IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: ITC properly found FS.com infringed Corning Optical fiber optic patents, (Apr 21, 2023)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The Commission correctly construed the claim language of “an opening” located in the front side of a fiber optic module to encompass one or more openings rather than a single opening.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the International Trade Commission finding that FS.com Inc., infringed patents owned by Corning Optical Communications LLC by importing high-density fiber optic equipment. The Federal Circuit found the Commission’s finding of enablement is supported by substantial evidence based on the written description and expert testimony that a skilled artisan would understand the maximum fiber optic connection density were technologically feasible. The panel also found the Commission properly construed the claim language of “an opening” located in the front side of a fiber optic module to encompass one or more openings rather than a single opening (FS.Com Inc. v. International Trade Commission, April 20, 2023, Moore, K.).

Corning Optical Communications LLC (Corning) filed a complaint in 2020 with the Commission alleging FS imported high-density fiber optic equipment that infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,320; 10,444,456; 10,120,153; and 8,712,206, in violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 337. Those patents generally relate to fiber optic technology commonly used in data centers. The ’320, ’456, and ’153 patents disclose fiber optic apparatuses including a chassis that houses fiber optic equipment (e.g., modules, trays, and adapters) to support fiber optic connections. The accused products are chassis with sliding trays that fit within the standardized racks used in data centers, removable modules that are inserted into the sliding trays of the chassis and terminate large numbers of fiber-optic cables using standardized connectors, and combinations thereof.

The Commission affirmed the determination of the administrative law judge that FS violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 and issued a general exclusion order prohibiting the importation of infringing high-density fiber optic equipment and components thereof and a cease-and-desist order directed to FS. FS appealed the Commission’s determination that the claims of the ’320 and ’456 patents are enabled and its claim construction of “a front opening” in the ’206 patent.

Enablement. The Federal Circuit first concluded the Commission’s decision on enablement is supported by substantial evidence. To enable, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The panel concluded the Commission properly construed the claim limitations to cover only connection densities up to about 144 connections per U space and to exclude higher densities. The Commission’s finding is supported by substantial evidence. The shared written description of the ’320 and ’456 patents and the expert testimony credited by the Commission show that a skilled artisan would understand the understand the maximum fiber optic connection density were technologically feasible in 2008, which is the shared priority date for the patents. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the enablement.

Claim construction. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s claim construction of “a front opening” in the ’206 patent. The Commission construed “a front opening” in claim 14 of the ’206 patent as “an opening located in the front side of a fiber optic module, e.g., the opening depicted in Figure 13 of the ’206 patent as having dimensions H1 and W1.” The Commission concluded this term encompasses one or more openings. Generally, the terms “a” or “an” in a patent claim mean “one or more,” unless the patentee evinces a clear intent to limit “a” or “an” to “one.” The Federal Circuit rejected FS’s argument that the proper construction of “a front opening” is limited to a single front opening and therefore its modules, which contain multiple openings separated by material or dividers. The claim language and written description do not demonstrate a clear intent to depart from the general rule of interpreting “an” as “one or more.” The panel found no reason to depart from the general rule that a “front opening” encompasses one or more openings.

The Case is No. 22-1228.

Attorneys: Darlene Ghavimi (K&L Gates LLP) for FS.com Inc. Cathy Chen for the ITC.

Companies: FS.com Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews GCNNews