Amphenol Corporation v. Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol Corporation, a global provider of electronic and fiber optic connectors, cable, and interconnect systems, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Credo Technology Group Ltd., a fabless semiconductor company specializing in high-speed, energy-efficient connectivity solutions for data centers and AI-driven applications. The dispute centered on active electrical cable (AEC) technology, with Credo having previously accused Amphenol of infringing its patents related to AECs in district court and an investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The accused products are Amphenol's active electrical cables, which are designed for data connections in areas like cloud data centers and AI systems.

The specific patent at issue in this IPR is US Patent 10877233, titled "Active Ethernet Cable With Preset Pre-Equalization." This patent describes an active Ethernet cable that includes first and second data recovery and re-modulation (DRR) devices connected to end connector plugs. These DRR devices exchange multi-lane data streams with host interface ports and convert electrical transit signals, providing pre-equalization using transmit filter coefficient values stored in nonvolatile memories.

This IPR, IPR2025-00835, was filed by Amphenol at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The procedural posture of this specific IPR concluded in a settlement between the parties. While the exact details of the settlement remain confidential, it encompassed a license agreement covering their AEC technology patents and resulted in the dismissal of all related litigation, including the IPRs and the ITC investigation. The notability of this case stems from the high-stakes nature of the dispute between two significant players in the critical high-speed connectivity market, particularly given the growing demands of AI and cloud computing. The decision to resolve the matter through an amicable settlement, rather than prolonged and costly litigation, highlights a trend where industry competitors in fast-evolving tech sectors prioritize market focus over protracted legal battles. While discretionary denials by the PTAB based on factors like "settled expectations" and parallel litigation have been a significant trend in IPRs in 2025 and 2026, the settlement in this case bypassed a full PTAB decision on institution or merits.

Amphenol Corporation's Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning US Patent 10877233, IPR2025-00835, concluded in a settlement that also resolved related patent disputes between the two companies. The IPR was part of a larger set of intellectual property disagreements involving active electrical cable technology.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Parallel Litigation and IPR Filings

• 2025-03-13: Credo Technology Group Ltd. initiated patent infringement actions by filing a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) (Investigation No. 337-TA-1446) against Amphenol Corporation, Molex LLC, TE Connectivity PLC, and Volex PLC. Credo alleged infringement of its patents related to Active Electrical Cables (AECs) and sought to block the importation of infringing products. Credo also filed parallel patent infringement complaints in Federal District Court against these companies, asserting willful infringement after providing notice of its patents in September 2023.
• 2025-03-31: Amphenol Corporation filed IPR2025-00607, challenging Credo's U.S. Patent 11,495,898.
• 2025-04-09: Amphenol Corporation filed IPR2025-00699, challenging Credo's U.S. Patent 11,032,111.
• 2025 (Date not specified in sources, but prior to settlement): Amphenol Corporation filed IPR2025-00835, challenging U.S. Patent 10,877,233, and IPR2025-00834, challenging U.S. Patent 11,012,252. These four IPRs (IPR2025-00607, IPR2025-00699, IPR2025-00834, and IPR2025-00835) were related proceedings targeting Credo's patents.

Settlement and Termination

• 2025-08-14: Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. announced that it had reached a license and settlement agreement with Amphenol Corporation. This agreement aimed to end all patent disputes between the two companies related to active electrical cable technology, with the lawsuits to be promptly dismissed. The specific terms of the agreement were confidential.
• 2025-08-25: A termination decision was filed for IPR2025-00699, indicating settlement prior to institution of trial.
• 2025-08-25: A termination decision was filed for IPR2025-00607, indicating settlement prior to institution of trial.
• 2025-08-26: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an order terminating IPR2025-00835 (along with the three other related IPRs: IPR2025-00607, IPR2025-00699, and IPR2025-00834) due to the settlement reached between Amphenol and Credo. The termination occurred at an early stage, before the Board had decided whether to institute a trial in any of these proceedings. The parties had filed joint motions to terminate and requested to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information.
• 2025-09-24: The USITC terminated its investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1446) as to respondent Amphenol based on the settlement agreement between the parties.

The settlement effectively resolved all active patent disputes between Amphenol Corporation and Credo Technology Group Ltd., leading to the termination of the IPRs before institution and the dismissal of the related USITC investigation.

Amphenol Corporation's Counsel Identified in IPR2025-00835

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-00835, Amphenol Corporation was represented by attorneys from the firm Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C. The counsel of record for Amphenol Corporation included:

• Adam R. Wichman (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wichman is an attorney at Wolf Greenfield specializing in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, including IPRs, and has experience in patent litigation.
• Andrew Varrenti (Counsel)
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Varrenti's practice at Wolf Greenfield focuses on patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews.
• Richard Giunta (Counsel)
  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Giunta is an attorney at Wolf Greenfield with experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

These attorneys represented Amphenol Corporation in this IPR, which concluded in a settlement.Adam R. Wichman (Lead Counsel)
Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
Experience Note: Mr. Wichman is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and co-chair of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice. He specializes in patent litigation and inter partes reviews before the PTAB and is a former patent examiner.

Andrew Varrenti (Counsel)
Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
Experience Note: Mr. Varrenti is an associate at Wolf Greenfield, focusing his practice on patent prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

Richard Giunta (Counsel)
Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA
Experience Note: Mr. Giunta is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and a member of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice. He has extensive experience in patent litigation, appeals, and IPRs across various technology areas.
I have successfully identified the counsel of record for Amphenol Corporation in IPR2025-00835, along with their firm, office location, and a one-line note on their relevant experience. The information gathered appears to be complete based on the initial and follow-up search results. Therefore, no further steps are needed.
The counsel of record representing Amphenol Corporation (Plaintiff) in IPR2025-00835 are from Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C..

The attorneys include:

• Adam R. Wichman (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wichman is a shareholder and co-chair of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice, specializing in patent litigation and inter partes reviews before the PTAB. He is also a former patent examiner.

• Andrew Varrenti (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Varrenti is an associate at Wolf Greenfield, focusing his practice on patent prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Richard Giunta (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Giunta is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and a member of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice, with extensive experience in patent litigation, appeals, and IPRs across various technology areas.The counsel of record representing Amphenol Corporation in IPR2025-00835 are from Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C.. The identified attorneys are:

• Adam R. Wichman (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wichman is a shareholder and co-chair of Wolf Greenfield's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice, with a focus on patent litigation and inter partes reviews before the PTAB. He previously worked as a patent examiner.

• Andrew Varrenti (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Varrenti is an associate at Wolf Greenfield, whose practice includes patent prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Richard Giunta (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Giunta is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and part of the firm's Post-Grant Proceedings Practice, with broad experience in patent litigation, appeals, and IPRs across various technology fields.

Credo Technology Group Ltd. was primarily represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. in its patent disputes with Amphenol, including the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

While the initial public statement from Credo regarding its patent infringement complaints against Amphenol and other companies in March 2025 identified Fish & Richardson P.C. as its legal representation for those matters, the firm also represented Credo in related IPRs at the PTAB.

Counsel of record representing Credo Technology Group Ltd. (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-00835 and related IPRs include:

• W. Karl Renner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: Mr. Renner is a principal at Fish & Richardson and frequently represents patent owners and petitioners in IPRs and other PTAB proceedings. He also has extensive experience in patent litigation in federal district courts and at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He was listed as Respondent Counsel for Credo in related IPRs, specifically IPR2025-00699 and IPR2025-00607.

Other attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. would likely have been part of the legal team, though specific individual names beyond "Renner, W. Karlet al." are not detailed in the publicly available IPR summaries.

In-House Counsel:

• Jim Laufman (Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary)
  • Firm: Credo Technology Group Ltd., San Jose, California office.
  • Experience: Mr. Laufman leads Credo's legal and compliance functions and has extensive experience as general counsel for several public companies, including Integrated Device Technology, Marvell Technology, and Infinera Corporation. He joined Credo after Kate Schuelke's tenure as CLO, who herself joined Credo in January 2024.

It's worth noting that Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP was also listed as a participant representative for Credo Technology Group Ltd. in a related U.S. International Trade Commission investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1446). However, Fish & Richardson P.C. was also identified in connection with Credo in that same ITC investigation and was explicitly named as counsel for Credo in the broader patent assertion efforts that included federal district court complaints, suggesting their primary role in patent litigation, including the IPRs.