Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Molex, LLC

The patent infringement lawsuit Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Molex, LLC was filed in the District of Delaware on March 18, 2025 (though some sources indicate March 13, 2025, which likely reflects the complaint filing date preceding docketing). The plaintiffs, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd., are a fabless semiconductor company focused on high-speed, energy-efficient connectivity solutions for data centers, AI-driven applications, cloud computing, and hyperscale networks. Credo's product portfolio includes Active Electrical Cables (AECs), retimers, optical connectivity semiconductors, PCIe connectivity products, and serializer/deserializer (SerDes) intellectual property (IP). Credo was founded in 2008 and its principal executive offices are in San Jose, California, though it is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The defendant, Molex, LLC, is a global manufacturer of electronic, electrical, and fiber optic connectivity systems. Molex produces a wide range of products for various industries, including data communications, medical, industrial, automotive, and consumer electronics, and is known for pioneering the Molex connector. Molex is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois, and is a subsidiary of Koch Industries.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of US Patent No. 11032111, among others. While the specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries without a PACER subscription, given Credo's focus on high-speed connectivity solutions and Molex's extensive product line in electronic and fiber optic connectivity, it is highly probable the accused products are Molex's high-speed connectors, cables, or related components used in data infrastructure. US Patent No. 11032111 is titled "Signal processing for high speed links" and generally relates to advanced signal processing techniques for improving data transmission over high-speed communication links, which aligns with Credo's core technology in SerDes and high-speed interconnects.

The case is proceeding in the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation. In 2022, Delaware was the second busiest patent court in the nation, receiving 685 patent cases, behind only the Western District of Texas. While recent changes in disclosure rules for litigation funding introduced by Chief Judge Colm Connolly in Delaware have led to some shifts in patent filing trends, the District remains a significant forum. As of the available records, the judge assigned to this specific case is not consistently specified, but Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall has handled related docket entries in other similar cases in the district. This case is notable as it involves two significant players in the semiconductor and electronic connectivity industries, indicating potential implications for the high-speed data infrastructure market. Furthermore, a related inter partes review (IPR) against Credo Technology Group Ltd., IPR2025-00699, was filed by Amphenol Corporation on April 10, 2025, concerning related patents, suggesting broader industry interest and potential challenges to Credo's asserted patent portfolio.

Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement lawsuit Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. Molex, LLC (1:25-cv-00316) was filed in the District of Delaware on March 13, 2025. The case remains active as of May 24, 2026.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. filed their complaint against Molex, LLC on March 13, 2025, alleging infringement of US Patent No. 11,032,111, among others.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

The asserted patent, US Patent No. 11,032,111, is currently the subject of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

• IPR2025-00699: Amphenol Corporation filed a petition for IPR against Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning US Patent No. 11,032,111 on April 10, 2025.
• IPR2025-01220: Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. also filed an IPR petition challenging US Patent No. 11,032,111. This petition was filed prior to August 7, 2025, as mentioned in Credo's mandatory notices for IPR2025-01220.
• IPR2025-01387: Volex PLC filed an IPR petition against Credo Technology Group Ltd. challenging US Patent No. 11,032,111 on August 7, 2025.

These parallel IPR proceedings could significantly impact the district court litigation, as a decision by the PTAB to institute review or find claims unpatentable could lead to a stay of the district court case or impact its scope. The USPTO's Director Review process, codified in 37 C.F.R. § 42.75 effective October 31, 2024, allows for review of PTAB decisions by the USPTO Director, which could further influence the trajectory of these IPRs and, in turn, the district court case.

Further docket details regarding Molex's answer, potential counterclaims, pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, or final disposition are not publicly available without a PACER subscription. However, the case was marked as "closed" on April 2, 2026, according to RPX Insight, suggesting a settlement or dismissal occurred prior to significant pre-trial activity or trial. This closure date would predate the most recent IPR filing (IPR2025-01387 on August 7, 2025), which raises questions about the scope of the closure or if it was related to a partial settlement or dismissal of certain claims or parties. Additional investigation into the specific terms of the closure would be required to provide a complete outcome.

Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. are represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. in this patent infringement case.

The following attorneys have been identified as counsel of record for the plaintiffs:

• Ruffin B. Cordell - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C. office.
  • Note: Mr. Cordell is an experienced patent litigator and was granted pro hac vice appearance in this case on March 20, 2025.
• Richard Alex Sterba - Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C. office.
  • Note: Mr. Sterba was granted pro hac vice appearance in this case on March 20, 2025.
• Brian Livedalen - Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C. office.
  • Note: Mr. Livedalen was granted pro hac vice appearance in this case on March 20, 2025.
• Nitika Gupta Fiorella - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Ms. Fiorella is listed on the docket as counsel who filed documents on behalf of Credo, including the Amended Complaint and Affidavit of Service.
• Melissa Richards Smith - Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP.
  • Note: Ms. Smith also appeared on behalf of Credo in a related case against Amphenol Corporation.

It is important to note that while the case was marked as "closed" on April 2, 2026, by RPX Insight, a press release from March 26, 2026, confirms that Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. and Molex, LLC reached a cross-license and settlement agreement, ending all patent disputes between the two companies. This settlement would explain the closure of the district court case.

The defendant, Molex, LLC, has reached a cross-license and settlement agreement with Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd., ending all patent disputes between the two companies as of March 26, 2026. This settlement led to the prompt dismissal of the lawsuits, including this Delaware District Court case. Therefore, while Molex would have been represented by counsel during the active period of the litigation, current information about specific attorneys representing Molex in this now-closed case is not readily available through general web searches without direct access to the court's docket (such as PACER).

However, in other patent litigation matters, Molex LLC has had in-house counsel, such as Stephen L. Sheldon, who was Senior Counsel, Division IP for Molex, LLC, as of 2018. Molex also maintains a legal department at its headquarters in Lisle, Illinois. Without access to the specific docket for 1:25-cv-00316, the names of outside counsel retained by Molex for this specific case cannot be definitively identified.