PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Two AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US patent 11032111. One Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01387) was terminated due to settlement before institution, and another (IPR2025-01220) has been instituted and is currently in the trial phase. This means that while one challenge was resolved by settlement, a significant challenge to the patent's validity is ongoing. For a defendant, the patent has not yet been definitively hardened or narrowed by an IPR Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-01220 — Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Credo Technology Group Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-08
• Status: Trial Instituted. The PTAB has decided to institute a trial on at least some of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Unavailable at this time from public search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for this instituted IPR are not publicly available in the provided patent information or through general web searches for the institution decision.
• Institution decision: Instituted. The institution decision date is not explicitly available from the provided data or search results, but based on the filing date of 2025-08-08 and current status "Trial Instituted" (last modified 2026-05-18), institution likely occurred around February 2026. The panel's reasoning for institution is not publicly available via general search.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the proceeding is currently in the "Trial Instituted" status.
• Settlement / termination: This proceeding is active and has not settled.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as a Final Written Decision has not yet been issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding represents an ongoing challenge to the patent's validity. If Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. prevails, claims of US11032111 could be cancelled, significantly impacting any assertion based on those claims. Defendants should closely monitor the progress of this IPR, especially the eventual Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-01387 — Volex plc v. Credo Technology Group Ltd

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-07
• Status: Terminated-Settled. This IPR was resolved by an agreement between the parties before the PTAB made a decision on institution.
• Judge panel: Unavailable at this time from public search results.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not publicly available from search results due to pre-institution settlement.
• Institution decision: Not applicable; the proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was rendered. The proceeding was filed on 2025-08-07 and terminated on 2025-09-15, indicating a very rapid settlement.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as the proceeding was terminated prior to institution.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated-Settled on 2025-09-15. The specific terms of the settlement are confidential, as is typical for such agreements.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: The settlement of this IPR means that Volex plc (and its privies) are likely estopped from bringing the same or similar grounds against the patent. However, the claims of US11032111 were not formally challenged or cancelled by the PTAB in this instance. For other potential defendants, the prior art grounds that Volex could have raised (but did not get a decision on) remain available for challenge, unless they are in privity with Volex plc.

Strategic summary

As of 2026-05-21, no claims of US11032111 have been formally CANCELED by a PTAB Final Written Decision. All claims of the patent are currently considered SUSTAINED in the sense that no adverse validity judgment has been rendered. However, the patent faces an active challenge in IPR2025-01220 where Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. is the petitioner and the trial has been instituted. The claims being challenged in this active IPR are currently UNTESTED by a final decision, and their patentability is still under review by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape is as follows: Volex plc, as the petitioner in IPR2025-01387, likely faces statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and (2) regarding any claims and grounds that were instituted, or any claim and ground that could have been raised in the IPR had it proceeded to a final written decision. However, since IPR2025-01387 settled prior to institution, the estoppel effect is generally limited to the specific claims and grounds actually raised in the petition, and potentially any grounds that were resolved by the settlement agreement itself. For a defendant not in privity with Volex, the prior art that Volex might have relied on is generally still available. For IPR2025-01220, if it proceeds to a Final Written Decision, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (and its privies) will be estopped from asserting invalidity claims and grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the proceeding.

A pattern signal observed is that both IPRs were filed in August 2025. Unified Patents has tracked both IPR2025-01220 and IPR2025-01387, indicating a potential defensive aggregator interest, though Marvell and Volex are listed as petitioners directly.

Recommended next steps

• For IPR2025-01220: As this is an active, instituted proceeding, a defendant should closely track its progress. The statutory one-year deadline for a Final Written Decision from institution would typically fall around February 2027 (approximately one year from the likely institution date). Key upcoming milestones would include any oral hearing and the eventual Final Written Decision. The institution decision details for IPR2025-01220 (claims challenged, specific prior art, and grounds) should be obtained from the USPTO PTAB E2E portal for a full understanding of the scope of the challenge.
• For IPR2025-01387: Since this proceeding settled before institution, a defendant (unless in privity with Volex plc) is generally not estopped from using the same prior art that Volex might have intended to use. It would be valuable to research the petition filed by Volex plc to understand the prior art and invalidity arguments that were considered strong enough to prompt a settlement, which might be found via the USPTO PTAB E2E portal.
• General: While two IPRs have been filed, no claims have been cancelled. This suggests the patent has some resilience, or that the previous challenges were resolved via settlement rather than a PTAB decision on the merits. A defendant should conduct their own prior art search to identify new grounds or refine those that may have been raised in the settled IPR.