Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

PPC BROADBAND, INC. PLAINTIFF 

v. Case No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR 

PERFECTVISION MANUFACTURING, INC. DEFENDANT 

ORDER

 This is a patent-infringement case. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. (“PPC”) is the owner of 

the “Bence Patents,” which are a set of five Patents pertaining to the design of a coaxial cable 

connector. Defendant PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. (“PVM”) is allegedly infringing on those 

Patents. We are at the claim-construction stage. The parties dispute the meaning of certain words 

and phrases found in the claims of the Patents. So the Court is tasked with resolving those disputes 

in this Order by “construing” the Patents. The Court also addresses PVM’s arguments that several 

of the disputed terms are indefinite and therefore any claims containing those terms are invalid. 

BACKGROUND 

The Bence Patents are a single, continuous family of five patents: U.S. Patent No. 

7,114,990 (“the ’990 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,479,035 (“the ’035 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 

7,955,126 (“the ’126 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,172,612 (“the ’612 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 

10,756,455 (“the ’455 Patent”). While the claims across these five Patents are slightly different, 

the same embodiments and figures are used in each Patent.1

 This Background Section provides 

an overview of the main aspects of the Bence Patents. A more detailed account of specific 

1

 For the sake of conciseness, and because the embodiments and figures are the same across each of the five Patents, 

the Court will cite to the ’990 Patent whenever it cites to the embodiments and figures in this Order. Nonetheless, 

when the Court discusses the construction of a disputed term in a specific claim, the Court will refer to the specific 

claim and the specific patent at issue. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 80
2 

embodiments and claims will be provided later in this Order—as and when they become relevant 

to the construction of a particular disputed term in a particular claim or claims. 

I. Overview of the Technology Involved in the Bence Patents 

A coaxial cable is a type of cable that provides a path for the transmission of electrical 

signals.2 It is composed of a center conductor, dielectric material, and an outer conductor.3 The 

center conductor transmits the electrical signal. The dielectric material surrounds the center 

conductor and acts as an insulator. And the outer conductor is maintained at ground potential and 

surrounds both the center conductor and the dielectric material.4 All of these parts of the cable are 

encased in a plastic cable jacket for protection.5 

One of the most common uses of coaxial cable is the provision of cable television services 

via the cable’s connection to a port on the back end of a cable box.6

 In order to connect the cable 

to the port, the end of the cable must first be affixed to the back end of a coaxial cable connector. 

It is this coaxial cable connector that is the subject of the Bence Patents. 

To connect the cable to the connector, the end portion of the cable jacket is stripped off to 

bare the end portion of the outer conductor.7 The cable then slides into the back end of the outer 

body of the connector.8 The outer body of the connector has a tubular post inside of it which 

2

 U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990, col. 1 ll. 16–17 (filed Jan. 25, 2005) [hereinafter ’990 Patent]. 

3

 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 16–26; Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 3–4 (hereinafter using the page numbers at 

the bottom of the page that correspond to the parties’ briefing pagination). 

4

 The Court understands “ground potential” to mean forming a ground path that “shield[s] the signal transmitted by 

the center conductor from stray noise . . . .” ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 20–22. Essentially, the ground potential of the outer 

conductor acts as a barrier that prevents external electrical interference. 

5

 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 16–26; Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 3–4. 

6 See ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 11–14; Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 4. 

7

 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 26–36. 

8

 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 33–46. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 80
3 

receives the prepared end of the cable between the dielectric material and the outer conductor.9 

With the cable successfully inserted inside of it, the connector is then attached to the port. That 

attachment is done by threading a rotatable coupling nut10 on the front end of the connector onto 

the appliance port.11

If you had to read the last paragraph more than once, do not fear. The Court is sure that 

you are not alone. For that reason, and because a picture is worth a thousand words, the Court will 

(in this Background Section) rely heavily on general depictions of the technology. For example, 

it is helpful to look at Figure 3 from the Bence Patents.12

The coaxial cable (301) is shown prior to insertion into the back end of the connector (103). 

305 is the cable jacket. 304 is the outer conductor. 303 is the dielectric material. And 302 is the 

center conductor. The tubular post (which should be labeled “104” but is mistakenly labeled “102” 

9 Id. 

10 The “coupling nut” is also referred to as just the “nut” or the “coupler” throughout the record and this Order. The 

parties and the Court use these terms interchangeably to refer to the same part of the connector. 

11 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 43–59. 

12 ’990 Patent, fig. 3. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 80
4 

and appears on the bottom right-hand side of Figure 313) is contained inside the outer body (108) 

of the connector and is ready to receive the stripped end of the cable between the dielectric material 

(303) and the outer conductor (304). The coupling nut (105) is at the front of the connector and is 

ready to be threaded onto a port on the back end of a cable box. 

The cable-box port has its own outer conductor. If the coupling nut of the coaxial cable 

connector (105) is fully and properly tightened onto the cable-box port, the head of the tubular 

post in the connector (104) makes direct contact with the outer conductor of the cable-box port.14 

Because the other end of the tubular post is connected to the outer conductor of the coaxial cable 

upon the cable’s insertion into the connector, the tubular post acts as an electrical bridge between 

the outer conductor of the coaxial cable and the outer conductor of the cable-box port. Thus, an 

electrical connection between the outer conductor of the coaxial cable and the outer conductor of 

the cable-box port is formed.15

This outer-conductor connection is important because the outer conductor (when electrons 

are properly flowing) shields the center conductor from electrical interference from other cables 

that would weaken the signal quality of the center conductor.16 Similarly, the outer conductor 

(when electrons are properly flowing) also prevents signal leakage from the center conductor, 

which could otherwise interfere with other cables.17 In short, the electrical bridge that is formed 

between the outer conductor of the coaxial cable and the outer conductor of the cable-box port acts 

13 Figure 3 contains two “102” labels. Clearly, this is a scrivener’s error. The 102 label on the right-hand side of 

Figure 3 correctly identifies the front end of the connector. The 102 on the bottom right-hand side of Figure 3 is 

actually the tubular post and should be understood as a reference to “104.” This is clear from the ’990 Patent’s 

Description of the Preferred Embodiment, which consistently labels “102” as the “front end” of the connector, and 

“104” as the “tubular post.” See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 5 ll. 43–46; col 6 ll. 1–65; col. 7 ll. 2–23. 

14 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 43–59. 

15 Id. 

16 See June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 7–10. 

17 See id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 4 of 80
5 

as a two-way shield preventing signal interference. That’s one reason the coaxial cable connector 

is such an important product. 

A common problem with these connectors, however, is that in many cases the coupling nut 

is not fully tightened onto the cable-box port.18 This may be for a variety of reasons. Sometimes 

the installer is unable to fully tighten the coupling nut because the port is in a place that is difficult 

to reach. And even when the connector is properly installed, it can loosen over time. Regardless 

of the reason, when the coupling nut is not fully drawn onto the port, a gap exists between the head 

of the tubular post (104) and the outer conductor of the cable-box port.19 Without an alternate 

ground path, this gap causes a break in the electrical bridge between the outer conductor of the 

cable and the outer conductor of the cable-box port. In turn, this allows external electrical signals 

to interfere with the center conductor, which ultimately causes poor signal quality.20 And when 

customers experience poor signal quality, they often require their service provider to send a 

technician to diagnose and fix the problem. These technician visits turn out to be a significant 

drain on profitability for the service provider.21

The Bence Patents present a solution to this issue. Indeed, the main object of the invention 

is to create a connector “which ensures a reliable ground connection between the tubular post of 

the connector and an outer conductor of the appliance port, even if the coupler is not fully tightened 

onto the appliance port.”22 (The Patents refer to the cable-box port as an “appliance port.” The 

Court will use the term “cable-box port” and the term “appliance port” interchangeably.) To 

18 ’990 Patent, col. 1 l. 60–col. 2 l. 3. 

19 Id. 

20 Id. 

21 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 6. 

22 ’990 Patent, col. 2 ll. 46–49. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 5 of 80
6 

accomplish its objective, the preferred embodiment states that “a resilient, electrically-conductive 

grounding member [is] disposed between the tubular post and the coupling nut”23 on the coaxial 

cable connector. According to the Patents, the grounding member engages “both the tubular post 

and the coupling nut [to] provid[e] an electrically-conductive path therebetween, but without 

restricting rotation of the coupling nut relative to the tubular post.”24 The idea appears to be that, 

with such a design, even if the tubular post loses contact with the outer conductor of the cable-box 

port, the ground path can still flow from the tubular post through the grounding member, and then 

through the coupling nut to the cable-box port.25 And, according to the Patents, because the 

grounding member is resilient, it can bend and flex such that it always maintains contact between 

the post and the coupling nut without restricting the rotation of the coupling nut. 

The following two images from the specification purport to show how the grounding 

member fits in the connector.26 The tubular post is blue. The coupling nut is green. The center 

conductor of the coaxial cable is orange. The grounding member is red in Figures 11D and 11A, 

but is too small to be shown as a color in Figures 5 and 5A. In those figures, it is denoted by the 

number 110. The top image shows the connector already fully rotated onto the cable-box port. 

That means the white space above and below the center conductor (orange) and in between the 

coupling nut (green) is the cable-box port. 

23 ’990 Patent, col. 5 l. 67–col. 6 l. 2. 

24 ’990 Patent, col. 6 ll. 8–11. 

25 ’990 Patent, col. 5 l. 62–col. 6 l. 2. The Court notes that the coupling nut itself is made of conductive material. See 

June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 11. 

26 ’990 Patent, fig. 5, fig. 5A, fig. 11A, fig. 11D. Throughout this Order, the Court includes figures from the Patents 

with portions highlighted in different colors for clarity. Although the figures in the Patents are black and white, the 

Court finds that the highlights aid its discussion. The Court notes that beyond the addition of highlights, there are no 

other substantive differences between the highlighted figures and the black-and-white figures. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 6 of 80
7 

In Figure 5, the grounding member (110) is disposed between the coupling nut (green) and 

the tubular post (blue) and always maintains contact with both. Figure 11D is one example of the 

design of the grounding members in the Bence Patents. Figure 11A shows a zoomed-in picture of 

that grounding member (red) contacting the tubular post (blue) and the coupling nut (green). The 

grounding member (red) has projections (1117) that extend out and contact the coupling nut 

(green) while also maintaining contact with the tubular post (blue). 

The grounding member (red) is described in different ways across the preferred 

embodiment and six alternate embodiments in the Bence Patents. For example, with respect to its 

shape, the grounding member is variously described as “generally arcuately shaped,” “generally 

circular,” “in the form of a generally circular broken ring, or C-shaped member,” “preferably 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 7 of 80
8 

oblong,” “a circumferential metallic band,” approximating the shape of a “hollow cylinder,” and 

having “an arc of at least 225°, and may[be] extend[ing] for a full 360°.”27 As to its composition, 

the grounding member is made preferably of metallic material (although in one embodiment it is 

made of conductive grease) with a diameter between 0.010-inch and 0.020-inch.28 There are also 

variations regarding how the grounding member maintains contact between the post and the 

coupling nut. For example: In one embodiment the grounding member has a “plurality of 

projections” either extending outwardly or inwardly;29 in another embodiment, the grounding 

member has a “plurality of fingers” that project at an angle from the ring;30 and in yet another 

embodiment, the grounding member has multiple “external lugs” and “internal lugs.”31 

II. History of the Bence Patents 

On or about April 27, 2021, PPC became the owner of the Bence Patents by assignment 

from Corning Optical Communications RF LLC (“Corning”).32 But this was not PPC’s first 

involvement with either Corning or the Bence Patents. Let’s rewind the tape nearly a decade. 

On October 15, 2012, Corning filed a complaint against PPC for patent infringement in the 

United States District Court for the District of Arizona.33 Corning alleged that PPC’s connectors 

infringed two of the Bence Patents—the ’990 Patent and the ’612 Patent.34 That litigation ended 

on January 10, 2017, pursuant to a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal.35 But certain events in that 

27 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 22–29, col. 9 ll. 22–24. 

28 ’990 Patent, col. 6 ll. 31–36, col. 9 ll. 52–54. 

29 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 46–52. 

30 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 33–34. 

31 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 51–59. 

32 Def.’s Counterclaim ¶ 19; Pl.’s Answer to Counterclaim ¶ 19. 

33 Def.’s Counterclaim ¶ 20; Pl.’s Answer to Counterclaim ¶ 20. 

34 Def.’s Counterclaim ¶ 22; Pl.’s Answer to Counterclaim ¶ 22. 

35 Order (Doc. 124), Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02208-SMM. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 8 of 80
9 

litigation may well be important to the instant case. Specifically, in that litigation, the District 

Court held a claim construction hearing and issued a claim construction order. As will be discussed 

in more detail below, the positions PPC took as to the constructions of certain terms and the 

decision made by the District Judge in Arizona construing those terms may bind PPC in the 

instant case. 

In any event, on February 18, 2022, as the now-owner of the Bence Patents, PPC sued 

PVM for patent infringement.36 PPC alleges that PVM’s connectors infringe claims in all five of 

the Bence Patents.37 

DISCUSSION

Whether PVM is liable for patent infringement is a question of fact.38 That means a jury 

is responsible for deciding whether PVM’s creation and sale of certain coaxial cable connectors is 

unlawful because those connectors fall within the scope of the Bence Patents. But to know whether 

the connectors are covered by a patent claim, a jury must first know what the words of that patent 

claim mean. And the parties to a patent-infringement suit rarely agree on the meaning of a patent 

claim. The Supreme Court, in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., held that judges, not juries, 

are responsible for resolving disputes as to the meaning of a patent claim.39 A judge resolves such 

disputes through claim construction. The judge’s constructions are the foundation for the jury 

instructions that will be used to determine whether, as a matter of fact, infringement has occurred.40

36 Compl. (Doc. 1). 

37 See id. at ¶ 1. 

38 i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 849 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

39 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). 

40 Kaufman v. Microsoft Corp., 34 F.4th 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“A proper claim construction provides a legal 

standard for the jury to apply . . . .”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 9 of 80
10 

 The Court’s job at the claim-construction stage is to discern the “ordinary meaning” of the 

disputed patent claims.41 “Ordinary meaning” is a phrase that frequently appears in caselaw. It is 

most often invoked by courts when interpreting a statute.42 In that context, a term’s “ordinary 

meaning” is the meaning that a regular member of the public would have given it when the statute 

was adopted. The claim-construction analysis is similar, but with a twist. Here, “the ordinary and 

customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary 

skill in the art in question at the time of the invention . . . .”43

 Claim construction of course begins with the words of the claim. But the claims cannot be 

read in isolation. The claims “are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting 

principally of a specification that concludes with the claims.”44 Accordingly, “the person of 

ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term . . . in the context of the entire patent, 

including the specification.”45 Indeed, the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of 

a disputed term.”46 That’s because the specification, through the embodiments and experiments, 

provides the strongest evidence of how the patentee viewed the invention.47 

 It is also important to confirm the way in which a patent was understood by the patentee 

and PTO, which in turn sheds light on how the patent would be read by a person of ordinary skill 

41 Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 33 F.4th 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

42 See, e.g., Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1480 (2021) (“When called on to resolve a dispute over a statute’s 

meaning, this Court normally seeks to afford the law’s terms their ordinary meaning at the time Congress adopted 

them.”). 

43 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Teva Pharms. USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 

318, 330 (2015) (“Statutes, in general, address themselves to the general public; patent claims concern a small portion 

of that public.”). 

44 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

45 Id. at 1313. 

46 Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

47 See supra notes 16–20 and accompanying text. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 10 of 80
11 

in the art.48 In this sense, courts resort to prosecution history to double-check their constructions.49 

Prosecution history can also reveal that a claim’s scope is “narrower than it would otherwise be.”50 

This narrowing is the result of a “prosecution history disclaimer.”51 A disclaimer occurs “when 

the patentee unequivocally and unambiguously disavows a certain meaning to obtain a 

patent . . . .”52 There’s a high bar to establishing a disclaimer: The “disavowing actions or 

statements made during prosecution [must] be both clear and unmistakable.”53 But if that high bar 

is cleared, then the patentee is precluded “from recapturing through claim interpretation specific 

meanings disclaimed during prosecution.”54 

 A patent and its prosecution history are “intrinsic evidence.”55 Intrinsic evidence is usually 

sufficient to arrive at the proper construction of a patent claim.56 There are times, however, where, 

after reviewing all of the intrinsic evidence, ambiguities remain. In those cases, courts may turn 

to “extrinsic evidence,” which is “all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, 

including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”57 When possible, it’s 

best to avoid extrinsic evidence. It is just as likely to complicate as it is to clarify. There are often 

fights about which extrinsic sources are worthy of consideration and exactly how the chosen 

48 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 

49 See Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

50 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. 

51 Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 972 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 

52 Aylus Networks. Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Biogen Idec, Inc. v. 

GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). 

53 Id. at 1359 (quoting Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed Cir. 2003)). 

54 Id. (quoting Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1323). 

55 Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A patent’s specification, 

together with its prosecution history, constitutes intrinsic evidence . . . .” (footnote omitted)). 

56 Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 705–06 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

57 Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 11 of 80
12 

sources should be applied to the terms at issue. Moreover, using extrinsic evidence muddies the 

waters as to whether a judge is weighing evidence and factfinding or performing the legal function 

of interpreting a document.58 The point here is that extrinsic evidence comes inside a break-glassin-case-of-emergency package with a use-with-extreme-care warning label. 

Sometimes, even when “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,” and 

even after all intrinsic and extrinsic evidence is considered, a patent claim fails to “inform those 

skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”59 In that case, the 

claim is “indefinite” and is invalidated. The indefiniteness inquiry begins with the same general 

mode of analysis as just described for claim construction purposes.60 The burden of proof is on 

the party challenging patent validity on indefiniteness grounds.61 

 With the foregoing principles in mind, the Court now turns to the disputed terms in the 

Bence Patents’ claims. There are 25 terms at issue.62 The Court addresses the terms in the same 

order that they were presented in the Joint Claim Chart, in the parties’ briefing, and at the Markman

hearing. 

I. “a coupler having a first end rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular 

post” 

The term at issue is “a coupler having a first end rotatably secured over the second end of 

the tubular post.”63 Recall that the coupler (also called the coupling nut) is the end piece of the 

58 See Teva Pharms., 574 U.S. 331–32, 318 (holding that a court’s analysis of intrinsic evidence is “a determination 

of law,” while analysis of extrinsic evidence is a “subsidiary factual finding[]”). 

59 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). 

60 See Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2022); HZNP Meds. LLC v. 

Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 940 F.3d 680, 688 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

61 Bosch Auto. Serv. Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

62 There were 26 terms in the Joint Claim Chart, but the parties agree that no construction is necessary for one of them. 

That term is the 14th term in the chart, “angled radially outward.” Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

63 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 2. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 12 of 80
13 

connector that threads onto the cable-box port, and that the body of the connector has a tubular 

post inside of it which receives the stripped end of the coaxial cable.64 At a superficial level, the 

parties agree to a construction of the term at issue. That construction is the same construction that 

was adopted in the previous litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 

(“the Arizona Court”): a coupler having a first end “rotatably secured over the second end of the 

tubular post by attachment to the body in a manner that allows the coupler to rotate.”65 But, to 

mix metaphors, the mirage of an agreement dissipates once one scratches beneath the surface. 

PVM argues that, although the parties agree on the words of the construction, they disagree 

on the meaning of those words. Thus, to help clarify the meaning of those words, PVM requests 

that the Court add to the construction “as construed and explained in Section 1(A) of the court’s 

claim construction ruling in Corning Gilbert Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Assocs. Inc. . . . .”66 PVM 

argues that this addition is necessary because, despite agreeing on the ultimate construction 

adopted by the Arizona Court, PPC rejects some of the key reasoning employed by the Arizona 

Court in reaching that construction. Chiefly, PVM maintains that PPC rejects the Arizona Court’s 

statements that “the coupler must be attached to the body” and that “it is not possible for the 

Plaintiff’s patent to cover a connector wherein the coupler is not attached to the body member.”67 

According to PVM, PPC is implicitly rejecting these statements because PPC asserted 

infringement against PVM despite PVM’s connector allegedly having a coupler attached to the 

post and not the body.68 But—again according to PVM—PPC, having successfully convinced the 

64 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 33–46. 

65 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 2. In the Arizona case, the Court was construing the term “rotatably secured over 

the second end of the tubular post.” Def.’s Counterclaim ¶ 30; Pl.’s Answer to Counterclaim ¶ 30. 

66 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 2. 

67 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 9. 

68 Id. at 10. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 13 of 80
14 

Arizona Court of those statements, is judicially estopped from arguing otherwise in the present 

litigation.69 

PPC argues that PVM is attempting to get the Court to rule on infringement at the claim 

construction stage. PPC says the dispute on this claim boils down to the fact question of whether 

PVM’s design has a coupler that attaches to the body or not.70 While PPC is right that such a 

dispute is an infringement question for the jury, the Court does not agree that this is the actual 

dispute currently before the Court. The Court does not understand PVM to be making an 

infringement argument. Rather, the Court understands PVM’s argument to be that there is still 

disagreement between the parties over what “attachment to the body” means, which is a question 

for the Court to decide. And PVM is simply bringing up the infringement issue as evidence of this 

disagreement. 

Nonetheless, PPC is correct that adopting entire sections of a prior court’s claim 

construction opinion into the current construction is not the appropriate solution. The Court’s job 

at the claim construction stage is to define terms, not to incorporate pages of legal reasoning from 

a prior case to clarify the meaning of terms. So the Court will define those terms now, taking into 

account the intrinsic evidence as well as the reasoning of the Arizona Court. 

The crux of this dispute revolves around what the Arizona Court meant by “attachment to 

the body.” PPC argues that the coupler merely maintaining contact with the body is sufficient, 

seemingly even if the coupler is ultimately secured directly to the post or some other portion of 

the connector.71 PVM argues that attachment to the body means the coupler must be secured 

69 Id. at 14–17. 

70 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 2–3. 

71 See June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 22–26; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 3–5. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 14 of 80
15 

directly to the body, not merely maintain contact with the body.72 Thus, PVM’s view is that a 

coupler that is secured directly to the post or any other portion of the connector—even if the 

coupler still maintains some contact with the body—is outside of the scope of this claim.73

A helpful starting place in resolving this dispute is the Arizona litigation itself. In that case, 

PPC argued that the Arizona Court should add “by attachment to the body in a manner that allows 

the coupler to rotate.”74 PPC’s view was that the coupler “has to be secured to the body” and the 

claims do not cover a coupler secured to the post.75

 Its argument went as follows. The only

possible way to attach a coupler to a connector is to attach it to either the post or the body (or 

perhaps both). But if the coupler was secured to the post and not the body, the coupler would 

come out of contact with the body, which would violate a different limitation in the Patents. 

So, the coupler must be secured to the body.76 In its Order, the Arizona Court adopted this 

portion of PPC’s construction. Here was the Arizona Court’s rationale. 

The Court does agree, however, with [PPC’s] argument that the claim language, 

together with the specifications and diagrams, lead to the conclusion that the 

coupler must be attached to the body—not because of the “free rotation” language, 

but because of a separate portion of the claim which specifies that the body member 

contacts the coupler. As [PPC] notes, section (c) of Claim 29 of the ’990 Patent 

specifies that the body member contacts the coupler. [PPC] correctly points out 

that due to the construction of Plaintiff’s connecter, wherein the tubular post moves 

axially with respect to the rest of the connector, if the coupler were secured directly 

to the tubular post and not the body member, the coupler would have to move with 

the post, which would take it out of contact with the body in violation of the 

limitation that the body member contacts the coupler. . . . [i]t is not possible for 

Plaintiff’s patent to cover a connecter wherein the coupler is not attached to the 

body member.77

72 See June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 30–31. 

73 See id. 

74 Ex. C to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32-3) at 5. 

75 Ex. F to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32-6) at 52:18–19. 

76 Id. at 50:19–24, 52:18–19, 53:6–10, 83:18–19. 

77 Ex. G to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32-7) at 7–8 (internal citation omitted). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 15 of 80
16 

In essence, the Arizona Court accepted PPC’s argument that the coupler “must be attached to the 

body.” And it did so for a reason PPC advanced. If the coupler was secured directly to the tubular 

post only and not the body member, the coupler would come out of contact with the body, which 

would violate a different limitation in the Patents. 

 From this reasoning three things are clear. First, the Arizona Court thought that the coupler 

could never lose contact with the body. Indeed, its primary rationale for adopting the construction 

it did was because a contrary construction would result in the coupler and body losing contact. 

Second, the Arizona Court thought “attachment” meant more than merely maintaining contact. In 

its reasoning, the Arizona Court said that because the coupler couldn’t be “secured directly to the 

tubular post and not the body member,” it had to be “attached” to the body. Thus, it is evident that 

the Arizona Court was equating being “attached” with being “secured directly to.” Third, the 

Arizona Court made explicit that the coupler could never be secured directly to the post and not 

the body. 

This Court agrees with the Arizona Court’s analysis. Indeed, this Court thinks that 

conclusion is further bolstered by the specification, which makes clear that the “the coupling nut 

is rotatably secured . . . via a neck of the body” rather than to the post.78 However, the Arizona 

Court’s construction failed to fully incorporate all of the key aspects of its reasoning. Instead, a 

more fitting construction is: [a coupler having a first end] “rotatably secured over the second end 

of the tubular post and secured directly to the body (as opposed to secured directly to the post only) 

in a manner that allows the coupler to rotate and that does not allow for the body member to ever 

lose contact with the coupler.” 

78 ’990 Patent, col. 5 ll. 60–62. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 16 of 80
17 

Moreover, because PPC successfully convinced the Arizona Court to adopt this reasoning, 

PPC is judicially estopped from taking a contrary position in the present litigation. Judicial 

estoppel provides that when a party successfully advances a position in one legal proceeding, it is 

estopped from taking a contrary position in a subsequent proceeding where its interests have 

changed. While not necessarily exhaustive of the appropriate judicial inquiry, courts typically 

consider whether: (1) the party’s current position is “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier successful 

position; (2) this Court’s acceptance of an inconsistent position would create the perception that 

the party misled either this Court or the previous court; and (3) the party would derive an unfair 

advantage if not estopped.79 In this case, the construction this Court adopted above is derived from 

reasoning that was advanced by PPC in the Arizona case and adopted by the Arizona Court. Thus, 

PPC would have to backtrack on its previous position to now disagree with that construction. This 

is the type of situation judicial estoppel was designed to prevent. 

 Ultimately, PVM is correct that there is disagreement over the meaning of the words of the 

agreed construction. The Court also agrees that the Arizona Court’s order is correct in its analysis 

and PPC is judicially estopped from arguing otherwise. However, rather than adopting large 

sections of the Arizona Court’s order, the Court will alter the construction to better reflect the 

Arizona Court’s reasoning. Thus, the Court will construe the term phrase as follows: “[A coupler 

having a first end] rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post and secured directly 

to the body (as opposed to secured directly to the post only) in a manner that allows the coupler to 

rotate and that does not allow for the body member to ever lose contact with the coupler.” 

79 New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749–51 (2001). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 17 of 80
18 

II. “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the first end of the 

tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body 

member contacts the coupler” 

The claims at issue state that the coaxial cable connector has “a body member secured to 

the tubular post and extending about the first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer 

conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler.”80 The parties 

largely agree on a construction. PPC’s proposed construction is “a body member secured to the 

tubular post and extending axially at least as far as the first end of the post for receiving the outer 

conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler.”81 PVM’s 

proposed construction is that “the body member is ‘secured to the tubular post and extending 

axially at least as far as the first end of the post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial 

cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler’ as construed and explained by the court in 

Corning Gilbert Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Assocs. Inc. . . . .”82 As with the term phrase in Section 

I, the key difference between these constructions is that PVM’s construction includes “as construed 

and explained by the Court in Corning Gilbert Inc. v. John Mezzalingua Assocs. Inc. . . . .” 

PVM argues that this additional language is necessary because, despite agreeing on the 

ultimate construction adopted by the Arizona Court, PPC is implicitly rejecting the Arizona 

Court’s reasoning by bringing infringement claims.83 Chiefly, PVM maintains that PPC rejects 

the Arizona Court’s statement that the body member must extend at least as far as the end of the 

80 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 2. 

81 Id. 

82 Id. In the Arizona litigation, the District Court construed “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending 

about the first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member 

contacts the coupler” to mean the body member is “secured to the tubular post and extending axially at least as far as 

the first end of the post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the 

coupler.” Def.’s Counterclaim ¶ 32; Pl.’s Answer to Counterclaim ¶ 32. 

83 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 17–20. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 18 of 80
19 

post that receives the cable.84 According to PVM, PPC is implicitly rejecting this statement 

because PVM’s connector allegedly has a body that does not extend as far as the end of the post 

that receives the cable yet PPC still says PVM is infringing. Thus, “there must be some unusual 

interpretation of those words that needs to be resolved by [the Court].”85

PPC argues that it is not misinterpreting the Arizona Court. PPC just thinks PVM’s design 

has a body member that extends past the first end of the tubular post.86 From PPC’s perspective, 

the dispute on this term comes down entirely to the infringement question of whether PVM’s 

design has a body that extends past the first end of the tubular post.87 So there is no real dispute 

over the meaning of the claim language for the Court to resolve. The Court agrees. Rather than 

fighting over the proper construction of the claim, PVM and PPC appear to be fighting over 

whether the body of PVM’s connector extends past the first end of the tubular post. 

This disagreement appears to stem from the parties’ fundamentally different conceptions 

of PVM’s connector. According to PPC, PVM’s connector has a two-part body.88 That is, while 

one part of PVM’s body may not extend as far as the first end of the tubular post, there is a second 

part of the body that does. PVM argues that the portion of the connector that PPC says is the 

second part of the body is not actually part of the body. According to PVM, that part of the 

connector is called the “back shell.”89 

This dispute is a fact question that should be answered by a jury, rather than a legal question 

for the Court to answer at the claim construction stage. However, the Court recognizes that the 

84 Id. 

85 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 33. 

86 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 2–8. 

87 Id. 

88 Id. 

89 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 33. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 19 of 80
20 

parties may have good arguments that some further construction is necessary to clarify what 

constitutes a body member as that term is used in the claims of the Patents or whether the Patents 

contemplate a two-part body. Such arguments were not presented by the parties in their briefing, 

nor were they considered in the Arizona litigation. Thus, if the parties wish for the Court to further 

construe this term phrase, they may ask to submit supplemental briefing on this point within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. 

Ultimately, the parties largely agree on a construction. The only place they depart is on 

PVM’s addition of “as construed and explained by the court in Corning Gilbert Inc. v. John 

Mezzalingua Assocs. Inc. . . . .” But the Court does not see a need to make that addition. There is 

nothing in the Arizona Court’s reasoning that clarifies or adds meaning to the construction. And 

there is nothing in the Arizona Court’s reasoning that sheds any light on the dispute at the center 

of this term phrase—the one-part versus two-part body issue. So the Court will adopt the Arizona 

Court’s construction without PVM’s addition. That construction is “a body member secured to 

the tubular post and extending axially at least as far as the first end of the post for receiving the 

outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler.”90 

III. “the coupler including a central bore extending therethrough” 

The parties disagree on the meaning of the phrase, “the coupler including a central bore 

extending therethrough.”91 Recall that the coupler (also known as the coupling nut) is the end 

piece of the connector that threads onto the port of the appliance. PVM’s position is that the proper 

construction of the phrase is “the coupler has an inner diameter that extends from its first end to 

90 Ex. G to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32-7) at 14–15. 

91 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 2–3. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 20 of 80
21 

its opposing second end.”92 PPC’s position is that the proper construction is “the coupler including 

a central hole extending therethrough.”93 

There are two key differences between the parties’ proposed constructions. First, PVM 

contends that a “central bore” is “an inner diameter,” while PPC contends that a “central bore” is 

a “central hole.” PPC argues that by construing “central bore” as “an inner diameter,” PVM is 

suggesting that the central bore must have a smooth and uniform diameter throughout.94 However, 

PVM stated at the Markman hearing that this was not its position.95 Instead, PVM primarily takes 

issue with PPC’s use of the word “hole” in its construction. PVM says that “hole” does not appear 

anywhere in the specification while “inner diameter” does.96 The second difference between the 

parties’ constructions is that PVM contends that “extending therethrough” should be further 

construed as “extends from its first end to its opposing second end,” while PPC would keep it as 

“extending therethrough.” 

With respect to the disagreement over whether a “central bore” should be construed as a 

“central hole” or “an inner diameter,” the Court adopts PPC’s construction of a “central hole.” 

The Court agrees that the central bore of the coupler does not need to have a consistent inner 

diameter. And even though PVM stated that it was not arguing that the coupler had to have a 

consistent inner diameter, the term “inner diameter” could certainly lead a juror to think that. Thus, 

the Court finds that the meaning of “central bore” is better captured by “central hole” than “inner 

diameter.” While “hole” does not appear anywhere in the Patents, there is no requirement that a 

92 Id. 

93 Id. 

94 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 13. 

95 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 41. 

96 Id. at 42; see also ’990 Patent, col. 7 ll. 7–8. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 21 of 80
22 

construction only draw words from the Patents. And the word “hole” carries a clear meaning that 

should not be confusing to a jury. 

 With respect to the debate over whether “extending therethrough” should be further 

construed to mean “extends from its first end to its opposing second end,” the Court takes a slightly 

different tack. The Court agrees that some further construction is necessary, but it does not agree 

that PVM’s proposal is the best construction. Both constructions support the same meaning of the 

term phrase—that the hole extends all the way through the coupler. This meaning is clear from 

the ordinary meaning of the claim language and the specification, which consistently depicts a 

coupler with a hole extending all the way through it. But this meaning is more clearly captured by 

the construction “the coupler has a central hole extending through the entire coupler.” Putting it 

all together, the Court construes “the coupler including a central bore extending therethrough” as 

“the coupler has a central hole extending through the entire coupler.” 

IV. “a resilient electrically-conductive grounding member” 

The term at issue is “a resilient electrically-conductive grounding member.”97 Recall that 

the grounding member is the object that maintains contact with the tubular post and the coupling 

nut such that an electrical ground path can flow. The dispute here revolves around the meaning of 

“resilient.” PPC construes “resilient” as “having a spring action,” while PVM construes “resilient” 

as “return[ing] to its original shape after being bent, stretched, pressed or otherwise altered.”98 

PVM argues that “resilient” and “spring action” are distinct concepts in the patent—

“resilient” describes a quality of the grounding member, while “spring action” describes how that 

grounding member functions.99 PVM also points out that, in the specification, the first alternate 

97 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 3. 

98 Id. 

99 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 25. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 22 of 80
23 

grounding member is not described as “resilient,” but it is described as having fingers with “spring 

action”; so PVM argues that it is possible to have a grounding member that has spring action but 

is not resilient.100 Moreover, PVM notes that the phrase “resilient spring fingers” is used elsewhere 

in the claims of the Patents.101 From this, PVM argues that defining “resilient” as “spring action” 

would render “resilient” superfluous because that phrase would then mean “spring action spring 

fingers.” Finally, PVM argues that if the Court defined “resilient” to mean “spring action,” then 

the term would be indefinite because it is unclear how much “spring action” is required.102 PVM 

then turns to dictionaries and other cases to support its proposed construction that “resilient” means 

“return[ing] to its original shape after being bent, stretched, pressed or otherwise altered.”103

PPC argues that PVM’s construction is wrong because it would require the grounding 

member to return to its exact original shape regardless of how much force was used on it.104 But, 

PPC argues, the specification teaches that the grounding member is initially formed by bending a 

springy material into a desired shape—so there must be some level of force at which the grounding 

member succumbs to change.105 Moreover, PPC argues that this requirement is divorced from the 

context of how the grounding member is used in the Patents.106 The grounding member functions 

to maintain electrical contact between the tubular post and the coupler without restricting rotation 

of the coupler. What is important then, according to PPC, is that the grounding member have 

sufficient spring action to hold contact with the coupler, but not so much strength that it doesn’t 

100 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 9–11. 

101 See ’990 Patent, col. 11 ll. 50–53. 

102 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 26. 

103 Id. at 26–27. 

104 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 18. 

105 Id. 

106 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 10–11. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 23 of 80
24 

allow the coupler to rotate. What is not important, according to PPC, is that the grounding member 

return to its exact original shape. 

PVM is correct that PPC’s construction of “resilient” as “spring action” is not appropriate. 

PVM’s strongest point is that the term “resilient spring finger” is used throughout the Patents. If 

“resilient” simply meant “spring action” then “resilient” would be superfluous, because that term 

phrase would be “spring action spring finger.” On the other hand, PPC is correct that PVM’s 

construction would improperly require the grounding member to return to its exact original shape 

regardless of how much force was used on it. This is an overly strict reading of the word 

“resilient.” Objects do not need to return to their 100% exact original position to be described as 

resilient. For example, consider a sponge. If that sponge was squeezed, would it not be “resilient” 

if, after measuring it, it only returned to nearly its original shape rather than its exact original 

shape? 

Ultimately, the Court finds that PPC’s construction of “resilient” as “spring action” is not 

accurate. But rather than a need to return to its exact original shape as PVM suggests, “resilient” 

allows for an object to return to nearly its original shape. In the context of this invention, the use 

of the term “nearly” is not indefinite. The Patents cabin the scope of “nearly” by requiring that 

the grounding member maintain contact with the coupler while still allowing the coupler to 

rotate.107 Thus, the grounding member does not need to return to its 100% exact shape as long as 

it returns close enough to its original shape such that it can maintain contact with the coupler 

107 Terms of degree are definite so long as the claims “provide[] enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read 

in the context of the invention.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Interval 

Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And “[f]unctional language can ‘promote[] 

definiteness because it helps bound the scope of the claims by specifying the operations that the [claimed invention] 

must undertake.’” Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1346 

(Fed. Cir. 2018) (alterations in original) (quoting Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224, 

1232 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 24 of 80
25 

without restricting the rotation of the coupler. The Court will thus construe this term as follows: 

“an electrically-conductive grounding member that returns to its original shape (or nearly its 

original shape) after being bent, stretched, pressed, or otherwise altered, such that it is able to 

maintain contact with the tubular post and the coupler without restricting rotation of the 

coupler.”108

V. “arcuately shaped”; “generally arcuate shaped” 

At certain points, the Patents call for an “arcuately shaped” or a “generally arcuate shaped” 

grounding member.109 PVM argues that this term phrase is indefinite or, in the alternative, that 

“arcuately shaped” should be defined as “shaped like an arc or bow.”110 PPC argues that both 

terms mean “curved.”111

PVM says that the specification describes an arcuately shaped grounding member as one 

that “extends over or has an arc” and is bent into “an arc.”112 It further describes an arcuately 

shaped grounding member as being “generally circular” and as being “out-of-round, and more 

preferably, oblong, rather than circular.”113 PVM notes that, while the specification is consistent 

with the ordinary definition of “arcuately shaped” as “shaped like an arc or a bow,” the 

specification goes further and says that it encompasses being “generally circular.”114 And as 

discussed in Section XII, PVM argues the term phrase “generally circular” is indefinite. So if 

108 The “without restricting rotation of the coupler” portion of this construction was not directly at issue in this term 

phrase. However, to the extent it is necessary, that portion should be construed consistent with the Court’s construction 

of that term phrase below in Section IX. 

109 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 3. 

110 Id. 

111 Id. 

112 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 27–28. 

113 Id. at 28. 

114 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 25 of 80
26 

“arcuately shaped” or “generally arcuate shaped” means “generally circular,” then “arcuately 

shaped” and “generally arcuate shaped” are indefinite by association with the assertedly-indefinite 

term “generally circular.”115 

Further, PVM argues that the Court should reject PPC’s argument that the construction 

should be “curved.”116 The Patents use the phrase “arcuate curvature” in the specification and in 

the claims.117 Thus, if arcuate was construed as curved, then the phrase would be “curved 

curvature.”118 PVM also argues that PPC’s defining both “arcuately shaped” and “generally 

arcuate shaped” the same way ignores the word “generally.”119 And lastly, PVM says that PPC’s 

construction as “curved” significantly broadens the meaning of arcuate beyond its ordinary 

meaning and the Patents did not clearly express an intent to define it so broadly.120

PPC says that the specification teaches that the grounding member need not be a 

geometrically perfect arc, which is why the terms “generally arcuate” and “arcuately” were used.121 

But PPC argues that the use of a term of degree does not make the terms indefinite because the 

specification and claim limitations provide a number of guideposts that would allow a person of 

ordinary skill in the art to discern the scope of the shape of the grounding member.122 For example, 

PPC cites to claim 6 of the ’990 Patent, which requires that the grounding member be disposed 

within an annular recess inside of the coupler, and that the grounding member fit around the tubular 

115 Id. at 27–29. 

116 Id. at 32. 

117 See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 6 ll. 28–29; ’990 Patent, col. 13 ll. 10–12. 

118 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 32. 

119 Id. at 32–33. 

120 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 13. 

121 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 19. 

122 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 16–19. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 26 of 80
27 

post such that it makes an electrically-conductive path between the coupler and the tubular post.123 

And the specification depicts the annular recess, the coupler, and the tubular post as round.124 

Further, it clarifies that the grounding member must maintain contact between these objects 

without preventing the rotation of the coupler.125 Essentially, PPC’s point is that the curvature of 

the grounding member has to be such that it can surround a round object (the tubular post) and fit 

within a round object (the annular recess of the coupler) while maintaining contact between the 

tubular post and the coupler without restricting the rotation of the coupler.126 Any object that 

would not perform these functions would not be covered by the term “arcuately shaped.” And so, 

according to PPC, the Patents provide a clear delineation of the scope of the term. 

PVM’s argument that the terms “generally arcuate shaped” and “arcuately shaped” are 

indefinite is not persuasive. To begin, PVM’s argument that “generally arcuate shaped” and 

“arcuately shaped” have different meanings and thus cannot receive the same construction is 

wrong. “Arcuately” and “generally arcuate” are synonymous. While they both express terms of 

degree, the specification provides numerous guideposts that clarify the scope of the term such that 

they are not indefinite.127 Indeed, the arcuate grounding member is described as “generally 

circular,” a “generally circular broken ring, or C-shaped member,” “out-of-round, and more 

preferably oblong, rather than circular,” and “extend[ing] . . . over an arc of at least 225” 

degrees.”128 Moreover, the specification emphasizes what “generally arcuate” or “arcuately 

123 Id. at 16. 

124 ’990 Patent, fig. 2, fig. 3C. 

125 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 14–20. 

126 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 16–19. 

127 See Enviro Tech Chem. Servs., Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp., No. 4:21-cv-00601-LPR WL 17721179, at *25 (E.D. Ark. 

Dec. 15, 2022) (explaining that “[t]he specification need only provide guideposts that allow a skilled artisan to draw 

meaningfully precise objective boundaries with reasonable certainty”) (quotations and citations omitted). 

128 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 21–30. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 27 of 80
28 

shaped” do not mean. The specification says that “the grounding member can [also] have a shape 

other than generally circular, such as square, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, etc.”129 Because 

arcuately shaped is described as being generally circular, and generally circular is other than 

square, hexagonal, octagonal, and oval, arcuately shaped must also be other than square, 

hexagonal, octagonal, and oval. From these guideposts, it is clear that the terms “generally arcuate 

shaped” or “arcuately shaped” describe an item that is at least a portion of a circular shape which 

can be out-of-round or oblong (rather than perfectly circular), but is not an oval, square, hexagon, 

or octagon. 

To the extent that there is still ambiguity regarding the meaning of “generally arcuate” or 

“arcuately shaped,” the specification provides a clear scope of the terms. The grounding member 

must be shaped such that it can surround a round object (the tubular post) and fit within a round 

object (the annular recess of the coupler) while maintaining contact between the tubular post and 

the coupler and allowing the rotation of the coupler. This significantly narrows the number of 

possible shapes that the grounding member can take, as small variations could impact the ability 

of the invention to function. That is, small variations could impact the ability of the grounding 

member to maintain contact with the tubular post and the coupler while still allowing the coupler 

to rotate. Thus, the Court finds that there are sufficient guideposts in the specification for 

discerning the meaning of the terms such that they have a clear scope and are not indefinite.130 

Still, PVM is correct that the construction of “curved” is inadequate. As PVM points out, 

if arcuate simply meant “curved,” then the word arcuate would be superfluous in other areas of the 

Patents—which use the phrase “arcuate curvature.” Further, the word “curved” does not fully 

129 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 47–49. 

130 See supra note 127. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 28 of 80
29 

capture the meaning that the patent delineates for “generally arcuate” or “arcuately shaped.” But, 

PVM’s back-up construction of “shaped like an arc or bow” is equally unsatisfying. The 

specification never uses the term “bow” and does not encompass the full scope of the grounding 

member, which is generally at least 225 degrees around. While all bows are curved, not all curves 

are bows. 

The Court will construe the terms “arcuately shaped” and “generally arcuate shaped” as 

follows: At least a portion of a circular shape which can be out-of-round or oblong (rather than 

perfectly circular), but is not square, hexagonal, octagonal, or oval. 

VI. “the annular recess” 

 PVM argues that term phrase “the annular recess” is indefinite in claim 8 of the ’035 Patent 

and claims 16 and 25 of the ’612 Patent.131 PPC argues that the term phrase is definite in each 

claim but should be construed as “an annular recess” in claim 8 of the ’035 Patent. 

With respect to claim 8 of the ’035 Patent, the language states that “the annular recess and 

said grounding member surround the enlarged shoulder of the tubular post . . . .”132 PVM appears 

to be arguing that there is an antecedent basis problem with “the annular recess.” An antecedent 

basis problem arises where, for example, “a claim refers to ‘said lever’ or ‘the lever,’ where the 

claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to 

what element the limitation was making reference.”133 PVM says that it is unclear where “the 

annular recess” is located because neither the dependent claim (Claim 8) nor the independent claim 

131 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 3–4. PPC and PVM agree that no construction is necessary for the term phrase “an 

annular recess” in claims 16, 17, and 23 of the ’612 Patent; claim 7 of the ’035 Patent; and claim 6 of the ’990 Patent. 

Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 3. 

132 ’035 Patent, col. 12 ll. 33–35. 

133 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2173.05(e). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 29 of 80
30 

(Claim 1) specifies which part of the connector the annular recess is located in.134 Thus, according 

to PVM, the claim could be referring to either the annular recess in the nut, or an annular recess 

that PVM argues is in the body.135 

 PPC argues that, based on the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not 

be confused by this omission. PPC says that the only thing that ever “surround[s] the enlarged 

shoulder of the tubular post” in the specification is the nut.136 Moreover, PPC says that the only 

time the term “annular recess” is used is when describing an annular recess in the nut.137 And the 

“annular recess” that PVM claims is in the body is not actually labeled as such.138 PPC does 

acknowledge that, because there is no previous mention of an annular recess in the independent 

claim, the term in the dependent claim should be changed from “the annular recess” to “an annular 

recess.”139 

 PPC is correct on all fronts. The nut is the only part of the connector that surrounds the 

enlarged shoulder of the tubular post in the specification. Further, the preferred embodiments only 

mention an annular recess when describing an annular recess located in the nut.140 And the portion 

of the body that PVM claims is an annular recess is not actually labeled as such anywhere in the 

specification. So a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, when the claim 

describes “the annular recess,” it is referring to an annular recess of the nut.141 Thus, this term 

134 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 34–35. 

135 Id. 

136 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 21. 

137 Id.

138 Id. at 21 n.4. 

139 Id. at 20. 

140 See ’035 Patent, col. 3 ll. 33–36; col. 6 ll. 14–16, 59–62; col. 7 ll. 42–44. 

141 Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that 

antecedent basis can be present by implication). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 30 of 80
31 

isn’t indefinite. As to the proposed construction offered by PPC, the Court agrees that the term 

should be “an annular recess” instead of “the annular recess.” 

With respect to claims 16 and 25 of the ’612 Patent, PVM argues that, if the preamble in 

claim 9 is non-limiting (as PPC argues infra at sections XXII and XXIII), then there is an 

antecedent basis problem.142 The preamble in claim 9 sets forth “[a] grounding member for a 

coaxial cable connector having a post and a nut . . . .”143 Claim 16 depends on claim 15 (which in 

turn depends on claim 9) which discusses an “annular recess in the nut,” and claim 25 (which 

depends on claim 16, which depends on claim 15, which ultimately depends on claim 9) discusses 

“the annular recess of the nut.”144 According to PVM, if claim 9 is non-limiting, then claim 9 does 

not require “a nut” and so there is no antecedent basis for “the nut” in claims 16 and 25.145 

Essentially, PVM is arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would simply ignore the 

preamble (if it was non-limiting) and so there would not be antecedent basis for “the nut” in claims 

16 and 25. And it is not possible to have an annular recess unless there is a nut. PPC disagrees; it 

argues that a claim can be non-limiting and still serve as antecedent basis.146 

But the Court need not resolve that dispute if it finds that the preamble in claim 9 is limiting. 

Indeed, PVM agrees that, if the preamble in claim 9 is limiting, then there is no antecedent basis 

issue.147 So the Court will start there. A preamble is limiting “if it recites essential structure or 

142 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 33–34; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 14–

15. 

143 ’612 Patent, col. 12 ll. 54–55. 

144 ’612 Patent, col. 13 ll. 13–14; ’612 Patent, Ex Parte Reexamination, col. 2 ll 14–15. 

145 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 33–34, Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 14–

15. 

146 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 21–22. 

147 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 70. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 31 of 80
32 

steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim.”148 “[I]f the body of the 

claim sets out the complete invention, then the language of the preamble may be superfluous.”149 

However, if “limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the 

preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”150 

The preamble here is limiting. The preamble of claim 9 sets out a “grounding member for 

a coaxial cable connector having a post and a nut . . . .”151 Two things are clear from this language. 

First, this invention involves a grounding member. And second, this invention involves a 

grounding member “for a coaxial cable connector.” This second takeaway is important. While 

the body of the claim describes a structurally complete invention for a grounding member, the 

body makes no mention of the coaxial cable connector. And it is clear from the rest of the 

specification that the patented invention is not just a grounding member in space, but it is a 

grounding member “for a coaxial cable connector.”152 So, the fact that the preamble recites that 

the grounding member is “for a coaxial cable connector” is an essential structure of the claim that 

is not set out in the body of the claim. 

Moreover, the preamble serves as antecedent basis for terms appearing in the body of the 

claim. The preamble mentions that the coaxial cable connector has “a post and a nut.”153 Then, 

the body of the claim discusses “the nut” and “the post” in several different dependent claims.154 

148 Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting 

Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

149 Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

150 Id. 

151 ’612 Patent, col. 12 ll. 54–55. 

152 See, e.g., ’612 Patent, col. 3 ll. 7–9 (“[T]he present invention relates to a coaxial cable connector . . . .”). 

153 ’612 Patent, col. 12 ll. 54–55. 

154 See, e.g., ’612 Patent, col. 13 ll. 13–15, 17, 20–21. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 32 of 80
33 

The Federal Circuit has “repeatedly held a preamble [is] limiting when it serves as antecedent basis 

for a term appearing in the body of a claim.”155 

Because the preamble recites essential structure, is necessary to give life, meaning and 

vitality to the claim, and serves as antecedent basis for terms appearing in the body of the claim, 

the Court concludes that the preamble in claim 9 is limiting. Thus, PVM’s indefiniteness challenge 

fails and no further construction is necessary. 

VII. “proximate to the first end of the coupler” 

The claims at issue require that the central bore of the coupler have an annular recess 

“proximate to the first end of the coupler.”156 Recall that the coupler has a first end that is rotatably 

secured directly to the body and an opposing second end that engages with the port of the 

appliance. And the coupler has a central hole extending through the coupler. Within that hole 

there is an annular recess where the grounding member is retained in the preferred embodiment. 

The location of that annular recess is described by the claims as being “proximate to the first end 

of the coupler.”157 The parties have submitted competing constructions of what “proximate” 

means. 

PVM’s argument is that “proximate” describes when something is directly next to 

something else in an absolute sense.158 PVM’s support for this construction comes from dictionary 

155 SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting 

In re Fought, 941 F.3d 1175, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). 

156 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

157 Id. 

158 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 36–37. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 33 of 80
34 

definitions stating that “proximate” means “next to” or “nearest in space.”159 Thus, PVM’s 

proposed construction is that “the annular recess is next to the first end of the coupler.”160 

PPC’s proposed construction is that the annular recess is “closer to the first end of the 

coupler than the second end of the coupler.”161 PPC says that, in the specification, “proximate” is 

a term that is used to describe relative positioning.162 Further, PPC notes that the specification 

also describes the coupler as having an inwardly directed flange proximate to the first end of the 

coupler.163 And a depiction of the preferred embodiment shows that the flange is closer to the first 

end than the annular recess is.164 So, according to PPC, “proximate” cannot mean “next to” in an 

absolute sense because both the flange and the annular recess can’t be directly next to the first end 

of the coupler. 

PVM’s counterargument is that the claim involving the flange is in a different claim than 

the claim at issue here, and the claims don’t depend on each other.165 While this is true, other 

patent claims are valuable guideposts during claim construction. The Federal Circuit explained 

that the same term appearing in different claims should be given the same meaning unless it is 

clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meaning.166 

Overall, PPC has the better of the argument. Reading “proximate” as “next to” would not 

make sense given the rest of the specification. The specification describes the flange as 

159 Id. 

160 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

161 Id. 

162 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 24. 

163 Id. at 24–25. 

164 Id. 

165 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 16–17. 

166 Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 34 of 80
35 

“proximate” to the first end, and the preferred embodiment clearly depicts the flange as closer to 

the first end than the annular recess is.167 PPC is thus persuasive when it argues that the term 

proximate is being used in a general sense, rather than referring to an absolute or specific location. 

And the use of a relative definition is necessary to delineate the scope of the term. Moreover, 

PVM’s arguments to the contrary rely entirely on extrinsic evidence, which is second-best 

evidence compared to the specification. Thus, the Court will adopt PPC’s construction that the 

annular recess is “closer to the first end of the coupler than the second end of the coupler.” 

VIII. “said grounding member surround the enlarged shoulder of the tubular post”; 

“wherein at least a portion of the grounding member contacting the tubular post 

surrounds the enlarged shoulder of the tubular post” 

The parties’ dispute here centers on the use of the word “surround” in three different claims. 

The first two claims say that “said grounding member surround the enlarged shoulder of the tubular 

post,” and the third claim says, “wherein at least a portion of the grounding member contacting the 

tubular post surrounds the enlarged shoulder of the tubular post.”168 With slight variations 

accounting for grammar, PPC wants to substitute “positioned around” for “surround” in all three 

claims,169 and PVM wants to substitute “form an enclosure around” for “surround” in all three 

claims.170 

PVM’s argument is that the ordinary meaning of “surround” is to form an enclosure. To 

reach this conclusion, PVM relies on dictionary definitions and an analogy to a moat.171 It says 

167 ’990 Patent, col. 11 ll. 40–43, fig. 3C. 

168 ’990 Patent, col. 11 ll. 23–25; ’035 Patent, col. 12 ll. 33–35; ’126 Patent, col. 12 ll. 19–21. 

169 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

170 Id. In addition to the grounding member surrounding the tubular post, PVM wants to add to that the annular recess 

also surrounds the tubular post. But with respect to the first two claims, the claims already state that before the quoted 

portion that the parties disagree over. With respect to the third claim, PVM does not supply any argument for why 

that addition should be made, and the Court cannot come up with one either. 

171 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 38–39. For example, PVM cites The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 

Current English, Eighth Edition, for its definition of “surrounds” as to “come or be all round; encircle, enclose.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 35 of 80
36 

that a person would understand the sentence “the moat surrounds the castle” to mean that the moat 

encircles the entirety of the castle.172 PVM also points to the specification, which teaches that “the 

grounding member surrounds the enlarged shoulder of the tubular post. . . .” and “[a]t least 

portions of the grounding member contact the outer surface of such enlarged shoulder.”173 PVM’s 

argument is that “surrounds” does not merely mean surrounding “a portion” of the tubular post 

because the inventors used “at least portions of” to express that meaning. Thus, “surrounds” must 

mean something more than just being “positioned around” as PPC suggests.174 

Finally, PVM points out that the specification uses the word “surround” elsewhere in the 

Patents in a way that is consistent with its definition.175 The specification explains that the center 

conductor of the coaxial cable is surrounded by dielectric material, that the dielectric material is 

surrounded by an outer conductor, and that the outer conductor is surrounded by a cable jacket. In 

these examples, “surround” is used to describe an object that completely encircles the object 

beneath it. 

PPC argues that “surrounds” just means “positioned around.”176 PPC bases its argument 

on the specification, which repeatedly describes the grounding member as a “C-shaped member” 

or as being “at least 225o around.”177 Thus, PPC argues that the specification contemplates a 

grounding member that does not form a full 360o enclosure around the tubular post, and so 

172 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 38. 

173 Id. at 39. 

174 Id. 

175 Def.’s Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 18–19. 

176 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

177 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 26–29. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 36 of 80
37 

construing “surrounds” as to “form an enclosure around” would read out several of the preferred 

embodiments.178 

PVM’s use of extrinsic evidence—dictionary definitions and an analogy to a moat—does 

not move the needle in light of the competing intrinsic evidence. The specification specifically 

describes and depicts a number of embodiments in which the grounding member is less than a 

complete circle.179 Reading “surrounds” to mean “fully encircling” would read these embodiments 

out of the patent. And with respect to the use of “surrounds” in the context of the coaxial cable 

itself, the use of surrounds there is consistent with PPC’s definition as well. An object that 

completely encircles another object is still accurately described as being “positioned around” that 

other object. Thus, construing “surrounds” to mean “positioned around” is most consistent with 

the intrinsic evidence. So the Court will adopt PPC’s constructions. 

As it appears in claim 6 of the ’990 Patent and claim 8 of the ’035 Patent, the Court will 

construe the term phrase as “said grounding member positioned around the enlarged shoulder of 

the tubular post.” And in claim 1 of the ’126 Patent, the term phrase will be construed as “wherein 

at least a portion of the grounding member contacting the tubular post is positioned around the 

enlarged shoulder of the tubular post.”180

IX. “without restricting rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular post” 

The claims at issue state that the “electrically conductive grounding member provides the 

electrically-conductive path between the coupler and the tubular post without restricting rotation 

178 Id. 

179 See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 21–29. 

180 For what it’s worth, the moat analogy isn’t as good as it might seem. If a moat went around a castle but its two 

ends were blocked from meeting by a very thin strip of land, wouldn’t we still say the moat surrounds the castle? 

Similarly, we define lakes as bodies of water that are “surrounded” by land. See National Geographic, Lake

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/lake/. But we know that “surrounded” in this context cannot mean 

completely surrounded because lakes are generally fed by and then flow into streams and rivers. See id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 37 of 80
38 

of the coupler relative to the tubular post.”181 The parties dispute what “without restricting rotation 

of the coupler relative to the tubular post” means. PPC argues that it should be construed as 

“without preventing rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular post.”182 PVM argues that it 

should be construed as “the coupler rotates relative to the tubular post without any limitation placed 

on it by the grounding member.”183 

PVM argues “without restricting rotation” means that no restriction whatsoever can be 

placed on the rotation of the coupler.184 PVM says the ordinary meaning of “restricting” is to 

confine, bound or limit, which is less severe than PPC’s construction that “restricting” means to 

prevent.185 And because the language is “without restricting rotation,” then the rotation of the 

coupler cannot be confined, bounded, or limited in any way.186 Additionally, PVM points out that 

PPC argued in the Arizona case that “without restricting rotation” meant that the coupler had to 

“spin like a top” “without interference” and be “freely rotatable and then some.”187 

PPC argues that “without restricting rotation” means “without preventing rotation.”188 PPC 

points to the specification, which states that “the present invention provides a coaxial cable 

connector that ensures a reliable grounding path without creating undue interference with free 

rotation of the coupler . . . .”189 PPC’s point is that, by saying “without creating undue

interference,” the specification acknowledges that some level of interference is going to occur—it 

181 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4; ’990 Patent, Ex Parte Reexamination, col. 2 ll. 1–10. 

182 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

183 Id. 

184 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 39–42. 

185 Id. 

186 Id. 

187 Id. 

188 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 29–30. 

189 Id.; ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 26–29. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 38 of 80
39 

just can’t be undue.190 Thus, PPC’s argument is that the patent allows for some limitations on 

rotation so long as the rotation is not completely stopped.191 PPC also argues that PVM’s 

construction would read out embodiments from the Patents.192 That’s because PVM’s construction 

would require a frictionless space where the coupler is able to spin freely without any restriction 

at all. But the specification teaches that the grounding member contacts the coupler.193 Thus, even 

if minute, there must be some restriction on rotation caused by that contact. Finally, PPC says that 

its arguments in the Arizona case are beside the point. PPC points out that the arguments in that 

case were about the restriction on rotation caused by whether the coupler was attached to the body 

or the post—which is a different issue in a different claim. And regardless, the Arizona Court 

explicitly rejected PPC’s argument.194 

 PPC is correct that the specification and embodiments contemplate the grounding member 

having some level of interference with the rotation of the coupler, and thus PVM’s construction 

would read out the embodiments of these Patents. But PVM is correct that PPC’s construction 

would seemingly cover a grounding member that placed so much restriction on the rotation of the 

coupler that a user would need tons of force to rotate it. As long as the coupler was ultimately able 

to rotate, PPC’s construction would cover it. 

 PVM’s concern can be resolved by looking at the purpose of the invention. The 

specification teaches that the coupler is threaded onto the port of an appliance by an installer with 

either the installer’s fingers or a wrench.195 And the specification further teaches that the 

190 Id. 

191 Id. 

192 Id. 

193 Id. 

194 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 29. 

195 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 60–63. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 39 of 80
40 

grounding member cannot unduly interfere with the rotation of the coupler.196 So the specification 

clarifies that the grounding member must not unduly interfere with the rotation of the coupler such 

that an installer would not be able to rotate the coupler with the installer’s fingers or a wrench. 

The extreme hypothetical proposed by PVM would not actually be covered by the Patents. 

The Court needs to clarify the foregoing outer scope through a further construction. Thus, 

“without restricting rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular post” will be construed as 

“without restricting rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular post to such an extent that an 

installer would be unable to rotate the coupler with the installer’s fingers or common installation 

tools such as a wrench.” 

X. “a ring portion” 

The claim at issue describes a grounding member with a “plurality of fingers extending 

from the ring portion.”197 PVM argues that the term “ring portion” should be construed as “the 

radially flat circular portion of the grounding ring, distinct from the plurality of fingers extending 

from the ring portion.”198 PPC argues that the term “ring portion” should be construed as “a curved 

strip.”199

PVM argues that its construction is consistent with the first and second alternate 

embodiments, which are the only two embodiments that specifically refer to a grounding member 

with “a ring portion.”200 The first alternate embodiment describes a grounding member with “a 

ring portion and a plurality of fingers that project at approximately a 30o angle from the plane of 

196 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 26–29. 

197 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4; ’990 Patent, col. 14 ll. 10–11. 

198 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

199 Id. 

200 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 43. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 40 of 80
41 

the ring.”201 The second alternate embodiment describes a grounding member with “a ring portion 

and a plurality of fingers extending radially from the ring portion at about a 45o angle from the 

plane of the ring portion.”202 PVM argues that both embodiments depict a radially flat grounding 

member with a full-circle ring portion that is distinct from the plurality of fingers that extend from 

it.203 Because these are the only two embodiments that describe “a ring portion” specifically, PVM 

argues that the construction of “ring portion” should be tailored to these two embodiments.204 

Moreover, PVM argues that its construction is consistent with the common and ordinary meaning 

of “ring.”205 

Before addressing the main bone of contention between the parties, there is a threshold 

matter to discuss. It appears that PVM’s understanding of the first two embodiments as showing 

a “radially flat” ring is incorrect. As PPC argues, if PVM’s construction of “a ring portion” is 

based on the first and second embodiment, then instead of “radially flat,” PVM must actually mean 

“the axially flat circular portion of the grounding ring.”206 “Radially flat” was either a typo on 

PVM’s part or a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term. This is a little complicated to 

explain, so please hold onto your hat. 

201 Id. 

202 Id. 

203 Id. at 43–44. 

204 Id. 

205 Id. 

206 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 89 (counsel for PPC stating, “The axis of this connector is the one that goes 

straight through it along the center conductor. So that’s the axial direction. Radial are those things that radiate away 

from that. And so the embodiment in Figure 7 is an axially flat [grounding member] because it’s flat in the axial 

direction. It has radial width.”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 41 of 80
42 

The first and second embodiments have minimal axial width and much greater radial width, 

such that the ring is shaped more like a flat washer than a wedding ring. For ease of understanding 

this analogy only, the Court provides general pictures of a flat washer and a wedding ring. 

The grounding member in the first two embodiments (which looks more like a flat washer) is 

“axially flat,” not “radially flat.” There are embodiments in the Patents that are “radially flat,” but 

they are not the first two embodiments. Those “radially flat” embodiments are shaped more like 

a wedding ring than a washer. Such “radially flat” grounding members can be seen in the fourth, 

fifth, and sixth alternate grounding members.207 Based on PVM’s argument, it is clear that the 

“radially flat” grounding members in the fourth, fifth, and sixth alternate embodiments are not the 

washer-like shape PVM is attempting to argue for the Court to adopt. 

207 The numbers associated with the alternate embodiments and the numbers associated with the alternate grounding 

members do not perfectly align. That’s because the fourth alternate embodiment has two different alternate grounding 

members (the fourth and fifth alternate grounding members), and the fifth alternate embodiment does not have any 

grounding members. This is different from the first, second, third, and sixth alternate embodiments which each have 

one alternate grounding member. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 42 of 80
43 

The following images from the specification clarify the distinction between an “axially 

flat” washer and a “radially flat” wedding band. 

Figure 8A depicts a grounding member standing upright and viewed from its side. The line going 

through the center of ring is the axis of the connector. The grounding member is “axially flat” 

because it has very little width along the axis of the connector. If the grounding member were 

wider in the axial direction, it would start to look like a wedding ring or a tube. Figure 9C is an 

example of a grounding member with greater axial width, also viewed upright and from its side. 

Figure 8D is the same axially flat grounding member from Figure 8A, only it is viewed head-on 

instead of from its side. The grounding member has radial width (i.e., it is not radially flat) because 

the grounding member is elongated in a direction that radiates away from the axis of the connector. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 43 of 80
44 

Because it has greater radial width than axial width, it looks more like a flat washer than a wedding 

ring. Figure 9D is an example of a grounding member that has minimal radial width. Figure 9D 

is the same radially flat grounding member from Figure 9C, only it is viewed head-on instead of 

from its side. Because it has less radial width than axial width, it looks more like a wedding ring 

and is properly considered “radially flat.” 

Regardless of whether PVM is saying that the construction of “ring portion” is “axially 

flat” or “radially flat,” PVM is trying to rule out the possibility that the disputed term could cover 

both types of grounding members—by limiting the disputed term’s construction to the grounding 

members depicted in the first and second embodiments. These two embodiments show grounding 

members of the same type of ring—axially flat (or as PVM incorrectly states, “radially flat”). 

 PPC argues that the construction of “ring portion” should not be limited to those two 

embodiments. Instead, PPC argues that all of the grounding members depicted across all of the 

embodiments, regardless of whether they are axially or radially flat, depict “ring portions,” even 

if they are not explicitly called that in the embodiments.208 For example, the third alternate 

embodiment describes a grounding member that “comprises a ring with multiple points of contact, 

or internal lugs, around the inner perimeter of the ring . . . .”209 The fourth alternate embodiment 

describes a grounding member with a “C-shaped ring.”210 And the sixth alternate embodiment 

describes a grounding member with a “circumferential metallic band” that “generally defines a 

section of a cylindrical surface.”211 Despite not explicitly using the term “ring portion,” PPC 

208 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 30–32. 

209 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 51–53. 

210 ’990 Patent, col. 9 l. 14. 

211 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 6–7, 15. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 44 of 80
45 

argues that these embodiments still describe ring portions.212 And several of these alternate 

embodiments have a different type of flatness than the first and second embodiments. Instead of 

the axially flat, washer-like shape of the first and second embodiments, the fourth and sixth 

alternate embodiments include radially flat, wedding-band shaped grounding members. Thus, 

PPC argues that PVM’s construction improperly limits the scope of the claim based on a few 

specific embodiments in the specification and ignores the rest of the specification.213 

The Court is persuaded that, while the term “ring portion” only appears in the first and 

second embodiments, the feature being described is present in several other embodiments. Indeed, 

two of the other embodiments even use the word “ring” to describe the grounding member. The 

third embodiment describes a “ring,” and the fourth embodiment describes a “C-shaped ring.” The 

slight difference in word choice is not significant enough to indicate a difference in meaning. Nor 

does this difference show that the patentee expressly disavowed that “ring portion” included the 

other embodiments, or that the patentee clearly defined “ring portion” as something that excluded 

the other embodiments.214 And importantly, many of these alternate grounding members depict 

radially flat, wedding-band-type rings rather than the axially flat, washer-like ring of the first and 

second embodiments. Thus, PVM’s construction reads limitations into the claim language from 

the specification that are unwarranted. So the requirement in PVM’s construction that the 

grounding member have one type of flatness is overly narrow and will not be included in the 

Court’s construction. 

212 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 30–32. 

213 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 31–32. 

214 Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that claim language 

is given its ordinary meaning except “1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) 

when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution”). 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 45 of 80
46 

Although PVM’s construction is inaccurate for the reasons just discussed, PPC’s 

construction of a “curved strip” is also inadequate. Instead, the Court’s construction will be 

consistent with other sections in this Order construing the shape of the grounding member. For 

the reasons discussed in Section V, that construction is “the portion of the grounding member that 

forms at least a portion of a circular shape and can be out-of-round or oblong, but not square, 

hexagonal, octagonal, or oval.” 

But this is only part of the final construction because there is more at issue than just the 

shape of the grounding member. PVM is correct to point out that the ring portion being described 

is distinct from the fingers. The fingers are described as “extending from the ring portion,” 

suggesting that these are different aspects of the grounding member that the Court must 

distinguish.215 Moreover, while PPC does not think such a distinction needs to be explicitly stated 

in the construction, it acknowledges that the ring portion is distinct from the projections.216 And 

PPC successfully argued that the “ring portion” was “distinct from the contact portion” of the 

grounding member in the Arizona case.217 So the Court will draw this distinction in its 

construction. 

 However, the Court will broaden the distinction to be between the “ring portion” and 

“projections,” rather than just between the “ring portion” and “fingers.” That is because the Court 

does not read “ring portion” as limited to the first two embodiments, so the Court must also 

distinguish the “ring portion” from the “lugs” that appear elsewhere in the specification. Taking 

everything into account, the Court will construe “a ring portion” as “the portion of the grounding 

member that forms at least part of a circular shape and can be out-of-round or oblong (rather than 

215 ’990 Patent, col. 14 ll. 10–11. 

216 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. I (Rough) at 94–95. 

217 Ex. G to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32-7) at 11–12. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 46 of 80
47 

perfectly circular), but not square, hexagonal, octagonal, or oval, and is distinct from the plurality 

of projections.” 

XI. “fingers” 

The claim at issue describes a grounding member with a “plurality of fingers extending 

from the ring portion.”218 PVM argues that the term “fingers” should be construed as “finger-like 

projections that extend at an angle from a flat plane of a ring portion.”219 PPC argues that the term 

“fingers” should be construed as “projections.”220

PVM argues that its construction is consistent with the first and second alternate 

embodiments, which are the only two embodiments that specifically refer to “fingers.”221 The first 

alternate embodiment describes a grounding member with “a ring portion and a plurality of fingers 

that project at approximately a 30o angle from the plane of the ring.”222 The second alternate 

embodiment describes a grounding member with “a ring portion and a plurality of fingers 

extending radially from the ring portion at about a 45o angle from the plane of the ring portion.”223 

Because these are the only two embodiments that describe “fingers” specifically, PVM argues that 

the construction of “fingers” should be tailored to these two embodiments.224 Additionally, PVM 

argues that the ordinary meaning of “fingers” when referring to an object’s shape is something 

“finger-like.”225 

218 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4; ’990 Patent, col. 14 ll. 10–11. 

219 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4. 

220 Id. 

221 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 45; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 23. 

222 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 7–8. 

223 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 32–35. 

224 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 45. 

225 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 47 of 80
48 

PPC argues that the construction of “fingers” should not be limited to those two 

embodiments. PPC argues that the third alternate embodiment and sixth alternate embodiment 

also depict fingers even if they are not explicitly called that in the embodiment.226 The third 

alternate embodiment describes “internal lugs.”227 These lugs are depicted as axially flat, rounded 

nub-like projections that extend inwardly towards the tubular post on the same plane as the axially 

flat, washer-like ring portion of the grounding member. As such, the grounding member has a 

consistent axial width when it is upright and viewed from its side.228 And, according to PPC, the 

sixth alternate embodiment depicts a grounding member with projections that extend from a nonflat surface of the ring portion.229 Thus, PPC argues that the third alternate embodiment does not 

allow for the construction that fingers only “extend at an angle” and the sixth alternate embodiment 

does not allow for the construction that fingers only extend “from a flat plane of a ring portion.”230 

The Court finds that there is a distinction between what the specification describes as 

“lugs” and what the specification describes as “fingers.” That distinction is most clearly 

highlighted in the first alternate embodiment. That embodiment has “a plurality of fingers that 

project at . . . [an] angle from the plane of the ring,” and “optional internal lugs that contact the 

outer diameter of the non-shoulder portion of the tubular post.”231 In this embodiment, “fingers” 

are projections that project at an angle away from the radial plane of the ring, while “internal lugs” 

are internal projections that project on the same plane as the ring. That is, when the grounding 

226 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 32–34. 

227 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 53–58. 

228 See generally the discussion in Section X regarding the distinction between “radially flat” and “axially flat.” In 

short, this grounding member and its lugs are axially flat because they have minimal axial width and relatively greater 

radial width. 

229 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 33. 

230 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 32–34. 

231 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 7–17. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 48 of 80
49 

member is upright and viewed from the side, it is possible to see the fingers extending at an angle 

from the ring, but the lugs are not visible because they are flush with the vertical plane of the ring. 

The following illustrations from various embodiments in the specification help to clarify 

the relevant distinction. Let’s start with the first alternate embodiment. 

Figure 6C depicts an axially flat grounding member viewed head-on in an upright position. 

The fingers are numbered 603 and the internal lugs are numbered 605. Figure 6B depicts the 

same grounding member viewed upright and on its side. The fingers can be seen extending 

away from the plane of the ring of the grounding member. However, the lugs cannot be seen 

because they extend inwardly on the same plane as the ring of the grounding member. 

Because both fingers and lugs are used in the same embodiment describing distinct physical 

features, the patentee intended for the terms to have distinct meanings. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 49 of 80
50 

The distinction drawn in the first embodiment is consistent with the use of these terms 

throughout the specification. For example, consider the second alternate embodiment. 

The second alternate embodiment depicts (and uses the term) “fingers” (703) as opposed to lugs. 

These fingers are projections that extend at an angle relative to the plane of the ring portion (i.e., 

they extend in a radial direction while their axial position changes). As such, they are visible 

projecting away from the ring portion of the grounding member when the grounding member is 

upright and viewed on its side in Figure 7B. 

The third alternate embodiment is different. The third alternate embodiment depicts (and 

uses the terms) internal lugs (803) and external lugs (804) as opposed to fingers. Rather than being 

projections that extend at an angle from the radial plane, the lugs extend from the ring and are on 

the same plane as the ring (i.e., they extend in a radial direction while maintaining their axial 

position). As such, they are not visible when the grounding member is upright and viewed on its 

side in Figure 8A. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 50 of 80
51 

The fourth and sixth alternate embodiments are different from the second alternate 

embodiment and the third alternate embodiment. 

The fourth and sixth alternate embodiments depict (and use the term) “projections” as opposed to 

the terms fingers or lugs. Notably, in the sixth alternate embodiment, when the projections (1117) 

extend at an angle relative to the plane of the ring, PPC argues that these should be considered 

“fingers.”232 But in the fourth alternate embodiment, when the projections (918) extend in the 

same plane as the ring, PPC does not make that argument.233 

While the Court should be hesitant to limit claim language based on specific embodiments, 

the specification clearly differentiates between fingers and lugs.234 Thus, PPC’s attempt to have 

the Court broaden the scope of “fingers” to encompass embodiments that have “lugs” (specifically 

232 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 33. 

233 Id. 

234 Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 51 of 80
52 

the third alternate embodiment) is impermissible. There is not a single embodiment where 

“fingers” do not extend at an angle relative to the plane of the ring portion. And any time an 

embodiment has projections that extend on the same plane as the ring portion, the projections are 

called something other than “fingers.” So the Court will adopt the portion of PVM’s construction 

that says that fingers are “projections that extend at an angle.” 

However, the Court does not agree that “fingers” should be construed as being “fingerlike.” The dictionary definitions PVM submitted in support of this construction describe fingers 

as being “long [and] narrow.”235 But the second alternate embodiment depicts fingers that are not 

long and narrow. Instead, the fingers in the second alternate embodiment appear to have equal 

height and width. Thus, construing “fingers” to mean “finger-like” would likely be misleading to 

a jury considering the specification. 

Additionally, the Court doesn’t agree with the portion of PVM’s construction that requires 

the projections to extend “from a flat plane of a ring portion.” First of all, it is unclear exactly 

what PVM means by the “flat plane of a ring portion.” However, because PVM argues that 

“fingers” should be limited to the first and second alternate embodiments, it is likely PVM is 

referring to the axially flat ring portions of these two embodiments. But such a requirement reads 

out the sixth alternate embodiment. The grounding member in the sixth embodiment appears to 

be radially flat rather than axially flat like the first two embodiments. Yet the Court finds that the 

sixth embodiment also has fingers. Even though the sixth embodiment is described as having 

“projections” rather than “fingers,” the projections in that embodiment extend at an angle relative 

to the radial plane of the ring like fingers elsewhere in the specification, and they are shaped similar 

to the fingers in the second alternate embodiment. So the Court finds that it is possible to have 

235 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 45. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 52 of 80
53 

fingers that do not extend away from the “flat plane” of the ring portion as that term is used by 

PVM. Combining all of these findings, the Court construes “fingers” as “projections that extend 

at an angle from the plane of the ring portion of the grounding member.”236

XII. “generally circular”; “a general circular shape” 

The Patents also describe the grounding member as “generally circular” and having “a 

general circular shape.”237 PVM argues that these terms are indefinite.238 PPC argues that the 

terms should be construed as “round” and having “a round shape.”239

PVM argues that these term phrases are indefinite because they include terms of degree 

that do not have objective boundaries.240 The specification states that “generally circular” is 

something “other than . . . square, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, etc.”241 But PVM argues that this 

just adds further confusion. At what point does an object go from being “generally circular” or 

“round” (as PPC would define it) to “oval”? Moreover, PVM argues that PPC’s construction of 

“round” and “a round shape” reads out the words “generally” and “general.”242

PPC says the specification provides several examples of generally round members that are 

not geometrically perfect circles.243 For example, the specification mentions a “C-shaped 

member,” “a shape that is out-of-round,” an “oblong, rather than circular” shape, a “generally 

236 The term “ring portion” was not directly at issue in this term phrase. However, to the extent it is necessary, that 

term should be construed consistent with the Court’s construction of that term phrase above in Section X. 

237 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 4–5. 

238 Id. 

239 Id. 

240 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 45–47. 

241 Id. 

242 Id. at 46–47. 

243 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 34. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 53 of 80
54 

arcuately shaped” member, and “a generally circular broken ring.”244 According to PPC, all of 

these shapes have one thing in common: they are round.245

As with the terms “generally arcuate” and “arcuately shaped” discussed above in Section 

V, PPC argues that the use of a term of degree does not make the terms indefinite because the 

specification and claim limitations provide a number of guideposts that would allow a person of 

ordinary skill in the art to discern the scope of the shape that the grounding member must have.246 

For example, PPC cites to claim 9 of the ’035 Patent, which requires that the grounding member 

is disposed between the tubular post and the coupler, and that the grounding member provides an 

electrically-conductive path between the coupler and the tubular post while the coupler rotates 

around the tubular post.247 And the specification makes clear that the coupler and the tubular post 

are round.248 Further, it clarifies that the grounding member must maintain contact between these 

objects without preventing the rotation of the coupler.249 Essentially, PPC’s point is that the 

curvature of the grounding member has to be such that it can fit between two round objects (the 

tubular post and the coupler) and maintain contact between these two round objects while still 

allowing the coupler to rotate.250 Any object that would not perform these functions would not be 

covered by the term “generally circular.” And so, according to PPC, the Patents provide a clear 

delineation of the scope of the term.251

244 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 21–30. 

245 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 34. 

246 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 34–37. 

247 ’035 Patent, col. 11 ll. 53–67, col. 12 ll. 1–10, 38–39. 

248 ’990 Patent, fig. 2; fig. 3C. 

249 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 14–20. 

250 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 34–37. 

251 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 54 of 80
55 

PVM’s argument that the term “generally circular” is indefinite is unpersuasive. The 

specification provides numerous guideposts that elucidate the scope of the term such that 

“generally” is not indefinite. Throughout the specification, the “generally circular” grounding 

member is described as, for example, a “C-shaped member,” a “broken ring,” “a shape that is outof-round,” an “oblong, rather than circular” shape, a “generally arcuately shaped” member, and 

“approximat[ing] a section of a hollow cylinder.”252 Moreover, the specification describes what 

“generally circular” does not mean. The specification says that “the grounding member can [also] 

have a shape other than generally circular, such as square, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, etc.”253 

From these descriptions, it is clear that “generally circular” is a shape that is at least a portion of a 

circle which can be slightly out-of-round or oblong rather than perfectly circular, and is not an 

oval, square, hexagon, or octagon. 

To the extent that there is still ambiguity regarding the meaning of “generally circular,” the 

Patents provide a clear scope of the term. The grounding member must be shaped such that it can 

fit between two round objects (the tubular post and the coupler) and maintain contact between 

these two round objects while still allowing the coupler to rotate. This significantly narrows the 

number of possible shapes that the grounding member can take, as small variations could impact 

the ability for the invention to function. Thus, the Court finds that there are sufficient guideposts 

in the Patents for discerning the meaning of “generally circular,” such that it has a clear scope and 

is not indefinite.254 However, the Court will further construe the term as “at least part of a circular 

shape that can be out-of-round or oblong (rather than perfectly circular), but not square, hexagonal, 

octagonal, or oval.” 

252 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 21–30, col. 9 ll. 23–24. 

253 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 47–49. 

254 See supra note 127. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 55 of 80
56 

XIII. “a portion of the grounding member . . . is angled relative to the portion of the 

grounding member that contacts the tubular post” 

This claim describes an angled portion of the grounding member. PVM argues that the 

term is indefinite.255 PPC argues that this term is definite. It says that the term should be construed 

to read “a portion of the grounding member . . . is positioned at an angle relative to the portion of 

the grounding member that contacts the tubular post.”256

PVM argues that this phrase is indefinite because it can be interpreted in two materially 

different ways.257 The first way PVM says it can be read is that there is a portion of the grounding 

member that does not contact the tubular post and that portion is angled (in some undefined way) 

relative to the portion of the grounding member that does contact the tubular post.258 The second 

way PVM says this phrase can be read is that there is a portion of the grounding member that does 

not contact the tubular post, and there is also another portion of the grounding member that does 

not contact the post which is angled (in some undefined way) relative to the portion of the 

grounding member that contacts the tubular post.259

PPC says that PVM’s second interpretation is unreasonable. PPC says that the phrase “a 

portion of the grounding member” clearly describes one portion of the grounding member.260 And 

that one portion is angled relative to the portion of the grounding member that contacts the tubular 

post. Moreover, PPC says the specification, specifically Figure 11A, demonstrates what is meant 

by the phrase.261 That figure depicts a grounding member with two portions: one contacting the 

255 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

256 Id. 

257 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 49. 

258 Id. 

259 Id. 

260 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 38–39. 

261 Id. at 39. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 56 of 80
57 

post, and another portion that is angled relative to that portion.262 And the embodiments for the 

first and second alternate grounding members state that the angled portion is angled at 

approximately 30 degrees or 45 degrees.263 Thus, according to PPC, the specification clearly 

depicts what a portion of the grounding member being angled relative to another portion of the 

grounding member involves. 

The Court agrees with PPC that there is little room for confusion based on the text of the 

claim. And to the extent there is any ambiguity, the specification clears it up. Thus, the Court will 

construe the claim as “a portion of the grounding member . . . is positioned at an angle relative to 

the portion of the grounding member that contacts the tubular post.” 

XIV. “internal lugs” 

The claim at issue describes a grounding member with “internal lugs” around its inner 

perimeter that contact the tubular post.264 PVM argues that the term “internal lugs” should be 

construed as “flat projections around the inner perimeter of the ring portion of the grounding 

member that extend in the same plane as the ring portion of the grounding member.”265 PPC argues 

that the term “internal lugs” should be construed as “internal raised or projecting areas.”266

PVM argues that its construction is consistent with the third alternate embodiment, which 

according to PVM is the only embodiment in the specification where the term “internal lugs” is 

used.267 The third alternate embodiment depicts an axially flat, washer-like ring (802) with axially 

262 ’990 Patent, fig. 11A. 

263 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 39. 

264 ’612 Patent, col. 13 ll. 18–21. 

265 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

266 Id. 

267 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 50. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 57 of 80
58 

flat projections around the inside of the ring (803) that project inwardly on the same plane as the 

ring of the grounding member.268

PPC argues the first alternate embodiment, the fourth alternate embodiment, and sixth 

alternate embodiment also have lugs.269 The first alternate embodiment has “optional internal lugs 

that contact the outer diameter of the non-shoulder portion of the tubular post.”270 Similar to the 

third alternate embodiment, this embodiment depicts an axially flat, washer-like ring. The optional 

internal lugs (605 in the diagram below) are depicted as axially flat rounded projections that extend 

inwardly towards the tubular post on the same plane as the ring portion of the grounding member. 

Recall that this embodiment also features fingers (603 in the diagram below) which are projections 

that extend at an angle away from the radial plane of the grounding member. Thus, when the 

grounding member is upright and viewed on its side, the fingers (603) can be seen extending at an 

268 See generally the discussion in Section X for explanation of “radially flat” versus “axially flat.” 

269 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 40–41. 

270 ’990 Patent, col. 8 ll. 16–17. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 58 of 80
59 

angle away from the plane of the ring. But the internal lugs cannot be seen because they are flush 

with the plane of the ring. 

The fourth alternate embodiment describes a grounding member with a “plurality of 

projections” that are depicted as nub-like projections that extend internally.271 The difference with 

the fourth alternate embodiment is that the ring portion of the grounding member is wider axially 

(and flatter radially) such that it looks more like a wedding ring than a washer. And the nubs 

(numbered 918 in the diagrams below) have less axial width than the ring portion and appear to be 

rounded semi-spheres rather than axially flat projections like in the first and third embodiments. 

271 ’990 Patent, col. 9 ll. 44–45. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 59 of 80
60 

Finally, the sixth alternate embodiment describes a grounding member with a “plurality of 

projections” extending from one of its side edges “away from the cylindrical surface defined by 

the band.”272 These projections extend at an angle away from the plane of the grounding member 

and are thus not on the same plane as the ring portion of the grounding member. 

Ultimately, PPC’s point in including these additional embodiments (the fourth and sixth 

specifically) is to argue that the embodiments do not limit “internal lugs” to “flat” projections that 

“extend in the same plane as the ring portion of the grounding member.”273 

It is true that the only embodiments that mention “internal lugs” are the first and third 

embodiments. And both of those embodiments depict the internal lugs the same way. They are 

axially flat projections around the inside of an axially flat, washer-like ring. And they project 

inwardly on the same plane as the ring (rather than at an angle away from the ring), such that the 

grounding member has a consistent axial width when the grounding member is upright and viewed 

on its side. 

However, the fifth alternate grounding member also has inward projections that project on 

the same plane as the ring. Although they are not labeled “internal lugs” specifically, the Court 

272 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 16–20. 

273 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 40–41. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 60 of 80
61 

finds that these projections are otherwise consistent with how “internal lugs” is used elsewhere in 

the specification. But unlike the “internal lugs” in the first and third embodiments, these 

projections are rounded three-dimensionally such that they look more like semi-spheres than the 

axially flat projections that the patent depicts elsewhere. Because the Court finds that these are 

still internal lugs, the portion of PVM’s construction that requires lugs to be “flat projections” is 

inaccurate. The Court will simply construe them as “projections” instead. 

Although the projections do not have to be flat, the portion of PVM’s construction that 

requires the projections to extend in the same plane as the ring is appropriate. As described above 

in Section XI, the angled projections on the sixth alternate grounding member are better described 

as fingers than lugs. So the only embodiments where what the Court considers lugs appear is the 

first, third, and fourth embodiments (the fifth alternate grounding member, specifically). In all of 

these embodiments, the lugs extend in the same plane as the ring such that they do not extend the 

axial width of the grounding member when it is standing upright and viewed from its side. And 

in the first alternate embodiment, the lugs are distinguished from the fingers, which extend at 

an angle. 

Given the foregoing, the Court will adopt the following construction: “Internal lugs” are 

“projections around the inner perimeter of the ring portion of the grounding member that extend 

inwardly in the same plane as the ring portion of the grounding member (rather than at an angle 

away from the plane of the ring).” 

XV. “approximates a hollow cylinder”; “approximates a section of a hollow cylinder” 

The terms at issue state that the grounding member comprises a band that “approximates a 

section of a hollow cylinder” or “approximates a hollow cylinder.”274 PVM argues that these terms 

274 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 61 of 80
62 

are indefinite.275 PPC argues that these terms should be construed as a “hollow cylindrical 

section.”276

The arguments in this section are very similar to the arguments discussed in Sections V 

and XII regarding the shape of the grounding member. PVM argues that “approximates” is a term 

of degree and neither the claims nor the specification provide meaningfully precise boundaries for 

that term.277 PVM also argues that PPC’s proposed construction impermissibly reads the word 

“approximates” out of the term phrase.278

PPC argues that the specification makes clear what these terms mean.279 The use of the 

word “approximates” is simply to account for the fact that the specification prefers a grounding 

member that is “out-of-round, and more preferably oblong, rather than circular, in order to ensure 

reliable electrical contact with both the coupler and the tubular post.”280 And the two embodiments 

that discuss this shape have figures with a C-shape ring rather than a full circle.281 Thus, the shape 

does not mirror a perfect cylinder. 

Moreover, PPC argues that the use of a term of degree does not make the terms indefinite 

because the specification and claim limitations provide a number of guideposts that would allow 

a person of ordinary skill in the art to discern the scope of the shape that the grounding member 

must have.282 For example, PPC cites to claim 6 of the ’126 Patent, which requires that the 

275 Id. 

276 Id. 

277 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 28–29. 

278 Id. 

279 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 41–45. 

280 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 27–30. 

281 ’990 Patent, col. 9 ll. 12–14, 23–24, col. 10 ll. 8–10, fig. 9B, fig. 11A. 

282 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 41–45. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 62 of 80
63 

grounding member is disposed between the tubular post and the coupler, and that the grounding 

member provides an electrically-conductive path between the coupler and the tubular post while 

the coupler rotates around the tubular post.283 And the specification makes clear that the coupler 

and the tubular post are all round objects.284 Further, it clarifies that the grounding member must 

maintain contact between these objects without preventing the rotation of the coupler.285 

Essentially, PPC’s point is that the curvature of the grounding member has to be such that it can 

fit between two round objects (the tubular post and the coupler) and maintain contact between 

these two round objects while still allowing the coupler to rotate. Any object that would not 

perform these functions would not be covered by the term “approximates a hollow cylinder.” And 

so, according to PPC, the Patents provide a clear delineation of the scope of the term.286

PVM’s argument that the terms “approximates a section of a hollow cylinder” or 

“approximates a hollow cylinder” are indefinite is unpersuasive. The Patents provide numerous 

guideposts that elucidate the scope of the term such that “approximates” is not an indefinite term 

of degree. In the specification, the grounding member is described as having a “general circular 

shape” that “approximates a section of a hollow cylinder.”287 Further, the claim at issue in the 

’612 Patent states that “the generally arcuate shaped member comprises a circumferential metallic 

band; and the circumferential band has a general circular shape and approximates a section of a 

hollow cylinder.”288 And the claim at issue in the ’126 Patent states that the grounding member 

283 ’126 Patent, col. 12 l. 63–col. 13 ll. 1–24. 

284 ’990 Patent, fig. 2; fig. 3C. 

285 ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 14–20. 

286 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 41–45. 

287 ’990 Patent, col. 9 ll. 22–24. 

288 ’612 Patent, col. 12 ll. 61–64. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 63 of 80
64 

“comprises a circumferential band comprising a section that approximates a hollow cylinder.”289 

Thus, the Patents indicate that the grounding member has a circumferential band with a general 

circular shape. And this band approximates a section of a hollow cylinder. So the shape of the 

hollow cylinder must be generally circular and circumferential. As described above in Section 

XII, generally circular means “at least part of a circular shape that can be out-of-round or oblong, 

but not square, hexagonal, octagonal, or oval.” And as described below in Section XX, a 

circumferential band is “a circle-shaped piece of metal with first and second side edges that extend 

along its circumference.” Thus, as described in the Patents, a shape that approximates a hollow 

cylinder is a shape that is circle-shaped (but not necessarily a perfect circle), and is not a square, 

hexagon, octagon, or oval. 

To the extent that there is still ambiguity regarding the meaning of the terms “approximates 

a section of a hollow cylinder” or “approximates a hollow cylinder,” the Patents provide a clear 

scope of the terms. The grounding member has to be shaped such that it can fit between two round 

objects (the tubular post and the coupler) and maintain contact between these two round objects 

while still allowing the coupler to rotate. This significantly narrows the number of possible shapes 

that the grounding member can take, as small variations could impact the ability of the invention 

to function. That is, small variations could impact the ability of the grounding member to maintain 

contact with the tubular post and the coupler while still allowing the coupler to rotate. So, the 

Court finds that there are sufficient guideposts in the specification for discerning the meaning of 

the terms, such that they have a clear scope and are not indefinite.290

289 ’126 Patent, col. 13 ll. 21–23. 

290 See supra note 127. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 64 of 80
65 

However, PVM is correct that PPC’s proposed construction removes the word 

“approximates” from the terms. And the term “approximates” is pivotal because it indicates that 

the shape of the grounding member is not a perfect cylinder but can be oblong or out-of-round. 

Thus, the Court will modify the construction to take account of the full-term phrases. The 

construction will be “forming at least part of a section of a hollow cylindrical shape that can be 

out-of-round or oblong (rather than perfectly circular), but not square, hexagonal, octagonal, 

or oval.” 

XVI. “electrically contacts” 

The claim at issue states that “the grounding member electrically contacts the annular 

recess of the nut and the axially extending outer surface of the flange of the post so as to provide 

a ground path between the nut and the post.”291 PVM contends that the term “electrically contacts” 

in this claim is indefinite.292 PPC contends that the term is definite and should be construed as 

“touches to form an electrical path.”293

PVM argues that the term “electrically contacts” is indefinite because, according to PVM, 

“electrically” is a term of degree that is not defined in the specification.294 In support of this 

argument, PVM cites the specification, which describes that, in a loose connection system, “an 

alternate ground path may fortuitously result from contact between the coupler and the tubular 

post.”295 And this invention was designed to solve this problem by providing a reliable ground 

path. So “electrically contacts” as used in this invention must mean more than the mere fortuitous 

291 ’612 Patent, Ex Parte Reexamination, col. 2 ll. 12–15. 

292 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

293 Id. 

294 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 29–30. 

295 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 65 of 80
66 

contact that this invention was designed to improve upon. But, according to PVM, the 

specification does not provide any guideposts for how much contact qualifies.296 On the other 

hand, PPC argues that the specification makes clear that electrical contact requires both physical 

engagement/touching, and the forming of an electrical path.297 And thus the relevant question to 

ask when determining if there has been electrical contact is whether the grounding member 

“touches to form an electrical path.” 

PVM has not met its burden to show that this term fails to inform those of ordinary skill in 

the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The term phrase is clear, 

especially in light of the specification. The specification states that this grounding member must 

contact the nut in order for an electric path to flow through the grounding member to the nut. Thus, 

the grounding member must contact the nut. And the type of contact must be an electric one. 

Thus, “electrically” is not a term of degree, it is simply describing the type of contact that the 

grounding member must make. Nothing in this claim language suggests that the grounding 

member must only electrically contact the nut sometimes or part of the time. Thus, the Court will 

construe “electrically contacts” to mean “touches to form a constant electrical path.” 

XVII. “an electrically-conductive grounding component” 

The term phrase at issue is “an electrically-conductive grounding component.”298 PVM 

says that this term phrase is indefinite. PPC says that this term phrase should be construed as “an 

electrically-conductive component that forms a ground path.”299 

296 Id. 

297 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 41–42. 

298 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5. 

299 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 66 of 80
67 

PVM argues that the term phrase is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis in the 

specification.300 PVM points out that an electrically-conductive grounding component is not 

described anywhere in the specification. The specification only mentions an electricallyconductive grounding member or electrically-conductive grease.301 

PPC says this term phrase is clear because, although “grounding component” isn’t used 

anywhere in the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine what a 

grounding component is from the rest of the specification and the claims.302 PPC notes that the 

surrounding claims describe that the component is located between the post and the coupler, that 

it contacts both the post and the coupler to provide an electrically-conductive grounding path, and 

that it is either an arcuately-shaped grounding member or electrically-conductive grease. Indeed, 

PPC points out that claim 6 of the ’455 Patent, which depends on claim 5, says that the 

“electrically-conductive grounding component is at least one of a resilient electrically-conductive 

grounding member and electrically-conductive grease.”303

PVM disagrees that the component is limited to either a grounding member or electricallyconductive grease. PVM argues that while claim 6 may limit the grounding component to “at least 

one of a resilient electrically-conductive grounding member and electrically-conductive grease,” 

claim 5 of the ’455 Patent is not so limited.304 Essentially, PVM is arguing that claim 6 does not 

provide the outer bounds of what a grounding component is. Instead, claim 6 simply limits the 

component to those two possibilities in that one claim only. PVM also argues that the fact that 

300 Id.; Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 31. 

301 See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 4 ll. 4–6. 

302 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 48–50. 

303 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 13–15; ’455 Patent, col. 13 ll. 14–17. 

304 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 11–12, 17. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 67 of 80
68 

PPC conceded in its brief that the grounding component could be a piece of iron ore, a metal 

spring, a metal ball, or a crumpled aluminum foil gum wrapper suggests the scope of component 

is much broader than just a grounding member or electrically-conductive grease.305 According to 

PVM, this makes the scope of the term overly broad and thus indefinite.306 

The Court agrees with PVM that the term grounding component appears to embrace more 

than just a grounding member or electrically-conductive grease. However, the Court does not 

agree that this makes the term indefinite. The surrounding claims and the specification make clear 

to a person of ordinary skill in the art what the grounding component is. It is located between the 

post and coupler, it makes electrical contact between these two objects for forming a ground path, 

and it needs to be shaped to fit inside the connector in such a way that it can maintain contact while 

still allowing the coupler to rotate. Thus, the Court will define “an electrically-conductive 

grounding component” as “any object that is both electrically-conductive and able to form a 

ground path.” 

XVIII. “a tubular post grounding path portion”; “a coupler grounding path portion” 

The Court will address these two terms together because they involve the same claims and 

the same concept. PVM argues that both terms are indefinite.307 PPC argues that “a tubular post 

305 See id. See also Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 49–50 (“Defendant asks a series of 

rhetorical questions about the scope of a grounding component: ‘Does it include anything that is capable of conducting 

electricity? A piece [of] iron ore? A metal spring? A metal ball? A graphic structure? A crumpled aluminum foil 

gum wrapper?’ . . . The answer is that a grounding component could be all of these things so long as it was shaped to 

fit inside the connector and allow the coupler to rotate, conduct electricity, is ‘disposed between the tubular post and 

the coupler,’ ‘reliably contacts both the tubular post grounding path portion and the coupler grounding path portion to 

provide a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding path between the tubular post grounding path portion 

and the coupler grounding path portion when a gap between the tubular post and the equipment port exists while the 

coupler is engaged with the equipment port’, is, in the case of [C]laim 7, ‘an arcuately shaped resilient electricallyconductive grounding member configured to extend around the tubular post over at least 225 degrees’, is, in the case 

of [C]laim 8, engaged and retained in the annular recess of the coupler, and is, in the case of [C]laim 15, ‘retained 

between the tubular post and the coupler.’”). 

306 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 11–12, 17. 

307 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5–6. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 68 of 80
69 

grounding path portion” should be construed as “a portion of the tubular post that contacts the 

electrically-conductive grounding component,” and that “a coupler grounding path portion” should 

be construed as “a portion of the coupler that contacts the electrically-conductive grounding 

component.”308

PPC argues that the specification and claims at issue teach that the grounding member sits 

between the tubular post and the coupler to form an electrical ground path.309 For example, the 

relevant claim language states that the “tubular post grounding path portion” has an “outer surface” 

and the “coupler grounding path portion” has an “inner surface.”310 The claim then states that “the 

electrically-conductive grounding component reliably contacts both the tubular post grounding 

path portion and the coupler grounding path portion to provide a stable and reliable electricallyconductive grounding path between the tubular post grounding path portion and the coupler 

grounding path portion . . . .”311 Thus, according to PPC, the tubular post grounding path portion 

and coupler grounding path portion are simply the portion of the post and coupler that is in contact 

with the grounding member.312

PVM argues that this term is indefinite because the term “grounding path portion” is not 

mentioned or defined anywhere in the Patents.313 So a person of ordinary skill in the art would be 

confused upon seeing that term appear for the first time in the claim.314 PVM further says that, 

even if it concedes that a person of ordinary skill in the art could discern from the specification 

308 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 5–6. 

309 See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 16–18 (noting that the “grounding member engages both the tubular post and the 

coupler for providing an electrically-conductive path therebetween”). 

310 ’455 Patent, col. 13 ll. 1–4. 

311 ’455 Patent, col. 13 ll. 5–11. 

312 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 44–47. 

313 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 32–33. 

314 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 69 of 80
70 

that the grounding path portion is the part of the post and nut that make contact with the grounding 

member, the term is still indefinite. That’s because the actual location of that contact with the post 

and nut varies across the embodiments.315 

The Court concludes that, even though neither a tubular post grounding path portion nor 

coupler grounding path portion are mentioned in the specification, the meanings of such terms are 

reasonably ascertainable from the specification.316 As PPC points out, the specification makes 

clear that the key feature of the invention is the electrical grounding connection that is made 

between the tubular post and the coupler. And the way this grounding connection is made is via a 

grounding member which makes contact with both the tubular post and the coupler. It is clear that 

the portion of the post and coupler that the grounding member touches to maintain that grounding 

path is the “grounding path portion.” Thus, these terms are not indefinite. The Court will adopt 

PPC’s constructions. “[A] tubular post grounding path portion” will be construed as “a portion of 

the tubular post that contacts the electrically-conductive grounding component.” And “a coupler 

grounding path portion” will be construed as “a portion of the coupler that contacts the electricallyconductive grounding component.”317 

XIX. “reliably contacts”; “a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding path” 

These two term phrases are discussed together because they relate to the same claims and 

the same concept. The relevant claim language at issue states that the “electrically-conductive 

grounding component reliably contacts both the tubular post grounding path portion and the 

315 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 19. 

316 See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that a claim is not indefinite “if the scope 

of [the] claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art”). 

317 The “electrically-conductive grounding component” portion of these constructions was not at issue in these term 

phrases. However, to the extent it is necessary, those terms should be construed consistent with the Court’s 

construction of that term in Section XVII. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 70 of 80
71 

coupler grounding path portion to provide a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding 

path between the tubular post grounding path portion and the coupler grounding path portion.”318 

PVM says that “reliably contacts” and “a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding 

path” are indefinite terms.319 PPC says that “reliably contacts” means “maintains contact” and “a 

stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding path” means “a path that maintains 

ground.”320 

PVM argues that both of these term phrases are indefinite because they use terms of 

degree—“reliably,” “reliable,” and “stable”—that are not defined in the specification.321 Similar 

to “electrically contacts” (discussed supra Section XVI), PVM cites the specification, which 

describes that, in a loose connection system, “an alternate ground path may fortuitously result from 

contact between the coupler and the tubular post.”322 And this invention was designed to improve 

on this problem by providing a reliable ground path.323 So “reliably,” “reliable,” and “stable” must 

mean more than the mere fortuitous contact that this invention was designed to improve upon. 

But, according to PVM, the specification does not provide any guideposts for how much contact 

qualifies.324 In essence, PVM’s argument is that not every contact or grounding path is stable and 

reliable, and the Patents do not make clear when a contact or grounding path becomes stable 

and reliable. 

318 ’455 Patent, col. 13 ll. 5–11. 

319 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

320 Id. 

321 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 34–35. 

322 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 58–60. 

323 Id. 

324 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 71 of 80
72 

PPC argues that these term phrases simply mean to “maintain” contact or “maintain” a 

grounding path.325 PPC says that the problem the invention was designed to solve was that the 

grounding path between the connector and the port was intermittent.326 Thus, to prevent this 

intermittent connection, the invention was designed to maintain a stable and reliable ground path 

from the post through the connector via a grounding member.327 In PPC’s view, a stable and 

reliable connection is the opposite of intermittent; it is maintained 100% of the time.328 

 PVM argues that PPC’s construction of “reliable” as “maintains” is superfluous because 

the specification states that the “coaxial cable connector . . . maintains a reliable ground path 

between the coupler and the tubular post . . . .”329 Because the statement uses both “maintains” 

and “reliable” in the same sentence, PVM says the inventors understood these terms to have 

different meanings. 

PVM has not met its burden of showing that these terms are indefinite. The specification 

details the scope of the terms such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be informed of 

the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The specification states that a reliable 

electrical connection can be achieved by ensuring the coupler is fully tightened over the port.330 

When that occurs, the tubular post “directly engages” the connection port thereby making a “direct 

electrical ground connection.”331 This connection is reliable because the post makes direct contact 

with the port such that an electrical ground path can flow through to the port unimpeded. Thus, 

325 Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 33) at 47–48. 

326 Id.

327 Id. 

328 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 21. 

329 ’990 Patent, col. 2 ll. 51–52. 

330 ’990 Patent, col. 1 ll. 51–59. 

331 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 72 of 80
73 

the specification teaches that a “reliable electrical connection” is one that results when a direct 

electrical ground connection is made such that a ground path can flow through unimpeded. 

On the other hand, the specification discusses an unstable ground path.332 This occurs 

when the coupler is not drawn tightly to the appliance port and so there is a gap between the tubular 

post and the connection port such that there is no direct electrical ground connection.333 In this 

loose connection system, a ground path may result from fortuitous contact between the coupler 

and the tubular post or from fortuitous contact between the coupler and the outer body of the 

connector.334 However, this path is unstable because it may be disrupted “as a result of vibrations, 

movement of the appliance, movement of the cable, or the like.”335 

So the distinction that the specification draws between a reliable ground path and an 

unstable ground path is that a reliable ground path results from a direct electrical ground 

connection that is not disrupted by vibrations, movement of the appliance, movement of the cable, 

or the like. And while an unstable ground path may happen fortuitously, it is not the result of 

constant, direct electrical engagement and so it is easily lost. This distinction provides enough of 

a scope of the meaning of the term to survive an indefiniteness challenge. Moreover, this 

distinction is consistent with PPC’s argument that a stable and reliable grounding path is a 

grounding path that is maintained 100% of the time.336 Applying this understanding to the terms 

at issue here, the Court will construe “a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding path” 

332 ’990 Patent, col. 2 ll. 23–24, 36–38. 

333 ’990 Patent, col. 1 l. 51–col. 2 l. 4. 

334 ’990 Patent, col. 2 ll. 20–31. 

335 ’990 Patent, col. 2 ll. 23–26. 

336 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 21. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 73 of 80
74 

as “a path that maintains a constant ground that is never disrupted by vibrations, movement of the 

cable-box port, movement of the cable, or the like.” 

Further, the specification and the relevant claims teach that the way that this grounding 

path is maintained is via a grounding member that is placed between the tubular post and the 

coupler.337 The grounding member allows the grounding path to flow through the coupler when 

the tubular post is not fully tightened to the port. It does this by being in direct contact with both 

the tubular post and the coupler. This allows the grounding path to flow from the post, through 

the grounding member, and through the coupler to the port. So even if the tubular post is not in 

direct contact with the port (because of a loose connection), the grounding member facilitates a 

direct contact with the port through the coupler. But this grounding path is only possible if the 

grounding member maintains contact with the tubular post and the coupler. That is, “a stable and 

reliable electrically-conductive grounding path” is only ensured if the grounding member 

maintains constant contact with both the tubular post and the coupler. Thus, consistent with how 

the Court construed “a stable and reliable electrically-conductive grounding path,” the Court 

construes the term “reliably contacts” to mean “maintains a constant contact that is not disrupted 

by vibrations, movement of the appliance, movement of the cable, or the like.” 

XX. “a circumferential band”; “a circumferential metallic band” 

The parties dispute the meaning of “a circumferential band” and “a circumferential metallic 

band” as used in several places in the Patents to describe the grounding member.338 The relevant 

claim language at issue states that the grounding member “comprises a circumferential band 

comprising a section that approximates a hollow cylinder, the circumferential band having first 

337 See, e.g., ’990 Patent, col. 3 ll. 14–20; ’455 Patent, col. 12 l. 47–col. 13 l. 13. 

338 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 74 of 80
75 

and second opposing side edges;” and “the generally arcuate shaped member comprises a 

circumferential metallic band; and the circumferential metallic band has a general circular shape 

and approximates a section of a hollow cylinder that extends between first and second opposing 

ends.”339

PVM argues that the construction for both terms should be “[a] circle-shaped piece of metal 

with first and second side edges that extend along its circumference and first and second radial 

walls that extend radially away from the first and second side edges.”340 PVM derives this 

construction from the specification. Specifically, PVM’s definition comes from the description of 

the fourth alternate grounding member.341 According to PVM, the fourth alternate grounding 

member is the only embodiment that is described as a circumferential band. 

PPC argued in its briefing and Joint Claim Construction Chart that the construction for “a 

circumferential band” should be “a curved strip” and that the construction for “a circumferential 

metallic band” should be “a curved strip made of a metallic material.”342 However, at the Markman

hearing, PPC conceded that the first part of PVM’s construction was accurate.343 That part of the 

construction is “a circle-shaped piece of metal with first and second side edges that extend along 

its circumference.” However, PPC objects to the second part of the construction. Specifically, 

that there are “first and second radial walls that extend radially away from the first and second side 

edges.” With respect to this part of the construction, PPC argues that PVM is improperly reading 

in a limitation to the claim from a specific embodiment (the fourth alternate grounding member).344 

339 ’126 Patent, col. 12 ll. 60–65; col. 13 ll. 20–23. 

340 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

341 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 60–61. 

342 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

343 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 22–23. 

344 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 56–57. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 75 of 80
76 

Given PPC’s concession, the Court will adopt the first part of PVM’s construction. 

However, the Court agrees with PPC that the second part of the construction is an improper 

limitation. PVM is wrong that the fourth alternate grounding member is the only embodiment that 

describes a circumferential metallic band. The sixth alternate grounding member is also described 

as including a “circumferential metallic band extending between first and second opposing 

ends.”345 Notably, this embodiment makes no mention of “radial walls.” Thus, the term 

“circumferential metallic band” does not automatically import requirements regarding radial walls. 

So the Court will omit that part of PVM’s proposed construction. The Court will construe “a 

circumferential band” and “a circumferential metallic band” as “a circle-shaped piece of metal 

with first and second side edges that extend along its circumference.” 

XXI. “a radial grounding member” 

The parties have submitted competing constructions of the term “a radial grounding 

member.”346 That term is used to describe the grounding member in claim 10 of the ’126 Patent.347 

PVM’s proposed construction is “a thin flat ring.”348 PPC’s proposed construction is “a grounding 

member that projects radially relative to the axis of the connector.”349

PVM argues that its construction is consistent with the second alternate embodiment, which 

is the only place the term “a radial grounding member” is used.350 PPC argues that this improperly 

limits the claim to one embodiment. According to PPC, the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth 

embodiments all depict radial grounding members even if they are not described explicitly as such. 

345 ’990 Patent, col. 10 ll. 6–8. 

346 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

347 ’126 Patent, col. 14 ll. 26–27. 

348 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6. 

349 Id. 

350 Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 32) at 61–62. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 76 of 80
77 

And while the first and second alternate embodiments are flat, the fourth and the sixth alternate 

embodiments are not.351 The one thing that they all have in common, according to PPC, is that 

they project radially relative to the axis of the connector. 

PPC has the better of the argument. While the term “radial grounding member” only 

appears in the second alternate embodiment, the feature being described is present in the first, 

third, fourth, and sixth alternate embodiments. Indeed, every time a grounding member is depicted 

in the specification, it is depicted as projecting radially relative to the axis of the connector. The 

fact that the words “radial grounding member” are not explicitly used to describe these grounding 

members is not sufficient to indicate that they are not radial grounding members. Nor does this 

omission show that the patentee expressly disavowed that “a radial grounding member” could 

include these other embodiments, or that the patentee clearly defined “a radial grounding member” 

as something that excluded these other embodiments.352 Thus, PVM’s construction reads 

limitations into the claim language from the specification that are unwarranted. 

 PVM’s construction of “a thin flat ring” appears to be derived entirely from the second 

embodiment. However, as discussed above, the fourth and sixth alternate embodiments depict 

rings that are not flat in the same way as the second alternate embodiment. So the requirement in 

PVM’s construction of a thin flat ring is overly narrow. PPC’s construction of “a grounding 

member that projects radially relative to the axis of the connector” accurately captures the scope 

of “a radial grounding member” in the Patents. Thus, the Court will adopt that construction. 

351 Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 40) at 57–58. 

352 Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 77 of 80
78 

XXII. “A grounding member for a coaxial cable connector having a post and a nut” 

This term is from the preamble to claim 9 in the ’612 Patent discussed in Section VI. PPC 

argues that the preamble is non-limiting and so no construction is necessary.353 PVM argues that 

if the preamble is non-limiting, the phrase is indefinite.354 PVM also argues that, if the Court finds 

that the preamble is limiting or that the phrase is not indefinite, that the phrase should be construed 

in a manner consistent with the Court’s constructions in Sections I and II.355

As discussed in Section VI, the preamble is limiting. So the decision now is whether to 

leave the language as is or further construe the term.356 PVM says this term should be construed 

the same way the Court construed “[a coupler having a first end] rotatably secured over the second 

end of the tubular post” and “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the 

first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body 

member contacts the coupler” in Sections I & II.357 Essentially, PVM wants the Court to add that 

the nut be “rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post and secured directly to the 

body (as opposed to secured directly to the post only) in a manner that allows the coupler to rotate 

and that does not allow for the body member to ever lose contact with the coupler” and “a body 

member secured to the tubular post and extending axially at least as far as the first end of the post 

for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the 

coupler.”358 

353 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6–7. 

354 Id. 

355 Id. 

356 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 31 (counsel for PVM conceding that the indefiniteness problem goes away 

if claim 9 is limiting). 

357 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6–7. 

358 Id. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 78 of 80
79 

PPC says it would be error to import these constructions because of differences between 

the ’612 Patent (at issue here) and the Patents at issue in the Arizona case.359 First, PPC points out 

that the actual claim language in the ’612 Patent is very different. In the Arizona case, the claims 

that the Court was construing were (1) “[a coupler having a first end] rotatably secured over the 

second end of the tubular post” and (2) “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending 

about the first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein 

the body member contacts the coupler.”360 Here, the claim recites “a grounding member for a 

coaxial cable connector having a post and a nut.”361 With respect to the first claim the Arizona 

Court construed, PPC further argues that the Arizona Court adopted the construction it did because 

of the limitation that the body and coupler cannot lose contact. But no claim in the ’612 Patent 

includes such a limitation.362 And with respect to the second claim the Arizona Court construed, 

PPC notes that the Arizona Court adopted the construction it did because of the language in the 

claim that the body “extend[ed] about the first end of the tubular post.” However, that language 

is not in the ’612 Patent. 363 

According to PVM, these additions are necessary to clarify what a post and a nut are. It is 

insufficient to simply say that the connector has a post and a nut without also stating that the nut 

must be attached to the body and that the body extends at least as far as the post.364 PVM says that 

359 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 26–27. 

360 See supra Sections I & II. 

361 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6–7. 

362 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 26–27. 

363 Id. 

364 Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Claim Construction Br. (Doc. 41) at 47. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 79 of 80
80 

the fact that these are different patents doesn’t matter; the embodiments and figures/invention are 

the same here, so the definitions need to be the same here as they are in the ’990 Patent.365 

Overall, the Court finds PPC more persuasive. Aside from involving a post and a nut, the 

terms at issue are markedly different from the terms that the Court construed in Sections I and II. 

And the Patents at issue are different in ways that are key to the Court’s constructions in those 

sections. Thus, importing those additional limitations from a different patent into the Patent at 

issue here would be erroneous. Moreover, PVM concedes that this term phrase is not indefinite, 

and the Court does not find that “a grounding member for a coaxial cable connector having a post 

and a nut” is ambiguous in any way that warrants further construction. The specification is littered 

with details on what a post and a nut are such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have 

no difficulty understanding what was meant by these terms. Thus, the Court finds that this term 

phrase is not indefinite and is not in need of any further construction. 

XXIII. “a nut, a post” 

The parties presented the same arguments for this term that they did for the previous term 

in Section XXII.366 So the Court finds that this term phrase is not indefinite and is not in need of 

any further construction for the same reasons discussed in Section XXII. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August 2024. 

 ________________________________ 

 LEE P. RUDOFSKY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

365 June 29, 2023 Hr’g Tr. Pt. II (Rough) at 26–27. 

366 Joint Claim Chart (Doc. 31) at 6–7. 

Case 4:22-cv-00163-LPR Document 49 Filed 08/02/24 Page 80 of 80