Volex PLC v. Credo Technology Group Ltd.

Volex PLC, a publicly held global manufacturer and supplier of power and data cables, cable assemblies, and connectivity solutions, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning US Patent 10877233. Volex is also involved in electric vehicle charging solutions and integrated manufacturing services across various high-tech industries, including data centers and telecommunications. Credo Technology Group Ltd., also a publicly held operating company, is a fabless semiconductor company specializing in high-speed, energy-efficient connectivity solutions crucial for the data infrastructure market, including AI-driven applications, cloud computing, and hyperscale networks. Its product portfolio includes Active Electrical Cables (AECs), retimers, optical connectivity semiconductors, and serializer/deserializer (SerDes) intellectual property. The dispute centered on Credo's "active electrical cable technology," with Volex's products in this category allegedly infringing Credo's patent.

The primary patent at issue, US Patent 10877233, is titled "Active ethernet cable with preset pre-equalization." This patent generally describes a cable design featuring first and second data rate retiming (DRR) devices, typically integrated into the end connectors. These DRR devices are configured to convert electrical transit signals into multi-lane data streams and provide pre-equalization of the electrical signals using transmit filter coefficients stored in nonvolatile memories. The procedural posture of this matter was an IPR (IPR2025-01385) filed by Volex PLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in 2025, challenging the validity of Credo's patent. This IPR was part of a broader patent dispute, as Credo had also filed an underlying patent infringement lawsuit against Volex, which was dismissed as part of a settlement. Furthermore, Credo had initiated a Section 337 investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1393) at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging infringement of the '233 patent by active electrical cables and components, which was later terminated as to this patent due to withdrawal of the complaint.

This case is notable as it represents a patent dispute and subsequent settlement between two significant operating companies in the rapidly expanding high-speed connectivity sector, particularly concerning technology vital for modern data centers and AI infrastructure. The resolution, which involved a confidential license and settlement agreement, resulted in the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit and termination of the ITC investigation concerning the '233 patent, indicating a comprehensive out-of-court resolution. Such a settlement highlights the importance of intellectual property in highly competitive and technologically advanced markets and allows both companies to continue their focus on innovation and market growth without prolonged litigation.

The case, IPR2025-01385, involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Volex PLC against Credo Technology Group Ltd. concerning US Patent 10877233. The proceeding ultimately concluded in a settlement.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

Parallel District Court Litigation (Context for IPR):

• 2025-03-13: Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Volex PLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00298. This district court litigation likely served as the impetus for Volex to file the subsequent IPR petition. The lawsuit pertained to Credo's patents covering active electrical cable technology.

IPR Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-08-06: Volex PLC filed the Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01385, challenging US Patent 10877233, owned by Credo Technology Group Ltd. The IPR was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Settlement and Outcome:

• 2025-08-26: Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd. and Volex PLC reached a license and settlement agreement, resolving their patent dispute. This agreement encompassed the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01385) and any related district court litigation.
• 2025-08-26: As a result of the settlement, the lawsuit between the parties was to be promptly dismissed, bringing an end to their patent dispute. The specific terms of the agreement remain confidential.
• 2025-09-03: News articles further detailed the settlement, indicating its positive implications for Credo Technology Group by clearing legal hurdles.

The IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01385, was terminated due to the settlement between the parties. The swift resolution indicates that the parties reached an amicable agreement before the IPR proceeding could advance to an institution decision or further substantive motions.

In the IPR proceeding IPR2025-01385, Volex PLC was represented by the following counsel:

• Lucas, Eric (Petitioner Counsel)
  • Firm: Not specified in the available records, but typically, Petitioner Counsel in IPRs are from law firms specializing in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.
  • Note: While specific experience for Eric Lucas isn't detailed in these search results, as "Petitioner Counsel," he would be responsible for drafting and arguing the IPR petition before the PTAB.

It is common for companies like Volex PLC, a global leader in power and data connectivity solutions, to engage external counsel for specialized patent litigation matters such as IPRs. While the provided information lists "Lucas, Eric et al." as petitioner counsel, implying multiple attorneys, only Eric Lucas is specifically named in the search results as counsel for Volex PLC in IPR2025-01385. The record does not explicitly mention in-house counsel for Volex PLC in this IPR.

In the IPR proceeding IPR2025-01385, Credo Technology Group Ltd. was represented by counsel from at least two firms: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and DLA Piper LLP. James Laufman is the Chief Legal Officer for Credo Technology Group.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

• Firm's General Patent Litigation Experience: Morgan Lewis has a large intellectual property practice with over 200 lawyers globally, handling litigation at district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and appellate levels, including before the PTAB. They are recognized for their expertise in post-grant and appellate proceedings, with cases spanning technology and life sciences sectors.
• Specific Attorneys (Roles and Office Locations need further specific sourcing for this case): While specific attorneys from Morgan Lewis are not explicitly listed for IPR2025-01385 in the initial search results, the firm's extensive patent litigation practice suggests their involvement. The firm has offices in major legal markets, including those with significant patent litigation activity.

DLA Piper LLP

• Firm's General Patent Litigation Experience: DLA Piper has a proven track record in complex patent litigation, defending clients in numerous US district court cases. They have over 130 patent litigators globally and extensive experience with inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews before the USPTO. They are well-known for handling patent litigation in the technology sector.
• Specific Attorneys (Roles and Office Locations need further specific sourcing for this case): Similar to Morgan Lewis, the provided search results highlight DLA Piper's overall capabilities in patent litigation and IPRs but do not list specific attorneys who represented Credo in IPR2025-01385.

In-House Counsel:

• James Laufman: Chief Legal Officer (CLO) and Corporate Secretary, Credo Technology Group.
  • Experience: Laufman has decades of experience leading legal departments and serving as general counsel for several public companies, including Integrated Device Technology, Marvell Technology, and Infinera Corporation. His expertise includes intellectual property licensing and litigation management. Kate Schuelke also joined Credo as CLO in January 2024, bringing over 30 years of legal technology industry experience.

It's important to note that while the IPR case IPR2025-01385 concluded in a settlement, Credo Technology Group Ltd. was also involved in a related district court case, Credo Semiconductor Inc. et al v. Volex PLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00298 in the Eastern District of Texas. In that district court case, Credo Semiconductor Inc. and Credo Technology Group Ltd. were represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. Specifically, attorneys like Richard Alex Sterba, Ruffin B Cordell, Melissa Richards Smith, Brendan Frederick McLaughlin, and Brian Livedalen are listed for the plaintiff Credo in the district court action. Credo also utilized Fish & Richardson, P.C. in a related ITC complaint.

For IPR2025-01385 specifically, a document from a parallel IPR (IPR2025-01220) lists "Lead and Back-Up Counsel" for Credo Technology Group Ltd. in that specific proceeding. While not directly for IPR2025-01385, it is a strong indicator of their PTAB counsel. Unfortunately, the names of the lead and backup counsel are not visible in the provided snippet. Therefore, while firms involved in Credo's broader patent litigation strategy have been identified, the precise "counsel of record" for the defendant in this specific IPR (IPR2025-01385) are not fully detailed in the provided search results.