US 8189984

I'll verify the patent details and check for any litigation/docket information.

US Patent 8,189,984 B2 — Summary

Sources consulted: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US8189984), FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/8189984.html), Justia, and general web search of USPTO/PTAB and CAFC materials. The full authoritative text provided in my working set is consistent across these.

Bibliographic data

Assignee discrepancy (unresolved): Google Patents lists the current assignee as Commscope EMEA Ltd / Commscope Technologies LLC (following the recorded chain ADC → Tyco Electronics Services GmbH → Commscope EMEA Ltd → Commscope Technologies LLC). One third-party aggregator (lexdana.ai) stated the current assignee as "ARRIS ENTERPRISES LLC … originally TE Connectivity." The assignment records in the Google Patents file (reel/frame 3666/009, 3690/804, 3695/600, 3701/200) support the Commscope chain. I flag the conflict rather than resolving it.

Expiry discrepancy (unresolved): Google Patents lists anticipated expiration 2028-07-30, while one aggregator lists a 20-year term ending 22 February 2031 (filing + 20 years). No adjusted-expiry/PTA figure was available in what I retrieved, so I cannot state the correct date with confidence.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A fiber optic enclosure assembly includes a housing having an interior region and a bearing mount disposed in the interior region of the housing. A cable spool is connectedly engaged with the bearing mount such that the cable spool selectively rotates within the housing. A termination module disposed on the cable spool so that the termination module rotates in unison with the cable spool. A method of paying out a fiber optic cable from a fiber optic enclosure includes rotating a cable spool, which has a subscriber cable coiled around a spooling portion of the cable spool, about an axis of a housing of the fiber optic enclosure until a desired length of subscriber cable is paid out. A termination module is disposed on the cable spool."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Enclosure with spool-carried adapters.
A fiber optic enclosure assembly comprising: (a) a housing with an interior; (b) a fiber optic cable having a jacketed first portion (fibers bundled in a jacket) and a broken-out second portion (individual fibers with connectorized ends), where the jacketed portion can be paid out from the housing interior; (c) a cable storage spool inside the housing around which the jacketed portion is wrapped, the spool rotating about an axis to let cable pay out; and (d) fiber optic adapters that receive the connectorized ends of the individual fibers and are carried with the spool as it rotates — the adapters being arranged to couple those fiber ends to connectorized ends of subscriber optical fibers while the adapters are mounted on the spool. Core idea: the termination/connection point spins with the spool, so paying cable out does not pull the connectorized end out of its adapter.

Claim 6 — Spool with adapters that rotate in unison.
A fiber optic enclosure assembly comprising: a housing defining an interior; a first spool inside the housing that defines a first storage space for spooling fiber optic cable and is rotatable about an axis; and fiber optic adapters positioned in the interior and coupled to the spool, each adapter configured to couple a connectorized end of an optical fiber of the cable to a connectorized end of a subscriber cable's optical fiber while mounted on the spool; wherein the adapters rotate in unison with the spool when the spool rotates.

Claim 10 — Routing-path version with spool-carried adapters.
Adds routing-path limitations to the claim 1 concept: the housing defines (i) a fiber optic cable routing path and (ii) a subscriber routing path within the interior; the cable storage spool defines part of the cable routing path and rotates about an axis; the fiber optic cable (jacketed portion + broken-out connectorized portion) is routed along that path with the jacketed portion wrapped on the spool and payable out; adapters carried with the spool optically couple the individual fiber ends to subscriber-fiber ends; and the assembly defines a subscriber fiber routing path running from a fiber entrance location of the housing, through the interior, to the adapters.

Claim 15 — Routing-path version with adapters rotating in unison.
Like claim 6 but with the routing-path language grafted on: housing defines a cable routing path and a subscriber routing path; a first spool defines a storage space for cable and rotates about an axis; fiber optic adapters in the interior couple cable ends to subscriber-fiber ends; a subscriber fiber routing path runs from a fiber entrance location through the interior to the adapters; and the adapters rotate in unison with the first spool.

Dependent claims add: multi-fiber connector at the second end (2, 11); sliding adapter packs (3, 7, 12, 16); main body with front opening and movable front cover (4, 8, 13, 17); wall-mountable main body (5, 9, 14, 18).

Litigation / docket findings

• No CAFC 2026 docket naming U.S. Patent 8,189,984 was found. The one CAFC 2026 item my search surfaced is Belden Canada ULC v. Commscope, Inc., Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina, Commscope Technologies LLC, Nos. 2026-1255 and 2026-1285 (appeals from D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-00782-RGA), dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 29 June 2026. That appeal is in the same fiber-enclosure/telecom-enclosure technology area and involves Commscope, but the retrieved order does not identify the patents asserted, so I cannot confirm that 8,189,984 is involved. Treat this as an unverified lead only.
• Historical district-court activity in this patent family: ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Opterna Am, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-02509-JS (complaint filed 11 April 2011; notice of dismissal filed 12 July 2011) and Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-0735 (GBL-IDD) (complaint filed 12 July 2011). These documents appear in the file history of related family member US 8,494,333, not necessarily as to the '984 patent specifically, so I state the link with caution.
• Google Patents shows a "First worldwide family litigation filed" pointer for family ID 40454555 via Darts-ip, indicating at least one litigation in this worldwide family — but the pointer does not name the patents or cases.

Uncertainty notes

1. I could not access a live USPTO PatentCenter/assignment record or a PACER/CAFC docket directly; findings rest on Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline and Justia pages plus general web search.
2. There is a claim-set discrepancy between the granted patent and the pre-grant publication aggregator pages: one aggregator renders an 18-claim set (with claims 1, 8, 13 independent and references to a "second spool") that does not match the granted claims. I have used the granted claims (independents 1, 6, 10, 15) from the authoritative full text.
3. As noted, assignee and expiration data conflict between sources; both are flagged above rather than resolved.
4. Current status is "Expired – Fee Related" per Google Patents, which is a non-legal characterization.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8189984.

Let me run more targeted searches.

I found a promising lead. Let me dig into the specific cases that may have asserted this patent.

Litigation Search — U.S. Patent No. 8,189,984

Bottom line: Based on the searches I was able to run, I did not find any confirmed, independently verifiable court case in which U.S. Patent No. 8,189,984 ("the '984 patent") is specifically identified as a patent-in-suit. I want to be explicit about that limitation rather than fill the gap with an unverified case number.

Here is what the search results do establish, and how it relates to the '984 patent.

1. The '984 patent's own front-page/Google Patents record

The Google Patents record you provided for US8189984B2 carries a litigation flag:

• "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to a Darts-IP family record: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=40454555

That flag is a family-level signal (family ID 40454555 covering the whole "Fiber optic enclosure with internal cable spool" lineage). It does not, by itself, tell us that the '984 patent specifically was asserted. I could not open the Darts-IP family page to confirm which member(s) were at issue.

2. Litigation involving the same patent family (context, not necessarily the '984 patent)

Search results surfaced litigation references embedded in the prosecution/IDF histories of later family members (e.g., US11573390, US11009671B2, US10495836, US10895705, US10712518):

• CommScope vs. Clearfield — Multiple hits reference: "CommScope's Response to Clearfield's Second Revised Invalidity Claim Charts and Disclosure, Civil Action No. [redacted in the snippet]" and "Commscope's Response to Clearfield's Second Revised Preliminary Invalidity Claim Charts and Disclosures." These appear on the Google Patents pages for US11573390 ("Fiber optic enclosure with internal cable spool") and US11009671. This indicates a real district-court case in which the internal-cable-spool family (which includes the '984 patent) was in dispute between CommScope and Clearfield, Inc.
  • ⚠️ I could not extract the case number, jurisdiction, or filing date from the search snippets, and I will not invent them. This needs to be confirmed directly on PACER or the Unified Patents litigation portal.
  • I also could not confirm whether the '984 patent itself (as opposed to later continuations) was named in those invalidity charts.

3. ADC Telecommunications v. Opterna — earlier, related technology (predates the '984 issuance)

Several family file histories cite these cases as prior-art/prosecution references:

• ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Opterna Am., Inc., Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-02509-JS — complaint filed April 11, 2011 (14 pages); Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal filed July 12, 2011.
• ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Opterna Am., Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-735 (GBL-IDD) — complaint filed July 12, 2011 (5–6 pages); stipulation/order of dismissal entered February [year not shown in snippet].

Important caveat: Both Opterna suits were filed in 2011 — before the '984 patent issued (May 29, 2012). On the face of the record, these cannot have asserted the '984 patent. They appear in the family's histories as cited references, not as litigation over the '984 patent.

4. What I could not verify

• No case caption, docket number, jurisdiction, or filing date naming US 8,189,984 specifically as an asserted patent.
• No PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) identified against the '984 patent in the results I retrieved.
• The CommScope–Clearfield case number, court, and status.
• Whether the Darts-IP "family litigation" flag corresponds to the '984 patent directly or only to a sibling continuation.

Recommended next steps to close the gaps

Since you authorized litigation-specific sources, these are the best places to confirm the '984-specific record (I was unable to complete these within the search budget):

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (search the exact number 8,189,984).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — full-text search for "8,189,984" in complaints.
3. Darts-IP family page — https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=40454555 to see which family member(s) were litigated.
4. USPTO Patent Center / Patent Assignment for the '984 patent, to trace title to CommScope and any related reexaminations.

Summary table

Honest conclusion: I cannot report a confirmed case in which US 8,189,984 is the asserted patent. The only verifiable hits are (a) a family-level litigation flag on the patent's Google Patents page and (b) invalidity-chart references to a CommScope–Clearfield dispute over the same patent family. The two ADC v. Opterna cases predate the '984 patent and should not be characterized as '984 litigation. Please treat the CommScope–Clearfield row as a lead requiring confirmation of the docket details before citing it.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before reporting.

Let me run more targeted searches on the patent number and the patent owner.

Let me search directly against PTAB dockets and the patent's specific family.

Search status note

I ran targeted web searches (patent number variants 8,189,984 / 8189984, patent title, patent owner CommScope/ADC, and inventor names) plus queries against PTAB document repositories. The structured ODP block in the prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and nothing in the live search results contradicted that — no IPR, PGR, or CBM docket naming US 8,189,984 surfaced. My searches were noisy and returned many false-positive hits on unrelated patents with similar numbers (e.g., IPR2022-00096 on RE44,818; IPR2025-00298 on 11,860,818; IPR2016-01891 on 8,984,565). I did not find a proceeding on this patent, so I will not invent one.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,189,984: 0 (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied) as of the most recent USPTO ODP ingest, and no unindexed proceeding surfaced in web search — so the defensive posture is "the patent has never been tested at the PTAB." That is not the same as "hardened": it means every one of claims 1–18 is untested, and a defendant today faces no claim-cancellation shield but also no adverse PTAB precedent or § 315(e)(2) estoppel restricting its invalidity case.

No proceedings to itemize

There are no proceeding numbers, panels, institution decisions, or Final Written Decisions to report for US 8,189,984. I am flagging this explicitly rather than padding the section with sibling-patent activity. If the ODP block was truncated or a proceeding was filed after the last ingest, the specific gap is: PTAB E2E / ODP has not been refreshed for this patent since the ingest date given in the prompt. The verification step a practitioner should run is a direct PTAB E2E search on "8189984" and on the patent owner names CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope EMEA Ltd, and the predecessor ADC Telecommunications, Inc.

Strategic summary

Claim posture. Claims 1–18 of US 8,189,984 are intact and untested at the PTAB. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 are the independents (claims 1 and 10 are apparatus claims to an enclosure with a rotatable cable storage spool carrying fiber optic adapters; claims 6 and 15 recite the same concept with "rotate in unison" language; dependents add multi-fiber connectors, sliding adapter packs, hinged front cover, and wall-mount limitations). Because no IPR has ever been instituted, there is no claim-level invalidation history, no antecedent-construction guidance from the Board, and no claim that has been held patentable over specific art. Nothing here is "dead."

Estoppel landscape. With zero prior petitioners, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is empty. A defendant has the full universe of prior-art grounds available — § 102 and § 103 on any reference, plus § 112 grounds (note § 112 is not available in IPR, only in PGR or district court/ITC). The only hard constraints are the § 315(b) one-year bar (measured from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent) and the § 325(d)/§ 314(a) discretionary factors. Because the family has a deep prosecution and litigation history, expect the patent owner to lean on § 325(d) if a petitioner recycles art already before the examiner.

Pattern signals — what the family shows. US 8,189,984 sits in a very large ADC/CommScope continuation family (priority 2007-08-06) that includes US 7,756,379, 7,894,701, 8,494,333, 8,705,929, 8,891,931, 9,261,666, 9,606,319, 10,712,518, 10,234,648, 10,247,897, 10,606,015, 10,606,017, 10,495,836, 10,895,705, 10,996,417, 10,996,418 and still-pending continuations. Google Patents tags the family "Family has litigation," and I did find family-adjacent enforcement activity:

• CommScope Technologies LLC v. Clearfield, Inc., No. 0:17-cv-00307-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., filed 2017-01-31) — 13 patents asserted, including family sibling US 8,705,929. Clearfield filed three IPRs in the quarter ending 2017-12-31 challenging three of the asserted CommScope patents (per Clearfield's own SEC disclosure). The case settled 2018-02-22 — joint dismissal, IPRs withdrawn, Clearfield paid $850,000 and redesigned away from the accused products. (See the CommScope/Clearfield joint press release.) Caution: I did not confirm that the asserted set or the Clearfield IPRs included US 8,189,984 — the press-release list does not name it.
• CommScope v. AFL Telecommunications, No. 1:21-cv-00377 (D. Del.) — 9 patents, voluntary dismissal with prejudice 2024-10-25; the named patent in coverage was US 10,310,204, not '984.
• CommScope v. Belden, Nos. 1:24-cv-00411 and 1:24-cv-00440 (D. Del.) — asserts US 10,996,417 (a later family member) and RE48,675 / RE44,758; the '417 claims recite the same "connector rotates in unison with the cable spool" concept that is the core of '984 claim 1. This matters: the patent owner is actively monetizing this disclosure family, and '984 is a plausible next-step assertion vehicle.

The takeaway on pattern: this is a serial continuation filer with an active enforcement program, not a defensive-aggregator target. No Unified Patents or similar entity appears anywhere in the chain I found.

Recommended next steps

Because there is no PTAB activity, the strategic advice inverts from the usual script.

1. Confirm the negative before relying on it. Search PTAB E2E directly by patent number and by owner (CommScope Technologies LLC / CommScope EMEA Ltd / ADC Telecommunications Inc.) and re-pull the ODP record. An empty IPR list for a patent this old and this commercially active is a meaningful signal — well-asserted patents in this space (e.g., sibling '929 in the Clearfield case) did attract IPRs — but verify it rather than assume.

2. You are the first mover — that is an advantage and a risk. With no prior petitioner, you have (a) no § 315(e)(2) estoppel constraining your district-court invalidity case, (b) no Board claim constructions to work around, and (c) a clean § 315(b) clock to watch. The risk is that you get no free ride on anyone else's work product, and you must build the record from scratch.

3. Watch the § 315(b) clock. If CommScope serves a complaint asserting '984, the one-year IPR window starts on service. Given the family's settlement history (Clearfield: $850k plus redesign, two years after filing), a stay-and-IPR posture has a demonstrated path to resolution in this portfolio.

4. Mine the family's litigation record for art and estoppel-adjacent intel. The Clearfield invalidity contentions, the three withdrawn Clearfield IPRs, and the Belden/AFL pleadings are the best public window into how this claim family gets attacked and where the owner's infringement theories locate the "rotates in unison" limitation. Those documents are the place to look even though they do not formally bind '984.

5. If a proceeding does exist post-ingest, the milestones to track are the § 314(b) institution deadline (6 months from petition filing), the statutory 1-year FWD deadline from institution, and any Request for Director Review or Federal Circuit appeal (FWDs are public at USPTO PTAB Decisions; CAFC dispositions are on CourtListener). I have no docket number or FWD link to give you because I found no such proceeding.

Bottom line for a defendant: US 8,189,984 is a virgin patent at the PTAB — all 18 claims are live and untested, no estoppel exists, and the full prior-art field is open. Assume the family's enforcement pattern (Clearfield, AFL, Belden) means this patent or a near-identical sibling will be in the next wave of assertions, and prepare the § 315(b) calendar now rather than after service.

I'll start by trying to retrieve the actual USPTO assignment records for this patent.

Let me dig for the specific assignment records and any litigation history.

I have partial assignment data. Let me try to pin down the remaining reel/frame numbers and any assertion of this specific patent.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,189,984 B2

Patent: US 8,189,984 B2 — "Fiber optic enclosure with internal cable spool"
Appl. No.: 13/032,337 (filed 2011-02-22) — continuation of 12/793,556 (now US 7,894,701), which is a continuation of 12/182,705 (now US 7,756,379)
Priority: 2007-08-06 (provisionals 60/954,214 and 61/029,248)
Issued: 2012-05-29 | Status: Expired — Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2028-07-30)

Data-retrieval caveat (read first). USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search was not directly reachable in this session. The events below are reconstructed from (a) the patent-level assignment ("reassignment") event log on Google Patents, which mirrors the USPTO assignment database, and (b) third-party mirrors of the underlying reel/frame records (plainsite.org, Google Patents full-text assignment citations, USPTO.report). Reel/frame numbers are cited only where I actually retrieved them; where the event is documented but the reel/frame was not retrieved, I say so expressly. No assignment below is invented.

Inventors

Pattern note — no red flags. All three inventors were ADC Telecommunications employees in Minnesota, the same site that produced ADC's fiber-distribution and enclosure product lines. Coan and Kaml continue to appear as named inventors on later, CommScope-assigned members of the same family (e.g., US 10,371,914 B2, filed 2018-01-19, "Applicant: CommScope Technologies LLC, Hickory, NC," inventors Coan, Krampotich, Kaml). That is direct evidence of continuity of employment through both the Tyco and CommScope transitions. I found no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing, and no evidence any of the three assigned to a third party outside the ADC chain — the inventor-to-ADC assignment of record was not filed until it was recorded 2015-09-25, i.e. as a confirmatory/clean-up filing ahead of the CommScope closing, not as a distress signal. I could not confirm Kowalczyk's post-2012 employment; no source found.

Original assignee

ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (listed on the face of the patent; Berwyn, PA as of the 2011 filing — the historical operating base was Eden Prairie, MN).

• Line of business: broadband connectivity and physical-layer telecom infrastructure — fiber distribution hubs, fiber access terminals, enclosures, bays/frames, connectors and outside-plant hardware.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The patent discloses an internal-spool fiber optic enclosure with a rotating termination module; it sits squarely in ADC's shipped FTTx enclosure/terminal product line (the specification describes installation "at a mounting location" and payout of subscriber cable to a fiber distribution hub — a commercial field-deployment method, not a paper asset). Sibling members of this family are asserted by ADC's successor against competitors, and later ADC filings (e.g., US 2015/0329312, "Cable Spool Assembly," assignee ADC Telecommunications, Inc.) continue the same product line.
• Current status: Not operating as ADC. ADC Telecommunications was acquired by Tyco Electronics Ltd. (completed Dec. 2010), whose Broadband Network Solutions (BNS) division was sold to CommScope (announced Jan. 2015, closed Aug. 2015). ADC as an entity was absorbed; there was no bankruptcy (this is important — see Signals §6).

Assignment timeline

Confirmed events recorded against US 8,189,984 (dates as recorded in the USPTO assignment database, via the patent-level event log):

• 2015-09-25 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Coan, Jonathan Walter; Kaml, Jonathan R.; Kowalczyk, Scott C. (inventors)
  • Assignee: ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: confirmatory inventor-to-company assignment, filed late and right before the CommScope closing — chain-perfection for the acquisition, not a transfer to an asserter.

• Executed 2015-08-25 / recorded 2015-10-21 — Reel 036908/0443

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignors: ADC Telecommunications, Inc. and TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH
  • Assignee: Tyco Electronics Services GmbH (Rheinstrasse 20, Schaffhausen 8200, Switzerland)
  • Correspondent: Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minneapolis, MN (the same firm that recorded the companion ADC→Tyco Electronics Services GmbH conveyance, Reel 036060/0174, where the correspondent of record is named as Julie K. Skoge, Merchant & Gould, P.C., 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Merchant & Gould is also the prosecution firm of record on this patent family). Flag: Merchant & Gould appears across multiple links of this chain — but it is ADC's/CommScope's long-standing corporate patent house, not a repeat NPE filing agent.
  • Context: carve-out/internal reorganization of the ADC portfolio inside TE Connectivity immediately before the BNS divestiture.

• Executed 2015-08-28 / recorded 2015-10-26 — Reel 036956/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: Tyco Electronics Services GmbH
  • Assignee: CommScope EMEA Limited (Ireland)
  • Correspondent: Merchant & Gould, P.C. (recorded by the same firm; see above)
  • Context: step two of the TE Connectivity → CommScope BNS acquisition.

• Executed 2015-08-28 / recorded 2015-10-29 — Reel 037012/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignor's interest
  • Assignor: CommScope EMEA Limited
  • Assignee: CommScope Technologies LLC (Hickory, NC)
  • Correspondent: Merchant & Gould, P.C.
  • Context: intra-CommScope drop-down of the acquired ADC/TE portfolio into the U.S. operating entity — the entity that is the current owner of record.

• Recorded 2016-01-13 (two grants) — Reel/frame not retrieved (the two JPMorgan reels commonly cited on sibling CommScope patents in this program are 037513/0709 (TERM) and 037514/0196 (ABL); I could not confirm those specific reels against US 8,189,984, so I do not assert them)

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — Patent Security Agreement (ABL) and Patent Security Agreement (TERM)
  • Assignor: CommScope Technologies LLC
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: securitization — portfolio pledged as collateral for CommScope's credit facilities. Definitive operating-company signal.

• 2019-04-09 (two releases) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Assignees/beneficiaries listed: Redwood Systems, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; Andrew LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; Allen Telecom LLC
  • Context: release of the 2016 collateral package on repayment/refinancing — debt management, not an ownership change.

• Recorded 2019-07-03 — Reel 049905/0504 (confirmed: the 2024 release expressly cites "REEL/FRAME 049905/0504")

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — Patent Security Agreement
  • Assignor: CommScope Technologies LLC
  • Assignee: Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: securitization — replacement collateral agent package.

• Recorded 2019-07-03 (two grants) — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement — ABL Security Agreement and Term Loan Security Agreement
  • Assignors: ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
  • Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
  • Context: securitization tied to the CommScope/ARRIS/Ruckus credit structure.

• Recorded 2021-11-19 — Reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: ARRIS Enterprises LLC; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; CommScope Technologies LLC; CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
  • Assignee: Wilmington Trust
  • Context: securitization — incremental collateral recording. No ownership change.

• 2024-12-19 — Reel 049905/0504 (release)

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest at Reel/Frame 049905/0504
  • Assignor: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
  • Beneficiaries: Ruckus Wireless, LLC (f/k/a Ruckus Wireless, Inc.); CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina; ARRIS Technology, Inc.; ARRIS Solutions, Inc.; ARRIS Enterprises LLC (f/k/a ARRIS Enterprises, Inc.); CommScope Technologies LLC
  • Context: release of the 2019 Wilmington Trust pledge.

Ownership of record today: the chain terminates at CommScope Technologies LLC (with CommScope EMEA Limited still appearing as a listed assignee in Google's current-assignee field, reflecting the intra-group holding structure). No assignment to any third party, licensing vehicle, or NPE appears anywhere in the record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8189984
    2007 : Priority date Aug 6
    2008 : Filed by ADC Telecommunications
    2011 : Continuation filed at USPTO
    2012 : US 8189984 issues
    2015 : Inventor assignment recorded to ADC
         : ADC business acquired by CommScope
    2016 : CommScope pledges portfolio to JPMorgan
    2019 : JPMorgan releases 2016 pledges
         : Wilmington Trust records new pledge
    2021 : Wilmington Trust pledge expanded
    2024 : Wilmington Trust pledge released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every assignee in the chain is an operating or operating-holding entity: ADC Telecommunications, Inc.; Tyco Electronics Services GmbH (TE Connectivity's Swiss holding company, Rheinstrasse 20, Schaffhausen — a corporate treasury/holding address, but tied to a $12B+ NYSE-listed parent); CommScope EMEA Limited; CommScope Technologies LLC (Hickory, NC). No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Ventures" suffix anywhere; no registered-agent service address; no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC. Reels 036908/0443, 036956/0001, 037012/0001.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the entities in the record matches the named lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). CommScope's posture is the inverse: it is a defendant in NPE suits (e.g., TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co., E.D. Tex., filed 2021, NPE plaintiff asserting DSL patents). I could not exhaustively query Unified Patents' or RPX's asserter directories in this session; I found no listing of US 8,189,984 or of CommScope as an NPE there.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present, but benign. Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minneapolis, MN (correspondent of record named as Julie K. Skoge, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402) recorded multiple links in this chain (Reel 036060/0174; Reel 036294/0374 for ADC GmbH → Tyco Electronics Services GmbH; and the same firm's address appears on the 2015 recordings). This is not an NPE finding. Merchant & Gould is ADC's/CommScope's long-time corporate prosecution firm and is the attorney of record on the face of this family (e.g., US 10,371,914 B2, "Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Merchant & Gould P.C."). The recurrence is explained by a single corporate client using one firm across a corporate reorganization, not by a lawyer running a stable of shell LLCs.

4. Cascading transfers — not present (looks like a cascade; isn't). Four recorded assignments in ~10 weeks (2015-09-25 through 2015-10-29), but the effective dates (2015-08-24/25 and 2015-08-28) fall inside a single announced acquisition — TE Connectivity's sale of its Broadband Network Solutions business (formerly ADC) to CommScope, announced Jan. 2015 and closed Aug. 2015. The intermediate entities (Tyco Electronics Services GmbH, TE Connectivity Solutions GmbH, CommScope EMEA Limited, CommScope Technologies LLC) are parent/subsidiary entities of two public companies, not unrelated LLCs, and they share both the same correspondent firm and the same transaction dates. Classic acquisition step-plan, not an NPE cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last ownership transfer recorded against this patent is 2015-10-29 (Reel 037012/0001), ~15 months before the family's first identified FTTx assertion (CommScope v. Clearfield, D. Minn. 0:17-cv-00307, filed Jan. 2017), and that suit asserted sibling US 8,705,929 — not US 8,189,984. I could not confirm any suit asserting US 8,189,984 itself. There is no 6-months-before-suit assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. ADC Telecommunications was acquired (Tyco Electronics, Dec. 2010), not liquidated; no Chapter 7/11 filing by ADC, Tyco Electronics/TE Connectivity, or CommScope appears in the record. The only debt-related filings are routine security agreements (Reels 049905/0504, 037513/0709, 037514/0196 and the 2019 grants) in which CommScope remains the owner and pledgor, and the corresponding releases (2019-04-09; 2024-12-19) — i.e., CommScope is the borrower/pledgor, not a seller of patents.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer out of the operating chain; CommScope asserts the family in its own name as plaintiff (CommScope Technologies LLC v. Clearfield, Inc., 0:17-cv-00307-PJS-BRT, D. Minn., Jan. 2017, later dismissed with prejudice after settlement; CommScope Holding Co. v. AFL Telecommunications LLC, 1:21-cv-00377, D. Del., filed 2021-03-15, dismissed with prejudice 2024-10-25). CommScope also supplies fiber enclosures under its own brands (ASCEND fiber housings, etc.) — it competes in the market it litigates.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating manufacturer with active, collateralized patent assets.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a straightforward corporate succession — ADC Telecommunications, Inc. → Tyco Electronics Services GmbH (Reel 036908/0443, eff. 2015-08-25) → CommScope EMEA Limited (Reel 036956/0001, eff. 2015-08-28) → CommScope Technologies LLC (Reel 037012/0001, eff. 2015-08-28) — driven by the TE Connectivity/CommScope BNS acquisition, with the patent thereafter pledged as collateral (Reel 049905/0504 and the JPMorgan grants) and released (2024-12-19). Zero NPE signals are present: no licensing-only entity, no known asserter, no pre-litigation transfer, no bankruptcy, and the recurrence of Merchant & Gould as correspondent is explained by a single long-standing corporate client. The conclusive point is §8 and §1 combined: the current owner manufactures and sells fiber enclosures embodying this disclosure and has sued competitors on the same family (US 8,705,929 asserted in CommScope v. Clearfield, D. Minn. 2017) — the opposite of a troll pattern; additionally, the current record shows no assignment of US 8,189,984 to any third party at all.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Assignment Search (patent-number query): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — search 8189984, or application 13032337
• Google Patents legal events (source of the recorded-event dates above): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8189984/en
• Family litigation flag (Darts-IP family 40454555), cited on the Google Patents record above

Residual gaps I could not close: the reel/frame for the 2015-09-25 inventor assignment; the reel/frame for the 2016-01-13 JPMorgan security grants and the 2019-04-09 releases, the 2019-07-03 JPMorgan ABL/TERM grants, and the 2021-11-19 Wilmington Trust grant on this patent; and whether US 8,189,984 itself has ever been asserted in litigation (only sibling US 8,705,929 was confirmed asserted). These require a direct Assignment Center pull by patent number.

I'll verify the patent on USPTO and research the cited prior art references.

Let me research the most technically relevant anticipatory references.

Let me research a few more high-relevance references.

Verification of the patent (USPTO lookup)

I searched for the literal number 8,189,984. The USPTO-facing results (Google Patents US8189984B2, which mirrors the USPTO grant and is linked from the USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment tabs; FreePatentsOnline 8189984; Justia) all returned the same document:

• US 8,189,984 B2 — "Fiber optic enclosure with internal cable spool"
• App. No. 13/032,337; filed Feb. 22, 2011; granted May 29, 2012
• Inventors Kowalczyk, Coan, Kaml; original assignee ADC Telecommunications, Inc.; examiner Akm Enayet Ullah
• 18 claims (independents 1, 6, 10, 15)
• Priority chain: 60/954,214 (Aug. 6, 2007) → 61/029,248 (Feb. 15, 2008) → 12/182,705 → 12/793,556 → 13/032,337

Source caveat: the searches returned synoptic USPTO/Google Patents/Justia records, not a live PatentCenter session; I could not pull a raw PatentCenter "References Cited" list independently of the patent text supplied. The 109-item citation list below is taken from the authoritative full text in my working set and cross-checked against Google Patents/Justia family pages.

The anticipation target (what the claims actually require)

This matters because it determines how to read the references. Every independent claim (1, 6, 10, 15) requires all of:

1. a housing defining an interior;
2. a spool inside the enclosure that rotates to pay cable out;
3. a fiber-optic cable with a jacketed portion (fibers bundled) and a broken-out portion (individual connectorized fibers); and
4. fiber optic adapters that are carried with / rotate in unison with the spool and that couple the connectorized individual fibers to subscriber fibers while mounted on the spool.

Elements 1–3 are old and widely taught. The point of novelty — and therefore the limitation no single cited reference should contain — is element 4: the adapter/termination point co-rotating with the payout spool.

Tier 1 — Closest references (spool + payout and/or co-rotation)

US 5,522,561 — "Fiber optic cable payout system"

• Citation: US 5,522,561 A; Koyamatsu, Mummery (dec'd), Hahn; assignee U.S. Navy.
• Dates: filed Jun. 3, 1992; issued Jun. 4, 1996.
• Description: Inside-payout fiber pack on a two-flanged, collapsible-core spool; stabilizing tube, stand-offs, tape, payout guide and elastomeric diaphragm; claims a coil (cylindrically shaped inner-diameter periphery), a coaxial cylinder defining a payout void, flanges, payout guide, and assembly methods.
• § 102 mapping: Relevant only to the "spool rotates/feeds cable" element of claims 1, 6, 10, 15; it contains no enclosure and no adapters, and it expressly notes the drawback that "the inside end of a cable pack [cannot] be fixed … Optical slip rings have been devised … but these are extremely expensive." It therefore does not anticipate any claim; it is § 103 background (and it evidences the recognized problem the '984 solved differently by rotating the adapter rather than using a slip ring).

US 5,335,874 — "Connectorized optical fiber cable reel"

• Citation: US 5,335,874 A; Shrum et al.; assignee Siecor Corp.
• Dates: filed Nov. 20, 1992; issued Aug. 9, 1994.
• Description: Tubular hub with hollow interior; cable wound on the hub; hardware/connectors attached to the cable end are stored in the hub interior; dismountable end flange with central aperture for a rotating shaft; channel from hub outer surface to hub interior; companion US 4,901,939 (Obst/Shrum, Siecor, "Reel").
• § 102 mapping: Relates to the "cable storage spool about which the jacketed portion is wrapped" and "connectorized end" language of claims 1 and 10. It does not disclose adapters mounted to and rotating with the reel, so it does not anticipate the independent claims. Best treated as § 103 art on the spool/connectorized-cable element.

US 4,587,801 — "System for rotationally slaving an optical fiber feeding and dispensing device in a cabling line"

• Citation: US 4,587,801 A; Missout et al.; assignee Société Anonyme de Télécommunications.
• Dates: filed May 30, 1984; issued May 13, 1986.
• Description: A cabling-line system in which fiber feeding means and dispensing means are rigidly linked and turn together at a slaved speed, expressly to remove strains on fibers "between the pay-out spools and the fiber-guides."
• § 102 mapping: No enclosure, no spool payout from an enclosure, no adapters — does not anticipate any claim. Important as § 103 art because it teaches the same underlying insight (co-rotate the fiber-handling member to avoid twisting/strain of the fiber end), though in a wholly different (manufacturing) context.

US 2004/0170369 A1 (granted US 6,915,058) — "Retractable optical fiber assembly"

• Citation: US 2004/0170369 A1; Pons; filed Feb. 28, 2003; published Sep. 2, 2004 (US 6,915,058 issued Jul. 5, 2005).
• Description: A housing containing a spool rotatably disposed within the housing, with optical waveguide reeled on the spool; jacketed end lengths terminate in optical connectors; spool biased by torsion spring to retract; caps and connector management.
• § 102 mapping: Closest of the "housing + rotating spool + connectorized fiber" references. Relevant to claims 1, 6, 10, 15 for the housing/spool/connectorized-end elements, but it provides no adapters carried on the spool that couple to subscriber fibers, so it does not anticipate. Strong § 103 candidate.

Tier 2 — Enclosure / spool / slack-storage references (housing + rotational or fixed spool)

Tier 3 — Adapter / termination-module references (pre‑date the "adapters" limitation but not the co‑rotation)

These references were cited in the '984 file and appear in the specification of the patent itself:

Tier 4 — Non-patent literature and admitted prior art (potentially the most dangerous § 102 art)

The "References Cited" list included several printed publications and an applicant admission, which are § 102(a)/(b) art in their own right:

• "Description of Admitted Prior Art," 30 pages — an admission by the applicant of the state of the art. This is the most important item to review carefully, because an admission can supply claim elements against which no printed patent is needed.
• ADC Telecommunications product literature: "7 Inch Modules … 7 Inch Connector Module with IFC" (©1998); "F3DF Modules … Individual 12‑Pack Assemblies" (©1995); "Fiber Cable Management Products, Third Ed." (©1995, 1998); "Fiber Distribution Frame, Pre‑Terminated Rear Load Connector Module, Installation Instructions" (©2000); "Fiber Main Distribution Frame (FMDF), Fiber Terminal Block, Installation Instructions" (©2001); "Fiber Panel Products … 72 Fiber Distribution Module (FDM) with Intrafacility Fiber Cable" (©1994, 1996); "FL2000 Products" (©1994, 1996, 2000); "IFC Style Frame Modules" (©1995); "Next Generation Frame (NGF) Product Family Ordering Guide" (©1996, 1999, 2000); "Next Generation Frames — Fiber Termination Blocks" (©1998); "Value‑Added Module System … 12‑Pack Module Assemblies" (©1993, 1994, 1998).
• Litigation documents: complaints/notices in ADC Telecommunications, Inc. v. Opterna Am, Inc., No. 5:11‑cv‑02509‑JS (complaint Apr. 11, 2011; dismissal Jul. 12, 2011) and No. 1:11‑cv‑0735 (GBL‑IDD) (filed Jul. 12, 2011).

These NPL items are the most likely § 102(b) grounds on the sub‑combinations (termination modules, connector modules, cable‑management trays), but they do not describe a rotating spool carrying adapters, so they likewise do not appear to anticipate the independent claims.

Bottom line: anticipation vs. obviousness

No single cited reference anticipates any of the 18 claims. Each independent claim (1, 6, 10, 15) contains the "adapters carried with / rotating in unison with the spool" limitation, and none of the 109 references discloses a fiber‑optic adapter mounted on a rotating payout spool such that it couples connectorized individual fibers to subscriber fibers while mounted on the spool. Anticipation-by-association (using one reference for the enclosure/spool and another for adapters) is a § 103 exercise, not § 102.

The references that come closest, and the claim language to which they map, are:

1. US 2004/0170369 A1 (Pons) — housing + rotatable spool + connectorized fiber ends (claims 1, 6, 10, 15; missing element 4).
2. US 5,335,874 (Shrum/Siecor) and US 4,901,939 (Obst/Shrum) — spool/reel with connectorized cable end (claims 1, 10; missing element 4).
3. US 5,522,561 (Koyamatsu/Navy) — fiber‑optic spool payout from a pack (claim 1's payout element; missing housing and adapters).
4. US 4,587,801 (Missout) — the co‑rotation principle for fiber handling (no enclosure/adapters).
5. US 6,315,598 (Elliot/ADC), US 6,711,339 (Puetz/ADC), US 7,346,253 (Bloodworth/Corning), US 7,477,829 (Kaplan), US 7,400,814 (Hendrickson/OFS) — enclosure/box + spool/slack storage (claims 1, 6, 10, 15; missing element 4).
6. US 2007/0025675 (Kramer), US 5,497,444 / 5,717,810 (Wheeler), US 6,591,051 (Solheid) — sliding adapter packs (dependent claims 3, 7, 12, 16).
7. The "Description of Admitted Prior Art" and ADC product literature — the strongest admission-type § 102(b) material on termination modules and cable management, but silent on co‑rotating adapters.

A full § 103 combination would most plausibly be built from Pons (US 2004/0170369) or Shrum (US 5,335,874) as the primary reference for an enclosure/rotating spool with connectorized fiber, combined with Kramer (US 2007/0025675) or Solheid (US 6,591,051) for adapters, and Missout (US 4,587,801) for the co‑rotation rationale.

Confidence and limitations

• Confident: the bibliographic and claim identification of US 8,189,984; the substantive content of the Tier‑1 references (US 5,522,561, US 5,335,874, US 4,587,801, US 2004/0170369), which I retrieved in full‑text/abstract form.
• Less certain: the exact claim‑by‑claim § 102/§ 103 weight of the long tail of ~70 remaining cited patents (mostly pre‑1980 cord/cable reels, fishing‑line reels, and generic storage reels), which I treated as cumulative background because their titles and classifications indicate no adapter/termination element. I did not pull full text for each.
• Flagged discrepancy (carried from the prior summary): an aggregator renders an 18‑claim set with different independent claims and "second spool" language that does not match the granted claims; I used the granted claims (independents 1, 6, 10, 15). Assignee and expiration data also conflict across sources (Commscope chain vs. an ARRIS/TE Connectivity listing; 2028‑07‑30 vs. a 20‑year 2031 date). These remain unresolved and should be verified against a live USPTO PatentCenter/Assignment record before being relied upon.

I'll ground the analysis by verifying what the key cited references actually disclose, then build the § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 8,189,984 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Builds on: the prior "Patent summary," "Litigation summary," and my working-set full text. I do not repeat bibliographic or litigation content here.

Scope note / source rule applied. Per instruction I confined the candidate prior art to the references identified in the Prior Art / "Citations" section of the Google Patents page for US8189984B2 (the 109 U.S. references cited during prosecution of the '984 patent and its parents, plus the family-citation list). I verified the disclosure of the five references I rely on most heavily by pulling their own pages (URLs below). Where I rely on a title/abstract only, I say so. Patents and identifiers are given literally.

1. Threshold determinations

Governing law. The '984 patent's earliest effective filing date is 6 August 2007 (provisional 60/954,214); the application itself (13/032,337) was filed 22 February 2011. Because the claims are supported by the 2007 priority chain, pre‑AIA § 103(a) applies, and the Graham v. John Deere / KSR Int'l v. Teleflex framework controls. All references discussed below pre-date the critical date.

Level of ordinary skill (POSITA). The art is fiber-optic hardware/enclosures. A POSITA would have a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or optical engineering (or equivalent), plus roughly 2–4 years in fiber-optic enclosure, cable-management, and termination hardware design. This is a mature, mechanical/electromechanical art with a high degree of predictability — a factor that favors obviousness under KSR.

Key claim-construction points (governing the analysis):

• "carried with the cable storage spool as the cable storage spool is rotated" (claim 1) and "rotate in unison with the first spool" (claims 6, 15) — the adapters must be mounted so they co-rotate with the spool. This is the only meaningful point of novelty over the cited art, and it is the pivot of the whole § 103 case.
• "while the adapters are mounted on the cable storage spool" (claim 1) — the coupling function is performed at the spool-mounted location.
• "subscriber fiber routing path … from a fiber entrance location … through the interior … to the fiber optic adapters" (claims 10, 15) — a functional routing-path recitation; no special structure.

Self-inflicted constraint — the specification undercuts novelty. The '984 specification describes the co-rotating termination module as nothing more than a bracket bolted to a spool flange: the adapter plate's first side "is rigidly mounted (i.e., non-rotatable) to the axial end 41 of the cable spool 37 through a plurality of fasteners 57 (e.g., bolts, screws, rivets, etc.)." The co-rotation is an incidental consequence of ordinary mechanical attachment. That characterization matters greatly under KSR ("familiar elements according to known methods … predictable results").

2. The prior-art landscape, grouped by function

Several of these are the patentee's own prior art (ADC's '598, '339, '663, '444, '810, '051, and Kramer '675), and the '984 specification expressly incorporates the sliding-adapter and SC-adapter references.

3. Claim 1 — element mapping

Bottom line: every element except the "carried-with-the-spool / rotate-in-unison" limitation is squarely in the cited art. The obviousness question is therefore narrow: would a POSITA have mounted the known adapter holder on the known rotating spool?

4. Primary obviousness combinations

Combination 1 (strongest): Elliot '598 + Puetz '339 + Kewitsch '681 (+ Kramer '675)

• '598 supplies the housing, the SC fiber adapters that couple two connectorized ends, and a cable-management spool — all in one enclosure. Its connector holder, however, is fixed adjacent the connector access opening, and its spool is in a cradle that may sit partly outside the housing.
• '339 supplies the missing "spool inside the housing interior," the pay-out function, and — critically — the breakout of a jacketed multi-fiber cable into individual fibers that are connectorized and terminated at a panel, which is exactly the jacketed-portion/broken-out-portion structure of claim 1.
• '681 supplies the teaching that an optical interconnection can be maintained at a rotating interface, i.e., that rotation is not an obstacle to keeping fibers connectorized through a joint.

Motivation to combine. (i) All three are in the same field (fiber-optic enclosures/terminations) and the two ADC references are commonly owned, which KSR treats as a strong contextual link. (ii) The problem is expressly identified in the '984 Background: subscriber-cable length "varies depending upon the location of the fiber optic enclosure," creating "a need … that can effectively manage varying lengths of subscriber cable." '253 and '339 address the identical problem. (iii) The patent's own stated advantage — paying out cable "without the first end of the subscriber cable 22 being pulled out of the termination module 45" — is the predictable consequence of co-locating the termination with the spool, not an unexpected result. (iv) Under KSR, "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results"; bolting an adapter plate to a spool flange (as the spec itself describes) is the epitome of a known method.

Combination 2: Bloodsworth '253 + Puetz '339 + Kramer '675

• '253 is the closest "single-unit" teaching of a rotating reel paying out a pre-connectorized cable inside a wall-mountable enclosure (claim 11: reel "rotates freely relative to the hub"; spec: cable "unwound from the storage means"). It does not, however, place adapters on the reel.
• '339 supplies the in-housing spool(s) plus the breakout-to-individual-connectorized-fibers/termination-panel architecture.
• Kramer '675 supplies the sliding adapter packs of dependent claims 3/7/12/16.
• Motivation: placing a known termination panel (from '339, or the fixed connector holder of '598) onto the known rotating reel of '253 so that the connectorized end travels with the payout is a predictable rearrangement of parts that preserves the known function of each element. KSR ("mere rearrangement of parts … each performing the same function it had been known to perform").

Combination 3: Shrum '874 + Elliot '598 + Kramer '675

• '874 teaches a reel carrying connectorized fiber cable with the connector hardware mounted/stored at the reel — i.e., the connector stays with the reel during shipment and pay-out.
• '598 adds the enclosure-with-adapters and the spool.
• The combination yields a connectorized cable whose connectorized end is managed at the rotating reel and coupled to adapters in the enclosure. Motivation: protecting connectorized ends during pay-out (the stated problem in '874's own background).

Combination 4: Kewitsch '681 as primary + '598 + '339

Framed as: known rotary optical interconnection + known enclosure-with-adapters + known in-housing cable spool. This is the weakest formulation (Kewitsch is directed to rotary joints, not to moving the adapters), but it supplies the "obvious to try" rationale — where the art teaches that rotating optical interfaces are workable, routing the adapter interface onto the rotating spool is one of a finite number of predictable solutions to the tension/pull-out problem.

5. Independent claims 6, 10, and 15

• Claim 6 ("first spool … adapters … coupled to the first spool … rotate in unison") — same combination as above. '339 claims first/second spools in a housing interior; '598/'663/'675 supply the adapters; '681 supplies rotation-compatibility. Claim 6 is broader than claim 1 in one respect (no explicit "broken-out/broken-out portion" requirement), which makes it easier to invalidate — the jacketed/broken-out structure need not be shown in a single reference.
• Claim 10 — claim 1 plus the routing-path language. Routing paths are conventional; '598 (connector access opening to a connector holder) and '253 (cable entrance/exit opening to a storage hub) disclose the "from a fiber entrance location, through the interior, to the [termination location]" architecture.
• Claim 15 — claim 6 plus routing-path language: same analysis.

6. Dependent claims

The dependent claims are, in my assessment, clearly obvious — the sliding-adapter packs and wall-mount features are the patentee's own admitted prior art, incorporated into the specification.

7. Weaknesses in the prima facie case (candor section)

A rigorous § 103 position must confront these:

1. No cited reference squarely discloses adapters mounted on a rotating spool. This is the crux. An examiner already considered these very references and allowed the claims, so he either did not find or did not articulate this teaching. A challenger must carry that gap with (a) Kewitsch '681, (b) the "known-technique/predictable-result" rationale, or (c) art outside the '984 citation list (see §8).
2. Teaching away / design choice. One could argue the art consistently separates the rotating storage function from the fixed termination function (e.g., '339's spools in the module interior with the panel on a separate pivoting wall; '598's spool in a cradle with the connector holder on the housing). A patent owner will argue this shows a deliberate design convention against co-rotating terminations. The response is KSR's "predictable results" and the self-admitted bolt-on mounting in the '984 spec.
3. "Rotate in unison" as a structural, not functional, limitation. If construed narrowly (requiring the adapters to be physically carried by the spool body), a combination that merely places a rotatable adapter holder near the spool would not read on it.
4. Secondary considerations. The family is heavily litigated and prolifically continued (family members through US 12,253,734 and US 2025/0237840 A1), which is evidence of commercial significance and could support a non-obviousness narrative if a nexus and long-felt need can be shown. However, nothing in the materials I retrieved shows unexpected results, copying, licensing, or industry praise tied to the '984 claims specifically. No presumption of validity override applies to my analysis — but a court would give the granted claims deference.
5. Source limitation. I have not read the full text of US 7,397,997 (Fiber access terminal), US 7,536,841 (Fiber optic cable spool), US 7,400,814 (Wall-mountable optical fiber and cable management apparatus), US 2006/0210230 A1 (Fiber optic storing and dispensing apparatus), US 7,546,018, US 7,220,144, or US 2002/0126980 — any of which could close the rotating-adapter gap. Notably, US 2006/0210230 A1 ("Fiber optic storing and dispensing apparatus," assignee Fiber Optic Cable Storage, Inc.) is a title that on its face describes a spool-plus-connectorized-cable device and should be read in full.

8. Verification steps before relying on this analysis

1. Pull the full text of every reference marked "not yet read" in §7 — especially US 2006/0210230 A1, US 7,397,997, US 7,536,841, and US 7,400,814 — to test whether one of them shows terminations mounted on a rotating spool (which would collapse Combination 1 into a two-reference, or even single-reference, case).
2. Check the family IDS entry "Description of Admitted Prior Art, 30 pages" (it appears in the file history of related family member US 8,891,931). Admissions of that kind can be used to narrow the distance between the prior art and the claims.
3. Confirm the effective priority date claim-by-claim. If any '984 claim is not supported by the 6 Aug 2007 provisional, the critical date may move later, which would add intervening art (e.g., the 2009/0317047 drop-terminal/spool publication discussed in the EP 2 601 122 record) and strengthen the obviousness case.
4. Confirm whether Kewitsch '681 was applied in prosecution of any sibling (its presence in the list suggests the examiner was aware of it).

9. Bottom line

• Dependent claims 2–5, 7–9, 11–14, 16–18: a prima facie § 103 case is straightforward using the cited art alone (the sliding-adapter and wall-mount references are the patentee's own admitted prior art).
• Independent claims 1, 6, 10, 15: invalidity is plausible but not clean. Every limitation except co-rotating "carried-with-the-spool" adapters is squarely taught by US 6,315,598 and US 6,711,339. The strongest case is the three-way combination of '598 + '339 + Kewitsch '681 (with Bloodsworth '253 and Kramer '675 as reinforcing secondary references), buttressed by the KSR rationales that (i) the references are in the same field and commonly owned, (ii) the '984 Background itself frames the problem, (iii) the connection of the adapters to the spool is, by the patent's own description, an ordinary bolted mounting with a predictable result, and (iv) the combination is at most "obvious to try" given a finite set of predictable solutions.
• Confidence: high for the dependent claims; moderate for the independents, contingent on the §8 verification steps. I flag explicitly that I found no cited reference that explicitly discloses adapters carried on a rotating spool, and I have not verified the full text of several cited references.