Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd.

This case, IPR2025-01218, involves Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. as the petitioner challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 10,877,233, owned by Credo Technology Group Ltd. Marvell Semiconductor is a prominent American semiconductor company, founded in 1995, specializing in the design and manufacture of semiconductors for networking, storage, and wireless communications, including embedded processors, transceivers, and ASICs, making it a key operating company in the infrastructure technology sector. Credo Technology Group is also an operating company, a fabless semiconductor firm established in 2008, focused on delivering high-speed connectivity solutions for data infrastructure markets, particularly for AI-driven applications, cloud computing, and hyperscale networks. Credo's product portfolio includes Active Electrical Cables (AECs), retimers, and serializer/deserializer (SerDes) intellectual property, which it also licenses.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 10,877,233, is titled "Active ethernet cable with preset pre-equalization." It broadly describes a system and method for enhancing the performance of active Ethernet cables by employing preset transmit-side equalization, thereby reducing the need for extensive receive-side equalization. This technology involves using digital signal processing devices within the cable to pre-equalize electrical signals using stored filter coefficient values. While Marvell is the petitioner seeking to invalidate Credo's patent, the backdrop for this challenge likely stems from broader patent disputes where Marvell's chips are implicated in alleged infringement contentions related to Credo's high-speed connectivity solutions, particularly Active Electrical Cables (AECs), which are central to Credo's product offerings.

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has determined that Marvell has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim of unpatentability. The PTAB serves as an administrative forum within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that offers a faster and often more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity based on prior art patents and printed publications. The case is notable as it represents a front in the ongoing patent landscape surrounding high-speed connectivity—a critical technology for the rapidly expanding AI, cloud computing, and data center markets. Its linkage to potential or ongoing district court or International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation, where Credo has asserted patents against various parties including those whose products incorporate Marvell's chips, highlights a common strategy for companies to challenge patents asserted against them or their customers. Recent policy changes at the PTAB, including the USPTO Director's personal oversight of institution decisions and evolving considerations for discretionary denials, also make the procedural aspects of such IPRs particularly significant.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd. (IPR2025-01218)

This case primarily concerns an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01218, initiated by Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. against Credo Technology Group Ltd. challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233. While the prompt asks for "patent infringement litigation," no direct district court patent infringement lawsuit between Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 could be identified in the publicly available search results. However, Credo has actively enforced this patent (and related patents) in other forums, which likely prompted Marvell's IPR filing.

Key Legal Developments:

1. Patent Issuance:

• 2020-12-29: U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, titled "Active ethernet cable with preset pre-equalization," was issued to Credo Technology Group Ltd.

2. Related Patent Enforcement by Credo (against other parties, implicating Marvell):

• 2025-03-13: Credo Technology Group Ltd. filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), initiating Investigation No. 337-TA-1446, against multiple respondents including Amphenol Corporation, Molex LLC, TE Connectivity PLC, and Volex PLC. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, among others, relating to active electrical cables. Notably, initial infringement claim charts in this ITC case identified certain Marvell retimer chips as satisfying limitations of the asserted patents, even though Marvell was not a named respondent.
• 2025-03-18: Credo Technology Group Ltd. filed a parallel patent infringement lawsuit against Molex, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:25-cv-00316, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 and other related patents.
• 2025-07-25: Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. filed a motion to disqualify Credo's counsel, Fish & Richardson, P.C., in the ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1446, alleging a conflict of interest due to Fish's prior and ongoing representation of Marvell. The ITC Investigative Staff supported Marvell's motion for disqualification.

3. IPR Filing & Institution (Marvell v. Credo):

• 2025-09-09: Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01218, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against Credo Technology Group Ltd. The petition sought cancellation of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 for obviousness, primarily over the prior art references Lugthart and Gorecki.
• Late 2025: The IPR, IPR2025-01218, was instituted. The precise institution date is not explicitly available in the provided search results. During this period, the USPTO Director began personally overseeing all IPR institution decisions, starting October 20, 2025, which led to a shift in how institution decisions were communicated and documented. The case remains "Pending - Instituted" as of the current date.

4. Outcomes of Parallel Proceedings:

• 2025-08-14: Credo Technology Group Ltd. and Amphenol Corporation reached a license and settlement agreement related to their active electrical cable patent disputes, leading to the dismissal of lawsuits between them.
• 2025-08-26: Credo Technology Group Ltd. and Volex plc reached a license and settlement agreement, resulting in the dismissal of their patent dispute.
• 2025-11-24: Credo Technology Group Ltd. and The Siemon Company reached a license agreement related to Credo's active electrical cable patents.
• 2026-03-26: Credo Technology Group Ltd. and Molex, LLC reached a cross-license and settlement agreement, leading to the dismissal of all patent disputes between them. This includes the district court case 1:25-cv-00316 where U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 was asserted.

Current Posture:
The IPR2025-01218 initiated by Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. against Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 is currently active and has been instituted, with the PTAB proceeding to a full review of the patentability of the challenged claims. The outcome of this IPR is pending.

In the Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01218, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. While direct docket entries for IPR2025-01218 were not explicitly found, filings for the closely related IPR2025-01220, also between Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. as Petitioner and Credo Technology Group Ltd. as Patent Owner, consistently identify the same legal team. It is common practice for the same counsel to handle multiple, related IPRs for a client against the same patent owner.

The counsel of record representing Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (Petitioner) include:

• Harper Batts

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Experience Note: Harper Batts is a Chambers-ranked intellectual property litigator with over 20 years of experience, specializing in complex patent disputes for Fortune 500 clients. He leads Sheppard Mullin's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and has a strong track record, including obtaining institution on over 90% of the IPRs he has filed and winning numerous appeals at the Federal Circuit. His experience spans various technology areas, including semiconductors, video streaming, computer software, and wireless technology.

• Chris Ponder

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Experience Note: Chris Ponder is a Silicon Valley patent litigator who represents global technology companies in PTAB proceedings and patent infringement disputes. He has deep knowledge of technologies in the digital media streaming, enterprise software, video game, communications, semiconductor, and medical device industries. He boasts a 90% institution rate at the PTAB and has extensive experience with appeals to the Federal Circuit.

• Jeffrey Liang

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Silicon Valley office (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey Liang combines his engineering background with litigation experience to offer a strategic approach to intellectual property disputes. He represents companies in all phases of patent matters, including district court litigation and IPR proceedings. His experience covers diverse technologies such as video codecs, cryptography, artificial intelligence (AI), computer architecture, networking, and semiconductors. Prior to his legal career, he worked as an engineer at Intel Corporation.

Counsel of record representing Credo Technology Group Ltd. in IPR2025-01218 includes:

• Charles M. McMahon

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Mr. McMahon is a registered patent attorney and a first-chair litigator specializing in patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and unfair competition law. He has represented clients in numerous federal district courts, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court. His technical expertise spans wireless communications, solid-state electronics, encryption systems, and digital imaging. He is recognized by "The Legal 500" and "IAM Patent 1000".

• Mircea A. Tipescu

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Mr. Tipescu represents clients in intellectual property litigation, including patent protection and enforcement. His experience encompasses federal court and ITC cases, post-grant review proceedings, summary judgment proceedings, and Markman hearings. As a licensed patent attorney, he also handles patent prosecution, portfolio management, licensing, and due diligence across diverse technologies such as mechanical and electro-mechanical devices, automotive systems, medical devices, software, and telecommunications.

The information gathered from public records, including USPTO filings, consistently identifies Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, with Charles M. McMahon and Mircea A. Tipescu, as representing Credo Technology Group Ltd. in PTAB IPR proceedings. No other primary counsel of record for Credo Technology Group Ltd. in this specific IPR have been explicitly identified in the available search results.