In a patent-infringement case involving fiber-optic-cable assemblies, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke (E.D.N.Y.) recently rejected defendants’ arguments that two terms in the patent claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112: “bend radius of ≥5D” and “slightly greater than.”
1. “Bend Radius of ≥5D”
The “bend radius” of a fiber optic cable is its ability to “bend without sustaining damage.” Certicable LLC v. Point 2 Point Commc’ns Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05322 (NJC) (SIL), 2025 WL 1220604, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025). Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,444,454 (“the ’454 Patent”) claim a bend radius of greater than or equal to “5D.” Id. Point 2 Point Communications and Roman Krawczyk (“Defendants”) argued that the claimed bend radius was indefinite because “≥5D” is “completely unbounded.” Id. They suggested that a “hypothetical cable with a bend radius of infinity—that is, a cable that does not bend at all—would be protected by the ’454 Patent, thereby rendering ‘5D’ meaningless.” Id.
The court rejected those arguments, concluding that Defendants had not carried their burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at *8. Judge Locke reasoned that “the simple fact that the upper bound of the term is without limit” was “insufficient on its own” to satisfy Defendants’ burden of establishing indefiniteness. Id. He noted that Defendants did not present any evidence, such as expert testimony, showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider an unbounded claim range to be indefinite. Id. He added that, although the wording of the patent “may be inartful,” id. at *7, “poor drafting does not provide clear and convincing evidence sufficient to render . . . claim terms indefinite,” id. (quoting VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., 345 F. Supp. 3d 394, 401 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2018)).
2. “Slightly Greater Than”
Claims 1 and 6 of the patent require “an outer jacket, the outer jacket having an inside diameter slightly greater than an outside diameter of the non-interlocking armor.” Id. at *8 (emphasis added). Defendants argued that “[t]here is nothing in the ’454 Patent that explains what ‘slightly’ could mean”; they suggested that the term is “simply [one] of degree that doesn’t really mean anything at all by itself.” Id.
The court rejected those arguments, too. Judge Locke noted that a “term of degree” is not per se indefinite; courts have found that terms of degree are definite where they “provide[] enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” Id. (quoting Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1347 (2d Cir. 2022)). As it did with respect to the “bend radius” term, the court took issue with Defendants’ failure to provide evidence “that would either assist the Court in evaluating the definiteness of the disputed terms or understanding what a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand the challenged term to mean.” Id. at *9.
The case is Certicable LLC v. Point 2 Point Commc’ns Corp., No. 2:23-cv-05322 (NJC) (SIL), 2025 WL 1220604 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025).
