The litigation centers on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,991,030 and 10,832,833, which cover electromagnetic interference (EMI) controlling tape used in unshielded twisted pair cables.
Belden alleges that CommScope infringed four patents, including the two at issue in this opinion. The court noted that Belden was asserting only ten of the seventy total claims across the two patents during the hearing.
The court adopted several agreed-upon constructions for terms including "filler means," "twisted pair of insulated conductors," and the conductive material extending to lateral edges.
For six disputed terms, Judge Andrews sided with CommScope on the meaning of "continuous conductive material," ruling that it refers to a lack of gaps rather than end-to-end length along the cable.
The court also adopted CommScope’s proposed construction for a term regarding the barrier tape seam, limiting it to fixed tape control application methods rather than oscillating tape control.
On the issue of indefiniteness, Judge Andrews rejected CommScope’s argument that "non-conductively shielding" was logically contradictory. The court held the term is comprehensible as shielding accomplished by non-conductive components, even if conductive materials are present.
The court declined to find the term "reduce" indefinite, noting it carries a plain English meaning of lowering interference compared to a situation where the configuration is absent.
The court also ruled that the term "layer" in the ’833 patent is not indefinite, finding no ambiguity in its ordinary meaning despite prosecution history arguments.
The parties have five days to submit a proposed order consistent with the memorandum opinion.