, and (b) the public record, where the FWD is available and is cited by later petitioners. Flagging this as an ODP ingest gap, not as an absence of proceedings. The only proceeding I can substantiate is IPR2022-00947; I found no second IPR, no PGR, and no CBM against the '471.

Breakdown: 1 total / 0 active / 1 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this patent is effectively dead as an assertion vehicle. Claims 1–8 — including both independent claims (1 and 4) — were canceled. If a demand letter cites US 11,001,471, it is citing claims that no longer exist. The patent survives on paper only through claim 9, which was never challenged and is a dependent claim hanging off canceled claim 8.

IPR2022-00947 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2022-05-18 (original petition, Paper 2); corrected petition filed 2022-07-29 (Paper 7), with prior Board approval. Notice of filing date accorded 2022-06-10.
• Status (verbatim from the structured/metadata record): "PTAB case IPR2022-00947 filed (Final Written Decision)" — gloss: trial instituted, tried to judgment, terminated on the merits; docket shows "Terminated Dec. 6, 2023," status "Final Written Decision."
• Real parties in interest: Petitioner side — PPC Broadband, Inc. and Belden Inc. Patent Owner — Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation, per the Thakare declaration in this IPR).
  • ⚠️ Correction of a likely misreading: the "Unified Patents" links on the Google Patents page are data-provider links (Unified Patents hosts a PTAB/litigation data portal), not petitioners. Unified Patents did not file this IPR. Do not treat this as a defensive-aggregator case; it is a competitor-vs-competitor fight driven by District of Delaware litigation.
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith, George R. Hoskins, and Frances L. Ippolito, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion authored by APJ Hoskins. Oral hearing held 2023-09-20, consolidated with IPR2022-00946, -01087 and -01088 (video teleconference).
• Petition grounds: Obviousness (§ 103) over four grounds against claims 1–8:
  • Ground I — Brochure (Ex. 1006) in view of Blunt (Ex. 1004)
  • Ground II — Brochure + Blunt + Johanson (Ex. 1013)
  • Ground III — Brochure + Blunt + Fontana (Ex. 1005)
  • Ground IV — Brochure + Blunt + Johanson + Fontana
  • Petitioner's technical declarant: Dr. Charles Eldering (Ex. 1002). The "Brochure" is Amphenol's own Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag brochure — i.e., the patent owner's own product literature was used as the primary reference.
• Institution decision: Instituted — 2022-12-07 (Paper 8). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the petitioned grounds as to claims 1–8 and instituted review. (I did not retrieve independent quotations of the Board's institution reasoning beyond the fact of full institution; the FWD states simply: "We issued an Institution Decision (Paper 8) instituting the petitioned review.")
• Final Written Decision: Issued. Judgment — Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Board judgment entered 2023-12-06; public redacted version is Paper 47, dated 2023-12-20. Verbatim scope statement: "This Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–8 of the '471 patent. We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that those claims are unpatentable."
  • Claim-by-claim disposition: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 — all held unpatentable. That includes both independent claims (claim 1, the apparatus claim; and claim 4, the "means for releasably coupling" claim) and every dependent claim. No challenged claim was sustained.
  • Claim 9 — not addressed. Claim 9 was not challenged in the petition and the FWD does not reach it. (Per the parties' consolidated demonstratives, the challenged claim set for the '471 was "1‑8," with the "prepackaged" limitations carried by claims 1‑3 & 8.)
  • Reasoning retrievable from the public redacted FWD: the panel credited Dr. Eldering's "unrebutted" testimony that the Brochure's bag discloses a first frame on the bag's base and a second frame with a hub on the cover, such that "when the cover of Brochure's bag is closed, the cable reel is rotatably mounted between the hub of the first frame and the hub of the second frame," and that the second frame "releasably couples with the second flange" on closing and "decouples from the second flange" on opening "as required by claim 1." The panel rejected Patent Owner's argument that the Brochure/Blunt combination "does not disclose a prepackaged reel-less pre-wound coil of cable," noting Patent Owner "does not dispute Petitioner's reliance on Blunt as disclosing a cable reel apparatus with a reel structure that allows for replenishing the cable supply, by separating two releasably coupled flanges."
  • Ancillary rulings: Petitioner's Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 36) — DENIED; Petitioner's Motions to Seal (Papers 25 and 40) — GRANTED. The unredacted FWD and confidential exhibits were the subject of Patent Owner's unopposed motions to expunge; by Order dated 2024-04-09 (Paper 51 in the companion -00946, same order entered in -00947) the Board granted expungement as to exhibits and papers but denied it as to the Final Written Decisions, which remain on the public record in redacted form.
• Settlement / termination: None. This was a merits judgment, not a § 317 settlement. Patent Owner filed an Updated Mandatory Notices on 2024-03-29 (post-judgment housekeeping).
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal by either party was located in any source retrieved. Petitioner had no reason to appeal a clean win; Patent Owner's window to appeal the 2023-12-06 FWD ran roughly 63 days (~2024-02-06), and the 2024-04-09 expungement order — which post-dates the FWD and arises "after final judgment" — is consistent with no appeal having been taken. I could not retrieve a CAFC docket number and will not invent one. I also could not retrieve the § 318(b) inter partes review certificate document itself for the '471; by operation of law the Director must issue a certificate canceling claims 1–8, but verify the certificate's issue date and content on PTAB E2E / USPTO PatentCenter before relying on it in a filing.
• Defensive value: Claims 1–8 are gone — any infringement theory built on claims 1, 4, or their dependents (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8) is sanction-bait. Patent Owner's own product brochure, plus routine cable-coil-replacement art (Blunt) and prepackaging art (Fontana/Johanson), were enough to kill the entire challenged set; the Board also rejected the objective-indicia story. The only theoretically live claim is claim 9, which depends from canceled claim 8 and adds only "prepackaged with plastic wrap."
  • FWD (public redacted, Paper 47, 2023-12-20): docketalarm mirror · Unified Patents PTAB case page · IPVerse docket for IPR2022-00947

Strategic summary

Claim status. Of the '471's nine claims, claims 1–8 are CANCELED (FWD 2023-12-06, § 318(a)), spanning both independent claims and all their dependents. Claim 9 is UNTESTED — never challenged, never adjudicated. It is a dependent claim ("The cable reel apparatus of claim 8, wherein the pre-wound, reel-less coil of cable is prepackaged with plastic wrap"), so it carries zero independent scope: it incorporates every limitation of canceled claim 8 and canceled claim 4, and reads the "prepackaged with plastic wrap" feature that the Board treated as part of the objective-evidence fight rather than as a saving limitation. Treat claim 9 as a vestigial claim, not a live enforcement tool — but if you are a defendant being threatened specifically on claim 9, note that no tribunal has held it unpatentable. (Authority cited across this family for the proposition that suits on canceled claims are moot: Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013); SHFL Ent., Inc. v. DigiDeal Corp., 729 F. App'x 931, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2018).)

Estoppel landscape. PPC Broadband and Belden — as petitioners and their privies — are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising in the Delaware action (or any later civil action) any ground on claims 1–8 that they raised or reasonably could have raised: the Brochure (their own competitor's brochure), Blunt, Johanson, Fontana, and any obviousness combination a POSITA could have assembled from the printed art of record. For a different defendant (not a PPC/Belden privy), there is no statutory estoppel at all — but there is also almost nothing left to defend against, since claims 1–8 are canceled and claim 9 was untested; a new defendant facing a claim-9-only theory could still run printed art against claim 9 free of § 315(e)(2) constraints. Note the practical asymmetry: the winning art here includes the patent owner's own Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag brochure — which means the patent owner's own commercialization evidence is now weaponizable against the family's remaining claims.

Pattern signals. This was a coordinated six-proceeding family campaign by PPC Broadband/Belden against the Amphenol/Times Fiber cable-reel family, filed within days of each other in May–June 2022, right after Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del., filed 2021-12-27) (the Google Patents page lists D. Del. case 1:21-cv-01823). The Board's own "Related Proceedings" recital is the map:

• IPR2022-00830 (US 10,913,632) — institution denied after Patent Owner canceled all challenged claims
• IPR2022-00831 (US 10,589,957) — institution denied after Patent Owner canceled all challenged claims
• IPR2022-00946 (US 10,988,342) — FWD, claims held unpatentable (Paper 46 at 109)
• IPR2022-00947 (US 11,001,471) — FWD, all challenged claims unpatentable (Paper 47 at 112)
• IPR2022-01087 (US 10,941,016) — FWD, claims held unpatentable (Paper 46 at 117)
• IPR2022-01088 (US 10,906,771) — FWD, claims held unpatentable (Paper 43 at 107)

Two signals worth carrying into any negotiation: the patent owner's revealed playbook is to cancel claims rather than litigate them (it did so twice, in -00830/-00831, to defeat institution), and the Board has repeatedly held the "two frames supporting a cable reel inside a payout bag" concept unpatentable across this family. Also note the continuation treadmill on the patent side: Times Fiber obtained US 12,269,706 B2 (2025-04-08, "Cable Reel") out of this same priority chain, and Amphenol has a pending application on a "cable reel with axially adjustable coupling mechanism" (US 2023/0219782 A1) — so the family, not the '471, is where future assertions will come from.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the § 318(b) IPR certificate for the '471 from PTAB E2E / PatentCenter. The FWD disposition is unambiguous — "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" — and I can quote it, but the certificate is the document a court will want attached to any motion or dismissal argument. I could not verify the certificate's issue date from the sources retrieved; do not assume a date.
2. If you are a defendant and the demand letter/pleading cites claims 1–8, move to dismiss or strike now. Cite the FWD's judgment line — "We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that those claims are unpatentable" — and pair it with Fresenius, 721 F.3d at 1340 ("when a claim is cancelled, the patentee loses any cause of action based on that claim, and any pending litigation in which the claims are asserted becomes moot"). Link the public redacted FWD.
3. If the assertion is claim 9 only: no PTAB activity touched claim 9, so no estoppel protects the patent owner's flank but no FWD kills the claim either. Attack claim 9 head-on with the same art family (Brochure/Blunt/Fontana/Johanson) plus any plastic-wrap/shrink-wrap prepackaging art; a fresh IPR on claim 9 is available to anyone who is not a PPC/Belden privy, and § 315(b)'s one-year bar runs from service of a complaint on you.
4. No pending PTAB milestones to track. This proceeding terminated on 2023-12-06; there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no 1-year § 316(a)(11) FWD clock running on the '471. There is likewise no Federal Circuit appeal docket to monitor based on what I could retrieve.
5. Confirm the ODP gap. Because the ODP-derived block in this prompt reports zero AIA proceedings while the record shows a fully-tried IPR, treat that field as stale for this patent. If your workflow auto-populates PTAB status from ODP, it will mis-report the '471 as un-tested — a materially dangerous error in the other direction from the usual one.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11001471. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,001,471 B2 ("Cable reel")

Scope caveat up front: The two independent sources I could reach in this session — the Google Patents legal-events record (authoritative text supplied in the prompt) and the mirrors at Unified Patents / Patexia / onscope — do not expose USPTO reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent for the assignment frames. I therefore report the conveyance events that are documented, flag the two data points I could not verify (reel/frame and assignee-side correspondent), and do not invent them. Verification path is given at the end of each section.

Inventors

Per the face of US 11,001,471 B2 (Appl. No. 17/073,446, filed 2020-10-19, "Applicant: Amphenol Corporation, Wallingford, CT"):

Pattern notes:

• No attrition red flag. The inventors are a mixed US (NC, VA), Canada, and China R&D team at a single corporate family (Amphenol / Times Fiber). Five of six sit at Times Fiber's Virginia and North Carolina coaxial-cable operations — consistent with an in-house operating-company cradle-to-grave team, not a team that departed en masse to seed a licensing vehicle.
• The one genuinely unusual item is not an assignment event but a post-grant inventorship correction: a petition under 37 C.F.R. §1.324 (originally filed under §1.48) was filed 2021-09-13 by Peter S. Weissman, Blank Rome LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-5403, requesting a certificate of correction; the Certificate of Correction was signed 2021-11-09 (Supervisory Examiner Anita Y. Coupe, Art Unit 3619). This is a clerical/typographical and inventorship correction on the same patent, not a change of ownership. (PTAB public petition documents)

Original assignee

Amphenol Corporation, Wallingford, CT (Delaware corporation, NYSE: APH).

• Product embodying the claims — yes. The claims read on the Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag (a.k.a. "Tech Service Bag" / Tech Service Bag II), a reusable-reel coaxial-cable payout bag for cable installers. Amphenol/Times Fiber asserted in the parallel IPR that the bag embodies the claimed kit, that the product was rolled out with Charter Communications in 2015, and that it was standardized across Charter's Times-Fiber-supplied installs by 2017. PPC Broadband and CommScope were identified as alleged copiers. (Patent Owner's IPR2022-00947 response)
• Primary line of business. Amphenol is a global interconnect/connector/sensor/antenna manufacturer (founded 1932; Delaware-incorporated 1986; ~74,000 employees). Its Times Fiber Communications, Inc. subsidiary is the broadband/coaxial-cable operating unit (Wallingford CT HQ; Chatham VA; Liberty NC; Renfrew ON). (Amphenol credit-report excerpt)
• Current status. Operating. Amphenol is an active NYSE-listed public company; Times Fiber is described in sworn testimony as "a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation" (Thakare declaration, 2023-03-24). No bankruptcy, no dissolution.

Assignment timeline

Two post-issuance events are documented in the Google Patents legal-events feed for US 11,001,471. Reel/frame numbers are not exposed by any source I could reach and are left blank rather than fabricated.

• Recorded 2021-08-12 (execution date not exposed in reachable sources) — Reel / (not retrievable; see note)

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Barry Holt; Caichun Song; Paul Richard Boucher; Phillip Stanley Bowen; Marvin Bryant; Rakesh Thakare (all six named inventors)
  • Assignee: Amphenol Corporation
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the reachable record. The patent's prosecution/correction correspondent of record is Peter S. Weissman, Blank Rome LLP, 1825 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-5403 (Sept. 13, 2021 Correction petition) — flagged as the only named attorney of record in this file, but I cannot confirm he signed this recording.
  • Context: perfecting the original hire-to-file assignment — the inventor→company assignment for this continuation application, recorded shortly after the 2021-05-11 grant.

• Recorded 2022-04-19 (execution date not exposed; the Dec. 27, 2021 complaint already pleads Times Fiber as owner, so execution almost certainly predates the recording) — Reel / (not retrievable)

  • Conveyance: Assignment ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Amphenol Corporation
  • Assignee: Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the reachable record.
  • Context: internal reorganization / intra-group reallocation — the patent was moved down from parent (Amphenol) to its wholly-owned operating broadband subsidiary (Times Fiber). This is not an arm's-length or third-party sale; Amphenol remains the ultimate parent.

Note on reel/frame: Google Patents, Unified Patents, Patexia and onscope all omit reel/frame for these frames. To capture them, query the USPTO Assignment Center directly by patent number (see verification link below). Because I cannot read the frames, I do not assert a reel number for either event.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — search "11001471" (redirects to Assignment Center).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11001471
    2015 : Priority application filed by Amphenol
    2021 : Patent issued to Amphenol
         : Inventor assignment recorded to Amphenol
         : Times Fiber sues PPC in Delaware
    2022 : Assignment recorded to Times Fiber
    2023 : Delaware case closed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The receiving entity, Times Fiber Communications, Inc., is a decades-old operating manufacturer (first patent 1978; broadband/cable-TV connector and coax-cable business; Wallingford CT; Chatham VA; Liberty NC; Renfrew ON), and is described under oath as a wholly owned subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation. The 2022-04-19 recorded assignment moves the patent downward from parent (Amphenol) to its operating subsidiary — the opposite of an operating company pushing IP into a licensing-only shell. No "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent address, no single-member LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither current assignee (Times Fiber) nor original assignee (Amphenol) appears on any of the named NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Unified Patents' own litigation portal classifies Times Fiber's plaintiff entity type as "Operating Company" for case 1:21-cv-01823. (Unified Patents litigation list)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT A FINDING / UNCLEAR. Only one attorney name surfaces in this file — Peter S. Weissman (Blank Rome LLP) — and he appears in connection with the 2021 inventorship/typographical Certificate of Correction, i.e., patent prosecution, not as a repeat recording correspondent. With only one appearance and no evidence he filed the assignment frames, this is explicitly not the recurrence signal. Recording correspondents for the two frames are unretrieved.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. A single intra-group transfer through one entity in 2022. No chained LLC-to-LLC hops, no shared correspondent addresses, no sub-24-month chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (inverse). The infringement suit Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del.) was filed 2021-12-27 — i.e., before the 2022-04-19 recording of the Amphenol→Times Fiber assignment. The complaint pleads Times Fiber as owner. This is not a transfer arranged to enable assertion; if anything it is a housekeeping recording of an ownership change that already existed.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 involving Amphenol or Times Fiber; no asset-sale proceeding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. There is no NPE interposed between Amphenol and Times Fiber. The asserting party (Times Fiber) is the operating subsidiary that makes and sells the patented bag, and it sued a direct competitor (PPC Broadband) that it alleges copied the product — the classic operating-company assertion, not a proxy war.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. To the contrary, Unified Patents appears on the defendant-side/analytics record and PPC Broadband is the party that filed IPR2022-00947 against this patent. (Unified Patents patent record)

Collateral observation (not an NPE signal, but relevant to posture): this patent sits in a 15-application family (US 9,695,008; 9,862,566; 9,872,588; 10,589,957; 10,611,598; 10,906,770; 10,913,632; 10,906,771; 10,988,342; 10,994,964; 11,001,471; 10,941,016; 10,988,343; and later US 12,269,706 B2) all claiming the 2015-02-27 priority date, all now held by Times Fiber. Assertion is multiplatform and mutual (PPC also sued Amphenol/Times Fiber in N.D.N.Y. on connector patents), which is characteristic of a two-way commercial competitor dispute, not one-way troll monetization.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The only recorded ownership movement is an intra-group transfer from Amphenol Corporation to its wholly owned operating subsidiary Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (recorded 2022-04-19), which followed the inventor→Amphenol assignment recorded 2021-08-12. Times Fiber is an active manufacturer whose Amphenol Sustainable Solution Tech Service Bag embodies the claims, was commercialized with Charter from 2015, and is asserted in Times Fiber v. PPC Broadband, 1:21-cv-01823 (D. Del., filed 2021-12-27) against a direct competitor — with no NPE, no shell LLC, no cascading transfer, and no defensive-aggregator termination anywhere in the chain. Confidence limited to the documented events only: reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondents are not exposed by the sources reachable here and must be confirmed at the USPTO Assignment Center.

Verification: USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search by patent number — query "11001471".

I'll start by searching for the specific patent number to confirm the record, then analyze its cited prior art.

Let me pull the PTAB challenge details, since an IPR was filed against this patent, and confirm the cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,001,471 B2 ("Cable Reel")

1. Patent record confirmed (exact match, 11001471)

I searched for the specific number 11001471 and confirmed the record. No similar-number substitutions were used.

Post-grant correction (relevant): A Certificate of Correction (signed Nov. 9, 2021) amended claim 1 — "the bag" → "a bag" (Col. 11, line 38) and "a bag" → "the bag" (line 43), and claim 4 "coupling to the" → "coupling the." The PTAB reproduced claim 1 in its corrected form.

Caveat on scope of this report: The authoritative source here is the patent text you supplied, which lists the examiner's citations. I can verify citation identity, dates, assignees and titles exactly; I cannot, without reading each full reference, verify every element of its disclosure. Where I characterize a reference's content, I flag it as based on the title/assignee and on the grounds in which it was actually asserted.

2. What the claims actually require (the anticipation "element set")

To assess §102, note the element set of the two independent claims.

Claim 1 requires all of: (a) cable reel with central longitudinal axis; (b) first flange rotatably coupled to a first frame; (c) second flange separate from the first, rotatably coupled to a second frame; (d) at least one flange with a hub portion extending transversely from its inner side; (e) flanges releasably coupled / decoupled to support and replace a coil; (f) hub sized to be received in the coil inner diameter; (g) a bag configured so the second flange is removable from the hub; (h) first frame in the base, second frame at the cover, the second frame releasably coupling/decoupling with the second flange as the cover closes/opens; and (i) the coil is prepackaged without a cable reel.

Claim 4 requires the same flange/frame architecture (with flanges "smaller in size than an outer frame portion"), a "means for releasably coupling" (means-plus-function, §112(f)) supporting a pre-wound, reel-less coil, and the base/cover frame coupling behavior.

Because claim 1 is a stringent combination, true single-reference §102 anticipation is unlikely for claim 1 or 4; the governing attack on this patent was §103. The one limitation that decided the IPR was the "prepackaged … reel-less coil."

3. Tier 1 — The prior art actually asserted against 11,001,471 (most relevant)

These are the references the Board and the examiner relied on. Notably, three of the four were already examiner citations on the face of the patent.

Prosecution/PTAB disposition: In IPR2022-00947, the Board's Redacted Final Written Decision (Dec. 20, 2023) held that Petitioner showed by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8 are unpatentable — on §103 grounds (Brochure in view of Blunt; and alternatively with Johanson and/or Fontana). This is an obviousness, not a §102 anticipation, result. Related proceedings on sibling patents: IPR2022-00946 ('342), -01087 ('016), -01088 ('771); and IPR2022-00830/-00831 (institution denied after claims were canceled).

4. Tier 2 — Face-of-patent examiner citations, grouped by relevance

Dates below are given as priority date / publication date, exactly as listed on the patent. "Anticipates" means the reference could plausibly disclose all elements of the listed claim on its own; where the honest answer is "relevant to but not anticipatory of," I say so.

A. Separable/mating flange-and-hub spools (closest to claims 1–3 and 4)

B. Reel-less / prepackaged coil of cable (closest to the "prepackaged without a cable reel" element)

C. Bag/box/carton payout containers with frames (closest to claims 1(g)–(h) and 4)

D. Reel/spool holders, caddies and payoff stands (secondary relevance)

E. Older reel/container and coil-handling art (background; weakest §102 value)

5. References cited by the family but post-dating it (not §102 prior art)

The "Families Citing this family" list (27 entries, e.g., Vandor's US 9,969,596; CommScope's WO 2022/154970 and WO 2022/187108; Southwire US 11,319,182; PPC's WO 2022/072730; Amphenol's US 2023/0219782; Times Fiber's own US 12,269,706) all cite the '471 family and therefore post-date the Feb. 27, 2015 priority date. They are not §102 prior art against 11,001,471; they are useful only as evidence of the field's later development.

6. Bottom line

• Most relevant prior art (asserted): Fontana US 6,145,780 (the strongest single-reference candidate for the "prepackaged, reel-less coil" element and the two-half-flange spool), Blunt US 2012/0168554, Johanson US 7,938,357, and the PPC "Perfect Tote 500 Eco" Brochure. The first three are already examiner citations on the face of the patent; the Brochure is §102(a)(1) art.
• Anticipation (§102) vs. obviousness (§103): No single one of these references appears to disclose every element of independent claim 1 or claim 4 (particularly the combination of a two-frame bag with base/cover coupling and a prepackaged reel-less coil). Fontana is the closest to a pure §102 reference — it was reportedly used by the examiner to reject the "prepackaged/reel-less" claims as anticipated — and arguably anticipates the hub/flange/reel-less-coil subject matter underlying claims 2, 3, 8 and 9. The full independent claims were instead held unpatentable under §103.
• Disposition: IPR2022-00947 — Final Written Decision of Dec. 20, 2023 found claims 1–8 unpatentable over Brochure in view of Blunt (and the Johanson/Fontana combinations). This is a §103 outcome, notwithstanding that Google Patents' status indicator for the patent still reads "Active."
• Honest uncertainty: I have verified citation identity, dates, assignees and titles exactly from the record, and I have grounded the asserted disclosures (Fontana, Blunt, Johanson, Brochure) in the PTAB and prosecution record. For the remaining face-of-patent citations, my "brief descriptions" are drawn from their titles/assignees, and my §102/§103 characterizations are analytical predictions — full element-by-element verification would require reading each reference's specification and figures.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me verify key references before reasoning.

Let me verify two more listed references (Blunt and the Southwire rotatable reel) plus the Windy City Wire container art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 11,001,471 B2 ("Cable Reel")

Governing law: The '471 patent's earliest effective filing date is February 27, 2015 (continuation chain traced to Ser. No. 14/634,007; see the "Related Applications" paragraph at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11001471](/patent/US11001471)/en). The application therefore is governed by the AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. All references below pre-date the critical date and qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), and the analysis proceeds under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.

1. What the claims actually require (and what they do not)

Claims 1–9 are apparatus claims only. Notably, independent claim 1 does not recite the two features most emphasized in the specification:

• the flexible/expandable hub segments (elongated wall 154, slots 162, flexible segments 164) described in the Detailed Description; and
• the braking gear mechanism 112 (outwardly extending gear member 128 / internal gear member 146), which is the subject of the sibling patent US 9,873,588 ("Cable reel with braking").

Claim 1 is therefore directed to a comparatively broad combination: two separate flanges each rotatably couplable to a frame, at least one carrying a transverse hub portion, the flanges releasably coupled to sandwich a coil, the frames mounted on the base and cover of a bag with a payout opening, and the coil "prepackaged without a cable reel." That breadth materially strengthens the obviousness case.

Claim 4 is drafted in means-plus-function form ("means for releasably coupling to the first flange and the second flange…"), and adds that each flange is "smaller in size than an outer frame portion" of its frame. Under § 112(f), that means term is limited to the disclosed coupling structure and equivalents — the first hub portion 150 / elongated wall 154 and second hub portion 152 / truncated wall 180, optionally with snap arms 172 and tabs 174 (spec., Figs. 4A–5B). Claims 2, 3, 7–9 add only: annular elongated wall (claim 2), friction fit (claims 3, 7), central openings (claim 5), one-piece flanges (claim 6), and prepackaged/reel-less coil with plastic wrap (claims 8–9).

2. Element-by-element mapping (claim 1)

Confidence note: The single element for which the page's citation list does not give me a clean, verified single-reference disclosure is the strict combination of "bag" + "frames fixed on the inner surfaces of both the base and the cover, mating with the flanges." Blunt supplies bottom-wall/lid guides in a rigid container; Houston supplies the bag with payout slot. That gap is precisely why Petitioner in IPR2022-00947 used an additional primary "Brochure" exhibit (Ex. 1006), which I have not been able to inspect and therefore do not characterize.

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground I — Blunt in view of Houston (optionally further in view of Ripplinger and/or Vislocky).
Blunt discloses the container/reel/payout-opening/guide-on-lid-and-bottom-wall architecture and a wrapped coil; Houston supplies the soft-sided payout bag with a payout passageway and, critically, the express teaching of a removable reel-retention element permitting the empty reel to be swapped for a replacement reel with reduced packaging ('484 ¶[0033]). Ripplinger supplies the two-piece "mating spool" in which a tubular segment of a first half is inserted into the tubular segment of a second half to form a continuous hub, with stepped/interference mating diameters and, in alternative embodiments, mechanical fastening. US 6,045,087 (Vislocky) — titled "Spool assembly for snap fit of flanges and spindle having guiding members for aligning with the flanges spindle" — squarely supplies reversible snap coupling of a spindle to flanges (claims 3 and 7 element).

Ground II — Blunt + Houston + US 6,352,215 (Cash/Southwire) [+ Fontana-type film-wrapped coil].
The reeless-package payoff device supplies (i) a prepackaged, reel-less coil, (ii) a hub expanded into the inner diameter of that coil, and (iii) a removable end plate enabling replacement of a paid-out coil. This closes the "prepackaged without a cable reel" limitation (claim 1; claims 8–9) and reinforces claims 2, 3, 7.

Ground III — the same combination applied to claims 4–9.
Under § 112(f), claim 4's "means for releasably coupling" reads on the mating hub portions of Ripplinger/Vislocky (and on Blunt's snap-fit lid/guide structure read in the context of a separable flange pair). The "smaller in size than an outer frame portion" limitation finds support in Houston's insert-held reel and in the '471 specification itself ("[e]ach flange 106 and 108 is preferably sized to fit within the outer frame portion 120").

4. Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same field, same problem. Both Blunt and Houston are directed to bulk cable storage and controlled payout from a portable container/bag — the identical field and the identical problem addressed in the '471 Background ("[t]he installer may, however, payout too much cable if the installer pulls too hard").
2. Express motivation in the references themselves. Blunt criticizes the prior art because "the installer must appropriately dispose of the reel and container" and because wooden reels "are often used within boxes … the reel if the same is not practically re-usable." Houston expressly contemplates removing an exhausted reel and installing a replacement with less packaging. Both teachings point directly at a reusable/reloadable reel, i.e., the "decoupled … when replacing the coil" limitation.
3. Predictable result / known elements performing known functions. Substituting a known two-piece mating spool (Ripplinger) or a snap-fit spindle/flange assembly (Vislocky) into a known payout container is a mere substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a reloadable hub.
4. Finite number of predictable solutions. For "make the reel reloadable," the field offered a small, well-known set of options (snap-fit halves, mating frusto-conical/stepped walls, threaded or interference fits). KSR holds that where a finite number of identified, predictable solutions exists, the combination is likely obvious.
5. Design incentives / cost and logistics. Reduced material (no reel for the replacement coil), lighter field kits, and faster reloading are classic design incentives; Houston states the replacement-reel packaging advantage affirmatively.
6. No tenable teaching away. Patent Owner argued before the Board that Fontana removes prepackaging whereas Blunt adds a frangible sheet, so a POSITA would not combine them. The Board rejected that argument, finding that reading Blunt as a whole (including claim 18 depending from claim 3) a POSITA would have understood Blunt's frangible-sheet teaching to apply to a reel-less coil, i.e., a prepackaged reel-less supply. Objective evidence argued by Patent Owner (alleged nexus, commercial success, long-felt need, copying) did not carry the day.

5. Corroboration from the actual PTAB record (search-result ground truth)

The front page of the patent shows litigation activity. A search of the PTAB docket indicates:

• IPR2022-00947, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., filed May 18, 2022, instituted Dec. 7, 2022, Final Written Decision dated Dec. 6/20, 2023 "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" as to claims 1–8 of the '471 patent. Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00947/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/; see also https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/PPC-Broadband-Inc-et-al-v-Times-Fiber-Communications-Inc-id-[163830](/patent/163830) and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00947
• The grounds were (I) Brochure + Blunt; (II) Brochure + Blunt + Johanson; (III) Brochure + Blunt + Fontana; (IV) Brochure + Blunt + Johanson + Fontana. Blunt = US 2012/0168554 A1, which is in the '471 citation list. Fontana, Johanson and the "Brochure" are not in the '471 front-page citation list; I have verified Blunt but not the identity/content of Johanson or the Brochure.
• Also on the docket: the related Delaware case (1:21-cv-01823) was stayed pending the IPRs; related IPRs include IPR2022-00830 (US 10,913,632 — institution denied after Patent Owner cancelled all challenged claims) and IPR2022-00831 (US 10,589,957 — institution denied after Patent Owner [took action]).

Important caveats I cannot resolve with high confidence: (a) whether the FWD was appealed to the Federal Circuit and, if so, the outcome; (b) the substantive content of the "Brochure" (Ex. 1006), which appears to have supplied the bag-with-frames disclosure; (c) the identity of "Johanson." I state these as unresolved rather than assume them.

6. Bottom line

1. Claim 1 is obvious over Blunt (US 2012/0168554) in view of Houston (US 2010/0314484), optionally further in view of Ripplinger (US 5,464,171/5,660,354) and/or Vislocky (US 6,045,087) to supply the separable, insertable hub/flange coupling, and US 6,352,215 (Cash/Southwire) to supply the prepackaged reel-less coil and the hub that seats in its inner diameter.
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are obvious over the same combination: Ripplinger's stepped mating tubes and Vislocky's snap-fit spindle teach the annular elongated wall and the friction/interference coupling; central arbor openings and one-piece molded flanges are conventional spool structure throughout the cited art (e.g., Ripplinger's arbor aperture 26).
3. Claims 4–9 are obvious over the same combination as applied through the § 112(f) construction of "means for releasably coupling," with the "smaller than the outer frame portion" limitation met by Houston's insert-held reel and by the '471 specification itself.
4. Claim 9 ("prepackaged with plastic wrap") was not among claims 1–8 invalidated in IPR2022-00947, but its added limitation is taught by Blunt's frangible sheet 98 (¶[0087]; claim 18) and by film-wrapped coils of the type described in the Fontana reference discussed in the related prosecution, so it does not appear to supply independent patentable weight.
5. The strongest § 103 attack aligns with the KSR "predictable combination of known elements" rationale, aided by Blunt's and Houston's own express motivations to make the reel reusable and to load replacement coils with less packaging — motivations that track the '471 specification's own installation narrative ("[t]he operator may open the cover of the bag or box to separate the hub portions 150 and 152").