Untitled case

Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Volex PLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Case No. 2:25-cv-00298). The plaintiffs, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd., appear to be an operating company and potentially a related holding or licensing entity, with Credo Technology Group Ltd. indicating in court filings that it does not directly develop, make, sell, or distribute products or services. Credo is known for its high-speed connectivity solutions. The defendant, Volex PLC, is a global manufacturer of critical power and data connectivity products. While specific accused products from Volex PLC are not detailed in the general overview, the litigation concerns alleged infringement of US Patent 10877233.

US Patent 10877233 is titled "Active ethernet cable with preset pre-equalization." It describes an active Ethernet cable system featuring data recovery and re-modulation (DRR) devices within connectors that exchange multi-lane data streams with host interface ports. The patent details methods for manufacturing such cables, including connecting connector plugs to DRR devices that convey electrical transit signals between them using electrical conductors, and employing fixed, cable-independent equalization parameters for clock and data recovery.

The case is being heard by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a well-known figure for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent holders due to its fast-paced dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly juries. Volex PLC filed a motion to transfer venue, arguing that the Northern District of California would be a more appropriate forum given the lack of material nexus of both plaintiffs and defendant with Texas, and the concentration of sources of proof and witnesses in California. This case is notable not only for its venue in the Eastern District of Texas but also because an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00699) against US Patent 10877233 was filed by Amphenol Corporation, another entity in the connectivity industry, on April 9, 2025, which is currently pending an institution decision. The IPR proceeding lists documents from the Credo v. Volex litigation, indicating a direct linkage between the district court case and the PTAB challenge.

The case in question is Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al v. Volex PLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00298, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Here's a chronological summary of key legal developments and the current posture of the litigation:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. (collectively, "Credo") filed a patent infringement complaint against Volex PLC in the Eastern District of Texas on March 13, 2025. The case falls under Nature of Suit 830 - Property Rights - Patent. The asserted patent in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Transfer Venue: On July 11, 2025, Defendant Volex PLC filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Volex argued that the plaintiffs and the patents-in-suit are closely tied to California, lacking a material nexus with Texas, and that Volex itself lacks any material nexus with Texas. They contended that most relevant U.S.-based sources of proof and witnesses are in California.
• Order on Venue Discovery: On July 21, 2025, an order was issued granting Volex PLC's motion for leave to conduct venue discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman Hearing has been scheduled for July 1, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This indicates the case is still active and progressing through the claim construction phase.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Beyond the order granting venue discovery, specific significant discovery milestones are not publicly detailed in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Trial Dates Set: A Pretrial Conference is set for December 7, 2026, and Jury Selection is scheduled for January 11, 2027, both before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This indicates the case is actively moving towards a trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas, with future dates for a Markman hearing, pretrial conference, and jury selection. The listed "Terminated" date of August 28, 2025, on PacerMonitor likely refers to a partial termination or a specific docket entry closure rather than the entire case, given the scheduled future proceedings.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00699: Amphenol Corporation requested an inter partes review (IPR) of the '233 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233) with a filing date of April 10, 2025. This IPR proceeding is noted as occurring concurrently with the Texas litigation.
• IPR2025-00835: Another IPR related to US Patent 10877233, IPR2025-00835, was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on June 3, 2025, by Amphenol Corporation.
• IPR2025-01218: A third IPR, IPR2025-01218, related to US Patent 10877233, was filed by Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. on September 9, 2025.
• ITC Investigation: Separately, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on April 18, 2025, alleging violations of Section 337 based on the infringement of the '233 patent and other patents by several respondents, including Amphenol Corporation, Molex, LLC, TE Connectivity, and Volex PLC. On September 25, 2025, Credo filed an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation with respect to the '233 patent by reason of withdrawal of the complaint as to that patent. The ITC determined not to review an initial determination terminating the investigation with respect to the '233 patent, with the Commission vote taking place on December 3, 2025. This means the '233 patent is no longer part of the ITC investigation.The patent infringement case Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al v. Volex PLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00298, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233.

Here's a chronological overview of its key legal developments and current posture:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• On March 13, 2025, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. ("Credo") initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Volex PLC. The case was designated as a "Property Rights - Patent" suit.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• On July 11, 2025, Defendant Volex PLC filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Volex argued that the plaintiffs, the patents-in-suit, and the majority of relevant evidence and witnesses were connected to California, not Texas.
• On July 21, 2025, the court granted Volex PLC's motion for leave to conduct venue discovery in relation to its motion to transfer.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman Hearing (claim construction hearing) has been scheduled for July 1, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• While specific detailed discovery milestones are not extensively documented in public records, the court's order on July 21, 2025, granting venue discovery to Volex PLC indicates an active phase of information gathering related to the jurisdictional challenge.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case is progressing toward trial, with a Pretrial Conference scheduled for December 7, 2026, and Jury Selection set for January 11, 2027, both before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The litigation remains active, with significant future dates on the court's calendar.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

• IPR2025-00699: Amphenol Corporation initiated an inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 on April 10, 2025.
• IPR2025-00835: A second IPR, also concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, was filed by Amphenol Corporation on June 3, 2025.
• IPR2025-01218: Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. filed a third IPR against U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 on September 9, 2025.
• International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1262): Credo also filed a complaint with the U.S. ITC on April 18, 2025, alleging Section 337 violations based on the infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, by various respondents including Volex PLC and Amphenol Corporation. However, on September 25, 2025, Credo filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the complaint concerning the '233 patent from the ITC investigation. The ITC subsequently terminated the investigation with respect to the '233 patent on December 3, 2025. This means the '233 patent is no longer at issue in the ITC case, but the patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas continues.

The following counsel of record represent Plaintiffs Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. in case 2:25-cv-00298 in the Texas Eastern District Court:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Ruffin B. Cordell - Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Cordell is a principal at Fish & Richardson and focuses on patent litigation, with experience representing clients in various technology sectors. He is listed as representing Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. in this case.
• Richard Alex Sterba - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Sterba is an attorney at Fish & Richardson. His practice focuses on patent litigation across a range of technologies.
• Brendan Frederick McLaughlin - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Specific office not detailed in initial search, but Fish & Richardson is a national firm.)
  • Experience Note: Mr. McLaughlin is an attorney at Fish & Richardson, involved in patent litigation.
• Brian Livedalen - Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Livedalen is an attorney at Fish & Richardson, practicing in patent litigation.

Gillam & Smith, LLP

• Melissa Richards Smith - Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Gillam & Smith, LLP (as listed on PacerMonitor for this case), Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Melissa Richards Smith is an experienced litigator in the Eastern District of Texas. While Gillam & Smith, LLP is listed for this filing, it is noted that firm members from Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (a firm with a strong patent litigation focus in EDTX) transitioned to Miller Fair Henry as of October 1, 2024. However, the docket for this case, filed in March 2025, still lists Gillam & Smith, LLP for Ms. Smith. Her firm's attorneys frequently appear before federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas and have experience in intellectual property litigation.

Volex PLC is represented by attorneys from Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP and local counsel from Gillam & Smith, LLP.

The counsel of record for Volex PLC are:

• Abdul Althebaity (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, Austin, TX office.
  • Mr. Althebaity is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas and has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Volex PLC.

• Thomas R. Makin (Lead Counsel - Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

  • Firm: Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Mr. Makin is listed as counsel for Volex PLC on their motion to transfer venue.

• Eris S. Lucas (Lead Counsel - Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

  • Firm: Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Mr. Lucas is also listed as counsel for Volex PLC on their motion to transfer venue.

• David J. Cooperberg (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Mr. Cooperberg has filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Volex PLC.

• Adi A. Williams (Lead Counsel - Pro Hac Vice forthcoming)

  • Firm: Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Ms. Williams is listed as counsel for Volex PLC on their motion to transfer venue.

• Melissa Richards Smith (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP.
  • Ms. Smith is listed as an attorney for Volex PLC.

It's worth noting that while Fish & Richardson PC attorneys (Richard Alex Sterba, Ruffin B Cordell, Brendan Frederick McLaughlin, Brian Livedalen) are listed in some search results related to the case or the IPRs, the motion to transfer venue filed by Volex PLC explicitly lists Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP as counsel for defendant Volex PLC, along with David P. Whittlesey, whose affiliation is not immediately clear from the provided snippets but appears to have certified the service and authorization to file under seal for the motion. It's possible that Fish & Richardson attorneys are involved in other related proceedings, such as the IPRs.