CTC Global litigation


Russia for Russians

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь


CTC History

Although CTC Global has held itself out as having been in business since 2001 and as having made sales of ACCC spanning more than 10 years, a review of the public documents available shows that CTC Global has only been in existence since July 2011 and could not have sold or installed ACCC prior to that time. Meanwhile CTC Cable and Composite Technology Corporation are still in Bankruptcy.

For more information on the History of the “CTC” companies and multiple bankruptcy filings from 2005 and 2011


Conspiracy to monopolize composite core conductor bare overhead HTLS market with ACCC

As alleged in the US filing, the Patent Owners, with the support, cooperation and assistance of CTC Global and the other Defendants ( J.D. SITTON, JASON HUANG, BORIS RYABOV, ALEX OKUN, MICHAEL D. McINTOSH, DAVE BRYANT, CLEMENT HIEL, MARVIN SEPE, STEWART RAMSAY, GEORGE KORZENIOWSKI, DAVID F. DOCKERY, BRUCE S. BERNSTEIN, JEROME P. FANUCCI and BENTON H. WILCOXON) in this action, obtained the ‘162 and ‘319 Patents by knowingly and willfully misrepresenting facts and omitting material prior art during proceedings before USPTO.

Had CTC and Defendants disclosed the true facts to the USPTO, the Patent would have been determined to be invalid. However, by their conduct, CTC and Defendants intended to defraud the USPTO, including to approve issuance of the fraudulently obtained Patents so that CTC and Defendants could attempt to enforce the Patents knowing of their fraudulent procurement.

Knowing that the Patents-In-Suit were invalid because of their intentional defrauding of the USPTO, the Named and Doe Defendants continued their anticompetitive scheme by not only directing CTC to bring patent litigation against Mercury and others, but to threaten bringing such litigation against entities wanting to do business with Mercury.




Therefore, for at least the reasons stated above, the ‘162 and ‘319 Patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and fraud before the USPTO.

The Patents-In-Suit are also unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and fraud committed before the U.S. Patent and Trademark office (“USPTO”) for at least the following reasons.

A. Blatant plagiarism of Douglass Reference in Provisional Application, Failure to Disclose Douglass During Prosecution, and Misrepresentation Regarding Inventorship

B. Failure to to Disclose Gambone and Newaz During Second Reexamination Proceedings After Amending Claims to Add “Overhead” Limitation in Response to Office Action Rejecting Claims


CTC Cable Bankruptcies

Composite Technology Corporation and CTC Cable filed bankruptcy in May 2005. In april 2011, CTC filed it’s 2nd U.S. Bankruptcy less than 18 months after concluding its initial bankruptcy.

The most recent 2011 bankruptcy is still ongoing.

In August 2011, Russian entities Kaskol and RU-COM jointly acquired Composite Technology Corp’s assets out of its U.S. bankruptcy proceedings in a deal valued at more than $11 million, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review reported. The Russian companies’ joint venture, called CTC Acquisition Corp., paid $1 million in cash and assumed the responsibility for at least $10.5 million in Composite Technology’s liabilities, according to a purchase agreement filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana, California. CTC Acquisition Corp subsequently changed its name to CTC Global.


ACCC Line Failures

Independent Testing at multiple industry leading facilities including the University of Southern California Composites Center and Kinetrics establish that the ACCC product has porosity and concentricity issues that impacted its performance in the Sequential Mechanical Testing ( developed by AEP to simulate accelerated aging and extreme field conditions) and quite likely had an impact in the multiple line failures ACCC Conductor has experienced in Indonesia, China, United States and Poland.

Indonesia ACCC Line Failure

Overhead Conductor (ACCC) Failure on Live Line in Indonesia

No one expects sudden conductor breakage of the live line in the overhead transmission lines, however it is widely reported that several projects in Indonesia, Poland, China, India, Mexico, U.S. and others experienced serious accidents caused by the conductor breakage of aluminium overhead conductor with composite core reinforcement (so-called Aluminium Conductor Composite Core: hereinafter abbreviated “ACCC”) under the conditions of live line operation within the short period after completion of conductor installation.

This report concerns the failure of the installed ACCC conductor in Indonesia

The failure of ACCC occurred suddenly during normal operations of the live line on approximately the 10th day following completion of the installation of the ACCC conductor in Indonesia. It should be carefully noted that no portion of aluminium component wires or conductor surface were damaged during the installation works, while whole conductor was broken. Following extensive analysis, it was concluded that the ACCC composite core housed inside the conductor was broken first due to certain stress or defects. Following the failure of the ACCC composite core and the component wires of annealed aluminium were broken due to over-loading stress caused by the ACCC composite core reinforcement. It is obvious that the breakage of composite core was due to a defect in the ACCC carbon composite core, as the support member failed under conditions of ordinary installation work.

US ACCC Line Failure

Excerpt from Line Upgrade Features Low-Sag Conductor
James Berger, American Electric Power | TD World

During the conductor pulling operation, installation crews experienced three breaks of the ACCC/TW conductor. The first break occured at the outset of wire pulling when the ACCC/TW conductor. The first break occurred at the outset of wire pulling when the conductor jumped off the tensioner bull wheel and wrapped around the tensioner axle. This event was plainly an operator error. During this specific operation , the operator should have applied the reel brake. Instead, the operator lessened brake tension, and the loosened wire left its track on the drum and broke when it was bent too severely around the tensioner axle. In this case, wire already pulled for this particular phase was simply eliminated, and pulling resumed with fresh wire.

The second and third wire breaks were more troubling and required in-depth forensics. Break two occurred as wire was pulled into a span and being tensioned for sagging. Break three, involving several breaks in the core, occurred less than two weeks later in the middle phase, after all three phases had been pulled in, tied off and the crew had left for the day.

Poland ACCC Line Failure

2008 ACCC Failures in Poland

Excerpt from page 37 of Dr. Kumosa report on HT Low Sag Conductors

“Three catastrophic failures within six months after the line was energized”

China ACCC Line Failures

Excerpt from 3M United States – ACCR – Frequently Asked Questions

Testing in the U.S. also showed mechanical failure at the tensions as low as 93% of rated breaking strength as well as under excessive bending. As a result, the maximum recommended tension loading has been derated to 80% of the catalog RBS. Known failures of the conductor either during installation or operation have occurred in the U.S., China, Poland and Indonesia.


ACCC Patent Filings

ACCC Not Patentable

A Third Party Observations filed with the European Patent Office “EPO” regarding the ACCC EPO patent application allege that ACCC (Aluminum Conductor Composite Core) is not patentable because:

  1. The technology upon which the ACCC EPO patent application is based was publicly available at the time the patent application was filed;
  2. The technology upon which the ACCC EPO patent application is based was common general knowledge at the time the ACCC patent application was filed because carbon and glass fibers have been commercially available for well over a quarter century, and thus most properties of carbon and glass fibers are and were commonly known in industries that use composites properties; and
  3. The technology upon which the ACCC EPO patent application is based is not and was not novel at the time the ACCC EPO patent application was filed because the teachings contained in the ACCC EPO patent application appeared in the prior art cited.


Patent Fraud Allegations

An extensive investigation has uncovered a scheme by CTC Global, carried out by its Russian owners, directors and officers (which include Mikhail Abyzov, Minister for Relations with the Open Government Russia) , to create a monopoly for polymer composite conductors. The fundamental basis of CTC Global’s monopoly on the composite conductor market is its fraud committed with the U.S. Patent Office in obtaining their ACCC patent portfolio, which was perpetrated both in the application and in the reexamination process. CTC has then used this fraudulent patent to restrain trade through threats to the marketplace. In creating a monopoly, CTC to date has sold over $150,000,000 in ACCC Conductors and related material. The following USPTO submission is provided for your review of the patent fraud which affects the entire ACCC patent portfolio.

A finding of “fraud”, “inequitable conduct”, or violation of the duty of disclosure with respect to any claim in an application or patent, renders all the claims thereof unpatentable or invalid.