PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC
815 F.3d 734
Fed. Cir.2016Background
- PPC Broadband appeals four Board IPR final decisions on claims across the ’320, ’060, and ’353 patents as obvious over Matthews and Tatsuzuki.
- The Board construed “continuity member”/“electrical continuity member” to require only contact with the nut/coupler and the post, not necessarily continuous contact.
- The Board also construed “shaped to fit”/“configured to fit” to cover surfaces that are sized and dimensioned to abut, including perpendicular interfaces.
- Cuozzo and Phillips govern claim construction in IPRs, with Cuozzo applying broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and Phillips guiding proper construction.
- The court vacates some Board findings (claims 8, 16, 31 of the ’320; 1–9 of the ’060; 7–27 of the ’353) while affirming others (claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, 32 of the ’320) and remands for further proceedings.
- The decision discusses objective indicia (long-felt need, copying, commercial success) and remands commercial success determinations for proper claim construction
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper construction of “continuity member” for IPRs? | PPC Broadband argues for temporal/continuous contact. | Corning advocates broadest reasonable interpretation with no temporal requirement. | Board's construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation. |
| Must the continuity member maintain continuity during operation, per certain claims? | Maintaining continuity is required in specific positions/modes. | No extra temporal limitation for all claims. | Board erred in not fully addressing temporal-continuity limitations for some claims; vacated as to those claims. |
| Are “shaped to fit”/“configured to fit” limited to parallel complementary surfaces? | Surfaces must be somewhat parallel to fit. | Normal meaning is surfaces have complementary size/shape, not necessarily parallel. | Ordinary meaning applied; Board’s interpretation upheld; claims deemed unpatentable accordingly. |
| Do objective indicia support the Board’s obviousness finding? | SignalTight products support non-obviousness. | Board properly weighed long-felt need, attempts, copying, and commercial success. | Substantial evidence supports most indicia; remand on commercial success for proper claim construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (BRI standard for IPR claim construction; Cuozzo decision treated as binding here)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Claim construction framework; emphasis on intrinsic evidence)
- In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Reexamines claim construction standards in certain proceedings)
- In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Standard of review for factual findings in obviousness determinations)
- J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Commercial success evidentiary considerations in patent validity)