US 11656422

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

Let me search specifically for the IPR proceeding and any appeal of it.

One more check on any 2026 appellate or district court activity tied to this patent.

Bottom line first (this changes how you should read everything below)

US 11,656,422 is still shown as "Active" in Google Patents, but all three of its independent claims — 1, 18 and 40 — have been statutorily disclaimed by the patent owner (Belden Canada ULC), and the PTAB entered adverse judgment against the patent on September 8, 2025 in IPR2024-01228. For practical purposes, there is no independent claim left in this patent to assert. I found no 2026 CAFC docket involving this patent.

---

1. Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/

Family note (do not conflate these): US 11,740,423, US 12,313,896, US 12,332,491, and US 2025/0306324 A1 all share the same 2017‑10‑03 priority. US 11,740,423 was co‑asserted with '422 in the Delaware case. Corresponding Canadian members are CA 3019081, CA 3221590, CA 3221599, CA 3221718.

---

2. Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"A method for organising a tray comprising a front edge in a fiber optic interconnect system is disclosed. The method comprises defining a standard width unit wherein a width of the front edge is substantially evenly divisible by the standard width unit, selecting a plurality of cassettes for installation on the tray from a set of cassettes having a plurality of different cassette widths as measured between outer side edges thereof, wherein each of the different cassette widths is evenly divisible by the standard width unit, and releasably securing said selected cassettes along the front edge of the tray, wherein when arranged on the tray an outer side edge of each of said selected cassettes is directly adjacent an outer side edge of at least one other selected cassette."

Note the mismatch I flag in §5: the abstract describes a method, but all three issued independent claims are tray/apparatus claims, not method claims.

---

3. Independent claims in plain language

Claim 1 — "Fiber optic cassette tray…" (tray with a front tray end portion)
A tray that slides into the tray-receiving space of a fiber-optic housing. It is built to hold a mix of cassette sizes side-by-side along its front end, each cassette having multiple fiber-optic plug-receiving receptacles (e.g., LC-type). Adjacency requirement: each cassette's outer side edge sits directly adjacent an outer edge of at least one other cassette. The tray is removably secured to each cassette. Width requirements, quoted literally: the first cassette width is "two, three, four, or six standard width units", and the second cassette width is also "two, three, four, or six standard width units", with the second width different from the first. (Note: claim 1 conspicuously omits "one" width unit, unlike the related '107/'542 claims, which recite "one, two, three, four and six".)

Claim 18 — "Fiber optic cassette tray…" (tray with a "cassette engaging portion")
Substantively the same apparatus as claim 1, but (a) keyed to a "cassette engaging portion" rather than a "front tray end portion," and (b) uses "adjacently faces" rather than "directly adjacent." The width limitation is worded differently — the first and second cassette widths are "of two, three, four, and six standard width units" (conjunctive "and," not "or"), with the second different from the first. The literal "and" wording is a real textual difference between claims 1 and 18.

Claim 40 — "A tray for providing a plurality of different modular fiber optic cassette configurations…"
The broadest-appearing independent claim: it does not require a sliding tray / tray-receiving space, only a tray "configured to fit" the cassette configurations "in a case of a fiber management system." Same adjacency ("adjacently faces") and same "two, three, four, and six standard width units" conjunctive phrasing as claim 18, with the second cassette width different from the first.

Representative dependent claims (context only): '422's dependents add a 12-width-unit tray width (cl. 2, 24, 50–51); four receptacle portions per standard width unit (cl. 4, 26, 53); MPO/multi-fiber connector receptacle on the rear plus interconnecting fibers (cl. 3, 25, 52); magnet fastening (cl. 7, 29, 57); a cable management bracket of one standard width unit with a cable management loop (cl. 8–9, 30–31, 58–59); inverted-"T" tab engaging a slot (cl. 14–15, 36–37, 62–63); and a flexible tab with boss engaging an aperture (cl. 16–17, 38–39, 64–65).

The "standard width unit" (W) is defined in the specification as the footprint of one receptacle module — illustratively an LC Quad (SC Duplex) footprint of four connectors — with cassette sizes 2W/3W/4W/6W on a 12W tray. The specification also contemplates SC Duplex (2 connectors) and MPO-12/‑16/‑24 footprints.

---

4. Post-issuance legal status — the operative part

IPR2024-01228, CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC (PTAB, Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2874; panel Cocks, Kaiser, McGraw):

• Filed July 26, 2024 by CommScope Technologies LLC; real parties in interest CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, CommScope, Inc. Challenged claims: 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, 64. Grounds based on Fukui, Sauter and Sedor.
• Institution granted February 27, 2025 on all challenged claims and all grounds. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/docs/02-27-2025-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-9-Institution_Decision__Grant.pdf?download=true
• Belden filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend (May 21, 2025) proposing substitute claims 66‑91, then withdrew it (Aug 7, 2025).
• Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) on July 17, 2025, disclaiming claims 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, and 64 — i.e., every challenged claim. Signed by Christopher W. Day, VP/AGC and Chief IP Counsel, Belden Inc. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Statutory_Disclaimer/
• Board entered adverse judgment and terminated the proceeding on September 8, 2025 (status: "Terminated‑Adverse Judgment"). Inter partes review certificate issued December 15, 2025.
• Consequence: claims 1, 18 and 40 — the only independent claims — are gone. The surviving 17 claims (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65) are all dependent claims whose base claims are disclaimed, so none can stand alone.

Related Delaware litigation: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del., Judge Richard G. Andrews). Filed July 27, 2023. The '422 patent was one of four asserted (with US 10,795,107; 11,435,542; 11,740,423). Accused products: CommScope "Propel™" system (PPL‑1U/2U/4U panels, Propel modules/adapters). The case was stayed September 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) pending four related IPRs (IPR2024‑01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382) and then administratively closed, with the court directing the parties to notify it when the PTAB actions resolved.

---

5. CAFC 2026 docket check

I searched the Federal Circuit's public calendar/orders and general docket material and found no 2026 appeal, petition, or mandamus involving US 11,656,422 (or IPR2024‑01228). This is consistent with the record: the IPR terminated by adverse judgment that Belden itself requested after disclaiming the claims, and an IPR certificate issued December 15, 2025, which indicates the appeal window closed without an appeal.

Do not conflate: CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc., No. 2025‑1428 (Fed. Cir.), dismissed by joint stipulation June 26, 2026, arose from IPR2023‑01056, a different proceeding involving different patents. Separately, Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope in D. Del. No. 1:22‑cv‑00782 concerned US 6,409,547 (structured cabling connectors) and is a different case entirely.

---

6. Points of uncertainty / accuracy flags

1. Source discrepancy: a third-party litigation summary described claim 1 of the '422 patent as "a method claim." That is wrong on the face of the patent — the abstract and specification recite a method, but issued claim 1 is an apparatus (tray) claim, as are claims 18 and 40. I rely on the claim text.
2. Date discrepancy in the record: the patent record assembled here includes events dated through December 2025 (IPR certificate, Dec. 15, 2025), while your stated current date is April 26, 2026. I have no independently verified sources dated between January and April 2026 for this patent.
3. Post-June-2026 district court activity: I could not confirm whether D. Del. No. 1:23‑cv‑00810 was reopened during 2026 or whether Belden pivoted to its surviving siblings (US 11,740,423; 12,313,896; 12,332,491; 2025/0306324). The Google Patents "litigation" flags and the PACER-derived summaries I retrieved do not resolve this.
4. Claim 1 uses "or" ("two, three, four, or six") while claims 18 and 40 use "and" ("two, three, four, and six"). I have interpreted these literally and flag them as a genuine drafting difference rather than assuming one is a typographical error — note that Belden elsewhere argued for judicial correction of a different typographical error ("the plurality of the plurality of") in the sibling '423 patent.

I'll run targeted searches for litigation involving this specific patent number, using litigation-tracking portals and court docket sources.

Let me dig into the district court docket and check for any 2026 developments, including appeals.

Let me check for the current status of the D. Del. case in 2026 and whether the '422 claims were dropped after the adverse judgment.

Bottom line

Only one court case is known to have asserted US 11,656,422 — the Delaware action Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810. It was stayed pending IPR and administratively closed, and it has not been confirmed reopened on the record I retrieved. The only other contested proceeding tied to this exact patent is the PTAB IPR2024-01228, which ended in adverse judgment on Sept. 8, 2025 after Belden disclaimed all challenged claims; the IPR certificate issued Dec. 15, 2025.

I found no ITC § 337 action, no second district-court case, and no Federal Circuit appeal in which US 11,656,422 was the patent at issue. Details and the "do not conflate" list are below.

---

1. Litigation table

---

2. Case 1 — Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.)

• Plaintiff: Belden Canada ULC.
• Defendants: CommScope, Inc.; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope Technologies LLC.
• Jurisdiction / judge: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
• Case number: 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (filed under the "UNA" unassigned-judge suffix; complaint document is 1:23-cv-00810-UNA, Doc. 1-1).
• Filing date: July 27, 2023.
• Patents asserted (four, same 2017-10-03 priority family): US 10,795,107; US 11,435,542; US 11,656,422; US 11,740,423. The '422 was charted in Exhibit F to the complaint ("Claim Chart Comparing Accused Products to U.S. Patent No. 11,656,422").
• Accused products: CommScope Propel™ system — PPL-1U / PPL-2U / PPL-4U panels and Propel modules/adapters (e.g., PPL-AP-24-LC-SM, PPL-AP-12-LC-SM), LC and MPO configurations.
• Outcome / current status: Stayed September 4, 2024 (D.I. 63) pending four related IPRs (IPR2024-01218, ‑01227, ‑01228, ‑01382), then administratively closed with the court directing the parties to notify it when the PTAB actions resolved so the case "may be reopened." Third-party docket aggregators currently render the case status as "Closed." I could not confirm that the case was reopened during 2026, nor that Belden formally dismissed its '422 claims with prejudice.

Practical effect on the '422 in this case: Because the '422's only independent claims (1, 18, 40) were statutorily disclaimed and adverse judgment was entered, there is no independent claim in the '422 left to assert in the Delaware action. I found no docket entry confirming how Belden resolved the '422 counts after the IPR terminated — flagging that as unverified, not as fact.

Source (verbatim order text): PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00810 — reproduced at https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/belden-canada-v-commscope-fiber-optic-patent-infringement-patsnap/ ; docket overview at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:23-cv-00810/belden-canada-ulc-v-commscope-inc

---

3. Case 2 — IPR2024-01228, CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC (PTAB)

Not Article III litigation, but it is the operative contested proceeding and the source of the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag for this patent.

• Petitioner: CommScope Technologies LLC (RPIs: CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; CommScope, Inc.).
• Patent Owner: Belden Canada ULC.
• Patent: US 11,656,422 B2 (application 17/929,566).
• Filed: July 26, 2024. Instituted on all challenged claims and grounds: Feb. 27, 2025.
• Challenged claims: 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62, 64 (grounds based on Fukui, Sauter, Sedor).
• Termination: Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) (signed by Christopher W. Day, July 17, 2025) disclaiming all challenged claims, moved to terminate by adverse judgment (Aug. 7, 2025), and the Board entered adverse judgment and terminated the proceeding on Sept. 8, 2025 ("Terminated‑Adverse Judgment"). IPR certificate issued Dec. 15, 2025.
• Status: Terminated/closed; no CAFC appeal of IPR2024-01228 found (consistent with an adverse judgment the patent owner itself requested).

Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01228 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/ ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11656422-B2

---

4. Related cases that do NOT involve US 11,656,422 (do not conflate)

• IPR2024-01218, ‑01227, ‑01382 (PTAB) — CommScope's parallel IPRs against the sibling patents (e.g., '107, '542, '423). Different patent numbers; not the '422.
• Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00782-RGA (D. Del.) and its Fed. Cir. appeals Nos. 2026‑1255, 2026‑1285, dismissed by agreement June 29, 2026 — the appeal originates from the 22‑782 case, which my prior analysis tied to a different patent family (structured-cabling connectors). I could not confirm the '422 was part of 22‑782; the record ties the '422 to 23‑810 only. https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf
• CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc., No. 2025‑1428 (Fed. Cir.) — dismissed by joint stipulation June 26, 2026; arose from IPR2023‑01056, a different proceeding/patents.
• CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Belden Inc. and PPC Broadband, Inc., C.A. No. 24‑427‑RGA (D. Del.) — concerns US 9,266,697 (coaxial connector), not the '422.

---

5. Accuracy flags and limits on what I can confirm

1. Complaint characterization: A third-party complaint-analysis page describes the '422 as asserted on "a method claim." That is incorrect on the face of the patent — the '422's issued independent claims 1, 18, and 40 are apparatus (tray) claims; only the abstract/specification recite a method. I rely on the claim text.
2. Reopening of 23‑810 in 2026: Unconfirmed. The PTAB action resolved Dec. 15, 2025 (IPR certificate), which triggered the parties' obligation to notify Judge Andrews, but I found no docket entry showing reopening, voluntary dismissal, or a covenant not to sue as to the '422.
3. Date inconsistency: Your stated current date is April 26, 2026, while the session metadata shows Sept. 26, 2026, and I retrieved documents dated as late as June 29, 2026 (the CAFC order). I am reporting what the sources show literally and flagging this rather than resolving it silently.
4. No other litigation found: I searched litigation trackers (Unified Patents portal), PTAB docket aggregators, D. Del. docket-derived summaries, PACER-derived dockets, and CAFC orders/opinions. Aside from 23‑810 and IPR2024‑01228, no additional case asserting US 11,656,422 was found. I did not obtain a live PACER pull for 23‑810 in this session, so the most current docket status should be confirmed directly via PACER/PatentCenter.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11656422-B2 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01228 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:23-cv-00810/belden-canada-ulc-v-commscope-inc ; https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/belden-canada-v-commscope-fiber-optic-patent-infringement-patsnap/ ; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf ; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1428.ORDER.6-26-2026_2715115.pdf

I'll verify the record against live sources before writing the analysis.

Proceedings overview

There is exactly one AIA trial proceeding on US 11,656,422: IPR2024-01228, and it terminated on 2025-09-08 by adverse judgment against Belden Canada ULC after Belden statutorily disclaimed every challenged claim — so the proceeding status breakdown is 1 terminated/claims-cancelled, 0 active, 0 sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied, and the defensive posture is emphatic: all three independent claims (1, 18, 40) plus 45 dependents are disclaimed/cancelled, meaning any demand letter that cites claims 1, 18 or 40 is citing claims that no longer exist, and the 17 claims that were never challenged are all dependent claims whose only bases were disclaimed.

⚠️ Two threshold flags before the analysis, per my operating rules:

1. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt is wrong. It states "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest" and directs me to default to "no PTAB activity on file." That is contradicted by (a) the authoritative patent text in this same prompt, which lists under the family's litigation flags: "PTAB case IPR2024-01228 filed (Adverse Judgment)" and records legal events for the IPR filing, the § 1.321(a) disclaimer, and the inter partes review certificate issued 2025-12-15; and (b) multiple independent web sources. The ODP ingest has evidently not propagated the case. I therefore depart from the default and report the proceeding.
2. There is no Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01228 — do not look for one. The proceeding ended post-institution by adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) on 2025-09-08, so the record contains no FWD with claim-by-claim patentability holdings. Any source describing an "FWD invalidating the claims" is describing the outcome colloquially, not a document that exists. Claim-level "verdicts" below are therefore taken from the statutory disclaimer and the adverse-judgment entry, i.e., cancellation by disclaimer, not adjudicated unpatentability.

---

IPR2024-01228 — CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Canada ULC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319). Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2874.
• Filed: 2024-07-26 (accorded filing date confirmed by Board notice 2024-08-30).
• Status (verbatim from the patent's own record / Docket Alarm): "Terminated-Adverse Judgment"; termination date 2025-09-08. Google Patents' family flag reads "PTAB case IPR2024-01228 filed (Adverse Judgment)." Plain-English gloss: the patent owner chose to kill its own claims rather than litigate them to a decision.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Josiah C. Cocks, Christopher M. Kaiser, and Kimberly McGraw (McGraw authored the institution decision). A Panel Change Order was entered 2025-05-30, i.e., after institution and around the time Belden filed its Motion to Amend; I could not verify from the public record which APJ was substituted, so treat the post-2025-05-30 composition as unsettled.
• Real parties in interest: Petitioner — CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, and CommScope, Inc. Patent Owner — Belden Canada ULC and its parent, Belden Inc.
• Petition grounds: 5 grounds against claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64 (48 of 65 claims). Per Belden's Preliminary Response, Grounds 1–2 rely on Fukui (Ex. 1004) as the primary reference and Grounds 3–5 rely on Sauter (Ex. 1006) as the primary reference, all framed as obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additional petition exhibits included U.S. Pat. No. 10,215,944 (Ex. 1005), U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0099064 (Ex. 1010), U.S. Pat. No. 7,509,015, U.S. Pat. No. 9,008,485, U.S. Pat. No. 9,075,216, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0062050, and product literature from Leviton, Corning and Panduit, plus a Declaration of Dr. Stephen Ralph (Ex. 1003). ⚠️ Contradiction to flag: the previously generated summary in this prompt states grounds were "based on Fukui, Sauter and Sedor." I found no "Sedor" reference identified in the '228 petition record; U.S. Pat. No. 10,215,944 ("Modular fiber optic tray") is a plausible candidate for a third reference but I have not verified the inventor-to-exhibit mapping and will not assert it. Treat "Sedor" as unverified.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2025-02-27 on all challenged claims and all grounds ("we institute an inter partes review of all claims of the '422 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition"), applying the § 314(a) reasonable-likelihood standard. Belden's Preliminary Response (filed 2024-12-02) had argued, inter alia, that Fukui discloses only a single-width cassette and thus cannot teach the claimed first/second different widths of independent claims 1, 18 and 40, and that the Board should exercise § 325(d) discretion because the petition relied on substantially the same art and arguments previously considered. The Board rejected those arguments at the institution stage. Institution decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/docs/02-27-2025-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-9-Institution_Decision__Grant.pdf
• Final Written Decision: None issued. The case never reached an FWD. Do not attribute any claim-level patentability holding to the Board.
• What actually happened instead — the operative sequence:
  • 2025-05-21 — Belden filed a Non-Contingent Motion to Amend proposing substitute claims 66-91 and moving to cancel all challenged claims (Paper 11; Belden Exs. 2001–2004, incl. an Eldering declaration).
  • 2025-07-17 — Belden filed a statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), signed by Christopher W. Day, VP/AGC and Chief IP Counsel of Belden Inc., disclaiming claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64 — i.e., every challenged claim. (Google Patents records the disclaimer event as "DC Disclaimer filed" dated 2025-08-26, effective 2025-07-17; the USPTO receipt timestamp on the disclaimer is 2025-07-17.) Disclaimer: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Statutory_Disclaimer/
  • 2025-08-04 — Board Order authorizing withdrawal of the Motion to Amend and termination, with adverse judgment entered against the petition-challenged claims. CommScope expressly opposed any termination that did not include adverse judgment under § 42.73(b)(2) — a deliberate act by the petitioner to lock in the estoppel/disclaimer consequences.
  • 2025-08-07 — Belden filed (i) the Motion to Withdraw the MTA and (ii) the Motion to Terminate by Adverse Judgment, invoking § 42.73(b)(2) ("Cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial"). CommScope did not oppose. Motion: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Motion__Other-16-PO_Motion_to_Terminate/
  • 2025-09-08 — Board entered adverse judgment (post-institution) and terminated the proceeding.
  • 2025-12-15 — Inter partes review certificate issued (kind code K1; the patent record's legal-event entry is dated 2025-12-23 with effective date 2025-12-15), cancelling the disclaimed claims under § 318(b).
• Settlement / termination terms: Not a settlement. This was a unilateral abandonment by the patent owner. The parties expressly agreed the adverse judgment "should only address the Challenged Claims and should not address the substance of the withdrawn Motion to Amend or the proposed substitute claims" — so the Board never ruled on substitute claims 66-91 and there is no estoppel as to them (they were never in a trial that reached FWD; they were never entered as claims at all).
• Appeal: None. I found no Federal Circuit docket for IPR2024-01228 and no notice of appeal. The issuance of the IPR certificate on 2025-12-15 is consistent with the appeal window lapsing. Separately, note the 2026-06-29 Federal Circuit order dismissing Nos. 2026-1255 and 2026-1285 (Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc. et al.) under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement — that order is from D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-00782 (a different case, the "Reede" / structured-cabling dispute) and has nothing to do with the '422 patent: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/26-1255.ORDER.6-29-2026_2716159.pdf
• Defensive value: This is the strongest possible defense posture short of a merits FWD. Every independent claim of US 11,656,422 has been statutorily disclaimed — under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) a disclaimed claim is treated as if it never existed, and the Board's adverse judgment plus the 2025-12-15 certificate confirm it. A plaintiff cannot assert claim 1, 18 or 40 against anyone. If you receive a demand citing any of claims 1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62 or 64, the correct response is a short letter pointing to Ex. 2005 and the IPR certificate — and, if suit is filed anyway, Rule 11 is squarely in play.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. There are now no live independent claims. All three independents (1, 18 and 40) were challenged, disclaimed under § 1.321(a) on 2025-07-17, and subjected to adverse judgment on 2025-09-08. Forty-five dependents (1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, 64) fell with them. The remaining 17 claims — 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63 and 65 — were never challenged and technically remain "untested", but every one of them is a dependent claim that depends (directly or through another dependent) on claim 1, 18 or 40. A dependent claim cannot survive the cancellation of its base claim; there is no claim left in the patent that can be infringed standing alone. Practically: the patent is functionally dead, even though Google Patents still shows legal status "Active" with an adjusted expiration of 2038-09-27. That "Active" flag is an artifact — status is not updated for adverse judgments and disclaimers in the way one might assume.

Estoppel landscape — the more subtle point. Because § 315(e)(2) estoppel is keyed to a "final written decision" under § 318(a), and IPR2024-01228 terminated by adverse judgment rather than FWD, the estoppel analysis is not the clean textbook case; panel and district-court treatment of adverse-judgment termination as an estoppel trigger is not uniform, and I would not represent to a court that CommScope is definitively estopped on all reasonably-raisable § 102/§ 103 grounds. That nuance, however, is largely academic here: CommScope won what it needed. For a different defendant, the practical landscape is favorable regardless of estoppel, because the claims that could be asserted no longer exist. The real exposure for a new defendant is not this patent — it is the sibling family, discussed next.

Pattern signals — this was a coordinated portfolio war, not an isolated IPR. CommScope filed four IPRs on the same day, 2024-07-26, against four Belden patents sharing the 2017-10-03 priority: IPR2024-01218 ('107), IPR2024-01227 ('542), IPR2024-01228 ('422), and IPR2024-01382 ('423). Belden filed Non-Contingent Motions to Amend in all four on 2025-05-21, filed statutory disclaimers of all challenged claims in all four, withdrew all four MTAs, and accepted adverse judgment in all four in the same August–September 2025 window (the Board handled them in a single consolidated authorization order). Two things then happened that a defendant must understand:

1. Belden replaced the patents rather than defending them. Belden told the Board that two new same-family patents had issued — US 12,313,896 B2 and US 12,332,491 B2 — and that it had filed a second infringement suit against CommScope on them: Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, LLC et al., No. 1:25-cv-00870-RGA (D. Del.), filed 2025-07-14. That case is live, with an answer filed 2025-11-10 and a scheduling order entered 2025-11-26 (joint claim construction brief due 2026-12-04; Markman hearing 2027-01-12; fact discovery close 2027-06-18; dispositive motions 2027-12-17; final pretrial 2028-05-05; 5-day jury trial 2028-05-15). Belden also filed continuation application 19/239,502 — now published as US 2025/0306324 A1 — which Belden represented "contains claim elements added in the substitute claims in the motions to amend."
2. CommScope fought that maneuver and left a landed record. CommScope expressly refused to stipulate that "anything in the amended claims or the continuation application or [the newly issued patents] recite anything patentably distinct from the claims challenged in the petitions." That dispute is preserved in PTAB Ex. 3002 and in the Board's order. It is the ammunition for arguing, in any later case on 12,313,896 / 12,332,491 / 19/239,502, that the new claims are not patentably distinct from claims Belden already surrendered — a classic obviousness-type double patenting / recapture-by-continuation attack. A defendant today should be litigating the siblings, not this patent.

Also avoid conflation: no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the '228 chain; the petitioner was CommScope, not a proxy. And the Delaware case in which the '422 was originally asserted — Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, No. 1:23-cv-00810-RGA (D. Del.), filed 2023-07-27, asserting the '107, '542, '422 and '423 against the CommScope Propel™ system — was stayed 2024-09-04 pending the four IPRs and administratively closed, with the court retaining jurisdiction; I could not confirm 2026 activity in that case file, and given that all four asserted patents' claims are now disclaimed and all four IPRs terminated adversely, I would expect it to remain closed with the parties litigating 1:25-cv-00870 instead.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and the demand cites US 11,656,422:

• Demand letter received citing claims 1, 18 or 40: do not engage on the merits. Reply citing Belden's statutory disclaimer (37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), filed 2025-07-17, disclaiming "1-6, 10-14, 16, 18, 20-28, 32-36, 38, 40-42, 44-56, 60-62, and 64") and the Board's adverse judgment of 2025-09-08 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/08-07-2025-Patent_Owner/Motion__Other-16-PO_Motion_to_Terminate/), and demand written confirmation the claim is withdrawn. Note that there is no FWD to quote — the correct citation is the disclaimer exhibit (Belden Ex. 2005) and the IPR certificate issued 2025-12-15, not a Board opinion.
• Suit filed anyway on claims 1, 18 or 40: move to dismiss and seek fees; a disclaimed claim "is treated as though it had never existed," and CommScope itself insisted on adverse judgment precisely to nail down that consequence.
• Suit filed on the surviving dependents (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65): these are the only nominally live claims, and each is a dependent whose base claim is gone. Attack on the straightforward ground that a dependent claim cannot be infringed or sustained independently of its cancelled parent, and demand the patent owner identify any independent claim it contends is still enforceable.

Trial-stage milestones: none pending on this patent — IPR2024-01228 is terminated and the IPR certificate has issued; there is no § 315(b) one-year clock, no oral hearing, no FWD due date to watch. If you are monitoring the family, the relevant calendar is D. Del. 1:25-cv-00870 (Markman 2027-01-12; fact discovery close 2027-06-18; trial 2028-05-15), and the relevant IPR-calendar question would be whether anyone petitions against US 12,313,896, US 12,332,491, US 11,740,423, or US 2025/0306324 A1. I found no AIA petition directed at the '422 by any petitioner other than CommScope, and no post-2025 proceeding on the '422 at all — which is expected, since there is nothing left to challenge.

Accuracy notes / open items: (1) I could not verify the identity of the APJ substituted by the 2025-05-30 Panel Change Order. (2) I could not verify the "Sedor" reference the prior-generated summary attributes to the '228 grounds; the POPR identifies only Fukui and Sauter as primary references. (3) The exact exhibit number of the POPR is Paper 7 (2024-12-02); the institution decision is Paper 9 (2025-02-27); the adverse judgment is Paper 19 (2025-09-08) per Docket Alarm. (4) I could not retrieve a USPTO-hosted PTAB E2E link specific to this case; the PTAB Center entry point is https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ and the Google Patents family record is https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en. (5) All of the above is a record analysis, not legal advice.

I'll reconstruct the assignment record for US 11,656,422, starting with the recorded reel/frame entries and correspondent of record.

Good — the disclaimer confirms Reel 063823/0609. Let me now pin down the recorded correspondents and the corporate/product context.

Let me check the prosecution correspondent (Customer No. 181721) and the corporate/SEC context.

Assignment-record analysis — US 11,656,422 B2

Scope note: I retrieved the USPTO assignment data as mirrored in the patent's own legal-events record, plus the Patent Owner's statutory disclaimer (which independently certifies the reel/frame of the operative conveyance). I was not able to retrieve the correspondent-of-record field from the Assignment Center images themselves, so I flag that below rather than guess. Verification entry point: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 11656422) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

---

Inventors

Pattern check — no anomaly. Pilon is the only named inventor on the '422 patent, and the entire right, title and interest was assigned to Belden Canada Inc. by nunc pro tunc instrument effective 2018‑10‑01 — four days after the 2018‑09‑27 filing of the parent application (16/143,831, now US 10,795,107). That is the signature of a routine employee-invention assignment executed contemporaneously with filing, not a distress signature. The "nunc pro tunc" character matters: it is what retroactively reaches the later continuations, including this one (17/929,566, filed 2022‑09‑02), back to 2018‑10‑01.

Departure test: I found no evidence in the record available to me that Pilon left Belden within 12 months of filing, and no serial-inventor / sole-inventor-departure pattern (which typically precedes a portfolio fire-sale). Marked no signal, not "clean" — absence of evidence.

---

Original assignee

Belden Canada ULC (as printed on the face of the issued patent, and as confirmed immediately below).

• Predecessor on the face of the record: Belden Canada Inc. (Saint‑Laurent, Québec), a Belden operating subsidiary.
• Primary line of business: Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC, St. Louis, MO) is a publicly traded structured-cabling, networking, connectivity and industrial-network manufacturer. Belden Canada ULC is its Canadian operating/manufacturing subsidiary; Belden's own PTAB Mandatory Notices state the real parties-in-interest are "Belden Canada ULC and its parent company, Belden Inc." (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01382/.../Notice__Mandatory_Notice.pdf).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The '422 disclosure is a tray/cassette architecture (2W/3W/4W/6W cassettes on a 12W tray; LC-Quad, SC-Duplex and MPO variants) for Belden's fiber cassette/tray product line. Belden asserted this patent in its own name as a commercial competitor, which is the functional equivalent of a product-shipping attestation: it sued over CommScope's Propel™ system in Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:23‑cv‑00810‑RGA (D. Del., filed 2023‑07‑27).
• Current status: Operating. Part of a live, NYSE-listed parent. Not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

Correction to a secondary source (flagged, per instructions): the Unified Patents page lists "Parent Company: Belden Canada Ulc" for this patent (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-[11656422](/patent/11656422)-B2). Read literally, that would make Belden Canada ULC the ultimate parent — which is wrong. Belden's own Mandatory Notices identify Belden Inc. as the parent. Unified Patents also shows priority date 2017‑10‑02 / filing 2022‑09‑01 where the patent says 2017‑10‑03 / 2022‑09‑02; I rely on the patent.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments exist. Both were recorded on 2023‑06‑02, and both are intra-Belden.

1. 2018‑10‑01 (executed/effective) / recorded 2023‑06‑02 — Reel 063837/0665

• Conveyance: Nunc pro tunc assignment (recorded doc code AS — Assignment)
• Assignor: Vincent Pilon (individual inventor)
• Assignee: Belden Canada Inc. (Canada)
• Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from available sources. See signal #3 below for the associated counsel I could verify and why I am not treating it as the recorded correspondent.
• Context: Contemporaneous employee-invention assignment — executed four days after the 2018‑09‑27 filing of parent application 16/143,831; the nunc pro tunc form retroactively captures the later continuations, including 17/929,566. Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale.

2. 2020‑03‑20 (executed/effective) / recorded 2023‑06‑02 — Reel 063823/0609

• Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (doc code AS)
• Assignor: Belden Canada Inc.
• Assignee: Belden Canada ULC (Canada)
• Correspondent: ⚠️ Not retrievable from available sources.
• Context: Internal corporate reorganization / conversion (Inc. → ULC) within the Belden family. There is no third-party purchaser anywhere in this chain.

Cross-corroboration (this is the strongest single datum in the file): Belden's statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), signed 2025‑07‑17 by Christopher W. Day, VP, AGC and Chief IP Counsel, Belden Inc. (Parent of Belden Canada ULC), certifies:

"The extent of patentee's ownership interest in the above-identified patent is: 100% Ownership Interest — Reel 063823 Frame 0609"
https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556427](/patent/1556427)/download-documents?artifactId=8xZDgK6XBTIMiycZH3qbWelawnKbC31CAArZES8K3PyCZqsm0gnCIy0

So the USPTO's own record on the operative conveyance (063823/0609) is confirmed by the patentee as the basis of its 100% title — and the chain terminates there, at an operating company.

Note on what is not in the record: there is no assignment to any licensing entity, holding LLC, trust, or defensive aggregator. The chain is two links long and both links are Belden-family.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11656422
    2017 : Provisional application filed
    2018 : Nonprovisional parent filed
         : Pilon assigns all rights to Belden Canada Inc
    2020 : Belden Canada Inc converts to Belden Canada ULC
    2022 : Continuation filed as 17 929 566
    2023 : Both assignments recorded at USPTO
         : Patent issues
         : Belden sues CommScope in Delaware
    2024 : CommScope files IPR2024-01228
    2025 : Belden disclaims all independent claims
         : PTAB enters adverse judgment
         : IPR certificate issued

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The chain never leaves the Belden corporate family: Pilon → Belden Canada Inc. (Reel 063837/0665) → Belden Canada ULC (Reel 063823/0609). Neither assignee is a licensing-only vehicle; both are named as real parties-in-interest alongside the NYSE-listed parent in Belden's own PTAB notices. No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC. Negative finding.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither assignee matches any entity on the RPX / Unified Patents / Patent Progress high-frequency-plaintiff lists. Belden appears in PTAB and District Court records as an operating-company plaintiff (Belden v. Superior Essex, Belden v. Berk-Tek, Belden v. CommScope), not as a serial asserter. Negative finding.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not a finding).
I must be explicit: the correspondent-of-record field on Reels 063837/0665 and 063823/0609 was not retrievable from the sources available to me, and I will not fill it in by inference. What I can verify as affiliated counsel:

• Denis J. Sullivan (Reg. No. 47,980), Barclay Damon LLP, Barclay Damon Tower, 125 East Jefferson St., Syracuse, NY 13202 — lead counsel for Patent Owner Belden in IPR2024‑01228 and "AUTHORIZED BY Denis Sullivan" on the '422 application's electronic filing receipt (Customer No. 181721, Attorney Docket 0404.0016‑CON2).
• Thomas Hoehner (Reg. No. 73,474), Barclay Damon; Cory C. Bell (Reg. No. 75,096), Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Boston).
• Christopher W. Day, Belden Inc. Chief IP Counsel — signed the 2025 disclaimer.
  Two observations that are supported: (a) both recorded assignments were lodged on the same day (2023‑06‑02) and bear near-sequential reels (063823 and 063837), i.e. they were filed as a single title-cleanup batch; and (b) that batch was handled through Belden's Customer No. 181721 prosecution channel. But "attorney X filed the assignments" is a claim I cannot support from the record I retrieved, so this is flagged UNCLEAR — insufficient evidence, and not counted as a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
Two conveyances total, both intra-family, effective 2018‑10‑01 and 2020‑03‑20. No chained LLCs, no common-principal shells, no sub-24-month cascade. Negative finding.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (in form only; benign).
The assignment recordings fell on 2023‑06‑02, roughly eight weeks before the 2023‑07‑27 Delaware complaint naming this patent — facially inside the 6-month pre-suit window. But the substance defeats the NPE reading: the underlying conveyances were effective 2018‑10‑01 and 2020‑03‑20, years before the CommScope dispute existed; and the transferee is the same corporate family, not an asserter. This is chain-of-title perfection ahead of an enforcement campaign, a routine litigation-readiness step (it cures any standing/ownership challenge), not venue- or standing-shopping to a shell. Recorded as present but non-probative.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 proceedings, no §363 sale, no assignment out of an estate. Belden Inc. is a going concern listed on the NYSE. Negative finding.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
This is the inverse: Belden asserted in its own name, as a commercial competitor, against a rival's Propel™ platform — a textbook operating-company-vs-operating-company suit. No NPE front, no proxy asserter. Negative finding.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT (but note self-neutralization).
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. That said, the patent is now functionally neutralized by the patentee's own hand: Belden statutorily disclaimed claims 1‑6, 10‑14, 16, 18, 20‑28, 32‑36, 38, 40‑42, 44‑56, 60‑62 and 64 (2025‑07‑17), the PTAB entered adverse judgment (2025‑09‑08), and the IPR certificate issued 2025‑12‑15. That is self-inflicted neutralization, not defensive aggregation — it must not be scored as signal #8.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Justification: The entire recorded chain is two intra-family conveyances — Reel 063837/0665 (Pilon → Belden Canada Inc., effective 2018‑10‑01) and Reel 063823/0609 (Belden Canada Inc. → Belden Canada ULC, effective 2020‑03‑20) — ending at a subsidiary of the NYSE-listed Belden Inc. (BDC), which Belden itself identifies as a real party-in-interest and which asserted the '422 patent in its own name against a commercial competitor (CommScope) in D. Del. No. 1:23‑cv‑00810. Six of the eight NPE signals are affirmatively absent; the one formally "present" signal (recording inside 6 months of suit) is defeated by the 2018/2020 effective dates and the absence of any third-party transferee.

Three material caveats that sit on top of (not against) this verdict:

1. The patent is commercially dead. All three independent claims are disclaimed; the surviving 17 claims (7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 43, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65) are all dependent on disclaimed bases and cannot stand alone. There is nothing left to assert here.
2. The "operating company" here is the defendant-side mirror. Belden is a large public company that both practices and litigates — this verdict describes the character of the assertion, not a judgment about its merits (the PTAB instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, which is a substantive signal about the claims themselves).
3. Verification gap. I could not retrieve the recorded correspondent on either reel. Anyone relying on signal #3 should pull the two assignment images directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (recordation numbers 063823/0609 and 063837/0665), where the "Correspondent" block will name the filing attorney/firm — Belden's Customer No. 181721 channel and the Barclay Damon affiliation of Denis Sullivan make that the likely (but unverified) source.

No NPE, no troll pattern, and no post-issuance transfer to any third party has ever been recorded against US 11,656,422.

I'll verify the citation record against live sources before building the prior-art mapping.

Let me verify the remaining key references and the examiner-cited art.

Let me pin down whether the '422 IPR asserted §102 anticipation versus §103, and confirm the examiner's own citations.

Prior-Art Analysis for US 11,656,422 B2 — §102 Focus

Search performed: USPTO/Google Patents record for the exact number 11656422. Target confirmed — "Modular fibre optic cassette, system and method," Appl. 17/929,566, filed 2022‑09‑02, issued 2023‑05‑23, inventor Vincent Pilon, assignee Belden Canada ULC, earliest priority 2017‑10‑03. No results for adjacent numbers were substituted. All bibliographic data below is taken from the patent's own front‑page citation list as fetched (Google Patents mirrors the USPTO record); the authoritative patent text in this prompt governs where any conflict exists.

---

0. Three threshold flags (read before the tables)

0.1 — §102 vs. §103: most of these citations cannot anticipate anything, and the record says so.
The front page lists 23 references (29 in the variant list). A §102 anticipation requires one single reference disclosing every element of the claim arranged as recited. The overwhelming majority of the cited references are §103 secondary references (housing architecture, module holders, migration between duplex/parallel, rack shelves). Only two references in the entire record were ever asserted as anticipatory, and neither is a clean anticipation — see §2. Writing "anticipates claim X" next to, e.g., a 1973 Lockheed reels patent would be a fabrication; I flag those as "no §102 relevance" instead.

0.2 — The IPR grounds table expressly frames only two grounds as "anticipated or obvious."
The Petition in IPR2024‑01228 presented five grounds, and the Board's institution table reads (verbatim):

Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556427](/patent/1556427)/download-documents?artifactId=gtoRG8jnt1w4RgMkINyeldOkJuoErtA5YbM1RrZUCBVZ4Fs9gyI_e6M#10#1

So the two §102 candidates are Fukui (US 10,101,551, Ex. 1004) and Sauter (US 9,690,064, Ex. 1006). Note the framing is disjunctive — "anticipated or obvious" — so institution on Grounds 1 and 3 is not a holding of anticipation; the reasonable‑likelihood finding could rest on the §103 prong. There is no Final Written Decision in this IPR anyway (adverse judgment 2025‑09‑08), so no tribunal has ever held any reference anticipatory.

0.3 — Correction to a flag in the earlier sections (resolved in the prior obviousness section, restated here because it bears on §102).
The earlier PTAB section hedged that "Sedor" was unverified. The Petitioner's Updated Exhibit List resolves it: EX1004 = US 10,101,551 ("Fukui"); EX1005 = US 10,215,944 ("Sedor"); EX1006 = US 9,690,064 ("Sauter"), with EX1026/1027 = NL2008155C2 (Laarveld) + certified translation. The "Fukui, Sauter and Sedor" formulation in the first summary was correct.

0.4 — Claim status caveat (carried forward, not repeated). All three independent claims (1, 18, 40) were statutorily disclaimed 2025‑07‑17; adverse judgment entered 2025‑09‑08; IPR certificate issued 2025‑12‑15. This §102 mapping is therefore retrospective and portfolio‑facing — it is ammunition against the live siblings (US 11,740,423; US 12,313,896; US 12,332,491; US 2025/0306324 A1), not a defence anyone needs to plead on the '422.

---

1. The citation set — what "cited by US 11,656,422" actually contains

The front page's Citations (23) list is the operative prior‑art set. A second enumeration, Patent Citations (29), is the same set plus the six granted versions of the Belden family applications that appear in the 23‑list as publications (US 10,795,107; 10,359,595; 10,656,359; 10,598,884; 11,187,864; 10,768,387).

(*) = marked "cited by examiner" on the Google Patents face.

Two references central to the IPR are NOT on the '422's face at all: Fukui (US 10,101,551) and Laarveld (NL2008155C2). They were never before the '422 examiner. That asymmetry is the whole basis of the Fukui‑primary theory.

---

2. Master §102 disposition

---

3. The references that carry any §102 weight

3.1 Fukui — US 10,101,551 B2 (the only reference never before the examiner)

• Full citation: US 10,101,551 B2, "Multi‑core/single‑core conversion module and multi‑core/single‑core conversion apparatus," Junji Fukui et al., assignees SEI Optifrontier Co., Ltd. and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.
• Dates: Appl. 15/613,368, filed June 5, 2017; issued October 16, 2018; prior publication US 2017/0359091 A1 (Dec. 14, 2017).
• §102 basis: §102(a)(2) — effectively filed before the '422's 2017‑10‑03 priority; different inventors and assignee, so no §102(b)(2)(A)/(C) exception.
• Description (verified): a base member 30 whose bottom panel 30e acts as a tray bearing twelve evenly spaced mounting areas 32 with holes 33a/33b. Conversion module 10 = one unit (multi‑fiber adapter 12 at one end; a row of LC adapters 13 at the other; optical fibers F1 interconnect them). Conversion module 20 = unit modules 10A + 10B fixed by coupling member 21 into "one body," fed by a single multi‑core connector. Modules are "easily fixed" via hooks 11i/11j and "can be easily removed." System stated to be "standardized 1U size." Verified from the Ex. 1004 text: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC/07-26-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1004-US_Patent_No_10,101,551_/
• Which claims it potentially anticipates:
  • Claims 1, 18, 40 — NO on the record as it stands. Belden's POPR (Paper 7, 2024‑12‑02) states: "Fukui only discloses a cassette of a single width — not 'a selected plurality of fiber optic cassettes … wherein a first … comprises a first cassette width … and wherein a second … comprises a second cassette width … different from the first.' Fukui's disclosure that a user can utilize an 'open hole' in the single‑width cassette to extend optical fibers into a second single‑width cassette cannot transform two coupled cassettes into a cassette of a second width." The Board instituted anyway, but on a ground framed "anticipated or obvious" — so institution does not convert this into an anticipation finding. Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/12-02-2024-Patent_Owner/POPR_filed-7-Patent_Owners_Preliminary_Response/
  • Claims 3, 25, 52 (rear multi‑fiber connector receptacle + interconnecting optical fiber) — the strongest single‑reference §102 hook in the file. Fukui's adapter 12 + fibers F1 map element‑for‑element onto this dependent claim. This is close to a literal anticipation, subject only to the "multi‑fiber connector receiving receptacle portion … on a rear portion" locator.
  • Claims 2, 24, 50, 51 (tray width ≥ twelve standard width units) — strong. Fukui's tray has exactly twelve evenly spaced areas 32.
  • Claims 12, 34, 60 (a third, different width) — arguable on the coupled‑module theory.
• Candid weakness: Belden's reading of Fukui is defensible on a merits record. Two coupled cassettes ≠ one cassette of double width. This is precisely why the Sauter‑primary ground exists as belt‑and‑braces.

3.2 Sauter — US 9,690,064 B2 (examiner‑cited; the purpose‑built reference)

• Full citation: US 9,690,064 B2, "Multi‑gang cassette system," Tom Sauter & Gary Bernstein, Leviton Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
• Dates: Appl. 14/937,817, filed November 10, 2015; issued June 27, 2017; prior publication US 2017/0131500 A1.
• §102 basis: §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) — both issued and effectively filed before 2017‑10‑03.
• Description (verified): "A cassette mounting system allows fiber optic cassettes of different sizes to be mounted on the same fiber optic tray or other mounting surface." Cassettes have left/right rails engaging tray rail guides 108 that define cassette bays 106; multi‑gang cassettes have clearance areas/grooves so a rail guide passes underneath, letting single‑ and multi‑gang cassettes co‑exist on one tray. A spring‑loaded latching mechanism 120 with a latching protrusion engages an aperture in the tray, released by a front‑facing latch. Cassettes hold LC adapters 126, including a quad LC adapter. Enclosure 1508 has tray guides on the left/right inside walls receiving slidable trays 1510. Verified: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01382/CommScope_Technologies_LLC/docs/08-30-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1006-US_Patent_9,690,064_.pdf
• Which claims it potentially anticipates:
  • Claims 1, 18, 40 — NO. Belden's POPR attacks the width limitation directly: Sauter's double‑gang cassette "is approximately twice the width of [the] single‑gang cassette," because "the dual‑gang cassette 110 also spans an intermediate rail guide 108D" (Sauter at 7:15‑19). Adding ½ rail width means the measured width is not exactly an integer multiple of the standard width unit — the claim's express requirement. Belden further argues the claim's "cassette width" cannot be stretched to include the separately attached latching mechanism 120 that the Petitioner moved to the right‑hand side. Sources: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556417](/patent/1556417)/download-documents?artifactId=CuuqmJPrBqK1Gz0OHH5tb85Jc41-UWXmgsCr5U-rJfIe6uHYEwXvkH4#3#2
  • Claims 16, 17, 38, 39, 64, 65 (aperture + flexible tab with boss engaging it) — near‑anticipatory. Sauter's latching protrusion + tray aperture + front‑facing release is a textbook single‑reference disclosure of this element family.
  • Claims 4, 26, 53 (four plug‑receiving receptacle portions per standard width unit) — strong. Sauter's quad LC adapter 126, three per single‑gang cassette.
  • Claims 5, 27, 54, 55 (rack mount / standard U‑space rack) — strong. Enclosure 1508 + tray guides, in a 19″ EIA/ECA‑310‑E context.
  • Claims 19, 23, 41, 43, 44, 49 (tray guides / sliding receipt) — strong‑to‑near‑anticipatory. Sauter's FIG. 16 shows a tray being installed into an enclosure with tray guides.
  • Claims 42 (shoulder on tray, channel in cassette) — strong. Sauter's raised mounting interface 104 / rail guides 108 received in the cassette's clearance grooves.
• The killer counter‑argument: Belden's own infringement theory reads the claims onto rail‑based systems (POPR: "In the co‑pending litigation, Patent Owner now reads the claims for infringement on rail‑based systems"). Sauter is the rail‑based multi‑gang system. Belden cannot exclude it from the prior art while capturing it for infringement.

3.3 Sedor — US 10,215,944 B2 (Panduit) — §103 only, but it defeats its own §102 candidacy

• Full citation: US 10,215,944 B2, "Modular fiber optic tray," Thomas M. Sedor et al., Panduit Corp.
• Dates: priority June 30, 2016 (prov. 62/356,662); appl. 15/628,818 filed 2017‑06‑21; issued February 26, 2019.
• Description: modular trays with cutout features engaging removable rails repositionable to support different module sizes — "a tray may support a twenty‑four optical fiber module, two twelve optical fiber modules, or three eight optical fiber modules"; modules have duplex LC adapters at the front and an MPO adapter at the rear. Verified: https://www.unicompatents.com/... (Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160062055A1/en)
• §102 disposition: NONE. Used only as a §103 secondary in Grounds 2 and 5. Belden's arithmetic — the 12‑fiber module is 3U + ½ rail width, not 3U — is a self‑defeating feature for any anticipation theory, and it is the same arithmetic that defeated the Sauter ground. Notably, the applicant's own Statement of Reasons for Allowance named Sedor as the most applicable prior art and won on exactly this point.

3.4 AFL — US 2019/0004268 A1 — §102(a)(2) art, no anticipation

• Full citation: US 2019/0004268 A1, "High density patch panel with modular cassettes," AFL Telecommunications LLC.
• Dates: priority June 28, 2017; published January 3, 2019.
• §102 basis: §102(a)(2) (effectively filed before the '422's priority; different inventors/assignee).
• Description: high‑density patch panel accepting modular cassettes; a general modularity disclosure.
• §102 disposition: NONE. It does not disclose a tray with cassettes of two different widths drawn from {2, 3, 4, 6} standard width units measured between outer side edges, nor the adjacency/removable‑securement combination. §103 relevance only (modular cassette density).

3.5 Corning US 2016/0062050, /0062055, /0062068 A1 (Giraud) — examiner‑cited; §103 only

• Full citation: US 2016/0062050 / 0062055 / 0062068 A1, "Fiber optic solutions for migration between duplex and parallel multi‑fiber solutions allowing for full fiber utilization," Corning Optical Communications LLC.
• Dates: filed August 29, 2014; published March 3, 2016.
• §102 basis: §102(a)(1)/(a)(2).
• Description: coexistence of duplex (LC) and parallel (MPO) adapter footprints on a common platform / panel — the migration thesis.
• §102 disposition: NONE. No tray, no multi‑width cassette set, no front‑edge adjacency. US 2016/0062055 A1 was one of only two references actually cited against the '422 by the examiner (with Sauter). §103 relevance for the receptacle and duplex/parallel‑coexistence limitations.

3.6 Corning — US 9,075,216 B2 (the closest Corning reference)

• Full citation: US 9,075,216 B2, "Fiber optic housings configured to accommodate fiber optic modules/cassettes and fiber optic panels, and related components and methods," Corning Cable Systems LLC.
• Dates: filed May 21, 2009; issued July 7, 2015.
• Description: a housing that accepts both modules/cassettes and panels — i.e., a mixed‑population housing.
• §102 disposition: NONE. Discloses mixed module/panel accommodation but not the tray‑level multi‑width cassette pitch, adjacency, or the width‑unit integer‑multiple limitation. §103 relevance for the housing/rack‑mount and "different configurations" elements.

3.7 Ortronics — US 7,509,015 B2

• Full citation: US 7,509,015 B2, "Secure fiber optic network cassette assembly," Ortronics, Inc. Filed July 26, 2006; issued March 24, 2009.
• Description: cassette secured within a housing with a locking/retention feature.
• §102 disposition: NONE. §103 relevance only (cassette‑to‑tray securement — feeds claims 6, 28, 56 and the tab/slot, boss/aperture families).

3.8 ADC — US 4,792,203 A

• Full citation: US 4,792,203 A, "Optical fiber distribution apparatus," ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Filed September 17, 1985; issued December 20, 1988.
• Description: foundational rack‑mounted fiber distribution apparatus with modular trays/shelves — the origin of the tray‑in‑housing architecture the '422 builds on.
• §102 disposition: NONE. §102(a)(1) art of the general environment only; discloses no multi‑width cassette on a common pitch. It is useful only as evidence of the long‑standing modular‑tray convention.

---

4. Front‑page citations with no §102 relevance whatsoever

These are listed on the face but cannot anticipate any of claims 1–65. I say so explicitly rather than manufacture a mapping:

---

5. Cited references that are not prior art at all

(a) The ten Belden documents (items #18–27). US 2019/0101717 A1; US 10,795,107 B2; US 2019/0107682 A1; US 10,359,595 B2; US 2019/0162924 A1; US 10,656,359 B2; US 2019/0187394 A1; US 10,598,884 B2; US 11,187,864 B2; US 10,768,387 B2.

Two independent grounds exclude them:

• Common ownership / same inventor. US 2019/0101717 and US 10,795,107 are the '422's own family (same inventor Vincent Pilon, same applicant Belden) and share the 2017‑10‑03 priority — excluded by §102(b)(2)(A) (inventor's own disclosure) and §102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership).
• Date. US 2019/0107682 (filed 2017‑10‑05), US 2019/0162924 (2017‑11‑30), US 2019/0187394 (2017‑12‑19), US 11,187,864 (2018‑01‑16), US 10,768,387 (2018‑04‑06), US 10,359,595 and US 10,656,359 (same dates as their parents) were all effectively filed after the '422's 2017‑10‑03 priority date → outside both §102(a)(1) and §102(a)(2).

No Belden family document can anticipate any claim of the '422. They are on the face only as IDS material.

(b) Forward citations are not prior art. The record also lists Cited By (3) / Cited By (8) — including US 2023/0305255 A1 (Belden), US 11,994,732 B2 and US 12,019,297 B2 and US 12,345,938 B2 (AFL Telecommunications, 2019‑04‑01 priority) and US 12,468,107 B2 (CommScope, 2021‑02‑18 priority). These post‑date the '422 and cite it; they cannot be prior art against it.

---

6. Bottom line

1. No reference cited on the face of US 11,656,422 anticipates any of its independent claims under §102. The independent claims require, in combination: (a) a tray; (b) a selected plurality of cassettes; (c) two different cassette widths, each drawn from {two, three, four, six} standard width units; (d) measured between outer side edges; (e) side‑by‑side with directly adjacent / adjacently facing outer edges; (f) each cassette having a plurality of plug‑receiving receptacle portions; and (g) the tray removably secured to each. No single one of the 29 documents discloses that combination. The Board never made an anticipation finding — it instituted on grounds framed "anticipated or obvious," and the proceeding terminated by adverse judgment with no Final Written Decision.

2. Exactly two references were asserted as §102 candidates, and both were defeated on the width limitation:

• Sauter (US 9,690,064) — fails because its double‑gang cassette is only "approximately twice the width" of the single‑gang cassette and "spans an intermediate rail guide 108D" (Sauter at 7:15‑19). Belden's arithmetic: the 12‑fiber module is 3U + ½ rail width.
• Fukui (US 10,101,551) — fails because it "only discloses a cassette of a single width"; coupling two single‑width cassettes does not create a second‑width cassette.

3. The strongest genuine §102 hooks in the whole record are against dependent claims, not independents:

• Claims 3, 25, 52 — Fukui's multi‑fiber adapter 12 + interconnecting fibers F1 is close to literal anticipation.
• Claims 2, 24, 50, 51 — Fukui's tray has exactly twelve evenly spaced mounting areas 32.
• Claims 16–17, 38–39, 64–65 — Sauter's latching protrusion + tray aperture + front release is near‑anticipatory.
• Claims 4, 26, 53 — Sauter's quad LC adapter 126.

All of those are moot on the '422 (their bases are disclaimed), but they are live against the siblings.

4. The most important structural fact for a §102 analysis: the two references that actually drive the invalidity case — Fukui and Laarveld — were never before the '422 examiner. The examiner cited only Sauter (US 9,690,064) and Giraud (US 2016/0062055 A1); the applicant's Statement of Reasons for Allowance distinguished Sedor (US 10,215,944) on the "widths measured between outer side edges" point. That prosecution history is why Belden's §325(d) argument (which the Board rejected at institution) was the crux of the preliminary fight.

Accuracy notes / open items: (i) I verified Fukui, Sauter, Sedor and Laarveld against the IPR exhibit PDFs; I did not independently read the full text of US 4,792,203, US 7,509,015, US 9,075,216, US 9,008,485 or the Corning Giraud family, and my characterisations of those rest on their titles/abstracts as listed. (ii) I could not retrieve a USPTO‑hosted PTAB E2E document set for this case; the exhibit citations above are from the PTAB Center / Docket Alarm mirrors. (iii) The precise column/line pin‑cites I attribute to Fukui and Sauter are the parties' own from the IPR papers, not my independent reading of every passage. (iv) This is record analysis, not legal advice; and per the operating rules I have interpreted all identifiers literally and flagged rather than silently corrected discrepancies — including the fact that the '422's abstract and specification recite a method while all three issued independent claims are apparatus (tray) claims.

Primary sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11656422/en · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC_v._Belden_Canada_ULC/ · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01228/CommScope_Technologies_LLC/07-26-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1004-US_Patent_No_10,101,551_/ · https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01382/CommScope_Technologies_LLC/docs/08-30-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1006-US_Patent_9,690,064_.pdf · https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556427/download-documents?artifactId=gtoRG8jnt1w4RgMkINyeldOkJuoErtA5YbM1RrZUCBVZ4Fs9gyI_e6M · https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-11656422-B2

I'll verify the two open accuracy items from the Prior Art section (Fukui's dates, and the exact Ground structure of IPR2024-01228) before writing the § 103 analysis.

Let me pull the Board's own articulated reasoning in the institution decision, and the examiner's § 103 rationales in the related sibling prosecution.

Obviousness Analysis — 35 U.S.C. § 103

Patent under analysis: US 11,656,422 B2 ("the '422 patent"), Modular fibre optic cassette, system and method
Analysis date: April 26, 2026 (as instructed). Note: the most recent source dated in my record is the IPR certificate of 2025‑12‑15; I have no verified 2026 documents for this patent, and I flag that once here rather than in every section.
Prior art relied on: exclusively the references established in the Prior Art section above (Fukui / Sauter / Sedor / Fabrykowski, plus the Tier‑2 and Tier‑2b caches and the examiner's own combinations in the sibling file histories).

0. Three threshold statements before the analysis

(a) Status caveat — this is a validity analysis of a patent whose claims no longer exist. All three independent claims (1, 18, 40) were statutorily disclaimed on 2025‑07‑17, adverse judgment was entered 2025‑09‑08, and the IPR certificate issued 2025‑12‑15 (see the PTAB and Strategic sections above; I do not repeat them). Nothing below is an assertion that a live claim is obvious — it is (i) a retrospective assessment of why the § 103 case was strong enough that the Board instituted on all challenged claims and all grounds, and (ii) a template for the sibling claims (US 11,740,423; 12,313,896; 12,332,491; US 2025/0306324 A1) that share the 2017‑10‑03 priority and therefore share this entire art field.

(b) No Final Written Decision exists, so no § 103 holding exists. The proceeding terminated by adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) — there is no Board opinion on motivation to combine, no claim-by-claim patentability determination, and no Federal Circuit decision. The only adversarial, adjudicated data point in the record is the institution decision of 2025‑02‑27, which granted review on all claims and all grounds ("we institute an inter partes review of all claims of the '422 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition"). I treat that as evidence, not as a holding.

(c) Two record corrections and one resolution, consistent with my operating rules.

• RESOLVED (prior-art §7 open item #2): Fukui's dates are now verified from the reference itself: US 10,101,551 B2, Fukui et al., filed 2017‑06‑05 (App. 15/613,368), JP priority 2016‑115487 filed 2016‑06‑09, granted 2018‑10‑16, pre-grant publication US 2017/0359091 A1 (2017‑12‑14), applicants SEI Optifrontier Co., Ltd. and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. Its effective filing date (2016‑06‑09) places it comfortably before the '422 priority date as § 102(a)(2) art — the qualification CommScope asserted.
• CORRECTION to the earlier PTAB section: the '228 petition does contain a "Sedor" ground, so the earlier "Sedor unverified" flag was already retired correctly in the Prior Art section. What I can now add is the ground architecture of '228, taken from the Ralph declaration table of contents and the POPR: Grounds 1–2 = Fukui primary; Grounds 3–5 = Sauter primary; Ground 4 = "Sauter in light of Fukui"; Ground 5 = "Either of Grounds 3 or 4 in further light of Sedor." ⚠️ I cannot verify Ground 2's exact secondary reference in '228 (in the sibling IPR2024‑01382, Ground 2 = "Fukui combined with Sauter"); I flag it rather than assume.
• NEW, material to § 103: in the related sibling application 18/232,729, the examiner issued an Office Action (2024‑09‑28) rejecting claims under § 103 over Fukui et al. (US 10,101,551 B2) — mapping Fukui to six 2W / four 3W / three 4W / two 6W cassette configurations — and over Sedor + Giraud and Sedor + Nelson for the bracket and magnet limitations, and over Fukui + Murray et al. (US 2016/0231525 A1) for the cable‑management‑bracket claims. That Office Action is filed in the '228 record as an exhibit. In other words, the Office itself, not just the petitioner, treated Fukui as claim-killing art against this family.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Obviousness is assessed under 35 U.S.C. § 103 from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the effective filing date, per Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966): (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 claim is obvious where the improvement is "the product of ordinary skill and common sense," where a POSITA would have combined known elements "according to known methods… to yield predictable results," or where there existed "a finite number of identified, predictable solutions." MPEP § 2143 supplies the accepted rationales (predictable combination; simple substitution; use of a known technique to improve a similar device; obvious to try), and MPEP § 2144.04 governs unexpected results (absent for this patent — see § 9). Critically, the "as a whole" rule means Belden's best argument (that no single reference shows both a 2W-and-4W pairing) fails if the combination is properly motivated.

Two points of U.S. law worth fixing now, because they shape everything below:

• § 325(d) is not a patentability doctrine. Belden's primary defense was discretionary denial under Advanced Bionics — that the petition recycled art the Office had already seen. The Board rejected it at institution. A § 325(d) argument wins a procedural motion, not a § 103 merits contest; it cannot make claims non‑obvious.
• Absence of objective indicia. Because Belden disclaimed after institution and never filed a patent‑owner response in the trial, the record contains no rebuttal evidence, no unexpected‑results argument, no nexus evidence, no secondary considerations of any kind. For the '422, the Graham factor (4) is simply empty — which, on this record, is a point in favor of the § 103 case.

---

2. The claim as a whole — decomposed

2.1 Independent claim 1 (apparatus: "fiber optic cassette tray")

Deltas for claim 18. Same substance, but keyed to a "cassette engaging portion" instead of a "front tray end portion," and the adjacency verb is "adjacently faces" rather than "directly adjacent." The width series is written "two, three, four, and six standard width units" (conjunctive "and").

Deltas for claim 40. Broadest independent claim: the tray need only be "configured to fit" the configurations "in a case of a fiber management system" — no sliding‑tray requirement, no tray‑receiving space, and the same conjunctive "and" series and "adjacently faces" language as claim 18.

2.2 The two constructions that decide the § 103 case

(i) "standard width unit" is defined by the specification, and the claims tie it to a four‑connector module. The claims do not define W, but dependent claims 4, 26 and 53 do the work: each requires "four fiber optic plug receiving receptacle portions… side by side in a row along a front portion thereof for each standard width unit." The specification supplies the rest: "one standardized width unit accommodates a single receptacle module 52 comprising four (4) receptacles 54," illustratively an LC Quad footprint, with the deliberate caveat that W "could be based on a different technology footprint, including SC Duplex comprising two (2) connectors and MPO type connectors… such as MPO‑12, MPO‑16 and MPO‑24." So W = the footprint of one 4‑connector (quad) module. Every width limitation in the patent is therefore an integer multiple of a 4‑port module.

(ii) Claim 1 excludes 1W; claims 18/40 are written with a conjunctive list. Claim 1's first and second widths are each drawn from {2, 3, 4, 6} — "one" is absent (contrast the '107/'542 claim set, which recites "one, two, three, four and six"). This matters, because it means the single‑gang/single‑unit module — Sauter's single‑gang cassette, Fukui's uncoupled module 10 — cannot satisfy the width element standing alone; the claim requires the multi‑gang / coupled cassette. Claims 18 and 40 use "and"; read literally as a conjunct (both widths simultaneously must be each of 2, 3, 4 and 6) the claim is insolubly ambiguous, which is not a § 103 point so much as a § 112 exposure that would have had to be addressed. For § 103 purposes I treat all three claims as claiming any two different widths selected from {2, 3, 4, 6} W, and I flag the divergence rather than harmonize it (consistent with the earlier sections' treatment, and with Belden's own willingness to seek judicial correction of a different typo in the '423 sibling).

2.3 What the claim conspicuously does not recite

This is the single most important structural observation for § 103. The '422 claim does not positively recite "no rails between cassettes." The absence of an intervening rail is legally relevant only as it bears on the "directly adjacent" / "adjacently faces" limitation of 1C. And that is precisely the point CommScope made: "The examiner allowed the claims in a first action allowance because the closest art the examiner was aware of used rails between the cassettes on the tray. 'Fukui' is a new reference." Belden's asserted point of novelty therefore reduces to a negative limitation — and negative limitations are the weakest form of non‑obviousness argument, because they capture what the art must omit, not what the inventor added.

---

3. Level of ordinary skill and the state of the art (2017)

POSITA: an engineering degree (mechanical, optical, or electrical) or equivalent, with 2–5 years of experience in fiber‑optic hardware and rack‑mount connectivity. The skill set required by the claim is entirely conventional mechanical packaging: trays, cassette housings, rails, latches, and connector footprints in a 19‑inch rack. Dr. Stephen Ralph's declaration (Ex. 1003) opined on this level, and his opinions were not disturbed at institution. Belden never put in competing testimony.

What the field knew as of October 2017 — all of it sourced from the references themselves, not from hindsight:

Net: by October 2017, "different‑sized cassettes on one tray, defined as integer multiples of a module width, front‑accessible, in a standard rack" was the stated goal of at least three competitors' specifications (Leviton, Panduit, Corning) and the express problem statement of the '422 itself. This is the classic KSR "market forces / design incentive" situation.

---

4. The prior art (identity, dates, § 102 qualification)

Restated only as needed for § 103; the disclosures are in the Prior Art section above.

---

5. The combinations, ground by ground

I present the five grounds actually pleaded in IPR2024‑01228 and then add the examiner‑originated combinations from the sibling file history and two combinations not pleaded.

5.1 Ground 1 — Fukui alone (anticipation, or in the alternative obviousness), claims 1–6, 10–14, 16, 18, 20–28, 32–36, 40–42, 44–56, 60–62, 64

CommScope's theory: Fukui's uncoupled "unit module 10" is the standard width unit, and Fukui's coupled "conversion module 20" (two or more units fixed by coupling member 21) is the wider cassette. A two‑unit module = 2W, three units = 3W, six = 6W.

Belden's counter (POPR § III): "Fukui only discloses a cassette of a single width… Fukui's disclosure that a user can utilize an 'open hole' in the single‑width cassette to extend optical fibers into a second single‑width cassette cannot transform two coupled cassettes into a cassette of a second width." The Board did not adopt this at institution — it granted on all grounds, which necessarily means it credited (or at least found reasonably likely) CommScope's reading that Fukui calls both structures a "conversion module," that they are dealt with "as one body," and that module 20 has a singular multi‑core connector 12 feeding all of its single‑core adapters, which is the structural signature of one wider cassette rather than two side‑by‑side cassettes.

§ 103 posture: Fukui alone is best treated as an anticipation theory with an obviousness alternative. If a POSITA would not read "module 20" as a single cassette as a matter of claim construction, then Fukui alone is obviousness over Fukui because the modification is the reference's own express suggestion (see § 6.2). Fukui alone is the strongest single-reference ground against claims 1, 18 and 40.

5.2 Ground 3 — Sauter alone, same claim set

Sauter is the most on‑the‑nose reference on the inventive concept: its abstract is the '422's stated invention — "allows fiber optic cassettes of different sizes to be mounted on the same fiber optic tray."

Belden's counter (POPR § IV; and more fully in the sibling POPR): (i) Sauter never teaches dimension — its tray dimensions are unstated and drawings cannot supply proportions (Hockerson‑Halberstadt); (ii) Sauter's double‑gang cassette spans an intermediate rail guide 108D, forcing a clearance area 602 and a mid‑cassette latch 116A, so the double‑gang is "more than twice the width" and therefore not an exact integer multiple of the single‑gang; Sauter itself says only "approximately twice." Belden also argued in the sibling that a petitioner cannot "stretch" "cassette width" to include an attached latching mechanism 120 outside the housing. The Board rejected these at institution and instituted on all grounds.

§ 103 posture: Sauter alone is strong on every element except the strict integer‑multiple width and the case/housing. It is the reason the petition had five grounds.

5.3 Ground 2 — Fukui + Sauter (in '228, secondary reference unverified; in the sibling '382, Ground 2 = Fukui combined with Sauter)

The workhorse combination, and the cleanest answer to Belden's two criticisms simultaneously:

• Sauter fixes Fukui's "single width" objection by supplying an express, contemporaneous disclosure of different cassette widths on one tray, without modifying the tray or the cassettes (its abstract) — so the first and second different widths are not an inventive insight but a documented 2015 design goal.
• Fukui fixes Sauter's "more than twice the width" objection because Fukui has no rail guides between cassettes at all. Substituting Fukui's holes 33a/33b / mounting‑feature approach for Sauter's rail‑guide pitch eliminates the intermediate‑rail clearance area 602, so cassette width becomes a clean integer multiple of the gang/module width. CommScope stated this rationale expressly: "when Fukui's mounting features are used instead of Sauter's rails/rail guides/latch, the resulting cassettes would be exact multiples in width of the smallest gang cassette."
• The reverse direction is equally available (and is Ground 4): take Fukui's module 10 as the unit and Sauter's tray/latch/enclosure as the environment.

5.4 Ground 4 — Sauter in light of Fukui; Ground 5 — either of Grounds 3 or 4 in further light of Sedor

Sedor's contribution is precisely what Sauter and Fukui each lack in part, and it is corroborated by the examiner's own rejections in the sibling application (which mapped Sedor as showing a tray "substantially evenly divisible by a plurality of standard width units," cassettes "arrangeable side by side along a front end of the tray," and cassette widths "of one, two, three, four and six standard width units," citing Sedor Figs. 7–10):

Also pleaded in '228 and material: Fabrykowski (US 2014/0099064 A1) as the chassis/housing reference for the tray‑receiving‑space preamble (Ex. 1010).

5.5 Examiner‑originated combinations in the sibling prosecution (highly probative, because they are the Office's own § 103 rationales)

From the Office Action in 18/232,729 (2024‑09‑28, filed as an exhibit in the '228 record):

5.6 Two combinations not pleaded that a POSITA would also have reached

• Fukui + Sedor (without Sauter): Fukui for the unit‑module/integer‑multiple cassette and the no‑rails adjacency; Sedor for the enclosure, the repositionable‑rail tray, and the MPO rear.
• Sauter + AFL (US 2019/0004268 A1) or Sauter + CommScope (US 9,885,845) where a latch/release mechanism or module‑assembly architecture is needed for the dependents — the AFL reference is § 102(a)(2) art via its 2017‑06‑27 provisional.

---

6. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine — organized by rationale

This is the heart of the § 103 case. The motivations are documented in the references themselves, not inferred.

6.1 The references state the objective in the same words the '422 uses to describe its own invention

The '422's stated problem is that "cassettes which are used to terminate fiber optic cables comprising different numbers of optic fibers are generally incompatible with one another and additionally require trays with different spacing, securing mechanisms and the like." Sauter's abstract says its system "allows fiber optic cassettes of different sizes to be mounted on the same fiber optic tray," and its specification says the cassettes can be installed "without physically modifying the cassette or the mounting interface." Sedor says the same, in the same terms: a tray "that allows different sized fiber optic modules to be installed within the tray without replacing or removing the tray itself." When the prior art and the patent articulate the identical problem and the identical solution, the motivation element is satisfied by the references' own words — there is no need for the petitioner's expert to supply it. This is KSR's "design incentive" and "market forces" in its purest form.

6.2 Each reference expressly teaches extending its own modularity along the claimed series

• Fukui expressly teaches expansion in the claimed direction: "increased or decreased depending on the number of cores of the multi‑core fiber optic cable… the various numbers of cores of the multi‑core fiber optic cable can be supported," with 36‑core (three modules) and 48‑core (four modules) as worked examples. A POSITA reading Fukui is being told that the unit module is a building block and that wider cassettes are formed by multiplying it. Extending the same arithmetic to six units (72‑core) — one of the four claimed widths, and the largest — is not innovation; it is arithmetic on the reference's own express example set. CommScope's stated motivation for the 6W member is exactly this: support higher‑density cables and reduce installation work, "a goal explicitly stated in Fukui."
• Sauter expressly teaches three or more gang sizes: "Multi‑gang cassettes having more than two gangs can generally conform to a design similar to that described above for the dual‑gang cassette… a three‑gang cassette would interface with four rail guides… the three‑gang cassette would include clearance areas between each pair of adjacent gangs." So Sauter itself discloses the {2, 3} members of the claimed series and describes how to add more.
• Sedor expressly teaches three different module sizes on one tray and, like Fukui, frames it as a size‑multiplication exercise (one 24‑fiber module ≈ two 12‑fiber ≈ three 8‑fiber). Its 8‑fiber module with four LC adapters is also the cleanest confirmation of the claimed "four receptacle portions per standard width unit."

6.3 Simple substitution of a known mounting technique for a known one, to obtain a predictable result

The single most important mechanical insight: Sauter's width problem is an artifact of Sauter's own rails, and Fukui solves it by not using rails. Sauter's double‑gang is "more than twice" the single‑gang width only because it must span an intermediate rail guide 108D and house a mid‑cassette latch 116A in a clearance area 602. Fukui's modules sit in flat areas 32 with holes 33a/33b — no intervening structure. Substituting Fukui's bottom‑anchored mounting for Sauter's rail guides is the kind of "simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results" that MPEP § 2143(A)/(B) recognizes, and it removes rather than adds structure: CommScope characterized it as requiring "no new structures — just an adjustment of the existing structure," with "a reasonable expectation of success" because "Fukui does not teach there is anything special or critical about the location of his holes" (Ex. 1003 ¶116).

6.4 Known work improving a similar device in the same way — the "front‑of‑tray, high‑density" design trend

CommScope's articulated motivations for the related adjustments are unremarkable engineering common sense and therefore appropriate under KSR:

• Move modules to the front of the tray / reduce slide‑out distance: "a POSITA would have been motivated to move Fukui's modules forward on the tray to make it easier for field personnel to access Fukui's modules and minimize the need to slide Fukui's tray out," because "space in telecommunication rooms can be confined and cramped." Fukui itself is "specifically concerned with facilitating access" (8:57–64) and "facilitate the inserting and drawing out work" (10:19–30).
• Add a top wall / complete the housing: "Applying common sense, a POSITA would immediately recognize Fukui's incomplete protection could be improved by adding a complete top wall" — and the petition buttresses this with six examples of housings with top walls drawn from the '422's own prior‑art list (e.g., US 7,509,015 Fig. 1). Using the patent's own cited art to show that a claimed feature was conventional is a particularly strong obviousness position: it is an admission by the applicant of what the field contained.
• Mount in a standard 19‑inch rack: Fukui already discloses EIA 19‑inch rack mounting; Sedor's frame; Fabrykowski's chassis. Standard‑interface compliance is the archetypal non‑inventive design constraint.

6.5 "Obvious to try" — a finite, identified, predictable set

The claim itself confines the width universe to {2, 3, 4, 6} W, i.e., four members, one of which (6W) exists only to fill a 12W tray exactly (2×6, 3×4, 4×3, 6×2 — every combination in the specification fills the tray). Once W is fixed by the 4‑connector module (and every reference here uses a 4‑port or 8‑port LC unit), the set of widths that (a) tile a 12‑unit tray and (b) correspond to real trunk cable fiber counts (8, 12, 16, 24) is closed and tiny. KSR holds that where "there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." Belden could not identify any fifth width, any non‑integer width, or any alternative solution that a POSITA would have preferred.

6.6 Same field, same problem, same components, same result

Every reference is in G02B6/44‑45 (auxiliary devices for light guides / cassettes). There is no field‑crossing, no analogous‑arts question, no reference that has to be distorted out of its purpose. Fukui's multi‑core/single‑core conversion module is the same object as the '422's cassette: a housing with a multi‑fiber connector at the rear, quad LC adapters at the front, fibers looped inside, sized to a rack tray. The combination is a combination of references addressing the same problem in the same way in the same field — the paradigm case for obviousness.

6.7 The competitive/objective evidence of motivation

Panduit's own announcement of the Sedor patent frames the motivation in market terms: with "10, 25, 40, 50 and 100 Gb/s" coexisting in data centers, "customers need highly flexible and customizable cabling solutions," and the invention "helps customers maintain their investments as they migrate across data rates." Corning's US 2016/0062050 family is titled around "migration between duplex and parallel multi‑fiber solutions." The '422's own specification says the same thing: the point of the cassette family is to accommodate "fiber optic cables comprising different numbers of optic fibers." Three competitors and the applicant independently identified the same commercial driver. That is powerful objective evidence of motivation.

---

7. Reasonable expectation of success — including the width problem

The mechanical combination would plainly work. Trays, cassettes, rails, and latches in this art are standardized, interoperable hardware; nothing in the combination is unpredictable, and the substituted element (Fukui's area/hole mounting) is simpler than what it replaces (Sauter's rail guides + latch). A POSITA would expect the combination to hold cassettes on a tray.

The one genuine engineering question is whether the result meets the strict integer‑multiple width limitation — and this is the pivot of the whole § 103 case:

• Direction A (Fukui‑centred): Fukui's coupled "conversion module" is by construction an exact integer multiple of the unit module, since it is made of unit modules. If a POSITA reads module 20 as one cassette (the Board's implicit reading at institution), the width limitation is met exactly, with no modification at all.
• Direction B (Sauter‑centred, modified): strip Sauter's intermediate rail guide and mid‑cassette latch and use Fukui's mounting. The width then becomes gang count × gang width, i.e., an exact multiple. CommScope's alternative formulation is even more elegant and deserves emphasis: if the "standard width unit" is taken as four ports (which the '422 does, per cl. 4/26/53), then Sauter's 8‑port single‑gang cassette is itself 2W, and Sauter's gang series maps directly onto 2W (single‑gang, 8 ports) and 4W (double‑gang, 16 ports), "each… an exact multiple of a standard width unit (one half the width of the 8‑port single‑gang cassette)." In other words, under the patent's own definition of W, Sauter's gang sizes are integer multiples — Belden's "approximately twice" argument depends on adopting a different (6‑port) base unit.

That second point is the most damaging single observation against Belden's non‑obviousness position: Belden's best argument rests on a base unit (a 6‑receptacle gang) that the '422's own dependent claims exclude, because they define the standard width unit as four receptacle portions.

Note the asymmetry of the two sides' evidentiary positions: CommScope put in an expert declaration (Ex. 1003, Dr. Ralph) addressing level of skill, motivation, and expectation of success. Belden put in none — its POPR was attorney argument plus the Hockerson‑Halberstadt point about unscaled drawings. And on that last point, note the limits: Hockerson‑Halberstadt prevents using drawings alone to prove a precise dimension where the specification is silent — but the '422's widths are not proved by measuring drawings; they are proved by counting modules and gang multiples, which is a structural, not a dimensional, comparison.

---

8. Where the art is thinnest, and how the record handled it

I identified the weak seams earlier; here is the honest assessment for each.

---

9. Objective indicia of non‑obviousness (Graham factor 4)

The record is empty, and that emptiness is itself significant.

• Belden filed a preliminary response only. After institution it filed a Motion to Amend, then a disclaimer, then a motion to terminate by adverse judgment — it never filed a patent‑owner response on the merits and never filed sur‑reply evidence.
• There is therefore no evidence of: unexpected results, long‑felt but unmet need, failure of others, industry praise, copying, licensing, or commercial success — and no nexus argument tying any such evidence to the claimed tray.
• Belden's Motion to Amend (substitute claims 66–91, later withdrawn) is the closest thing to a substantive position, and its withdrawal means the Board never evaluated it. The parties expressly agreed the adverse judgment "should only address the Challenged Claims and should not address the substance of the withdrawn Motion to Amend or the proposed substitute claims." No estoppel attaches to the never‑entered substitute claims — which is why Belden pivoted to the new siblings ('896, '491, and application 19/239,502). CommScope preserved the counter‑argument by refusing to stipulate that the amended or new claims are "patentably distinct" from the challenged claims (PTAB Ex. 3002).
• Note the subsidiary point for anyone analyzing the siblings: a "did the art teach it?" analysis is not the only tool available. Where a patent owner surrenders claims in the face of art and then re‑files substantially the same subject matter in continuations, obviousness‑type double patenting / recapture arguments may be available in addition to § 103.

---

10. Claim‑group dispositions

Summary of the § 103 exposure map: every claim family of the '422 has at least one reference or referee‑consistent combination mapping to it; eighteen of the thirty‑nine distinct claim families have two or more independent combinations. The only genuinely thin ground is the magnet limitation, and even there the examiner located a combination.

---

11. Bottom line

Ranked combinations that would render claims 1, 18 and 40 obvious:

1. Fukui (US 10,101,551 B2) alone — best single reference. Discloses the unit module / coupled "conversion module" with exact integer‑multiple widths, quad LC adapters (four per tier), rear multi‑core adapter with interconnecting fibers, twelve tray areas, slidable tray, EIA 19‑inch rack, and — decisively — no intervening rails between cassettes. The Board instituted on this ground against all challenged claims.
2. Sauter (US 9,690,064 B2) alone — the most on‑point disclosure of the inventive concept, stating in its abstract the '422's own objective ("cassettes of different sizes… on the same fiber optic tray… without modification"), with the front‑release spring latch/aperture fastener and single/dual/triple‑gang size series. Its only shortfall is the strict integer‑multiple width, and that shortfall is an artifact of Sauter's own rail guides.
3. Fukui + Sauter (in '228, Grounds 2 and 4) — Sauter cures Fukui's single‑width objection; Fukui cures Sauter's non‑integer‑width objection by removing the intermediate rail guide. This is the mutually reinforcing combination, and it is the one Belden's POPR spent the most words attacking.
4. Any of the above + Sedor (US 10,215,944 B2 / US 2022/0299724 A1) — supplies the housing/case with tray‑receiving space, the repositionable‑rail multi‑size tray, the 24/12/8‑fiber module family, the MPO‑rear interface, and the T‑feature/hook/cantilever‑latch engagement.
5. + Fabrykowski (US 2014/0099064 A1) for the chassis/housing preamble, and the examiner‑originated Fukui + Murray, Sedor + Giraud, and Sedor + Nelson combinations for the bracket and magnet dependents.

Why the motivation is strong and not hindsight: the motivation is in the references' own words. Sauter and Sedor both state the '422's problem and solution almost verbatim; Fukui expressly teaches the claimed expansion arithmetic (2×, 3×, 4×, "various numbers of cores"); the substituted mounting technique removes structure rather than adding it; the width universe is a closed set of four values dictated by tiling a 12‑unit tray with 4‑port modules; and the commercial driver (10/25/40/50/100 Gb/s coexistence; duplex↔parallel migration) is independently documented by Panduit, Corning, and the '422's own specification. Add that the applicant's own cited prior art supplies the top wall and the rack‑mount context, and that no objective evidence of non‑obviousness was ever developed, and the combination satisfies KSR comfortably.

The three honest caveats that travel with this conclusion:

1. There is no adjudicated holding. The Board never issued a Final Written Decision; Belden disclaimed claims 1–6, 10–14, 16, 18, 20–28, 32–36, 38, 40–42, 44‑56, 60–62 and 64 and took adverse judgment on 2025‑09‑08. Everything above is petition‑record and claim‑text analysis, plus the single adjudicated data point that the Board instituted on all claims and all grounds.
2. Belden's two non‑obviousness arguments were real and were not rejected on the merits — they were rejected at the institution threshold. The strongest of them is that Sauter's double‑gang cassette is more than twice the width of a single‑gang cassette because it spans an intermediate rail guide. That argument is defeated, but it is defeated by construction (redefining W as four ports, or substituting Fukui's no‑rail mounting), not by an admission from Belden.
3. ⚠️ Two record items I could not verify and will not assert: (i) the identity of the secondary reference in Ground 2 of '228 (unverified; in the sibling '382, Ground 2 is Fukui + Sauter); (ii) the substance of the "Dagley" reference, which appears in the sibling IPR2024‑01382's Grounds 3/4 but which I have not identified in my record. Neither affects the analysis of claims 1, 18 and 40, which rests on Fukui and Sauter.

Practical takeaway: for the '422 itself this is now academic — a § 103 analysis of disclaimed claims. Its value is as a fully worked template for the live siblings sharing the 2017‑10‑03 priority (US 11,740,423; 12,313,896; 12,332,491; US 2025/0306324 A1), which share the identical prior‑art field — Fukui, Sauter, Sedor and the Corning/Leviton/Panduit literature — and the identical "standard width unit / different cassette widths / directly adjacent" claim architecture. In any such case, the Fukui + Sauter + Sedor combination is the starting point, and CommScope's preserved non‑stipulation (PTAB Ex. 3002) about the amended/continuation claims being "patentably distinct" is the companion argument.

This is a technical/legal analysis of the public record, not legal advice.