Amphenol Corp. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd.

This inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00699, was initiated by Amphenol Corp. against Credo Technology Group Ltd. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on April 10, 2025. Amphenol Corp. is a large, publicly traded American manufacturer of electronic and fiber optic connectors, cable, and interconnect systems, serving diverse markets including automotive, data communications, and military-aerospace. Credo Technology Group Ltd. is a publicly traded fabless semiconductor company based out of the Cayman Islands with principal executive offices in San Jose, California, specializing in high-speed connectivity solutions for data infrastructure, such as active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and SerDes IP, crucial for AI-driven applications, cloud computing, and hyperscale networks.

The IPR challenged the validity of US Patent 11,032,111, owned by Credo Technology Group Ltd. This patent is generally directed to a "System and method for active cable," which describes an active cable assembly designed for high-speed data transmission, incorporating components like cable equalizers and retimers to compensate for signal degradation over longer distances. The underlying dispute that led to this IPR centered on active electrical cable (AEC) technology. Credo had previously filed patent infringement lawsuits in district court and requested an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in March 2025, alleging that Amphenol and other companies infringed its patents related to its "HiWire active cables (AECs)."

The procedural posture saw Amphenol challenging Credo's patent at the PTAB, an administrative body within the USPTO, as a common strategy to dispute patent validity when facing infringement allegations in other forums. The case ultimately reached a settlement. In August 2025, Credo announced a license and settlement agreement with Amphenol, which resolved all patent disputes between the two companies concerning their respective active electrical cable technology patents, leading to the dismissal of all related lawsuits, including this IPR. This case is notable due to the involvement of two significant operating companies in the critical interconnect and semiconductor industries, with the dispute focusing on essential active electrical cable technology used in high-speed data centers. The comprehensive settlement, encompassing the IPR, district court litigation, and an ITC investigation, highlights the companies' efforts to resolve a broad intellectual property conflict in a rapidly evolving technological market.

The IPR proceeding IPR2025-00699, "Amphenol Corp. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd.", concerned U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. The proceeding reached a settlement and was terminated prior to institution of trial.

Here's a chronological overview of the key developments:

• 2025-04-09: Amphenol Corporation filed the Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00699, against Credo Technology Group Ltd. challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111. This was one of several IPRs filed by Amphenol against Credo. Credo Technology Group had previously filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against Amphenol in March 2025, and also sought an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) regarding active electrical cable technology.
• 2025-08-14: Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. and Amphenol Corporation announced a license and settlement agreement related to their respective patents on active electrical cable technology. This agreement aimed to dismiss all patent disputes between the two companies. The terms of the agreement remain confidential.
• 2025-08-25: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a "Termination Decision: Settlement Prior to Institution of Trial" for IPR2025-00699.
• 2025-08-26: The PTAB formally granted Joint Motions to Terminate filed by Amphenol and Credo in IPR2025-00699 and three other related IPR proceedings (IPR2025-00607, IPR2025-00834, and IPR2025-00835) due to the settlement. The PTAB dismissed the petitions and terminated the proceedings, noting that the settlement occurred at an early stage, prior to any decision on institution of trial. The Board also granted the parties' joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information. This decision did not constitute a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
• 2025-09-04: A notice of refund approved was filed by the Board.

Outcome: The IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00699, was terminated prior to institution of trial due to a confidential settlement agreement reached between Amphenol Corporation and Credo Technology Group Ltd. This settlement resolved all patent disputes between the parties related to active electrical cable technology.

Amphenol Corp. was represented by counsel from Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C. in the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-00699.

The following attorneys were identified as representing Amphenol Corp. (Petitioner) in this and related IPRs:

• Adam R. Wichman

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by first listing and "et al.")
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results for this case, Wolf Greenfield's main office is in Boston, MA. Further research would be needed to confirm Mr. Wichman's specific office.
  • Relevant Experience: Adam Wichman is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and focuses his practice on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings (including IPRs), and counseling in various technology areas. His experience includes representing both petitioners and patent owners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Andrew Varrenti

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results for this case, Wolf Greenfield's main office is in Boston, MA. Further research would be needed to confirm Mr. Varrenti's specific office.
  • Relevant Experience: Andrew Varrenti is an associate at Wolf Greenfield. His practice involves patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, particularly in electrical and software technologies.

• Richard Giunta

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the search results for this case, Wolf Greenfield's main office is in Boston, MA. Further research would be needed to confirm Mr. Giunta's specific office.
  • Relevant Experience: Richard Giunta is an associate at Wolf Greenfield. He focuses on patent prosecution, litigation, and post-grant proceedings, with an emphasis on electrical engineering and computer science matters.

The following identifies the counsel of record for Credo Technology Group Ltd. in IPR2025-00699:

• Charles M. McMahon - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
  • Note: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP represented Credo Technology Group Ltd. in the related ITC investigation, Inv. No. 337-TA-1446, concerning active electrical cables and components thereof.
• W. Karl Renner - Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson P.C. represented Credo in parallel patent infringement complaints filed in federal district court and with the U.S. International Trade Commission against Amphenol and other companies related to active electrical cable technology.