US 8323053

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

US 8,323,053 B2 — Summary

Scope note: I do not have direct API access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system. What follows is grounded in (a) the full authoritative patent text and (b) general web results retrieved for this exact number. I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity for 8,323,053; the only litigation hit is a 2012 district-court case. Details and uncertainty are flagged below.

Bibliographic data

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/20120094532 ; https://uspto.report/patent/app/20120094532 ; PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e7/5c/cf/1b0bcda35b3a2f/US8323053.pdf

Minor discrepancy noted: the OCR of the granted PDF renders the inventor as "Noah Montana," while the electronic bibliographic records and Google Patents give "Noah Montena." The assignment record ("MONTENA, NOAH") supports Montena.

Abstract (as issued)

A connector comprising a connector body attached to a post, the post including a first end portion and an opposing second end portion, and a flange proximate the second end portion, a port coupling element rotatably attached to the post, wherein the port coupling element has a first end and a second end, and a plurality of openings on the port coupling element, the plurality of openings extending a distance toward the first end from the second end of the port coupling element. Furthermore, a method of maintaining ground continuity in a connector comprising the steps providing a connector body attached to a post, the post having a first end, an opposing second end, and port coupling element having a plurality of openings positioned thereon, and biasing the port coupling element in a position of interference with the post is also provided.

The inventive concept in one paragraph

In a coaxial cable connector, the threaded nut (port coupling element 30) is slotted near its rear (cable-side) end. The slots make the nut radially resilient, so when it slips over the flange 44 of the inner post — whose outer diameter is slightly larger than the nut's inner diameter at that point — the slotted section expands outward and then springs back, exerting a constant radially inward biasing/contact force against the post (specifically the flange's outer edge 45). This maintains a continuous ground path between the free-spinning nut and the stationary post even when the connector is not fully tightened onto the interface port — addressing the known "loss of ground" failure mode. The slot-adjacent material forms engagement fingers 135. The spec notes the slots may extend up to about two-thirds of the nut's length, that as few as two closely-spaced slots can form a single flexible finger, and that the nut may be a two-piece part (metal threaded portion plus molded polymer portion) optionally concealed by a sleeve.

Independent claims (plain language)

All 21 claims issued; five independent claims: 1, 5, 9, 13, 18.

Claim 1 — Apparatus (slotted nut + post + body). A coaxial cable connector with: (a) a connector body attached to a post that has two ends and a flange near its second end; (b) a port coupling element rotatably attached to the post having first and second ends, with internal threads to threadably mate with a port; and (c) multiple openings in the port coupling element running from the second end a distance toward the first end.

Claim 5 — Apparatus (engagement fingers). A coaxial cable connector with a body on a post having a flange (with an outer edge) near its second end; a port coupling element rotatable about the post whose first end is configured to threadably mate with a port; and multiple engagement fingers near the second end that are biased into a position of interference with the post.

Claim 9 — Apparatus (slotted resilient nut, "positioning" language). A coaxial cable connector with a slotted port coupling element that is radially resilient and internally threaded to mate with a port; a connector body on a post; where positioning of the post radially expands the coupling element so that it exerts an opposing radial contact force against the post's outer surface, establishing/maintaining physical and electrical contact regardless of the axial position of the post and coupling element.

Claim 13 — Method (establish/maintain electrical continuity). Providing a connector body on a post and a port coupling element with multiple openings and internal threads to mate with a port; and biasing the port coupling element into a position of interference with the post to establish and maintain electrical continuity.

Claim 18 — Method (maintain electrical continuity with a port). Providing a body on a post and a port coupling element rotatable about the post having first/second ends, internal threads, and multiple radially resilient engagement fingers near the second end; expanding the fingers radially outward (caused by positioning of the post) so they exert a radially inward force on the post, maintaining physical and electrical continuity regardless of relative axial position.

Representative dependents: constant radial force against the post edge/flange (2, 6, 14, 19); slots as axially extending openings that allow radial movement / space apart portions (3, 10, 17, 21); fastener member that deforms the connector body to sealingly compress and affix it to the cable (4, 7, 11, 15, 20); resiliency (16); constant contact force (12).

Prosecution note (possible claim-scope significance): The pre-grant publication claims (uspto.report) do not recite internal threads, and pre-grant claim 13 was directed to "maintaining ground continuity." As issued, independent claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 18 each add a "configured to threadably mate with a port"/"internal threads" limitation, and claim 13 was recharacterized as "establishing and maintaining electrical continuity." That amendment appears to have narrowed the claims relative to the offset — a detail worth verifying against the file history if scope matters.

Litigation / PTAB status

• Family has litigation flag is set on Google Patents (Darts-IP family ID 45934540): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en
• One district-court case identified: PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc, Civil Action 4:12-cv-00623, E.D. Ark., patent asserter listed as a "Product company." Source: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8323053 (the database entry did not display a filing date; the 4:12 docket prefix indicates a 2012 filing).
• Related PTAB proceeding: IPR2016-01569, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 8,075,338 — note this is the sibling patent (Ser. No. 12/906,503, the "constant contact post" application), not 8,323,053. US 8,323,053 B2 appears only as Exhibit 1034 in that IPR (Petitioner-filed prior art), per Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01569/
• CAFC, 2026: I found no Federal Circuit docket or appeal in 2026 involving 8,323,053, and no 2026 PTAB activity on this number in the results I could retrieve.

Uncertainty / caveats:

1. I cannot query USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket directly; the litigation findings come from secondary aggregators (Stanford NPE DB, Docket Alarm, Darts-IP flag) and should be verified against PACER/PatentCenter before being relied on.
2. The PerfectVision v. PPC Broadband entry shows no filing date or case outcome in the retrieved snippet; current status of that case is unverified.
3. Google Patents states the legal status is an assumption and not a legal conclusion; the "Expired – Fee Related" status and the 2031-03-11 adjusted expiration should be confirmed in PatentCenter.
4. Because the last-maintenance-fee lapse and any intervening revival or terminal disclaimer would affect enforceability/term, the exact expiration basis is not confirmed here.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8323053. Let me run several targeted searches.

Found a lead in the Stanford NPE database. Let me verify and dig deeper.

Let me verify the docket details and check for any other assertions of this patent.

Litigation Involving US 8,323,053

Bottom line: Based on the sources I was able to retrieve, I found one court case in which US 8,323,053 ("Connector having a constant contact nut," filed Oct. 18, 2010, issued Dec. 4, 2012, inventor Noah Montena, originally assigned to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. / now PPC Broadband, Inc.) was put at issue. I found no ITC § 337 investigations, no IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings, and no other district-court suits naming this specific patent in the sources searched. One caveat below on search completeness.

Case 1 — PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

How the '053 patent entered the case. In its June 10, 2013 opinion (Doc. 37), the court recounted that on Dec. 6, 2012 PerfectVision moved for leave to file an amended complaint "due to the discovery of four additional patents which have issued to PPC." The four additional patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,313,353; 8,313,345; 8,323,053; and 8,323,060 — issued Nov. 20, 2012 or Dec. 4, 2012 (the '053 patent issued Dec. 4, 2012) — plus then-pending application 13/075,406 (the "Ehret Patent"). The court's June 10, 2013 order granted the second motion to amend, so the '053 patent became part of the amended pleading.

Procedural history (from the CourtListener/RECAP docket and opinions):

• Nov. 9, 2012 — PPC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing a covenant not to sue ("Super Sack" representation) divested subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Dec. 17, 2012 — Court stayed the action pending the Supreme Court's decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.
• June 10, 2013 (Doc. 37) — Court denied PPC's motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer to the Northern District of New York; granted PerfectVision's second motion to amend (adding the '053 patent); denied the first motion to amend as moot; denied PerfectVision's motion to enjoin PPC's parallel N.D.N.Y. action.
• June 3, 2014 (Doc. 81) — Order requiring supplemental briefing in light of Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (indefiniteness).
• Aug. 29, 2014 (Doc. 102) — Opinion and Order (claim construction / indefiniteness analysis of the continuity-connector patents-in-suit).
• Jan. 13, 2015 (Doc. 110) — Agreed order dismissing all claims, defenses, and counterclaims without prejudice.

Related proceeding referenced in the same record: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc., in the Northern District of New York — mentioned in the E.D. Ark. June 10, 2013 order, but I did not retrieve a case number for it, and I cannot confirm whether the '053 patent itself was asserted there.

Sources

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 8323053: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8323053 — lists exactly one case: PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc, 4:12-cv-00623, E.D. Ark.
• CourtListener docket 5500269 (E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5500269/perfectvision-manufacturing-inc-v-ppc-broadband-inc/
• Doc. 37 (June 10, 2013 opinion, identifying the '053 patent among the four newly issued patents): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.91234/gov.uscourts.ared.91234.37.0.pdf
• Doc. 110 (Jan. 13, 2015 agreed order of dismissal without prejudice): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.91234/gov.uscourts.ared.91234.110.0.pdf
• Google Patents family page for US8323053B2 (flags "Family has litigation" via Darts-IP): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en

Important caveats

1. One case only. The Stanford NPE database entry for 8323053 returns a single case, and my searches of PACER/RE-CAP-indexed material and litigation databases turned up no additional suits asserting the '053 patent specifically (e.g., against Corning) and no PTAB proceedings.
2. Do not confuse with sibling patents. PPC's related patents — particularly US 8,313,353, US 8,323,060, US 8,323,020, US 8,075,338, and US 7,118,416 — were litigated far more heavily (e.g., PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016), arising from a set of Corning IPRs; and PerfectVision v. PPC IPR petitions on the '416 patent). Those decisions and IPRs involved different patents and should not be attributed to the '053 patent.
3. Search completeness. I was unable to complete additional verification queries (docket-level filing-date confirmation, a full PACER docket pull, an ITC EDIS check, and a PTAB proceeding-name sweep) before hitting my search limit. The filing date is therefore given as year-only. If you need a litigation-clearance-grade answer, I'd recommend a paid Darts-IP/Lex Machina or full PACER docket pull on 4:12-cv-00623 and a name-based PTAB search for "8,323,053"/"8323053."

If you'd like, I can next attempt to pin down (a) the exact E.D. Ark. complaint filing date, (b) the N.D.N.Y. case number for PPC Broadband v. PerfectVision, or (c) whether the '053 patent appeared in any ITC or arbitration proceeding.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" finding with targeted searches before writing this up.

Let me probe the specific candidates — the sibling-patent IPR, the PerfectVision proceedings, and any CAFC appeal naming this patent.

Let me confirm the sibling IPR's disposition and check for any recent (2025–2026) or reexam activity specifically naming 8,323,053.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — US 8,323,053 B2

"Connector Having a Constant Contact Nut" · PPC Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.) · Appl. 12/906,559 · filed 2010-10-18 · issued 2012-12-04

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 8,323,053: ZERO. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured feed returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent, and targeted searching (PTAB E2E, Docket Alarm, Unified Patents' PTAB case portal, aggregators) surfaced no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no termination, and no Federal Circuit appeal for this number.

Breakdown by status: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. All 21 issued claims (independents 1, 5, 9, 13, 18) are completely untested at the Board.

Defensive posture: this is the opposite of "hardened by surviving IPRs." The patent has never been challenged at the PTAB at all, so there is no claim-level cancellation, no Board claim construction, no FWD reasoning, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel for a defendant to exploit. What a defendant inherits instead is a fully open — and, for the invalidity side, unusually well-prepared — prior-art record: 8,323,053 was itself filed as Petitioner's Exhibit 1034 against its own sibling patent, i.e., competitors have already done the work of characterizing this disclosure in a PTAB record. Note also the practical point flagged in the earlier section: the patent is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related" (adjusted expiration 2031-03-11 per Google Patents), which caps a demand letter's realistic value to past damages and should be verified in PatentCenter before anything else.

Proceedings on this patent

None. There is no proceeding to report. I am not padding this section with a fabricated docket — per the constraints, the absence is stated plainly and is itself the finding.

Why that absence is surprising, and therefore informative:

• PPC's coaxial-connector continuity portfolio is one of the most heavily IPR'd connector portfolios in the country. Within the same family orbit the Board has seen IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00345, -00346, -00347 (Corning Gilbert v. PPC), IPR2016-01569/-01570/-01572/-01573 (Corning v. PPC, on 8,075,338 and 8,366,481), and the 2022 Amphenol/PPC crossfire (IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721 by Amphenol; IPR2022-00830, -00831, -00946, -00947, -01087, -01088 by PPC against Times Fiber).
• Yet 8,323,053 — the "constant contact nut" counterpart to the heavily-litigated "constant contact post" 8,075,338 — attracted no petition. The most likely explanations are commercial, not technical: the patent was asserted principally in a 2012 declaratory-judgment posture rather than as a front-line assertion, and its fee-related lapse removed the incentive to spend IPR dollars on it.

Caveat: I cannot query PTAB E2E or the CAFC docket directly. This finding rests on (a) the canonical ODP structured feed (empty for this patent) and (b) secondary sources. A pre-AIA ex parte reexamination would not appear in the AIA-trial feed; I found no such record for 8,323,053, but confirm in PatentCenter if it matters. Beware look-alike numbers that dominate search results — 7,742,053 (graphics), 7,833,053 (oil-well lockdown), 9,225,083 (PPC connector), 8,075,338 (PPC sibling), 7,118,416 (PPC) — none of which are this patent.

Adjacent proceedings (NOT on this patent — included because 8,323,053 appears in their records)

IPR2016-01569 — Corning Optical Communications RF LLC, Corning Inc. & Corning Optical Communications LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Patent at issue: US 8,075,338 ("Connector Having a Constant Contact Post") — the sibling of 8,323,053; both name Noah Montena, both claim a 2010-10-18 / co-filed priority (Ser. Nos. 12/906,503 and 12/906,559), and the '338 patent is incorporated by reference into 8,323,053.
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-08-09
• Status: Settlement (structured portal status), terminated pre-institution. Termination date 2017-01-17.
• Judge panel: James B. Arpin, Josiah C. Cocks, Sheila F. McShane
• Role of 8,323,053: Petitioner's Exhibit 1034 — "U.S. Patent No. 8,323,053, issued on December 4, 2012 to Noah Montena ('the '053 Patent')." Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01569/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8075338/docs/11-17-2016-Patent_Owner/Exhibit_List-10-Exhibit_list.pdf
• Institution decision: None issued — joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) filed 2017-01-12 while the institution deadline (2017-02-17) was still running. The Board granted termination (Paper 15).
• Final Written Decision: none.
• Settlement: parties' confidential Patent Settlement and Technical Collaboration Agreement executed 2016-12-29; parallel N.D.N.Y. case PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, No. 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP, dismissed with prejudice by order of 2017-01-03, with a carve-out preserving Corning's right to challenge validity/enforceability/infringement if these patents are asserted in future litigation.
• Appeal: none.
• Defensive value: zero estoppel value — the proceeding died pre-institution, so nothing was decided about 8,323,053 and no § 315(e)(2) bar attached to Corning. Its only utility is evidentiary: it is a public, Petitioner-authored PTAB record treating the '053 patent as a printed publication in the same field, usable as a starting point for an analogous-art or disclosure-mapping argument.

IPR2016-01573 — Corning Optical Communications RF LLC, Corning Inc. & Corning Optical Communications LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Patent at issue: US 8,075,338 (sibling), challenging claims 5, 6, and 8 — obviousness over Matthews in view of Aujla and Bence. Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01573/
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2016-08-09
• Status: Settlement before institution — Order 2017-01-17 (Paper 15), granting the joint § 317 motion and § 317(b)/37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) confidential treatment.
• Judge panel: Josiah C. Cocks, James B. Arpin, Sheila F. McShane
• Institution decision: None — terminated in the preliminary stage.
• Final Written Decision: none.
• Settlement / termination: same 2016-12-29 agreement; concurrent termination of IPR2016-01569, -01570, and -01572; settlement agreement filed but held business confidential. Terms not public.
• Appeal: none.
• Defensive value: confirms the "'338/'053 slotting family" was Corning's IPR target in 2016 and PPC bought peace by settlement — a useful negotiation datapoint, but legally inert for a current defendant: no claim construction, no estoppel, no invalidity finding.

IPR2022-01523 — PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Patent at issue: US 7,118,416 — not 8,323,053.
• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-14
• Status: Institution Denied (decision 2023-02-24)
• Grounds / key reasoning: PerfectVision challenged claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 (anticipation by Holland; Burris 1; Burris 2; Nepovim). The Board denied institution on statutory bar, not on the merits: § 315(a)(1) (Petitioner filed a DJ action challenging validity before the petition) and § 315(b) (served with infringement complaints years earlier — Click-to-Call-type analysis). PerfectVision sought Precedential Opinion Panel review on retroactive application of § 315(b); POP review was not granted.
• Settlement / termination: n/a.
• Appeal: none on the institution denial (institution decisions are largely non-appealable under Thryv).
• Defensive value: a cautionary template, not a defense. PerfectVision — the very party that litigated against PPC over this connector family — was barred from the PTAB by its own earlier DJ complaint and untimely service history. For any defendant here, that is the single most actionable lesson in the record: watch the § 315(b) one-year clock from the date you are served, because waiting converts an IPR into a § 315-bar fight.

Strategic summary

Claim status. There is no PTAB-derived claim status for 8,323,053. All 21 claims — independents 1, 5, 9, 13, 18 and dependents 2–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–17, 19–21 — are UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed patentable by the Board, and any statement that "claims 1–5 have been canceled" or that "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" is false as to this patent. (Flagging a contradiction risk: prose in the wild often conflates 8,323,053 with its sibling 8,075,338, which was hit by two 2016 Corning petitions and by later Corning-family IPRs — but even there the 2016 petitions terminated by settlement without institution, so no PPC connector patent in this immediate pair has ever had an FWD against it. Earlier Federal Circuit activity in the wider PPC portfolio, e.g. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016), involved different patents and does not touch this number.)

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR was ever instituted on 8,323,053, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one with respect to this patent — not Corning, not Amphenol, not PerfectVision. Every ground, including grounds raised against the sibling patents, remains formally available. Two constraints still bind:

1. § 315(b) — if your client was served with a complaint alleging infringement of 8,323,053 more than one year ago, it is time-barred from petitioning (this is exactly what killed IPR2022-01523). Conversely, a first-time petitioner served recently retains the full window.
2. § 325(d) — the face of the patent cites hundreds of references (the citation list runs past 567 entries) and the specification tracks the '338 prosecution closely. Expect the Board to weigh whether art is "the same or substantially the same" as what the Examiner considered, though in IPR2016-01573 Corning affirmatively argued the rejection record did not support § 325(d) discretionary denial — a ready-made framing you can reuse.

Pattern signals. (i) No petitioner has filed multiple IPRs on this patent — there are none at all. (ii) PPC litigates hard on both sides: it has been a repeated IPR petitioner (Times Fiber, 2022) and a repeated respondent (Corning 2013/2016, Amphenol 2022). Its demonstrated preference in the 2016 Corning wave was settle-and-cross-license before institution — expect robust settlement pressure rather than a willingness to let a validity verdict issue. (iii) The 2012 assertion history is a DJ posture, not a campaign: 8,323,053 surfaced in PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH (E.D. Ark.) — a PerfectVision declaratory-judgment action (commenced 2012-10-04) into which PerfectVision moved on 2012-12-06 to add four newly-issued PPC patents including 8,323,053; leave was granted by Judge Holmes on 2013-06-10. That DJ case — not an IPR — is the source of the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag (Darts-IP family ID 45934540). (iv) No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain for this patent; the "Unified Patents" hits in search are merely its PTAB case portal, not filings.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and a demand letter cites US 8,323,053:

1. Do not expect IPR-based leverage — there is none yet. No FWD exists to cite, no reexam certificate, no cancellation. There is no document to link to or quote, because none was ever issued. Anyone who tells you otherwise has confused this patent with 8,075,338 / 7,742,053 / 7,833,053.
2. Check the fee lapse first (highest-value action). Confirm in PatentCenter (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en records status "Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2031-03-11). If maintenance fees lapsed, determine the lapse date and whether the window for petitioning for revival under 37 C.F.R. § 1.378 has closed. A lapse that predates your client's accused conduct may eliminate all pre-suit damages exposure and moot any enforcement posture; if revived, § 1.378(c) intervening-rights arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 41(c)(2) become available. This is a bigger lever than any available IPR.
3. Diarize the § 315(b) clock the day service lands. If you (or a privy/real party in interest) were served more than one year ago, an IPR is barred — the exact trap that produced the IPR2022-01523 denial. If you are inside the window, file within it.
4. Mine the ready-made PTAB record. Petitioner's Exhibit 1034 in IPR2016-01569/-01573 is 8,323,053 itself, and Corning's Opening Claim Construction Brief in 5:16-cv-00162-GLS-DEP (filed there as PPC Exhibit 2001) built a construction of "engagement fingers" for the sibling '338 patent by reading it together with "the related '053 Patent." That brief plus the '338 petition's own constructions of "post," "biased into a position of interference," "physical and electrical continuity," and "axially aligned slots" are directly transferable to claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 18, 19 and 21 here — and they are prior statements about a common specification that can support indefiniteness or claim-scope arguments.
5. Cross-check the file-history narrowing flagged earlier. The pre-grant claims did not recite internal threads, and pre-grant claim 13 went to "maintaining ground continuity"; as issued, claims 1, 5, 9, 13 and 18 add the "internal threads / configured to threadably mate with a port" limitation and claim 13 was recharacterized as "electrical continuity." Obtain the application's file wrapper from USPTO PatentCenter and assess prosecution-history estoppel and any § 112 support challenge to the added thread limitation.
6. If you must file an IPR, target the independent claims with the most vulnerable added limitations (the thread-mating recitations in claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 18) and pre-empt § 325(d) by affirmatively distinguishing your art from the 567-reference citation list, as Corning did in IPR2016-01573.

Source links for the cited records: IPR2016-01569 case portal and exhibit list — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2016-01569 and https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01569/ · IPR2016-01573 termination decision (Paper 15, 2017-01-17) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01573/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8075338/docs/01-17-2017-Board/Settlement_Before_Institution-15-Termination_Settlement_before_institution.pdf · IPR2022-01523 (7,118,416, institution denied 2023-02-24) — https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-01523 · PerfectVision v. PPC, No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH, Dkt. 37 (E.D. Ark.), for the '053 patent's addition to the DJ complaint — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.91234/gov.uscourts.ared.91234.37.0.pdf

Bottom line: there is no PTAB proceeding on US 8,323,053. That absence means a defendant gets no free kill from the Board, but also faces no estoppel, no adverse FWD, and no hostile claim construction — only an untested patent whose recorded legal status (expired for non-payment) and 2012-era DJ history are the two facts most likely to determine whether the demand letter is worth answering at all. Verify the fee status in PatentCenter before spending serious money on invalidity.

I'll research the assignment record for US 8,323,053, focusing on reel/frame data and correspondents of record.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records via Plainsite and the USPTO Assignment Center.

Let me locate the specific reel/frame records and the Plainsite assignment pages tied to this patent.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 8,323,053 B2

Research note up front (important): I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center UI directly in this session, so I was unable to read the reel/frame numbers and correspondent fields verbatim from the Assignment Center record for this patent. What I can document with confidence are the recorded conveyances, dates, execution dates, parties, and conveyance types, which corroborate across the patent's own front-page legal events (Google Patents) and third-party mirrors of the same USPTO assignment data (Plainsite). Where a reel/frame is not confirmed, I say so rather than invent one. Reel/frame and correspondent of record should be verified at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 8323053) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Inventors

• Employer determination: High confidence. The inventor assigned his rights to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. on the filing date (see timeline), and Montena's patent portfolio is overwhelmingly assigned to that company. PatentLeaderboard lists 398 issued US patents naming Montena while at John Mezzalingua Associates, with a first grant in 2000 and grants continuing into May 2025. He is a career company engineer, not a serial individual filer.
• Departure pattern: Not present. The "all inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale does not apply — Montena remained a prolific filer for the same corporate family for 15+ years after this 2010 filing.
• Minor discrepancy carried forward from the prior section: OCR of the granted PDF renders "Noah Montana"; the assignment record ("MONTENA, NOAH") and bibliographic records give Montena. Montena is correct.

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (East Syracuse / Syracuse, NY), doing business as PPC ("Production Products Company").

• Line of business: Manufacturer of coaxial cable connectors, cable-connector accessories, fiber and premises-network products. This is an operating, product-shipping company, not a holding vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — the claims are directed to a coaxial cable connector with a slotted, radially resilient threaded nut ("constant contact nut"). This is a commercial connector form factor sold by PPC / PPC Broadband.
• Status: Operating. The original assignee did not dissolve, go bankrupt, or exit the business. It renamed twice (below) and continues today as PPC Broadband, Inc.
• SEC cross-reference: I found no SEC registrant filings for John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. / PPC Broadband, Inc.; both appear to be privately held, so there is no 10-K/8-K ownership trail to pull. Treat this as no evidence located, not proof of no filings.
• Corporate identity caution (flagged discrepancy): A New York State registration aggregator lists the name history of this corporate entity as PPC-One Hundred Clinton Square, Inc. (2002-07-23) → Mr Advisers Limited (2012-09-19, "actual") → PPC Broadband, Inc. (2012-12-07, "actual"), with John Mezzalingua Associates registered as a fictitious/assumed name (2012-09-19). This is broadly consistent with the assignment record's "Change of Name" chain, but it means the USPTO chain treats "John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc." as a single legal person renaming itself twice, not as a sale. Source is a secondary aggregator (bestbusinessny.com) and should be verified against NY DOS.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO record for this patent contains three recorded events (per the patent's own legal-events data). Chronological:

• 2010-10-18 (executed) / recorded 2010-10-18 — Reel not retrieved (Assignment Center unavailable this session)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: MONTENA, NOAH
  • Assignee: JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed on this reel. The likely filer is the family's outside counsel, Elizabeth A. Cominolli, Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, One Park Place, 300 South State Street, Syracuse, NY 13202 — confirmed as correspondent on a parallel Mezzalingua change-of-name recording (Trademark Reel 4936/879, executed 2012-09-12, recorded 2013-01-07). Flag: Cominolli / Hiscock & Barclay is a recurring correspondent for the Mezzalingua corporate family, but this is operating-company patent counsel, not a known NPE recording agent.
  • Context: In-house inventor assignment executed on the filing date — the standard "we own what we file" record. Change of ownership: none (already the applicant).

• 2013-02-12 (recorded; underlying paperwork executed on/about 2012-09-11) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (no consideration; not an assignment for value)
  • Assignor: JOHN MEZZALINGUA ASSOCIATES, INC.
  • Assignee: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed on this reel; same recurring family counsel pattern expected (Cominolli / Hiscock & Barclay, Syracuse NY).
  • Context: Internal reorg / change of name only. No assets transferred and no consideration — the USPTO conveyance type is literally "Change of Name."

• 2013-02-13 (recorded; underlying paperwork executed on/about 2012-09-11 through 2012-12-07) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (no consideration)
  • Assignor: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Assignee: PPC BROADBAND, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not confirmed on this reel.
  • Context: Second step of the internal rename completing the change to the current corporate name.

Delayed/late-recording pattern (corroborated): Plainsite mirrors show the same John Mezzalingua → Mr Advisers "Change of Name" paperwork — executed September 11, 2012 — being re-recorded repeatedly across the portfolio years later, e.g. Reel 35808/508 (recorded 2015-06-02) and Reel 47520/170 (recorded 2018-08-23). This is a bulk, cleanup-style recording campaign for one corporate rename, not a series of separate transactions. (Those two reels are tied to other applications in the family, not necessarily to 8,323,053 — cited to show the pattern, not as this patent's reel.)

Bottom line: There is no post-issuance transfer of ownership of this patent beyond two name-change recordings. PPC Broadband, Inc. (successor by name change to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.) has been the owner since the 2010 inventor assignment.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8323053
    2010 : Filed by John Mezzalingua Associates
         : Inventor Montena assigns rights on filing date
    2012 : Patent issues on Dec 4
    2013 : Change of name to Mr Advisers Limited
         : Change of name to PPC Broadband Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Litigation cross-check (carried forward from prior section, with direction flagged): Google Patents sets the "Family has litigation" flag (Darts-IP family 45934540). Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists this patent in PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc, 4:12-cv-00623, E.D. Ark. The caption places PerfectVision as plaintiff, and the asserter is categorized as a "Product company." Both parties are connector manufacturers, so the dispute is best characterized as commercial competitor litigation, with this patent's clean ownership chain incidental to it. Uncertainty: I could not confirm from a primary docket whether the '053 patent was asserted offensively by PPC, by PerfectVision, or surfaced via counterclaim. Verify on PACER. Separately, US 8,323,053 appears only as Exhibit 1034 in the sibling-patent IPR IPR2016-01569 (which challenges US 8,075,338, Ser. No. 12/906,503) — the '053 patent is not itself under review in that proceeding.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The entire recorded chain consists of one inventor assignment executed on the 2010 filing date (Montena → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.; reel not retrieved) followed by two pure "Change of Name" recordings (2013-02-12 to Mr Advisers Limited; 2013-02-13 to PPC Broadband, Inc.) — no consideration-based transfer, no IP-holding shell, and no known NPE anywhere in the chain. The ultimate owner, PPC Broadband, Inc., is a connector manufacturer that ships products in this exact claim space and litigates its own patents against competitor manufacturers (Corning Gilbert, Thomas & Betts/Belden, PCT International). With zero NPE-pattern signals present and the only "close call" (the 2013 back-to-back name changes) affirmatively explained as a corporate rename rather than a cascade, the evidence points to a product-company ownership chain, not an assertion vehicle.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent no. 8323053) — specifically pull the reel/frame and correspondent for the three events above, plus confirm no additional encumbrance (security interest, license, release) was recorded that the Google Patents legal-event feed may have omitted. Corroborating mirrors: https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[6764355](/patent/6764355) (Reel 35808/508) and https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[8647138](/patent/8647138) (Reel 47520/170); patent record at https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en.

I'll search for the specific patent and its citation record.

Let me pull the citation record and the closely related family members.

Sourcing note before the analysis

Two constraints shaped what follows, and I'm flagging them up front rather than burying them:

1. I hit the tool-call limit for this run partway through retrieval. The [56] "References Cited" block on US 8,323,053 is an unusually large list — Google Patents counts 567 citations on the face of this document (that is a count of listed documents, read literally off https://patents.google.com/patent/US8323053/en), and the OCR'd front pages I retrieved only expose the early portion (≈1885 → ≈1991) plus the continuation sheets.
2. I did not obtain the examiner's Notice of Allowance / Office Actions for 12/906,559 in this run. So I cannot tell you from the record which of the 567 listed documents the examiner actually relied on, as opposed to which were dumped in by applicant IDS.

Accordingly, §4 below is a prioritized subset with reasoning, not a 567-row table. Anything I could not verify is labelled.

1. The record I could verify for 8,323,053 itself

That single NPL entry is itself instructive: the only "other publication" the patent cites is the Notice of Allowance of its own sibling application (12/906,503 → US 8,075,338, the "constant contact post" case). That is an IDS artifact, not technical prior art — it has zero § 102 value.

OCR caution (literal-ID point). The granted-PDF OCR of the reference list contains demonstrable digit corruptions, e.g. it renders 2,868,399 A 9/1997 Leeper where Google Patents lists US2805399A … 1957-09-03 William W Leeper — Connector for uniting coaxial cables, and 2,640,963 A 9/1949 Quinn where the Docket Alarm copy reads 2,740,963 A 9/1949 Quinn. I am treating the low-numbered pre-1977 entries as unresolved where the copies disagree, and I am not auto-correcting them.

2. What "most relevant" means for these claims

The invention's point of novelty is narrow and identifiable from the claim set: the port coupling element (nut), not the post, is made radially resilient so it biases into interference with the post. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 all require the openings/fingers to be on the port coupling element; claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 18 additionally now require internal threads.

That gives a clean four-part anticipation screen:

1. connector body attached to a post, and 2. a flange near the post's second end, and 3. an internally threaded coupling element rotatable on the post, and 4. a plurality of axially extending openings in that element producing radial resilience and a biasing/interference contact with the post.

Consequence: art that slots the post or the post's flange — US 8,075,338 (Montena) and US 8,348,697 (Zraik, "slotted post member") — does not anticipate claims 1/5/9/18 as issued, because element (4) sits on the wrong part. This is consistent with the amendment history I flagged previously (all five independent claims were amended to add the "internal threads … threadably mate with a port" limitation before allowance). That amendment reads like a deliberate move away from slotted-post/slotted-flange art.

3. Tier 1 — Same-day family (NOT statutory prior art to '053)

US 8,075,338 B1 — Montena — "Connector having a constant contact post" — App. 12/906,503, filed 2010-10-18, issued 2011-12-13, John Mezzalingua Associates.

• Analysis: same inventor, same filing date, common assignee → not "by another" and not "before" → no § 102(a) or § 102(e) effect against 8,323,053. It is incorporated by reference into 8,323,053 and is therefore part of the § 112 disclosure, not art.
• But note the mirror-image use: in Application 13/652,969, Office Action mailed 2014-12-19 (Examiner Xuong Chung Tran, Art Unit 2833), the examiner rejected claims 1–4, 9–11, 19–23 under pre-AIA § 102(a) as anticipated by "Montena (8,075,338) and/or Montena (8,323,053)", and rejected claims 5, 7, 12–17, 27–28, 8 and 30 under § 103(a). Source: exhibit filed in IPR2016-01569 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2016-01569/). This is the single most useful verified datum in the whole set: the USPTO has already treated the disclosure of 8,323,053 itself as anticipating a "monolithic, formable contacting portion" that maintains electrical continuity through the connector regardless of coupling tightness.

US 8,348,697 B2 — Zraik — "Coaxial cable connector having slotted post member" — App. 13/092,219, filed 2011-04-22, issued 2013-01-08 → later than '053; not art. It cites US 2012/0094532 A1 (the pregrant publication of '053).

US 2012/0094532 A1 — the pre-grant publication of '053 itself.

4. Tier 2 — On the face of '053

(a) Slotted / spring / lock-ring family

These are the entries most literally on point for the "plurality of openings … allow radial movement" and "resilient … opposing radial contact force" limitations. Dates/assignees are from the Google Patents citation list for this document.

Verdict: every one of these discloses a slotted/segmented, radially resilient annular member — i.e. exactly the mechanism element (4) above. None discloses a post, a connector body, a flange, or port-mating threads. So they cannot anticipate any independent claim; their real exposure is as § 103(a) secondary references against claims 3, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21.

(b) Coaxial connector environment art (post + body + coupling nut)

Representative face-of-patent entries, with the earliest verified dates:

Verdict: this cohort supplies the environment (claims 1's body/post/nut, claim 4's fastener member, claims 2/6/14's grounding purpose) but, on the titles and my knowledge of the era, none discloses the slotted threaded nut limitation. Their realistic role is § 103 combination fodder, not § 102 anticipation.

(c) Foreign document

CA 2096710 A1 (Nov. 1994) — sole foreign reference. I could not retrieve its content; it should be pulled and read before any validity opinion, since a foreign reference appearing alone on a face usually means it was the closest art of record in some respect.

5. Tier 3 — The cohort with the highest actual risk (must be verified against '053's own list)

The most dangerous prior art in this field is the 2005–2010 "continuity member / biasing member" art from the same Art Unit 2833 and largely the same assignee. These are not in the portions of the '053 front page I retrieved, so I mark each as unverified against '053's own face. Dates below are verified from the face of the sibling patent US 8,348,697, which shares the field and examiners.

Important § 102 nuance: because both '053 and this Tier-3 cohort are largely commonly owned by John Mezzalingua Associates / PPC Broadband, common ownership removes them from § 103(a) obviousness combinations under pre-AIA § 103(c) — but it does not remove a reference that qualifies under § 102(e) from an anticipation rejection. That distinction is where a real invalidity attack on '053 would live.

6. Claim-by-claim vulnerability summary

7. Negative findings and what I could not verify

• No 2026 activity. I found no PTAB or Federal Circuit proceeding in 2026 naming 8,323,053, consistent with the prior section. The only verified uses of the number are: (i) Exhibit 1034 in IPR2016-01569 (which is an IPR of US 8,075,338, not of '053 — the '053 patent was filed there as petitioner's prior-art exhibit, dated 2016-08-09), and (ii) its role as a cited reference in the 2014-12-19 Office Action on App. 13/652,969.
• I could not determine, for the 567 face citations, which are examiner-cited (*) and which are applicant IDS citations. Given the composition (a continuous run of 1885–1977 lock washers and coaxial connectors, matched almost entry-for-entry by the citation lists of sibling cases like US 8,348,697 and US 8,075,338), my assessment is that this list is predominantly a bulk IDS submission, not examiner-chosen art. That materially lowers the evidentiary weight of the pre-1977 cohort for § 102 purposes and raises the relative importance of the Tier-3 2005–2010 cohort.
• Unverified items I will not assert: the completion of the '053 front-page list between ≈1991 and 2010 (the region where anticipatory art would sit); the content of CA 2096710 A1; every date and number in the Tier-3 table that I sourced only from US 8,348,697's face rather than from '053's own.
• Recommended next steps: pull the 12/906,559 file wrapper (PatentCenter) for the examiner's actual citations and the reasons for allowance; pull the full 567-row [56] list from the granted PDF at https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e7/5c/cf/1b0bcda35b3a2f/US8323053.pdf; run a targeted field (439/578, 439/584) search on "slotted nut + resilient + post + continuity" for 2005–2010 art; and read CA 2096710 A1.

Bottom line: the single reference that most changes the picture is US 8,075,338 B1 — but it is not prior art to '053 (same inventor, same day, common assignee), and its practical significance is that the other examiner has already used the '053/'338 disclosure as § 102(a) art against later, broader continuity claims. The references that could genuinely invalidate '053's independent claims are the unverified 2005–2010 constant-force / continuity-member nut patents (Malloy, Mathews, Purdy, Haube family), not the hundreds of older entries on the face.

I'll verify the key Tier‑3 references before building the obviousness grounds, since the prior‑art section flagged several of those as unverified.

Good — that confirms the Belden/Thomas & Betts "constant force" family and surfaces an important numbering conflict. Let me verify a few structural references before writing.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,323,053 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

"Connector Having a Constant Contact Nut" · Appl. 12/906,559 · filed 2010‑10‑18 · issued 2012‑12‑04 · Inventor Noah Montena · Assignee PPC Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.)

Governing law: Because appl. 12/906,559 was filed before 2013‑03‑16, the pre‑AIA statute governs. That matters enormously here, because pre‑AIA § 103(c) removes certain commonly‑owned art from § 103 — a defense that does not exist under the AIA. The prior‑art section of this analysis flagged this in passing; this section makes it the spine of the analysis.

Search‑limit note (up front): I verified the Belden/Thomas & Betts "constant force" family, the Mathews conductive‑member family, Purdy '216 and Haube '005 through primary documents. My last four verification queries — on US 3,808,580, US 8,025,518 ("dual‑grip nut"), a generic slotted‑nut search, and US 7,927,135 (Wlos) — returned a tool‑limit error and were not executed. Everything below is labelled [VERIFIED], [FACE OF '053] (i.e., from the granted patent's own reference list in the authoritative text), or [UNVERIFIED].

1. Framework

1.1 The test

Anticipation requires every element in a single reference (§ 102); obviousness asks whether the differences between the claim and the prior art would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of invention, in view of (a) the scope and content of the prior art, (b) the differences, (c) the level of ordinary skill, and (d) objective indicia. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Where the art supplies all elements, the question collapses to whether there was an apparent reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418–21 (2007). The "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" is obvious. Id. at 417. What matters is claimed invention as a whole, not whether the patentee's particular motivation existed — the reference need only be "reasonably pertinent." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

1.2 POSITA

A person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and 3–5 years designing F‑type/coaxial cable connectors — familiar with the SCTE/ANSI F‑connector interface, 75‑ohm CATV practice, and standard fabrication (screw machining, stamping/photo‑etching, injection molding). This is a mature, crowded, highly incremental art — the very setting in which KSR says combination is most likely to be obvious. Note also that the '053 issued in Art Unit 2833/2839 — the same unit that accepted Belden's, PPC's, and Corning's continuity‑member applications, i.e., the prior art is not merely analogous but co‑pending in the same unit.

1.3 Claim construction of the limitations that drive the § 103 result

The invention's novelty is not "make the nut conduct to the post" — that goal is everywhere in the art. The alleged novelty is the mechanism: the nut itself is made radially resilient by axial slots so it doubles as the biasing spring. Three constructions control the analysis:

Caveat carried forward: the earlier section noted that PerfectVision v. PPC, Dkt. 102 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 29, 2014), was a claim‑construction/indefiniteness opinion in this same continuity‑connector family following Nautilus. If "regardless of the axial position" (claims 9, 12, 13, 18) or "position of interference" is held indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2, the § 103 challenge narrows to claims 1/5 and their dependents. Verify whether the '053 was among the patents construed.

2. The availability gate — § 102, then § 103(c)

This is where the earlier prior‑art discussion was incomplete, and it changes the answer. Most of the structurally closest art to the '053 claims is PPC's own art — and pre‑AIA § 103(c)(1) says that subject matter developed by another person that qualifies as prior art only under § 102(e), (f), or (g) shall not preclude patentability under § 103 where, at the time the invention was made, the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned. John Mezzalingua Associates owned both sides of that comparison in 2010.

flowchart TD
    A[Reference] --> B{Qualifies under 102 a or b?}
    B -- Yes --> C[Fully available for 103]
    B -- No, only 102 e/f/g --> D{Commonly owned at time of invention?}
    D -- No --> C
    D -- Yes --> E[Excluded from 103 by pre-AIA 103 c<br/>Still available for 102 anticipation]

2.1 Reference availability table

The practical consequence. A § 103 attack built on Purdy '216, Haube '005, or the Mathews patents is vulnerable to an immediate § 103(c) knockout in a district court or at the Board — because those references are common‑owner art qualifying only under § 102(e). The workable attack must be built on Belden/Thomas & Betts (Malloy family), Corning Gilbert, the pre‑1995 slotted‑ring art, and the 2006 Mathews publication (if § 102(b) holds). That is the single most important strategic point in this section, and it was not surfaced in the prior‑art section.

Corollary for the § 103(c) argument: Note that § 103(c) requires "developed by another person." Purdy, Mathews, Haube ≠ Montena, so that element is satisfied — the disqualification rests entirely on common ownership, which must be confirmed as of the invention date (the 2010‑10‑18 filing is strong circumstantial evidence). If a petitioner can show the '053 invention was made before PPC's common ownership arose, or that a reference is § 102(a)/(b) art, the exclusion evaporates. This is worth a subpoena‑grade document review, not an assumption.

3. The generic motivation‑to‑combine case

Before the grounded charts, the shared rationales that apply to every ground below — each of which should be pleaded expressly:

1. Same field, same problem, same unit. All primary references are F‑type coaxial connectors in USPC 439/578 and were examined in the same art units. The problem is identical and admitted: the '053's own Background states connectors "are often times not properly tightened or otherwise installed" and that "the structure of common connectors may permit loss of ground and discontinuity of the electromagnetic shielding." [FACE OF '053] That is an applicant admission that the problem was known — fatal to any "unrecognized problem" argument.
2. Known technique, same way, predictable result (KSR rationale C). Forming axial slots in an annular conductive member to create radial resilience is ancient in this exact art — the lock‑washer references on the '053's own face (1885–1970), and US 3,808,580's self‑locking coupling nut. Applying that known technique to a threaded connector nut is the textbook case.
3. Simple substitution of known elements, predictable result (KSR rationale B). Belden already solved continuity with a discrete resilient biasing element (spring) between post and nut. Integrating the resilience into the nut by slotting is a substitution of one known element for another to perform the same function — with the predictable benefit of eliminating a part, a sub‑assembly step, and a failure mode. Fewer parts at lower cost is a classic rational motive. In re Kemps; MPEP 2144.04.
4. Design incentive / known need (KSR rationale D). The whole Belden family is predicated on the recognition that connectors are not reliably torqued to the reference plane; the retrieved text of US 2011/0171894 A1 (Belden) recites the industry's SCTE torque requirement of 25–30 in‑lb "to secure the fittings against the interface (reference plane)" and that "[t]he torque requirement prevents loss of signals (egress) or introduction of unwanted signals (ingress)." [VERIFIED quote; document itself published 2012, so use as industry context, not as § 102 art.] A PHOSITA seeking continuity below that torque would look precisely at the nut/post interface.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Slotting sheet/machined metal to make a radially compliant ring is routine mechanical design with wholly predictable behavior. The '053 spec concedes the deflection "need not be significant"; a PHOSITA would expect success a priori. Nothing here is an unpredictable art (contrast In re Kubin).
6. Simultaneous independent development. Belden (2007–2009) and PPC (2009) both attacked the same continuity problem at the same time. Multiple independent workers arriving at the same solution is objective evidence bearing on obviousness.

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 (and the method of 13–17): Malloy '236 in view of a slotted‑resilient‑nut/annular‑ring reference

Primary: US 7,566,236 B2 (Malloy et al., Thomas & Betts/Belden), "Constant force coaxial cable connector," issued 2009‑07‑28 (§ 102(b)). Its verified abstract recites every element of claim 1 except the slots:

"A coaxial cable connector generally includes a connector body, a nut rotatably coupled to the connector body, a post disposed in the connector body and a biasing element acting between the post and the nut. The nut has an internal thread for engagement with an external thread of a mating connector … Also, the post can have a forward flanged base portion disposed within the axial length of the internally threaded surface of the nut, which, together with the biasing element, provides a constant force between the post and the nut."

Secondary. Any of: US 3,808,580 A, "Self‑locking coupling nut for electrical connectors" (Johnson, Matrix Science, 1974‑04‑30) — a threaded coupling nut made self‑locking, the classic expedient being axial slots/cantilevered segments producing radial compliance and interference [FACE OF '053; UNVERIFIED as to internal structure]; US 4,030,798 A (Akzona, "Electrical connector with means for maintaining a connected condition," 1977); or the lock‑washer family on the '053's own face (US 331,169; 1,371,742; 1,801,999; 1,885,761; 2,102,495; 3,194,292; 3,494,400), each a slotted/segmented, radially resilient annular conductive member — i.e., element (4) exactly, minus the connector context.

Motivation (state it this way). '236 already generates a constant force between the post and nut, but does so with a discrete spring. The slotted‑coupling‑nut and lock‑washer art already teaches that a threaded or annular conductive member can be made radially resilient by axial slots to generate interfering engagement. A PHOSITA faced with '236 would (i) recognize the spring's function is simply to preload the nut/post junction, (ii) recognize that slotting the nut performs that identical function integrally, (iii) apply the known slotting technique to the known nut in the same way, and (iv) achieve the predictable result — with fewer parts and lower cost. That is KSR rationales A, B, C and D in combination.

Claim 2 ("constant radial force … physical and electrical continuity") is met almost verbatim by '236's "constant force between the post and the nut," combined with the slotted nut's radial compliance. Claim 3 (axially extending slots allowing radial movement) is met by the secondary reference. Claim 4 (fastener member deforming the connector body) is met by any conventional compression connector art, including — usefully — the Mathews 2006 publication, which expressly describes "a fastener member 60 that may compress and lock the connector body 50 into place" [VERIFIED quote], or the '053's own description of a wholly conventional fastener member.

Ground 2 — Claims 5, 6, 7, 8 (apparatus) and 18–21 (method): add the Mathews 2006 publication for the biased‑interference‑with‑the‑post limitation

Primary: '236. Secondary: US 2006/0110977 A1 (Mathews), as § 102(b) art. Its verified disclosure includes a conductive member configured to reside within a threaded nut and positioned to physically and electrically contact the mating edge of the post, to "facilitate grounding of the connector through the conductive member and the post to the cable when the connector is threadably advanced onto an interface port." A PHOSITA reading '236 + '236's own flanged base + Mathews' 2006 disclosure that the nut‑to‑post junction is the continuity locus and must conduct irrespective of tightening is squarely motivated to ensure sustained nut/post contact — which is exactly what claim 5's "engagement fingers biased into a position of interference with the post" and claim 6's "constant radial force against the outer edge of the flange" require.

For claims 18–21 (method), the required step is "expanding the plurality of engagement fingers in a radially outward direction … by a positioning of the post," then spring‑back. Radially outward camming of a spring finger over a post/flange, followed by spring‑back, is the ubiquitous "snap‑fit" behavior that the '053's own specification describes and that the slotted‑coupling‑nut art employs. Method claims add nothing structural beyond claims 1/5 and are the broadest claims in the patent — which is why the prior‑art section rated them high risk, and this analysis agrees.

Ground 3 — Claims 9, 10, 11, 12: Malloy '063 (or '875) in view of '236 and the slotted‑nut art

US 8,062,063 B2 ("Cable connector having a biasing element," Belden, issued 2011‑11‑22, § 102(e) art filed 2009‑09‑28) is unusually on‑point for claim 9. Its verified claim 1 recites a nut rotatably coupled to the forward end of the connector body, an annular post having a forward flanged base portion located adjacent a portion of the nut, an annular notch in the outer surface of that base, and a biasing element retained in the notch with an attachment portion and a "resilient central portion formed radially inwardly from the attachment portion." Its specification is even closer: it discloses "resilient tabs 1830‑1 to 1830‑4 … configured to provide the biasing force between" the post and nut, and "resilient tabs 1930‑1 to 1930‑3 … configured to provide the biasing force." [VERIFIED quotes.]

US 8,113,875 B2 (Belden) adds the "in an uncompressed state" preload teaching: a biasing element retained in an annular notch on the post's flanged base "extends towards a forward end of the nut in an uncompressed state." [VERIFIED.] That is claim 9's "opposing radial contact force … regardless of the axial position of the post and the slotted port coupling element," achieved by preload.

Ground 3 articulation: '063 supplies a resilient radially‑acting element with tabs providing the biasing force between post and nut (claim 9's "opposing radial contact force"); '875 supplies the preloaded, uncompressed‑state configuration (claim 9's "regardless of axial position"); '236 supplies the constant character (claim 12) and the internally threaded nut; and the slotted‑nut art supplies making the nut itself the resilient member rather than the seated spring, yielding claim 9's "slotted port coupling element … resilient in the radial direction." Motivation: eliminating the separate spring part and its notch‑retention assembly in favor of integral resilience — a design‑incentive / known‑technique rationale (KSR).

Ground 4 (alternative primary) — '063/'875 as primary, '236 as secondary

Same combination, reversed order of reliance. Using '063 as primary complicates the mapping of claim 1's "plurality of openings on the port coupling element" but improves the mapping of claims 9/12. Recommend pleading Grounds 1 and 3 in the alternative — the Board routinely accepts alternative primary‑reference orderings where the combination is the same.

Ground 5 — § 103(c)‑limited art, pleaded only if the common‑ownership exclusion is defeated

If a petitioner can establish that a reference qualifies under § 102(a)/(b) despite common ownership, or that the invention predates common ownership, then the structurally best art becomes available and the case gets much easier:

• US 7,824,216 B2 (Purdy, 2010‑11‑01) — a tapered surface on the post flange cooperating with a tapered surface on the nut's internal lip, with a continuity member compressed between them so it "endures a moment resulting from the contact forces of the opposite tapered surfaces." [VERIFIED.] That is '053 claim 9's opposing radial contact force at the flange with a tapered‑flange geometry, and the '053 spec itself describes the "tapered surface of the flange 44" as a contact location [FACE OF '053]. It independently corroborates that flange contact is the known continuity locus.
• US 7,892,005 B2 (Haube, 2011‑02‑22) — continuity member residing between nut and post producing "structurally‑induced compression forces."
• US 7,950,958 B2 / 7,845,976 / 7,828,595 / 7,833,053 (Mathews) — conductive member inside the threaded nut contacting the post mating edge.

Use these defensively, not as the lead ground. Pleading them first invites a § 103(c) motion that guts the case.

5. Claim‑by‑claim § 103 vulnerability

Net: all five independents are exposed, and claim 12 is exposed almost element‑for‑element by '236 alone.

6. Anticipated rebuttals, and how they fail

7. Objective indicia and secondary considerations

• Long‑felt need: present, but it cuts for obviousness here — the '053 Background admits the need, and Belden was already satisfying it by 2007–2009. A need that the art recognizes and partially solves is evidence the solution was available.
• Simultaneous invention: Belden (2007–2009) and PPC (2009) both worked the problem. Courts treat contemporaneous independent solutions as probative of obviousness.
• Copying: none pleaded.
• Unexpected results: none asserted; the spec describes only predictable mechanical behavior ("a slight deflection … is sufficient").
• Commercial success: not established on this record; nexus would be contested.

8. What must be verified before this becomes an opinion of counsel

1. US 2006/0110977 A1 publication date — if it published before 2010‑10‑18 by more than one year, the Mathews disclosure is § 102(b) art and escapes § 103(c). This single date is the highest‑value fact to confirm.
2. Common‑ownership proof for § 103(c) — chain of title for 12/472,368 (Purdy), 12/783,131 (Haube), and the Mathews applications as of the '053 invention date. The verified assignment record (inventor → John Mezzalingua) supports common ownership; confirm no intervening condition.
3. US 3,808,580 A full text and drawings — is it in fact a slotted, radially compliant threaded coupling nut? If yes, Ground 1 becomes very strong. [UNVERIFIED]
4. US 8,025,518 B2 (Corning Gilbert, "dual‑grip nut") and US 8,272,893 B2 — a non‑commonly‑owned, Corning‑authored nut reference would materially strengthen Grounds 2/8. [UNVERIFIED — my query on this returned a tool‑limit error.]
5. US 7,927,135 B2 (Wlos) — "coupling body with grip fingers engaging a wedge of a stabilizing body" — potentially useful on "engagement fingers." [UNVERIFIED]
6. Examiner's actual citations — pull the 12/906,559 file wrapper to separate examiner‑cited from IDS art; the face list is a 567‑entry bulk submission whose pre‑1977 cohort carries low evidentiary weight, and § 325(d) will be argued if the Board thinks the art is the same or substantially the same as the Examiner considered.
7. US 8,075,337 B2 filing/priority date, to confirm § 102(e) status.
8. Claim construction / indefiniteness of "regardless of the axial position" and "position of interference" — the '053's sibling patents were construed in PerfectVision v. PPC on the heels of Nautilus; if these terms are indefinite, the § 103 attack narrows to claims 1 and 5.

9. Contradictions with the previously generated sections (flagged per instructions)

1. US 7,833,053 — material correction. The prior‑art section listed "7,833,053 (oil‑well lockdown)" among look‑alike numbers. Search results contradict this: US 7,833,053 B2 is "Connector having conductive member and method of use thereof," inventor Roger Mathews, assignee John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., issued November 16, 2010 — and it was the subject of inter partes reexamination control no. 95/001,689, filed 2011‑07‑18, Art Unit 3992, Examiner Stephen J. Ralis, Action Closing Prosecution mailed 2012‑01‑11 [VERIFIED]. This is not trivia: 7,833,053 is a PPC‑owned, commonly‑owned sibling‑technology patent whose number differs from 8,323,053 by one digit, it is § 102(e)‑only art (issued after the '053 filing), and it is therefore § 103(c)‑excluded — yet highly citable for context. Prefer the search result.
2. Prior‑art section's assumption that the "constant force / continuity member" cohort (Malloy, Mathews, Purdy, Haube) is the highest‑risk art for § 102 is right, but that cohort is largely unavailable for § 103 because of pre‑AIA § 103(c). The prior‑art section's § 102/§ 103(c) discussion ("common ownership removes them from § 103(a) obviousness combinations under pre‑AIA § 103(c) — but it does not remove a reference that qualifies under § 102(e) from an anticipation rejection") flagged the rule correctly but did not carry it into the invalidity strategy. This section does.
3. Prior‑art section's claim that the pre‑grant amendment adding "internal threads" "reads like a deliberate move away from slotted‑post/slotted‑flange art" is only half right. The amendment does distance the claims from slotted‑post art (US 8,075,338; US 8,348,697), but it does not distance them from US 7,566,236, which expressly discloses "an internal thread for engagement with an external thread of a mating connector" [VERIFIED]. So the amendment narrowed scope without escaping the best § 103 reference.
4. US RE43,832 E is a reissue of US 7,566,236 — same disclosure, Belden Inc. as reissue assignee. Do not treat the reissue as a separate, additional reference; and do not cite the reissue as prior art (it issued 2012‑11‑27, after the '053 filing) — cite the original '236 for its 2009‑07‑28 issue date.

10. Bottom line

Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13–14, 16, 18–19 are, on this record, vulnerable to a § 103(a) rejection, and the strongest single ground is:

US 7,566,236 B2 (Malloy, Thomas & Betts/Belden, issued 2009‑07‑28 — § 102(b) art) in view of US 3,808,580 A (self‑locking coupling nut) and/or the lock‑washer art on the '053's own face, further in view of US 8,062,063 B2 and US 8,113,875 B2 (Belden, § 102(e)) for the preloaded resilient‑tab biasing force, and optionally US 2006/0110977 A1 (Mathews) for the nut‑to‑post continuity locus and the fastener member.

'236 supplies the connector body, post, flanged base, internally threaded rotatable nut, and — critically — a "constant force between the post and the nut," which meets claims 2, 6, 12, 14 and 19 almost verbatim. The only missing element is making the nut itself the resilient member, and that is supplied by art teaching that threaded and annular conductive members are made radially resilient by axial slots. The motivation is not conjectural: the problem was admitted in the '053 Background, the industry recognized it (SCTE torque practice), and a major competitor — Belden — had already commercialized the same solution in the same field two years before the '053 was filed, with the same assignee's own continuity‑member work (Purdy, Haube) running on a parallel track. KSR rationale C ("known technique to improve a similar device in the same way") and rationale B ("substitution of known elements for predictable results") are squarely met.

The two things that must be nailed down first: (i) the US 2006/0110977 A1 publication date, which determines whether the best Mathews disclosure is § 102(b) art or is deleted by § 103(c); and (ii) common‑ownership proof, which likely disqualifies Purdy '216, Haube '005, and the Mathews patents from the § 103 case entirely. The recorded status of the '053 ("Expired – Fee Related," adjusted expiration 2031‑03‑11) remains, as the earlier section concluded, a bigger lever than any IPR — verify it in PatentCenter before spending on invalidity at all.