PPC Broadband v. Amphenol: Coaxial Connector Case Dismissed With Prejudice After 1,811 Days
PPC Broadband, Inc. filed suit against Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. in Delaware District Court, asserting four patents covering coaxial cable connector technology against the Quickshield® Ground Feature product line. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after nearly five years of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
Five-year coaxial connector fight ends by mutual stipulation
PPC Broadband, Inc. filed Case No. 1:21-cv-00654 in the Delaware District Court on 6 May 2021, asserting infringement of four U.S. patents — US10965063B2, US9225083B2, US10446983B2, and US10038284B2 — against Amphenol Corp. and its subsidiary Times Fiber Communications, Inc. The asserted technology relates to coaxial cable connector products, specifically targeting features embodied in Defendants' Quickshield® Ground Feature product line.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, covering all claims and counterclaims, with each party to bear its own costs and fees, and all parties waiving all rights of appeal. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
The case ran for 1,811 days — nearly five years — before resolution, which is notable for a matter ending by stipulated dismissal rather than a full trial verdict. What drove the timing and the decision to resolve at this stage is not apparent from the public record. The mutual fee-bearing arrangement and the waiver of appeal rights are consistent with a negotiated exit, but the underlying commercial or legal considerations are not disclosed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1811 days
Nearly five years from filing to stipulated dismissal — unusually long for a negotiated exit
US10965063B2 — coaxial cable connector grounding and shielding technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing coaxial cable connectors — particularly those incorporating ground continuity or shielding features — should consider conducting freedom-to-operate analysis against PPC Broadband's four-patent portfolio. The Quickshield® Ground Feature was specifically accused in this case, but the claim scope of these patents may extend to similar grounding architectures used across the cable and broadband hardware industry.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — a jointly filed notice requiring no court approval — and specifies dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims, mutual cost-bearing, and an express waiver of all appeal rights. No merits adjudication, claim construction ruling, or damages determination is recorded. The appeal waiver is notable: it forecloses Federal Circuit review entirely, leaving the four asserted patents without any judicial validity or infringement ruling from this proceeding.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a jointly filed stipulation that permanently extinguishes the claims — PPC Broadband cannot re-file the same patent infringement action against Amphenol or Times Fiber on the same patents. All claims and counterclaims are ended. The parties also expressly waived all rights of appeal, foreclosing further challenge at the Federal Circuit.
Permanent bar on re-filingPPC Broadband's four patents survive — enforceability intact against third parties
A dismissal with prejudice ends this specific action but does not invalidate PPC Broadband's patents. US10965063B2, US9225083B2, US10446983B2, and US10038284B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. PPC Broadband retains full enforcement rights in the broader market. The specific terms of resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents remain enforceableAmphenol and Times Fiber exit litigation — Quickshield® future not addressed publicly
Amphenol Corp. and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. are permanently released from this suit. With the appeal waiver in place, no Federal Circuit review will occur. Whether the Quickshield® Ground Feature product line continues unchanged, is modified, or subject to any licensing arrangement is not disclosed in the available public record. Each party bears its own costs, suggesting no damages award on the record.
Released from this actionFour coaxial connector patents remain active enforcement tools in the sector
For the coaxial cable connector industry, PPC Broadband's patent portfolio remains a live enforcement risk. Competitors and component manufacturers whose products incorporate grounding or shielding features similar to the Quickshield® Ground Feature should assess exposure against the four asserted patents. The nearly five-year duration before resolution signals that these patents withstood sustained litigation pressure without being invalidated on the record.
Active portfolio riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PPC Broadband, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amphenol Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Times Fiber Communications, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas J. Nash | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John D. Cook | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Naresh K. Kannan | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pilar Gabrielle Kraman | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert M. Vrana | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP | Law Firm | Representing PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | B. Thomas Watson | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bornali R. Borah | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maximilian A. Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard G. Frenkel | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory B. Williams | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the coaxial cable connector IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for the coaxial connector sector, surfaced from PPC Broadband's enforcement activity and Amphenol's competitive IP posture.
PPC Broadband's coaxial connector filing activity beyond this case
PPC Broadband's assertion of four distinct patents — spanning multiple application years — suggests a structured and growing portfolio in coaxial connector grounding and shielding. Monitoring PPC Broadband's continuing prosecution activity and newly issued patents in this space is critical for connector OEMs and cable infrastructure suppliers assessing future enforcement risk.
Portfolio monitoring priorityPatent filing trends in coaxial connector grounding and shielding
The coaxial connector grounding feature space — covering ground continuity, shielding integrity, and push-on connector architectures — is an active zone of patent prosecution. Understanding the density and direction of filings from PPC Broadband, Amphenol, Corning, and other connector manufacturers helps R&D teams identify crowded claim spaces and potential white-space for differentiated design.
Active filing zoneAmphenol's own patent activity in RF and coaxial connectors
Amphenol Corp. maintains a substantial patent portfolio in connector and cable technology, including RF and coaxial segments. Analysing Amphenol's own filing trends — particularly in ground continuity and shield feature design — provides insight into the company's R&D investment priorities and potential cross-licensing leverage in this segment of the market.
Amphenol IP watchDesign-around space near PPC Broadband's asserted claim boundaries
With no claim construction ruling entering the public record from this case, the precise boundaries of US10965063B2, US9225083B2, US10446983B2, and US10038284B2 remain untested judicially. This creates potential white-space for connector designs that achieve equivalent grounding performance through alternative architectures not captured by the existing claim language — an opportunity for R&D teams to explore.
Design-around opportunitySimilar coaxial connector patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Explore comparable patent infringement actions in the coaxial cable connector and broadband hardware space litigated before Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the coaxial connector IP landscape
Four live patents, a five-year fight, and a record-silent resolution — here is what IP teams should take away.
PPC Broadband's coaxial patent portfolio remains a credible enforcement threat
All four asserted patents — US10965063B2, US9225083B2, US10446983B2, US10038284B2 — exit this case unadjudicated on validity or infringement. Connector manufacturers and cable assembly companies operating in the coaxial grounding and shielding space should treat these patents as active risk vectors and conduct FTO analysis before product launch or redesign.
Five-year litigation tenure before voluntary exit warrants monitoring of re-filing activity
Dismissals with prejudice bar re-filing against these defendants, but PPC Broadband retains full rights to enforce the same patents against other market participants. The appeal waiver removes Federal Circuit scrutiny in this instance, meaning no invalidity precedent was established. Competitors should monitor PPC Broadband's future enforcement activity in this technology domain.
PPC v Amphenol — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), closing on 21 April 2026. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed, each party bears its own costs and fees, and all parties waived all rights of appeal. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
PPC Broadband asserted four U.S. patents: US10965063B2, US9225083B2, US10446983B2, and US10038284B2. All relate to coaxial cable connector technology. The accused products were Amphenol's and Times Fiber's coaxial cable connector products incorporating the so-called Quickshield® Ground Feature.
No. A dismissal with prejudice ends the litigation between these specific parties but does not invalidate the asserted patents. US10965063B2 and the three co-asserted patents remain in force and can be enforced against other parties. No validity or infringement ruling was made on the record in this case.
The stipulation expressly states that all parties waive all rights of appeal. This means neither PPC Broadband nor Amphenol or Times Fiber can seek Federal Circuit review of any aspect of this case. No appellate precedent on the patents' validity or infringement will arise from this proceeding.
The case ran for 1,811 days — approximately five years — from filing on 6 May 2021 to closure on 21 April 2026. For a case ending by stipulated dismissal rather than a full trial, this duration is notable. The factors driving the extended timeline before resolution are not apparent from the public record.
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.