Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: US Patent 11032111

This patent infringement litigation, as specified, concerns US Patent 11032111. While the provided case number, 2:25-cv-00297, initially pointed to cases in various federal district courts for different types of disputes, a direct match for a patent infringement case with this exact number and patent in the Eastern District of Texas could not be definitively identified through public web searches. However, a significant related litigation involving patent 11032111 has been identified at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).

On April 18, 2025, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. (collectively, "Credo") filed a complaint at the ITC, initiating an investigation into the importation and sale of certain active electrical cables and components thereof. This complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, citing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,877,233 and 11,012,252. Credo Semiconductor Inc. is a company that focuses on high-speed connectivity solutions. The ITC investigation named Amphenol Corporation, Molex, LLC, and TE Connectivity as respondents. U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 is titled "Methods and apparatus for detecting a signal in a receiver" and generally relates to signal detection and processing within electrical communication systems, likely pertinent to high-speed data transmission and cable technologies. The ITC investigation was terminated with respect to U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 on December 3, 2025, following Credo's unopposed motion to withdraw the complaint as to that patent. The status of the investigation regarding patent 11032111 was not explicitly stated to be closed with the same action.

While a district court case with the specific case number 2:25-cv-00297 asserting patent 11032111 in the Eastern District of Texas was not confirmed via web search, the ITC investigation highlights active enforcement of this patent. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically popular venue for patent litigation, particularly for patent assertion entities (NPEs) due to its specialized patent rules, experienced judiciary, and typically faster time to trial. Many patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas come from NPEs, with some pursuing high-volume, low-settlement strategies and others asserting strong patents. The ITC, in contrast, offers a powerful forum for patentees seeking to block the importation of infringing products, often in parallel with district court actions for damages. This multi-forum approach can be a strategic choice for patent holders, especially those involved in industries with global supply chains like high-speed connectivity components.

The case is notable for its involvement of patent 11032111 in a Section 337 ITC investigation, indicating the patent's relevance in the active electrical cables and components market. The assertion against major players like Amphenol, Molex, and TE Connectivity underscores the potential industry impact. The strategic choice of the ITC suggests a focus on injunctive relief to prevent infringing products from entering the U.S. market, which can be a highly effective enforcement mechanism for technology patents. The absence of a clear corresponding district court case with the provided number and patent in the Eastern District of Texas warrants careful monitoring for any future related filings or transfers.

The patent infringement litigation Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. TE Connectivity PLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00297, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 13, 2025. This case concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. filed the patent infringement complaint against TE Connectivity PLC on March 13, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Further details on the defendant's answer and any counterclaims are not yet publicly available through the provided search results for this specific case in the Eastern District of Texas. Some search results incorrectly identify a case with this number in the Wyoming District Court, where an answer and counterclaim were filed by a different defendant, Miller General Health Store Co, on March 17, 2026, and an answer and counterclaim by Team Brave LLC on May 11, 2026, but this appears to be a separate case sharing only the number.

• Pre-trial motions of substance:

  • No information regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment for this specific case in the Eastern District of Texas was found in the provided search results.

• Claim Construction (Markman) outcomes:

  • No information regarding claim construction proceedings was found in the provided search results.

• Discovery milestones:

  • No specific strategically significant discovery milestones were found in the provided search results.

• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions:

  • No information regarding trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions was found in the provided search results.

• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal:

  • The current posture of the case or any final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal) is not available in the provided search results.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings:

  • IPR Petition Filed: U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111, the patent at issue in this litigation, is also the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Amphenol Corporation requested an IPR of the '111 Patent in IPR2025-00699, with a filing date accorded on April 10, 2025.
  • The effect of this IPR on the litigation is not yet detailed, as the IPR process is ongoing. The PTAB has an interim process for workload management for IPRs and PGRs, which involves the director consulting with three PTAB judges to determine if discretionary denial of institution is appropriate.

The patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00297, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, involves Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. as plaintiffs. They are asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111.

Based on available information, the following counsel represents the plaintiff(s):

• Firm: Holland & Hart LLP
  • Name: Cameron L McCue
    • Role: Counsel
  • Name: Anthony Dean Bennett
    • Role: Counsel
  • Name: Andrea Grave
    • Role: Counsel

The specific office locations for the Holland & Hart LLP attorneys in this particular case are not detailed in the search results, nor are their specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases readily available through the provided snippets. While other cases with the same case number in different districts or with different plaintiffs exist, the above information specifically relates to the Eastern District of Texas case involving Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd.

note
The information about counsel of record for the defendant, TE Connectivity Plc, in case 2:25-cv-00297 in the Eastern District of Texas is not readily available through public web searches, including aggregators of docket information or legal news, specifically for their appearance in this district court case.

While a previous search revealed Charles M. McMahon and Mircea A. Tipescu of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP as counsel for "Patent Owner Credo Technology Group Ltd." in a related PTAB IPR, this is for the plaintiff, Credo, not the defendant, TE Connectivity Plc, in the district court action.

Furthermore, a recent news article from March 27, 2026, states that Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd and TE Connectivity Corporation have reached a license and settlement agreement relating to Active Electrical Cable (AEC) technology, and "All lawsuits between the two companies will be dismissed." This settlement, occurring after the case was filed on March 13, 2025, likely means the district court case either has been or is in the process of being dismissed. Due to this early settlement, it is possible that formal appearances by a full litigation team for the defendant may not have been extensively documented or publicized, especially through channels accessible via general web search.

John S. Jenkins Jr. is identified as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of TE Connectivity, responsible for the company's global legal activities, including intellectual property. While he holds an in-house counsel role, specific external litigation counsel for this particular district court case were not found. Joseph R. Falcon III is a patent attorney at Barley Snyder who has represented Tyco Electronics (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and TE Connectivity Corporation in patent-related matters, but there is no specific indication of his involvement in this particular district court case.

Therefore, based on the available public information, specific counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this particular patent infringement case cannot be definitively identified at this time.
Due to the recent settlement and likely dismissal of the case, specific external counsel of record for the defendant TE Connectivity Plc in the Eastern District of Texas case 2:25-cv-00297 are not readily available through public web searches. John S. Jenkins Jr. serves as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for TE Connectivity, overseeing their global legal activities including intellectual property. While this indicates an in-house counsel presence, specific external litigation attorneys for this case could not be identified through the conducted searches.Counsel of Record for Defendant TE Connectivity Plc in Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al v. TE Connectivity Plc

As of May 24, 2026, specific external counsel of record representing the defendant, TE Connectivity Plc, in the patent infringement case Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al v. TE Connectivity Plc, Case No. 2:25-cv-00297 in the Texas Eastern District Court, cannot be definitively identified through available public web searches.

It is noteworthy that on March 27, 2026, Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd and TE Connectivity Corporation announced a license and settlement agreement concerning Active Electrical Cable (AEC) technology, which includes the dismissal of all lawsuits between the two companies. This settlement, occurring relatively early in the litigation (the case was filed on March 13, 2025), likely means the district court case has either been dismissed or is in the process of being dismissed. This early resolution may explain the lack of publicly available detailed information regarding the defendant's specific litigation counsel in this particular district court case.

John S. Jenkins Jr. serves as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for TE Connectivity, overseeing the company's global legal, compliance, corporate governance, government affairs, intellectual property, security and risk management, and corporate social responsibility activities. While this identifies a key in-house legal role for the defendant, specific outside counsel who formally appeared in the district court case were not identified in the conducted searches. Joseph R. Falcon III, a patent attorney at Barley Snyder, has been affiliated with TE Connectivity Corporation in other patent-related matters, but there is no specific indication of his involvement in this particular case.