Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Amphenol Corporation et al.

Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. (collectively, "Credo") initiated an investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against major electronics manufacturers Amphenol Corporation, Molex, LLC, and TE Connectivity Corporation (initially TE Connectivity PLC, later amended to TE Connectivity Corporation). Credo is a fabless semiconductor company, specializing in high-speed connectivity solutions such as Active Electrical Cables (AECs), retimers, and optical digital signal processors (DSPs), crucial for data centers, AI-driven applications, and cloud computing. The respondent companies—Amphenol, Molex, and TE Connectivity—are all large operating companies that design and manufacture a wide array of electronic, electrical, and fiber optic interconnect systems, sensors, and cable solutions for diverse markets including IT, data communications, and automotive.

The core of the dispute revolved around "certain active electrical cables and components thereof." These accused products are described as copper cables incorporating high-bandwidth connectors, high-speed metal conductors, and digital signal processing elements like DSPs or retimers, which are primarily used in data centers for enabling high-speed data transmission in applications such as server-to-server communication. Credo alleged that the importation and sale of these products infringed its patent portfolio. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,877,233 and 11,012,252 (the latter two were terminated from the investigation earlier), were asserted. U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 is titled "Signal processing for high speed communications" and generally relates to systems and methods for improving signal integrity and compensating for signal degradation in high-speed communication channels, a critical aspect of active electrical cables.

The procedural venue for this case was the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), under Investigation No. 337-TA-1446, an administrative proceeding focused on unfair trade practices, primarily patent infringement, involving imported goods. The ITC is a significant forum for patent litigation due to its accelerated timeline, typically reaching a final determination within 15-18 months, and its powerful remedy of exclusion orders that can block infringing products from entering the U.S. market. It also has the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presides over the investigation, with the initial determination subject to review by the full Commission. The case is notable as it underscores the strategic importance of intellectual property in the rapidly expanding high-speed connectivity market driven by AI and cloud computing, with Credo, a leading innovator in Active Electrical Cables, actively protecting its foundational technologies through this type of enforcement. The investigation was ultimately terminated due to settlement agreements with the respondents, signaling the value of Credo's asserted patents. Amphenol settled in September 2025, and Molex and TE Connectivity (TECC) reached settlements leading to the termination of the investigation in April 2026.

The case, Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Amphenol Corporation et al. (337-TA-1446) at the ITC, involved allegations of patent infringement related to active electrical cables and components. Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing (2025-03-13): Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. filed their initial complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission.
• Amended Complaints/Supplements (2025-03-18, 2025-03-27, 2025-03-31, 2025-04-07): Credo filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2025, followed by supplements on March 27, March 31, and April 7, 2025. The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of Section 337 based on the infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,877,233; 11,012,252; and 11,032,111.
• Institution of Investigation (2025-04-18): The ITC formally instituted the investigation, with a notice published in the Federal Register. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) was also named as a party.
• Amendment of Complaint and Notice of Investigation (2025-06-30): The Commission amended the complaint and notice of investigation to replace respondent TE Connectivity PLC with TE Connectivity Corporation (TECC). This amendment was based on a motion by Credo, unopposed by the respondents, explaining that TECC was the operating company responsible for the accused products, while TE PLC was a holding company.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance & Discovery Milestones:

• Disqualification of Counsel (2025-08-11): The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted a motion by non-party Marvell Semiconductor Inc. to disqualify Credo's counsel, Fish & Richardson P.C., due to a conflict of interest.
• Extension of Target Date (2025-09-19 & 2025-11-20): In view of the counsel substitution and unforeseen discovery challenges, the target date for completion of the investigation was extended by the ALJ to December 17, 2026, with the final ID due by August 17, 2026. The Commission determined not to review this initial determination on November 20, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The available information does not specify a separate "Markman hearing" outcome. In ITC investigations, claim construction typically occurs as part of the broader evidentiary hearing. The investigation was terminated due to settlement before a final determination on the merits, suggesting that a formal, separately published Markman order might not have been issued or become central to the case's resolution.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• The available information does not indicate any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents. While such proceedings are common in parallel district court litigation, the one-year time limit for filing IPRs does not apply to Section 337 investigations, though they often run concurrently with district court cases.

5. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement with Amphenol (2025-09-24): The investigation was terminated as to respondent Amphenol Corporation based on a confidential license and settlement agreement. Credo announced this amicable resolution on August 14, 2025, leading to the dismissal of all patent disputes between the companies.
• Withdrawal of '233 Patent (2025-12-03): The investigation was terminated with respect to U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, as Credo filed an unopposed motion to withdraw the complaint as to that patent. The Commission determined not to review this initial determination.
• Settlement with Molex and TE Connectivity (2026-04-29): Credo and Molex, LLC, and separately, Credo and TE Connectivity Corporation, filed joint motions to terminate the investigation as to them based on settlement agreements. On April 14, 2026, the ALJ issued initial determinations granting these motions.
• Termination of Investigation (2026-04-29): The U.S. International Trade Commission determined not to review the ALJ's initial determinations to terminate the remaining respondents, Molex and TECC, based on settlement. The investigation was thereby terminated in its entirety. This decision was announced in a Federal Register notice on May 4, 2026.

Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. were initially represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. in this investigation. However, Fish & Richardson P.C. was disqualified on August 11, 2025, due to a conflict of interest with non-party Marvell Semiconductor Inc..

Following the disqualification, Credo was represented by Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.

Specific attorneys of record for Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. include:

• Firm: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP
  • Note: This firm took over representation after the disqualification of Fish & Richardson P.C..
  • Office Location: While specific office locations for individual attorneys are not immediately available from the provided search results, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP has multiple offices across the US.

In the Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Amphenol Corporation et al. (337-TA-1446) investigation at the ITC, the defendants were represented by the following counsel:

For Amphenol Corporation:

• Firm: Covington & Burling LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Covington & Burling has numerous offices including Washington D.C.
  • Note: Covington & Burling LLP is a prominent firm with experience in intellectual property and ITC litigation.

For Molex, LLC:

• Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Alston & Bird has offices in major legal markets.
  • Note: Alston & Bird LLP has a recognized intellectual property practice with experience in patent litigation.

For TE Connectivity Corporation (and initially TE Connectivity PLC):

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but Kirkland & Ellis is a large global firm with numerous offices.
  • Note: Kirkland & Ellis LLP is a highly regarded firm for complex patent litigation, including matters before the ITC.