PPC Broadband v. PerfectVision: Cable Connector Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
PPC Broadband, Inc. asserted US7118416B2 — covering coaxial cable connector technology — against PerfectVision Manufacturing’s SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® connector models in the Eastern District of Arkansas. After 1,387 days of litigation, the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
A nearly four-year cable connector patent battle ends by mutual agreement
PPC Broadband, Inc., a manufacturer and patent holder in the coaxial cable connector space, filed suit against PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. on March 2, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Case No. 4:22-cv-00204), before Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. The infringement claim centred on US7118416B2 and targeted PerfectVision’s SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® cable connector models PV 6USLP and PV 6UE-05, products squarely positioned in the competitive coaxial connector market.
The case closed on December 18, 2025, through a stipulated dismissal with prejudice entered under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both parties — through their respective counsel — agreed that all claims and counterclaims would be dismissed with prejudice, with each side absorbing its own litigation costs and attorney’s fees. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: PPC Broadband is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against PerfectVision on the same patent and accused products.
At 1,387 days, the litigation ran nearly 3.8 years before resolution — a duration suggesting the parties engaged in substantial discovery and motion practice before reaching agreement. The symmetric cost allocation and absence of any publicly recorded damages award or consent judgment suggest a negotiated commercial resolution, though the specific terms of any underlying settlement remain confidential. What drove the parties to resolution at this juncture — whether claim construction rulings, trial proximity, or commercial considerations — is not discernible from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1387 days
1,387 days — nearly 3.8 years, well above the median district court patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signatures of all parties who have appeared. The ‘with prejudice’ designation converts the dismissal into a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes: PPC Broadband cannot refile the same infringement claims based on US7118416B2 against the same accused products. This is a permanent, court-endorsed exit — not a procedural pause.
Permanent bar on re-filingPPC Broadband forfeits the right to re-litigate these claims
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, PPC Broadband permanently surrenders its ability to assert the same US7118416B2 claims against PerfectVision’s SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® models at issue. The absence of any recorded damages award or injunction suggests PPC did not extract a public monetary judgment. Whether a confidential commercial agreement was reached is not disclosed in the public record.
No public damages awardPerfectVision exits without an adverse judgment — but faces ongoing IP exposure
PerfectVision achieves closure on these specific claims without a liability finding on the record. However, the with-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate US7118416B2 — the patent remains enforceable. PerfectVision and other coaxial connector manufacturers should note that PPC Broadband retains the right to assert the patent against other products or in other proceedings.
Patent US7118416B2 remains liveCoaxial connector competitors: the patent is still in play
The stipulated dismissal with each party bearing its own costs — after nearly four years of litigation — is consistent with a negotiated resolution that avoids an unfavourable merits ruling for either side. For the broader coaxial cable connector sector, US7118416B2 remains valid and enforceable. Competitors developing or selling similar connector technology should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct appropriate freedom-to-operate analysis.
Active FTO risk for competitorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PPC Broadband, Inc. | Company | Coaxial cable connector manufacturer and IP licensor — holder of US7118416B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc. | Company | PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. — producer of SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® cable connectorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas J. Nash | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Genevieve M. Halpenny | 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 | John Keeling Baker | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Naresh K. Kannan | Attorney | Counsel for PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barclay Damon LLP | Law Firm | Representing PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP | Law Firm | Representing PPC Broadband, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles Darwin Davidson, Sr. | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Damian Kevin Gunningsmith | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Louis Gershner | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fatima Lahnin | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Richard Horvack , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nickolas W. Dunn | Attorney | Counsel for Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Davidson Law Firm, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee P. Rudofsky | Judge | Arkansas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language — ‘all claims and counterclaims shall be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own litigation costs’ — is precise and consequential. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future assertion of the same claims by PPC Broadband against these specific PerfectVision products. The mutual cost-bearing provision, absent any fee-shifting motion or exceptional case finding, suggests neither party secured a decisive litigation advantage. The phrasing is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a concession of liability.
US7118416B2 — Coaxial Cable Connector Technology
US7118416B2, filed under application number US10/781376, protects coaxial cable connector technology — specifically the design and mechanical interface of connectors used to terminate and couple coaxial cables in signal distribution systems. Coaxial connectors of this type are foundational components in cable television, broadband internet, and RF signal infrastructure. The patent’s claims define structural and functional elements of the connector body, coupling nut, and termination interface that distinguish PPC’s design from prior art.
For the coaxial cable connector sector, US7118416B2 represents a meaningful enforcement asset in a market where product differentiation at the connector level can be subtle but legally significant. PPC Broadband has a history of active IP enforcement in this space, and the patent’s survival through nearly four years of litigation without invalidation suggests it has withstood scrutiny. Competitors — particularly those manufacturing push-on, compression, or snap-and-seal type connectors — should assess their product designs against the asserted claims as a priority IP risk management step.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7118416B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing coaxial cable connectors — including compression connectors, push-on connectors, and related termination hardware for cable TV, broadband, or RF applications — should treat US7118416B2 as an active clearance requirement. The patent has survived extended adversarial litigation and remains enforceable. PPC Broadband’s willingness to litigate for nearly four years signals a credible enforcement posture that product teams and procurement managers cannot ignore.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map the claims of US7118416B2 against product designs, identify the full patent family including continuations and divisionals, and surface related coaxial connector patents that may create compound infringement risk. Eureka’s AI-assisted claim chart generation and prior art search tools can accelerate FTO workflows that would otherwise require weeks of manual analysis — giving your team a defensible clearance position before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7118416B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar coaxial cable connector patent infringement cases
Explore related patent infringement actions in the coaxial cable connector sector, including other cases filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas and comparable technology disputes.
What this case signals for the coaxial cable connector IP landscape
A nearly four-year lifespan and symmetric cost split suggest a hard-fought dispute resolved on commercial — not just legal — terms.
With-prejudice exits after extended litigation often mask private settlements
When a patent case runs nearly four years and terminates via stipulated dismissal with each party bearing its own costs, the absence of a public judgment typically suggests the parties reached a confidential commercial agreement. IP teams tracking PPC Broadband’s enforcement posture should note this pattern as potentially indicative of licensing activity.
US7118416B2 remains enforceable — FTO analysis is still required
The dismissal does not touch the validity or scope of US7118416B2. Any manufacturer or distributor of coaxial cable connectors — particularly push-on or compression-style termination products — should verify their product designs do not read on the claims of this patent before bringing new models to market.
PPC v Perfectvision — key questions answered
PPC Broadband, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. in the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 2, 2022, asserting US7118416B2 against PerfectVision’s SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® cable connector models. After 1,387 days, the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on December 18, 2025, with each party bearing its own litigation costs.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. PPC Broadband is permanently barred from re-asserting the same US7118416B2 infringement claims against the same accused PerfectVision products — the SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® models PV 6USLP and PV 6UE-05. The patent itself, however, remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Yes. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice does not affect the validity or enforceability of the underlying patent. US7118416B2 was not invalidated by this proceeding. PPC Broadband retains the right to assert the patent against other manufacturers or distributors of coaxial cable connectors whose products may read on the patent’s claims.
The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means no fee-shifting occurred under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or Rule 54. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigation outcome where one party clearly prevailed. It suggests neither party successfully demonstrated the other’s case was objectively unreasonable or litigated in bad faith.
The accused products identified in the case were PerfectVision’s SignaLoc® and RidgeLoc® cable connector models, specifically model numbers PV 6USLP and PV 6UE-05. These are coaxial cable connectors used in signal distribution applications. The dismissal with prejudice covers these specific accused products in connection with the asserted claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.