Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC
610 F. App'x 997
Fed. Cir.2015Background
- Belden owned U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,977,575 (’575) and 7,663,061 (’061) claiming unshielded data cables with an interior non-conductive support having prongs that define channels/grooves holding twisted pairs; some claims require the support and pairs to be "twisted together."
- Berk-Tek petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of both patents as anticipated under §102 or obvious under §103; the PTAB instituted review and consolidated hearings.
- The Board construed two disputed terms: "channels" as an open space/groove defined by the interior support and "twisted together" as the components being twisted about a common axis (not limited to a particular manufacturing method).
- Applying those constructions, the Board found most challenged claims of the ’575 and all challenged claims of the ’061 unpatentable: anticipation by Tessier and JP ’470 and obviousness over combinations including Tessier with Meer or JP ’307.
- Belden appealed, arguing primarily that the Board mis-construed "channels" (should be substantially enclosed by jacket and support) and "twisted together" (should require twisting the support together with pairs), and challenged certain obviousness combinations.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed: it held the Board’s claim constructions were correct, that the Board properly discounted Belden’s expert testimony as conclusory, and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Issues
| Issue | Belden's Argument | Berk-Tek's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of "channels" | "Channels" are substantially enclosed spaces formed by support plus jacket | Ordinary meaning is groove/open space defined by interior support; specification and parent patent support that view | Affirmed: "channels" = open space/groove defined by interior support |
| Construction of "twisted together" | Requires a specific manufacturing method (twisting support together with pairs) producing a distinct structure | Claims are product claims; "twisted together" describes resulting twisted structure, not a method | Affirmed: term covers structures twisted about a common axis regardless of method |
| Anticipation/obviousness based on Tessier (and JP ’470) | Tessier does not disclose prongs extending sufficiently or the claimed twisted-together structure | Tessier discloses recesses/projections extending helically and pairs within recesses; supports anticipation/obviousness | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports Board’s findings that Tessier (and JP ’470) anticipate/teach limitations |
| Obviousness of claim 6 (diameter) and claim 21 (S-Z cabled) of ’061 | No reason to combine Tessier with Meer (claim 6); Tessier’s core precludes S-Z stranding (claim 21) | Petition raised the combinations; Meer teaches reduced diameters; JP ’307 discloses S-Z stranding; Tessier not limited to preformed helix | Affirmed: combination of references obvious for claims 6 and 21; Board’s reliance on petitioned combinations appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for legal conclusions and factual findings)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir.) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (anticipation reviewed for substantial evidence)
- In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (obviousness as legal question based on underlying facts)
- Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053 (Fed. Cir.) (obviousness mix of law and fact)
- In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir.) (broadest reasonable interpretation in IPR reviewed consistent with Teva)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction principles; use of dictionaries and intrinsic evidence)
- NTP Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir.) (consistent claim construction across related patents)
- Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 147 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (tribunal need not accept unchallenged expert testimony)
- 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) (product claim not converted to product-by-process by reciting process-like characteristic)