Certicable v. Point 2 Point Communications: Fiber Optic Cable Patent Dismissed Without Prejudice
Certicable, Inc. and Certicable, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of New York against Point 2 Point Communications Corporation and Roman Krawczyk, asserting US10444454B2 over NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cable products. The case ran for 1,071 days before closing on a stipulated dismissal — with the patent invalidity counterclaim carved out and dismissed without prejudice.
Fiber optic cable patent dispute ends in stipulated dismissal after nearly three years
Certicable, Inc. and Certicable, LLC (collectively, the plaintiffs) filed this patent infringement action on July 12, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:23-cv-05322. The defendants are Point 2 Point Communications Corporation and Roman Krawczyk. The asserted patent, US10444454B2 (application number US15/897607), covers technology associated with NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cables.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order — a stipulation executed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — states that the action, including all claims and counterclaims, is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, except that P2P's Counterclaim III (patent invalidity) is dismissed without prejudice. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed without costs or fees to any party.
The case ran for approximately 1,071 days before the parties reached their agreed resolution. The carve-out of P2P's patent invalidity counterclaim — dismissed without prejudice — means that the validity of US10444454B2 was not adjudicated on the merits and could be raised in future proceedings. The specific commercial terms, if any, underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 1071 days
1,071 days from filing to close — nearly three years of active litigation
US10444454B2 — NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cable technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing fiber optic cables in the NANOFIBER or TINIFIBER product category — or technically adjacent miniature fiber optic formats — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10444454B2. The patent has not been adjudicated invalid, and this case's resolution does not extinguish Certicable's enforcement rights against third parties.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation, executed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), creates an asymmetric outcome: the main infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing re-litigation between these parties, while P2P's patent invalidity counterclaim is expressly preserved without prejudice. This structure means US10444454B2 survives without a validity ruling — leaving Certicable's enforcement position intact against third parties, and P2P's future invalidity arguments unwaived.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal: how this case ended
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), allowing voluntary dismissal by agreement without a court order. Most claims were dismissed with prejudice; however, P2P's Counterclaim III (patent invalidity) was expressly carved out and dismissed without prejudice — meaning that specific issue was not resolved on the merits and may be revisited in future litigation.
Stipulated — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)Infringement claims end, but validity remains an open question
For Certicable, the dismissal of its infringement claims with prejudice means it cannot re-litigate those same claims against these defendants in this court. The without-prejudice dismissal of P2P's invalidity counterclaim means US10444454B2 has not been adjudicated invalid — but validity was also never confirmed. No costs or fees were awarded to either side.
Patent validity unresolvedP2P retains the right to challenge patent validity in future proceedings
Point 2 Point Communications and Roman Krawczyk secured a without-prejudice dismissal of the patent invalidity counterclaim, preserving their ability to challenge the validity of US10444454B2 in any future dispute. The infringement claims against them are gone with prejudice, providing finality on that front. No costs or fees were assessed against the defendants.
Invalidity right preservedUnresolved validity creates ongoing risk in fiber optic cable sector
Because the invalidity counterclaim was not adjudicated, US10444454B2 remains a live enforcement asset — but its validity has not been tested. Companies operating in the NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cable space should note that neither enforceability nor invalidity has been judicially confirmed. Third parties cannot rely on this disposition as a validity determination.
Validity cloud remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Certicable, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Certicable, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Point 2 Point Communications Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Roman Krawczyk | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Berkowitz | Attorney | Counsel for Certicable, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sandra Adele Hudak | Attorney | Counsel for Certicable, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen E. Feldman | Attorney | Counsel for Certicable, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Feldman Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing Certicable, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP | Law Firm | Representing Certicable, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Celia Cohen | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gerard Belfort | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey Morgan | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kirsten Fehlan | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Madhundra Sivakumar | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marjorie J. Peerce | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard W. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samuel Josef Erlanger | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wendy R. Stein | Attorney | Counsel for Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Adelman Matz P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ballard Spahr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Point 2 Point Communications CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the fiber optic cable technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Certicable v. Point 2 Point dispute over NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cable technology.
Certicable's fiber optic IP portfolio: what else is filed?
US10444454B2 may be one of multiple assets in Certicable's portfolio. Mapping related continuations, divisionals, and co-pending applications in the same family can reveal the breadth of Certicable's IP footprint in miniature fiber optic cable design — and identify whether broader or narrower claim variants are pending.
Portfolio mappingFiling trends in miniature and high-density fiber optic cable design
The NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER product categories suggest innovation around miniaturized fiber optic formats. Tracking recent patent filings by competitors in ultra-thin, bendable, or high-count fiber cable architectures reveals where R&D investment is clustering and where white space may exist.
Filing trend analysisPoint 2 Point Communications: patent activity and defensive IP
P2P's development of a patent invalidity counterclaim over 1,071 days of litigation suggests internal prior-art research capability. Examining P2P's own patent filings — if any — in the fiber optic and telecommunications cable space may reveal their R&D trajectory and defensive IP strategy going forward.
Defensive IP postureAdjacent innovation opportunities near US10444454B2's claim space
With US10444454B2's exact claim boundaries uncontested by a court ruling, adjacent technical areas — such as fiber cable installation methods, sheathing materials, or connector interfaces for miniature fiber formats — may represent white-space R&D opportunities that avoid the asserted patent's scope while addressing similar market needs.
White space opportunitySimilar fiber optic cable patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving fiber optic cable technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including cases with analogous validity and dismissal postures.
What this case signals for the fiber optic cable IP landscape
The carved-out invalidity counterclaim is the key signal: US10444454B2 remains untested and potentially re-enforceable.
Patent validity of US10444454B2 remains judicially unresolved
The without-prejudice dismissal of P2P's invalidity counterclaim means no court has ruled on whether US10444454B2 is valid. Any party designing around, licensing, or challenging this patent should treat its validity status as an open question — not settled by this outcome.
No-costs resolution suggests mutual commercial motivation to exit
A mutual no-costs dismissal after nearly three years of litigation suggests both sides found continued dispute economically unattractive. The specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record. Parties monitoring Certicable's enforcement posture should watch for future filings asserting the same patent.
Certicable v Point — key questions answered
The asserted patent is US10444454B2, filed under application number US15/897607. Certicable, Inc. and Certicable, LLC alleged that Point 2 Point Communications Corporation and Roman Krawczyk infringed this patent in connection with NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cable products.
The case was resolved by a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed without Prejudice. The docket order states that most claims were dismissed with prejudice, but P2P's Counterclaim III (patent invalidity) was dismissed without prejudice. No costs or fees were awarded to any party.
No court has adjudicated the validity of US10444454B2. P2P's patent invalidity counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning validity was not resolved on the merits. The patent remains a live asset and its validity status is an open question that could be raised in future proceedings.
Yes. The dismissal of the infringement claims applies to the specific parties in this case. Certicable retains ownership of US10444454B2 and, based on the available record, nothing in this disposition extinguishes its right to assert the patent against third parties. The specific terms of any broader agreement, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
A without-prejudice dismissal means P2P's invalidity counterclaim was not decided on the merits and is not barred by res judicata. P2P — or any other interested party — could raise invalidity arguments against US10444454B2 in future litigation or through USPTO proceedings such as an inter partes review, without being foreclosed by this case's outcome.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.