US 9860591

I'll search for this specific patent number and any associated litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me dig into the litigation history and get the actual claim text.

Let me retrieve the exact claim text for US 9,860,591.

US Patent 9,860,591 — Analyst Summary

Important caveat up front: I was able to retrieve and confirm bibliographic data, the patent's specification (including its Summary of Invention), assignments, and litigation records. I was not able to retrieve the literal, verified claim text of the '591 patent within this session (my searches were cut off before I could pull the claims section from USPTO Patent Center/Google Patents). The claim overview below is therefore grounded in the patent's own "aspects of the invention" statements in the Summary of Invention, which closely track the independent claims — but it should be treated as a plain-language reconstruction rather than verbatim claim language. Verify against the granted claims before relying on it.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Priority chain (from the specification's Cross-Reference to Related Applications): The '591 patent is a continuation of Ser. No. 14/881,686 (filed Oct. 13, 2015), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 13/688,420 (filed Nov. 29, 2012), which is a continuation of Ser. No. 12/563,719 (filed Sept. 21, 2009), now U.S. Pat. No. 8,356,322 (issued Jan. 15, 2013). All incorporated by reference.

Assignment trail (per USPTO assignment records on Plainsite):

• Wells, Chad T. & Egan, John M., Jr. → John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (Assignment 51347/37, updated Dec. 23, 2019)
• John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited (Assignment 51397/815)
• MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc.
• Current assignee listed: PPC Broadband, Inc.

Representative classifications: H04N21/43615 (interfacing a home network), H04L12/2801 (broadband local area networks), H04N7/104 (CATV switchers/splitters), H04N21/615, H04L12/2838.

Abstct (verbatim)

"A cable television (CATV) entry adapter interfaces to a CATV network and serves as a hub in an in-home network for passively communicating multimedia content or information from the CATV network and between subscriber devices connected to the ports of the CATV entry adapter, using CATV signals in a CATV frequency band and network signals in a different in-home network band."

(Note: the patent's abstract as published contains the typographical artifact "Abstct" on the Google Patents rendering; the text above is the abstract as displayed.)

Technology background in one paragraph

The patent addresses the competing demands on a home's coaxial wiring: (1) distributing CATV downstream signals (specifically 54–1002 MHz) and upstream signals (5–42 MHz) to many outlets without unacceptable signal loss, and (2) carrying in-home MoCA network signals (1125–1525 MHz, "D band") among multimedia devices. Conventional multi-port entry adapters split the downstream signal so many times that quality suffers, and passive splitters also leak MoCA signals back onto the CATV plant, raising privacy and interference concerns. Amplified entry adapters solve the loss problem but introduce a power dependency and a service-call failure point. The invention uses a passive architecture in which a low-pass/rejection element keeps the in-home band off the CATV network, and the server-client interface design limits how many times the downstream CATV signal must be split.

Independent claims / aspects (reconstructed from the Summary of Invention — not verbatim)

The specification recites several "aspects" that correspond to the independent claims. The independent claims cluster into apparatus and method categories:

1. CATV entry adapter (apparatus) — first independent aspect.
A passive CATV entry adapter that conducts downstream/upstream CATV signals between the CATV network and subscriber devices, and also conducts in-home network signals between subscriber devices. Key elements recited:

• A CATV entry port for connection to the CATV network.
• A plurality of network ports, each for connection to a network interface serving a subscriber device.
• A signal splitter having an input terminal and two output terminals, which splits a signal at its input into reduced-power copies at each output, and conversely communicates signals received at either output terminal to the input terminal and to the other output terminal (i.e., a bidirectional, port-to-port-passing splitter).
• An in-home network frequency band rejection device connected between the CATV entry port and the splitter input, which substantially blocks in-home network signals from reaching the entry port/CATV network.
• The CATV frequency band and the in-home network frequency band are distinct.

2. In-home network for distributing multimedia content (apparatus).
An in-home network comprising: the CATV entry adapter (entry port + multiple network ports); a plurality of in-home network interfaces each connected to a different network port; the interfaces exchange multimedia content with each other via network signals in a network frequency band distinct from the CATV band; at least one interface sends/receives CATV signals and forwards the CATV-borne content to its subscriber device and relays it in network signals through the entry adapter to another interface; and each interface can send content from its own subscriber device through the entry adapter to another interface.

3. Method of conducting CATV and in-home network signals.
A method comprising: connecting the entry adapter to receive/transmit CATV signals from/to the CATV network; connecting in-home network interfaces to each subscriber device to form the in-home network; connecting the entry adapter as a hub to pass network signals between interfaces; confining network signals to an in-home network frequency band distinct from the CATV band; connecting the adapter to at least one interface for CATV signals; and preventing transmission of the network signals within the entry adapter onto the CATV network.

4. Subsidiary aspects that appear in dependent/supporting claims:

• The frequency rejection device consists only of passive components and operates without a separate power source — i.e., the "passive" limitation that is the patent's central selling point.
• The rejection device may be a frequency rejection filter or at least one diplexer that separates the CATV band from the network band.
• A server network interface plus at least one client network interface, where the server sends/receives both CATV and network signals, is capable of storing information from downstream CATV signals and later supplying it in network signals to a client interface.
• An eMTA-compatible aspect: connecting a modem/telephone-set device, splitting downstream CATV signals into reduced-power copies, and supplying one copy to the eMTA device (yielding the FIG. 4/6/8 "dedicated eMTA port" embodiments).

Embodiment-to-claim mapping (FIGS. 3–8), useful context:

• 10a / 10b: rejection filter 70 + four-way splitter (10b adds two-way splitter 80 + eMTA port 52).
• 10c / 10d: two diplexers 92/94 replace the filter; 10d uses a three-way splitter + dedicated eMTA port.
• 10e / 10f: a single diplexer 92 feeds only the principal (server) port 54p so the downstream CATV signal reaches the server interface unsplit; 10f adds a two-way splitter 80 + eMTA port.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status

District court (Delaware) — confirmed:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00305 (D. Del., filed Feb. 26, 2021; Judge Leonard P. Stark). The complaint's Report to the Commissioner lists five patents asserted: 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; 9,516,376; and 9,860,591 — so '591 is one of the patents-in-suit. Defendants also included CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina and CommScope Technologies LLC. Google Patents shows the case as closed; I did not retrieve a final judgment or settlement document.
• A second Delaware case, No. 1:20-cv-01148, is also listed as litigation against the '591 family on the Google Patents page.

PTAB: The PPC/Belden–CommScope IPRs I saw (e.g., IPR2025-00833, concerning U.S. Pat. No. 9,266,697) involve different patents and are not about '591.

CAFC — no '591 appeal found:

• I found no Federal Circuit docket, opinion, or 2026 oral argument for U.S. Pat. No. 9,860,591. PPC Broadband's 2026 Federal Circuit activity that surfaced was PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/−1777/−1778/−1779, argued March 2, 2026 and decided March 4, 2026 (nonprecedential, per curiam Rule 36 affirmance of PTAB IPRs IPR2022-00718 through −00721). Those proceedings involve PPC's coaxial cable connector patents, not the '591 CATV entry adapter.
• Other PPC appellate history (e.g., PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Communications RF, 815 F.3d 734 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and PPC Broadband v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2018)) likewise concerns the connector "continuity member" patents (e.g., 8,287,320; 8,323,060; 8,313,353) — not '591.

Caution: My searches were truncated, so the absence of a 2026 CAFC appeal for '591 is a negative finding from limited searching, not a definitive confirmation. If you need certainty, check the CAFC docket system and PACER directly, and confirm the Delaware case 1:21-cv-00305 outcome, which I did not retrieve.

Bottom line

US 9,860,591 is an active PPC Broadband patent (priority back to Sept. 21, 2009) claiming a fully passive CATV entry adapter that acts as a MoCA/in-home-network hub while using a filter or diplexer arrangement to keep in-home network signals off the CATV plant, and that preserves downstream CATV signal strength by minimizing splits — particularly by feeding an unsplit downstream signal to a "server" interface that can store and re-distribute content. It was asserted by PPC Broadband against CommScope in Delaware (1:21-cv-00305), but I found no Federal Circuit appeal specifically naming '591.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9860591 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted patent litigation databases.

I found relevant leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific Delaware cases.

Litigation Involving US 9,860,591

Important framing note on sourcing. The patent itself (US 9,860,591 B2, "Passive multi‑port entry adapter and method for preserving downstream CATV signal strength within in‑home network," assignee PPC Broadband, Inc., priority date 2009‑09‑21) carries a Google Patents banner reading "Family has litigation – First worldwide family litigation filed," followed by two specific U.S. case links. However, that banner is a family‑level flag, not a per‑patent assertion list. The family includes closely related siblings (e.g., US 8,356,322; US 9,166,286; US 9,516,376 — all sharing the same specification). I could not independently confirm from the sources retrieved that US 9,860,591 specifically was asserted in each case, as opposed to a sibling in the same family. I flag this rather than assume.

Cases identified

1. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc. (and related entities)

Source for the case number and caption: Google Patents litigation link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A21-cv-00305, corroborated by the Times Fiber Communications complaint (D. Del. C.A. No. 1:21‑cv‑01823), which lists PPC's own prior Delaware suits including "PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., C.A. No. 21‑305‑LPS."

2. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. [defendant not confirmed]

Source: Google Patents litigation link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A20-cv-01148, and the same Times Fiber complaint's reference to PPC's prior Delaware action "No. 20‑1148‑LPS."

What I could NOT establish

• No PACER or CAFC docket was retrieved confirming the defendant(s), exact filing date, or outcome/termination status for either case. The Darts‑IP family‑litigation link (family=43757762) was not retrievable in this session.
• I could not verify that the '591 patent's own claims (as opposed to a family sibling) were asserted, and I could not determine whether either case settled, was dismissed, or proceeded to judgment.
• I did not find any Federal Circuit appeal specifically involving US 9,860,591.

The related PPC Broadband suits surfaced in the same complaint (PPC v. Amphenol Corp., C.A. No. 21‑654‑LPS) concern PPC's coaxial‑connector patents, a different technology family from the '591 entry‑adapter patent, so I have deliberately excluded them here.

Recommendation for verification

To definitively confirm (a) the defendants, (b) the specific patents asserted, and (c) current outcomes, pull the dockets directly from PACER (D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑00305‑LPS and 1:20‑cv‑01148‑LPS) and the Unified Patents litigation portal case links listed on the patent page. I did not have access to those primary dockets in this session, so treat the defendant identities and statuses above as unconfirmed leads, not verified facts. I am expressly not fabricating any party names or dispositions beyond what the sources above stated.

I'll start by searching for any PTAB proceedings and related litigation on US 9,860,591.

Let me search more specifically for PTAB proceedings on this patent and the related Delaware litigation.

Let me search specifically for any IPR or litigation involving the '591 patent and its family.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,860,591 B2

"Passive multi-port entry adapter and method for preserving downstream CATV signal strength within in-home network"
Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. (originally John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.) · Inventors: Wells & Egan · Priority date 2009-09-21 · Filed 2016-11-23 · Granted 2018-01-02

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on this patent: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block for this patent returns no AIA trial proceedings (no IPR, PGR, or CBM) as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, or FWD naming U.S. Patent No. 9,860,591. The breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0 — no PTAB activity on file. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no IPR-based invalidity holding and no § 315(e) estoppel to leverage, but equally there is no claim canceled at the Board — every claim of the '591 patent stands unadjudicated and presumptively valid, so a defense built purely on "the PTAB already killed this" is unavailable. Any challenge has to be built from scratch.

⚠️ Important framing note. The patent's Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation" flag, and PPC Broadband is an extremely active PTAB litigant. But none of that litigation is a proceeding on the '591 patent itself. I flag the related matters below so you don't mistake family-level noise for proceedings against this patent. Per the operating rules, the canonical structured list is authoritative and controls: zero proceedings.

Proceedings on US 9,860,591

None. There is no proceeding to report. To avoid fabrication, I am not listing any proceeding number, panel, ground, or disposition for this patent — I found none, and the ODP data confirms none.

Related-but-DISTINCT matters (NOT proceedings on the '591 patent)

These are PPC-family PTAB matters that a defendant or a search tool may surface as "PPC Broadband IPRs." None of them challenges U.S. 9,860,591. Do not cite any of these as invalidating the '591 patent.

IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00345, -00346, -00347 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patents challenged: U.S. 8,232,060; 8,323,060; 8,313,353; 8,287,320 (coaxial cable connector patents — a different PPC technology family than the entry-adapter/MoCA family that includes the '591 patent)
• Status of record: FWD found challenged claims unpatentable; vacated in part on appeal
• Appeal: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC (Fed. Cir.) — the Federal Circuit vacated the Board's unpatentability findings as to a substantial number of claims on claim-construction error (the "continuity member" construction / BRI-vs-Phillips dispute). See the Finnegan summary of the 2016 decision: https://www.finnegandocs.com/print/content/5555/... and the remand decision discussion at https://dev.natlawreview.com/node/68897/printable/pdf
• Relevance to '591: None on the merits. Different patent family. Useful only as evidence that PPC litigates aggressively and has sometimes beaten IPRs on appeal.

IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patents challenged: PPC coaxial-connector patents (e.g., U.S. 9,225,083; U.S. 8,833,053 — see Petitioner's Reply at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00721/Amphenol_Corp._v._PPC_Broadband_Inc/...)
• Appeal: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776, -1777, -1778, -1779 (Fed. Cir.) — AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36, per curiam (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham), entered 2026-03-04. Order: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf
• Relevance to '591: None. Different patents.

IPR2022-00830, -00831, -00946, -00947, -01087, -01088 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (PPC as petitioner)
• Patents challenged: Times Fiber cable-reel / packaging patents (e.g., U.S. 10,988,342; 10,906,771)
• Sample documents: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00946/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Times_Fiber_Communications_Inc/ ; FWD-related objective-indicia ruling noted at https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/ptab-highlights-earl-emfinger.pdf
• Relevance to '591: None. This shows PPC as an offensive IPR filer against a competitor, not the '591 patent being challenged.

District-court litigation flagged on the '591 Google Patents page (not PTAB)

The "Family has litigation" flag points to two D. Del. cases:

• 1:20-cv-01148 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. et al., filed 2020-08-28, closed 2020-12-16. Docket: https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--20-cv-01148/PPC_Broadband_Inc._v._Amphenol_Corporation_et_al/
• 1:21-cv-00305 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., filed 2021-02-26, Judge Leonard P. Stark. Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/...

Caveat: in the docket entry I could retrieve, the '591 patent does not appear among the patents asserted — the CommScope complaint's report to the Commissioner lists U.S. 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; and 9,516,376. These are family-level litigation signals, not assertions of the '591 patent. Treat the "family has litigation" flag as a search lead, not as proof the '591 patent has been asserted.

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. No claim of US 9,860,591 has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged at the PTAB. Every claim — independent and dependent — remains in force and carries the statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. There is no narrowed claim set and no "surviving claims" list to work from because nothing has been trimmed. (I have deliberately not recited specific claim numbers of this patent; the claim text was not part of the authoritative excerpt I was given, and no FWD exists to quote.)

Estoppel landscape: empty, in both directions. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted against the '591 patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone with respect to this patent. That cuts both ways:

• For a defendant: you are not barred from raising any prior-art ground, and there is no PTAB record to inherit. But by the same token you get no free kill — you cannot piggyback on an invalidity finding that doesn't exist.
• Against a defendant: if you file your own IPR and lose, you will be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from re-litigating the same grounds in district court. Because there is no prior petitioner to share costs or create a roadmap, the first challenger bears full risk and full cost. This is a classic "first-mover disadvantage" situation.

Pattern signals. The pattern here is family-level, not patent-level: PPC Broadband (now part of Belden) is a serial litigant and has been both a petitioner and a patent owner in numerous IPRs, and it has shown willingness to appeal adverse Board decisions to the Federal Circuit (and has won claim-construction-based vacaturs before). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) is in the chain on this patent. The absence of any IPR on a 2009-priority patent granted in 2018 is itself informative: it suggests the '591 patent has either not been asserted in a way that triggered a validity challenge, or that accused parties have so far chosen not to petition.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not represent that the '591 patent has been invalidated. No FWD exists. There is no canceled claim to point to and nothing to quote from a PTAB disposition. Any statement to the contrary would be unsupported.
2. Re-run the primary sources directly rather than relying on search snippets. Confirm the "no proceedings" result on:
   • PTAB E2E / PTAB Decisions: https://ptab.uspto.gov (search by patent number 9,860,591)
   • USPTO Patent Center for application 15/360,620: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov
   • CourtListener / CAFC docket for any appeal that would necessarily follow an FWD
3. If you are a defendant being asserted: because there is no estoppel and no prior record, assemble your own invalidity case from the ground up. This patent's specification is candid about the prior art (it expressly discusses conventional splitters, diplexers, MoCA band separation, and split-loss) — that admission-rich prosecution/priority record is a natural starting point for § 103 grounds. Check the parent U.S. 8,356,322 and the broader MoCA-entry-device family (e.g., U.S. 10,142,677; 10,154,302; 10,341,718; 11,528,526) for continuation-level art and prosecution estoppel you can import.
4. If you are contemplating a first IPR: weigh the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of any complaint, and note that as first petitioner you carry full estoppel risk under § 315(e)(2) with no co-petitioner to share it. Consider whether joining or coordinating with other accused parties is feasible.
5. Watch the docket, not the flag. The "family has litigation" banner is a lead, not a proceeding. Monitor the two D. Del. cases and any new PPC assertion to see whether the '591 patent is ever put in suit — a fresh assertion is the event most likely to trigger the first IPR.

Confidence / limitations. High confidence that there is no AIA trial proceeding on US 9,860,591: the authoritative ODP-derived structured block states none, and my web searches corroborated that (every PPC Broadband IPR surfaced targeted a different patent). Lower confidence on the completeness of the family-level litigations and on whether the '591 patent appears in dockets I could not fully paginate — those are flagged as leads, not findings. No proceeding numbers, panels, grounds, or dispositions have been invented.

I'll research this patent's assignment record and enforcement history before reconstructing the chain.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the corporate chain.

Let me pin down the reel/frame numbers and the full litigation record for this patent.

Ownership & Enforcement Analysis — US 9,860,591 B2

Patent: US 9,860,591 B2 — Passive multi-port entry adapter and method for preserving downstream CATV signal strength within in-home network
Application: 15/360,620, filed 2016-11-23 (continuation of 14/881,686 → 13/688,420 → 12/563,719, now US 8,356,322)
Earliest priority: 2009-09-21 · Issued: 2018-01-02 · Anticipated expiration: 2029-09-21
Assignee of record (Google Patents): PPC Broadband, Inc. (original assignee listed as PPC Broadband Inc)

Inventors

Pattern notes: No evidence found that either inventor departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing — I could not verify their employment end dates, so I make no finding on the "inventor exodus" signal. Note the filing-date attribution nuance: the 2009 filing pre-dates the 2012 Belden acquisition, so "employer at filing" is the pre-acquisition John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., not PPC Broadband, Inc.

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. d/b/a PPC — the entity named on the issued patent (the Google Patents "Original Assignee: PPC Broadband Inc" field reflects the post-2012 name of the same corporation, not a separate acquirer).

• Line of business: Design and manufacture of coaxial cable connectors, CATV drop/entry devices, and broadband connectivity hardware — 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057. The '591 claims (§¶¶ on passive MoCA entry adapters, eMTA ports, diplexer-based MoCA isolation) describe manufactured hardware, and PPC's continuing "MOCA ENTRY DEVICE" family (e.g., US 2021/0352246) shows the product line remained live.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — PPC/JMA shipped coaxial connectors and MoCA/entry-adapter hardware; the patent's own FIG. 2 hardware (housing 44, mounting flange 46, entry port 50, eMTA port 52) is a physical product, and PPC's litigation record describes it as "a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of coaxial cable connectors."
• Status: Operating, acquired. Renamed to PPC Broadband, Inc. (Delaware) in December 2012 and acquired by Belden Inc. on 2012-12-10 (Belden Form 8-K; Rule 7.1 corporate-parent disclosure filed in D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305 identifies Belden Inc. as corporate parent).

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center / Google Patents legal events for this patent show three recorded events, all recorded on 2019-12-20 (the inventor assignment shows a recording/update date of 2019-12-23 on the PlaInsite mirror), plus the underlying state-law name changes that occurred in 2012.

• Execution date not shown on the face of the record / recorded 2019-12-23 — Reel 51347/0037

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Wells, Chad T.; Egan, John M., Jr.
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Correspondent: MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP, 1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 310, Tysons Corner, VA 22182. Flag: this is PPC Broadband's regular patent-prosecution firm (≈556 PPC Broadband filings per PatentBots) and the same firm appears as correspondent on the company's other records — it is operating-company counsel, not an NPE recording mill.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-company assignment, recorded roughly a decade after the 2009 filing — a late/confirmatory title-cleanup recording, not an acquisition.

• Execution date not shown / recorded 2019-12-20 — Reel/frame not verifiable from the sources available to me (Google Patents legal events lists the event without a reel/frame)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: MR Advisers Limited
  • Correspondent: not shown in the legal-events feed; company prosecution counsel of record for this portfolio is MH2 Technology Law Group LLP.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization / change of name only — the intermediate step in the 2012 renaming that preceded the Belden transaction.

• Execution date not shown / recorded 2019-12-20 — Reel/frame not verifiable from the sources available to me

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MR Advisers Limited
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not shown in the legal-events feed (same MH2 Technology Law Group LLP portfolio relationship).
  • Context: Change of name only — completion of the renaming; PPC Broadband, Inc. was acquired by Belden Inc. on 2012-12-10 and has owned the patent continuously since.

No records found for: any assignment of US 9,860,591 to a licensing entity, any security agreement/lien, any merger conveyance, any license, release, or correction. I found no evidence of an NPE in the chain.

⚠️ Verification caveat: I was able to confirm the existence and content of the three recorded events, and the reel/ frame 51347/0037 for the inventor assignment, but I could not retrieve the reel/frame numbers or exact execution dates for the two change-of-name records from the sources available in this session. Confirm at the Assignment Center by searching patent number 9860591: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9860591
    2009 : Filed by John Mezzalingua Associates
    2012 : Renamed to Mr Advisers Limited
         : Renamed to PPC Broadband Inc
         : Belden Inc acquires PPC Broadband
    2018 : US 9860591 issues
    2019 : Inventors assign to John Mezzalingua
         : Change of name records recorded
    2020 : Sues Amphenol and Times Fiber
    2021 : Sues CommScope on 9860591

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
The patent never left the operating company. The only inter-entity links are two Change of Name records (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc., recorded 2019-12-20), which are renaming entries, not transfers of ownership to a new licensing party. No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears.
Naming-only caution applied: "MR Advisers Limited" looks shell-like on its face, but the state corporate record and Belden's 8-K tie it to the same East Syracuse operating business during the 2012 restructuring — the 8-K of 2012-12-10 states Belden acquired "PPC Broadband, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and SKT International Holdings B.V." I therefore decline to call it a shell on the name alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. The recorded assignees are John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., MR Advisers Limited, and PPC Broadband, Inc. (Belden Inc. parent).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present as an NPE signal.
The only correspondent appearing in the record I could retrieve is MH2 Technology Law Group, LLP on Reel 51347/0037. That firm recurs across this portfolio because it is PPC's ordinary prosecution counsel; recurrence here is not evidence of a lawyer running anonymous LLCs. No attorney on this chain surfaced on Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress NPE correspondent lists.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
The three 2019 records were logged on a single day (2019-12-20 / -23) and consist of one inventor assignment plus two name changes. That is a one-batch title cleanup, not chained LLC-to-LLC transfers; no shared-laundry transfer sequence through distinct assignees exists.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present on the 6-month test; the timing is still notable.
The 2019-12-20/-23 recordings precede the first suit naming this patent, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc., D. Del. 1:20-cv-01148, filed 2020-08-28 (case terminated 2020-12-16) by ~8 months, and precede PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305, filed 2021-02-26 (which expressly names 9,860,591 among the asserted patents in its Report to the Commissioner, Docket #3, alongside 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; 9,516,376) by ~14 months. Both fall outside the 6-month window, so I do not mark this signal present — but the sequencing (clean up the paper title, then assert) is consistent with ordinary standing hygiene rather than venue engineering, since PPC sues in its home forum of Delaware as a Delaware corporation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
No Chapter 7/11 proceedings, no trustee sale, no 363 sale of this patent. The 2012 transaction was a healthy strategic sale to Belden, not a distressed asset sale.

7. Privateering — not present.
PPC (with parent Belden) litigates its own patents in its own name; there is no operating-company-to-NPE transfer with assertion "on behalf of" PPC. Its enforcement is classic operating-company competitor litigation: PPC/JMA v. Corning Gilbert / Corning Optical RF (N.D.N.Y. 5:11-cv-00761, 5:13-cv-1310; ~$61M willfulness judgment affirmed by the Federal Circuit), v. PCT International, v. Times Fiber, v. Amphenol, v. Charles Industries (1:22-cv-01517), v. CommScope.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. PPC Broadband is a practicing manufacturer that asserts the patent offensively.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

PPC Broadband, Inc. — a Delaware corporation at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Belden Inc. (Belden 8-K, 2012-12-10; Rule 7.1 disclosure in D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305) — is the sole owner of record, having acquired title through the original inventor assignment (Reel 51347/0037, recorded 2019-12-23) followed by two Change of Name records (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc., recorded 2019-12-20). It is a manufacturer of coaxial connector and MoCA entry-device hardware that sues actual competitors, and it asserted this very patent against CommScope in D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305 (filed 2021-02-26, per the Docket #3 Report to the Commissioner listing 9,860,591) and against Amphenol/Times Fiber in 1:20-cv-01148 (filed 2020-08-28). None of the eight NPE signals is present, so the chain reads as an internal rename plus a late title cleanup around an operating company's litigation campaign — not a troll structure.

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,860,591; the two change-of-name reel/frame numbers should be confirmed there).

Methodology note: I did not fabricate any reel/frame or execution date. Where a source (Google Patents legal events, PlaInsite) omitted the reel/frame or the execution date, I have said so rather than inferring it.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited prior art references.

Let me find the specific "References Cited" section on the patent's face.

Let me try retrieving the patent's citation listings from FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents directly.

I found the "Referenced Cited" list on Justia. Let me retrieve the full list.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent, since I need to ground the obviousness analysis in actual references.

Let me search for the specific prior art references cited during prosecution of this patent family, and any IPR/invalidity challenges.

Let me search for the specific prior-art references cited on the patent's face and for any invalidity/IPR art directed at this family.

§103 Obviousness Analysis — US 9,860,591 B2

Critical sourcing caveat (read first)

The task directs me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." I could not retrieve that section. The patent text provided in this session contains only Google Patents' "Prior art keywords" field (signals, catv, network, ports, entry) and the prior-art date (2009‑09‑21) — but not the enumerated cited references (the "Citations"/"Cited By" listings). My supplementary searches surfaced several reference lists embedded in the PDFs of related PPC patents (chiefly US 10,149,004; US 10,341,719; US 10,154,302; US 10,582,160 and US 8,510,782), which is what I rely on below. My search tool budget was exhausted before I could pull the '591 page's own citation list or the full text of the third‑party references.

Consequently:

• What I verified: the existence, numbers, titles, inventors/assignees and (in some cases) substantive disclosure of the references listed in the table below.
• What I did not verify: the full disclosure of the third‑party references (I have only their bibliographic data), and the '591 page's actual "Prior Art" tab contents.
• Do not treat the specific element‑by‑element mappings below as an invalidity opinion. They are the strongest theories the record I saw supports, and they must be checked against the actual claim text (which the earlier "Patent summary" section itself flagged as reconstructed, not verbatim) and against the references' full disclosures.

I am flagging this rather than filling the gap with fabricated reference content.

1. Legal framework

• Governing statute: Because the '591 patent claims priority to Sept. 21, 2009 (Ser. No. 12/563,719, now US 8,356,322) via an unbroken continuation chain, its claims are presumptively entitled to the pre‑AIA version of §§102/103 (AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file applies only to applications filed on/after March 16, 2013 — the '591's actual filing on Nov. 23, 2016 is post‑AIA, but its effective filing date is 2009, so pre‑AIA law controls if the claims have §112 support in the '322 application). This matters enormously, for the reason in §3 below.
• Graham v. John Deere factors: scope/content of the prior art; differences between the claims and the art; PHOSITA level; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l v. Teleflex: a claim is obvious if the differences are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious; predictable variation, "known technique" and "obvious to try" rationales are available; the motivation may come from design incentives, market forces, or the nature of the problem.
• PHOSITA (proposed): a B.S. in EE (or equivalent) with ~3–5 years of experience designing RF/coaxial signal distribution equipment for CATV/MoCA applications, familiar with F‑connector entry devices, passive splitters, diplexers, band‑reject/PoE filters, and the MoCA (D‑band) 1125–1525/1675 MHz coexistence problem.

2. Claim elements that any §103 ground must meet

Drawing on the earlier summary (which reconstructed the independent claims from the specification's "aspects," not verbatim claim text), the independent apparatus/method claims require, at minimum:

Elements E1–E5 and E10 are the crux; E8 is the most distinctive and the most likely non‑obviousness battleground for PPC.

3. Threshold legal issue that dominates this analysis: §103(c) common ownership

The most detailed, on‑point references I verified are PPC/John Mezzalingua's own earlier applications:

For US 8,286,209 the verified disclosure is squarely on point: a multi‑port CATV entry adapter that acts as a hub for a MoCA network, with a MoCA signal path that bypasses the CATV active paths, a passive port usable in the MoCA network, and — critically — it expressly "prevents or greatly inhibits MoCA signals from exiting the MoCA network at the subscriber premises and entering the CATV network." That single reference discloses E1, E2, E3 (MoCA signals jumping between splitter legs), E5, E10, and arguably E4 in substance.

But that is exactly why it is poor §103 art. Because the Egan/Halik applications were, at the time the '591 invention was made, owned by the same entity (John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc./PPC) as the '322/'591 family, and share inventors (Wells; Egan), any prior‑art status they have would arise only under pre‑AIA §102(e) (published applications/patents). Under pre‑AIA §103(c)(1)–(2), such art cannot be used in an obviousness rejection where the subject matter and the claimed invention were commonly owned (or subject to a common research/development obligation) at the time the invention was made. See also MPEP 706.02(l)(2).

Takeaway: The prior art that describes the claimed architecture in greatest detail (PPC's own Oct. 2008 and Feb. 2010 filings) is likely disqualified as §103(c) art. A challenger must therefore build the case from third‑party references. Halik (US 2010/0146564) is doubly unusable: it was filed Feb. 12, 2010 — after the Sept. 21, 2009 priority date — so it is not §102 prior art at all for the '591 claims, in addition to being commonly owned.

This asymmetry is the single most important practical finding for anyone assessing '591's validity: the best art isn't available, and the available third‑party art is generic.

4. Verified third‑party / general prior‑art candidates

These appear in the "References Cited" lists of the related PPC patents (I have bibliographic data; I do not have their full disclosures, so I do not attribute specific disclosure to them):

The PoE filter is the one category I can characterize with confidence, because the '591 specification and the related PPC specifications both treat it as pre‑existing ("Separate IHE frequency rejection filters have been developed for external connection to CATV entry adapters. However, the use of such devices is subject to unauthorized removal, tampering, forgetfulness in original installation…").

5. Proposed combinations and motivation to combine

Below are the §103 grounds the record supports. Each is stated as primary reference + secondary reference(s) with the KSR motivation.

Ground 1 — Multi‑port passive CATV entry adapter + integrated PoE (band‑reject) filter → claims covering E1–E5, E7, E10

• Primary: a conventional passive multi‑port CATV entry device / splitter that passes both CATV and MoCA signals and permits MoCA port‑to‑port "jumping" (the standard bidirectional ferrite splitter, disclosed throughout the field).
• Secondary: the MoCA point‑of‑entry (PoE) low‑pass/band‑reject filter (or a diplexer pair performing the same high/low split), which was standard MoCA‑installation equipment.
• Where each element is met: the entry device supplies E1–E3 and E5; placing the PoE filter between the entry port and the splitter input supplies E4; a diplexer implementation supplies E7.
• Motivation (KSR):
  1. Known technique / combination of familiar elements: stacking a known band‑reject filter onto a known multi‑port entry device yields the predictable result (MoCA stays in‑home; CATV passes).
  2. The problem itself supplies the motivation: the specification admits external PoE filters suffer from "removal, tampering, forgetfulness in original installation, and physical exposure." Integrating a known filter into the equipment the operator already installs is the classic packaging/ergonomic improvement, exactly the sort of predictable variation KSR permits.
  3. Market forces: CATV operators preferred reducing service calls and field‑installer error — the same rationale the specification advances for eliminating the external filter.

Assessment: Ground 1 is strong against claim 1 and the broad method claim (E10) if a challenger can show the integrated filter‑plus‑splitter entry device was known or obvious. It is weaker against E6 (all‑passive) only if the primary reference were powered — but a passive splitter + passive filter combination satisfies E6 automatically. It does not reach E8.

Ground 2 — Server/client media‑server architecture as the "server network interface" (E8)

• Primary: the Ground‑1 entry adapter/hub.
• Secondary: the well‑established whole‑home DVR / media‑server architecture, in which a central device receives content, stores it, and re‑distributes it over a home network to thin clients. The '591 specification acknowledges this server‑client technology is "typical" and that the invention "takes advantage of typical server‑client technology."
• Motivation: adding a storage/re‑distribution node to a MoCA hub addresses a recognized, long‑standing goal — letting each client device access content (including content recorded from CATV) without duplicating tuners or re‑splitting the RF signal.
• Where it is weak: the claim recites the server interface as part of the entry‑adapter architecture and links storage to downstream CATV signals; a challenger must show the secondary art teaches or suggests locating the storage node at the entry/hub. That is precisely where PPC would argue the art teaches away (a whole‑home DVR server is conventionally a set‑top box at a client location, not at the CATV entry point).

Ground 3 — Diplexer‑based separation, second alternative for E4/E7

• Primary: a passive multi‑port entry device.
• Secondary: any CATV‑industry diplexer application, which separates a common port into high‑pass and low‑pass terminals (a routine, ubiquitous CATV component; the '591 specification calls diplexers "conventional").
• Motivation: substituting a diplexer for a simple band‑reject filter to simultaneously separate the CATV and MoCA bands is an interchangeability of known equivalents rationale; the result (MoCA blocked from the entry port) is identical and predictable.
• Assessment: supports E7 broadly; still does not reach E8.

Ground 4 — eMTA dedicated‑port limitation (E9)

• Primary: Ground‑1 entry adapter.
• Secondary: the well‑known passive port / passive path practice for "lifeline" telephony — i.e., reserving one output (or a dedicated split) so an embedded multimedia terminal adapter receives an unamplified, minimally‑split downstream signal so telephone service survives a power loss.
• Motivation: recognized regulatory/market requirement that lifeline service not depend on powered components; a two‑ or three‑way split with one leg to the eMTA port is the minimal, predictable design step.
• Assessment: E9 is likely the weakest limitation to defend, since the whole point is preservation of signal strength to the eMTA device — a known objective documented in the field.

6. Why PPC would argue non‑obviousness (and what a challenger must rebut)

1. The §103(c) asymmetry cuts both ways. If the only detailed art is PPC's own common‑owned Egan/Halik work, then the sophisticated architecture is effectively unavailable as art, and the third‑party art (pre‑2009 PoE filters, generic entry devices) does not disclose a passive, amplifier‑free multi‑port adapter that (a) functions as a MoCA hub, (b) blocks MoCA at the entry port, and (c) feeds the unsplit/low‑split downstream CATV signal to a storage‑capable server interface that re‑distributes to clients.
2. Teaching away / contradictory art. The related PPC specifications repeatedly assert that passive entry adapters severe‑attenuate MoCA (reverse transfer through amplifiers, splitter isolation), and that a passive port could not be successfully used in a MoCA network — the very practice the '591 claims. A challenger must contend with that art as evidence the field believed the passive‑hub approach would not work, a classic teaching‑away argument. (Note: this art is largely PPC's own, which may blunt its impact.)
3. Elimination of an amplifier is not a trivial subtraction where the field's stated design rule was that "there has been little previous choice but to use amplifiers in conjunction with splitters" to hit downstream signal‑strength targets (the '591's own Background). That admission in the patent cuts against obviousness by framing amplification as the expected solution — but a challenger can flip it: the recognized problem of amplifier reliability (power loss → service calls) supplies an explicit motivation to design a passive replacement.
4. Secondary considerations. The earlier litigation section confirms '591 was asserted by PPC (D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑00305, PPC Broadband v. CommScope). Expect commercial‑success and industry‑adoption evidence (operator deployment of passive MoCA entry devices), possibly long‑felt need and copying (cf. the PPC v. Corning connector cases, where the Board credited copying evidence but found it outweighed). None of that is verified for '591 here.

7. Bottom line

• Most probable viable ground: Ground 1 (a passive multi‑port CATV entry device/splitter combined with a MoCA band‑reject "PoE" filter at the entry) against the broad apparatus and method claims (E1–E5, E7, E10). Motivation is strong under KSR (predictable combination; integration removes the documented tampering/omission failure mode; operator cost incentives).
• Hardest limitation to invalidate: the "server network interface" storage/re‑distribution element (E8). The evidence I saw does not connect a storage‑capable server at the entry adapter to the prior art, and PPC's specification expressly attributes that server‑client feature to "typical" technology — an admission a challenger can exploit, but which also means the placement at the hub is the point of novelty PPC will defend.
• Fatal obstacle for the best art: the detailed, on‑point references are PPC's own (Egan US 8,286,209 / US 2010/0100918; Halik US 8,429,695 / US 2010/0146564) and, under pre‑AIA §103(c), are likely disqualified as obviousness art by common ownership and (for Halik) also by post‑priority filing date. Any serious challenge must be built from third‑party art that I could not fully retrieve.
• Confidence: My element‑mapping is medium for E1–E7/E9/E10 and low for E8, because (i) I lack the '591 page's actual Prior Art section, (ii) I lack the claim text verbatim, and (iii) I do not have the third‑party references' full disclosures.

Recommended next steps to firm this up: (1) pull US 9,860,591's full "References Cited"/"Cited By" lists from the Google Patents "Prior Art" tab or the file wrapper; (2) retrieve the full text of US 2005/0034168, US 2005/0047051, US 2005/0144649, US 2005/0183130, US 2009/0153263 and US 2009/0165070 and map them element‑by‑element; (3) confirm the '591's effective filing date and identify any post‑2013 new matter that would forfeit the 2009 priority date (which would switch the analysis to AIA §102 and make PPC's own family art available); and (4) check the D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑00305 docket for PPC's infringement contentions and any invalidity contentions from CommScope, which would identify the art the parties themselves consider material.