Infringement action filed 12 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and closed 17 Jun 2026, with US10444454B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
The specification relates to a fiber optic cable assembly. The fiber optic cable assembly includes at least one fiber optic fiber; and an armor for providing crush resistance for the at least one fiber optic cable, the armor being a spiral tube having a gap between each spiraling ring of the spiral tube, the gap allowing the fiber optic cable assembly to have a bend radius of ≥5D.
Celia Cohen · Gerard Belfort · Jeffrey Morgan · Kirsten Fehlan · Madhundra Sivakumar · Marjorie J. Peerce · Richard W. Miller · Samuel Josef Erlanger · Wendy R. Stein
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for Certicable LLC and counsel for Point 2 Point Communications Corp. ("P2P") and Roman Krawczyk, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii), that this action, including all claims and counterclaims, is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, except P2P's Counterclaim III (patent invalidity) is dismissed without prejudice. All claims and counterclaims are dismissed without costs or fees to any party. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and a copy of the signatures on this Stipulation serve the same purposes as an original signature."
Case 2:23-cv-05322 · E.D.N.Y. · closed 17 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
2:23-cv-05322 is a patent infringement action brought by Certicable, Inc. against Point 2 Point Communications Corporation, filed on 12 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case closed on 17 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-05322?
US10444454B2 (“Armored flexible fiber optic assembly”), assigned to CERTICABLE, LLC, currently active. The record also lists NANOFIBER and TINIFIBER fiber optic cables.
How was case 2:23-cv-05322 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: "IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for Certicable LLC and counsel for Point 2 Point Communications Corp. ("P2P") and Roman Krawczyk, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii), that this action, including all claims and counterclaims, is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, except P2P's Counterclaim III (patent invalidity) is dismissed without prejudice. All claims and counterclaims are dismissed without costs or fees to any party. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and a copy of the signatures on this Stipulation serve the same purposes as a
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:23-cv-05322 take?
1071 calendar days, from filing on 12 Jul 2023 to closure on 17 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-05322?
Mark Berkowitz, Sandra Adele Hudak and Stephen E. Feldman are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Certicable. Celia Cohen, Gerard Belfort, Jeffrey Morgan, Kirsten Fehlan, Madhundra Sivakumar, Marjorie J. Peerce, Richard W. Miller, Samuel Josef Erlanger and Wendy R. Stein appear for defendant Point 2 Point Communications.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-05322 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-05322 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
