Short Summary
Volex and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial and keep the settlement confidential.
Detailed Summary
In September 2025, Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. jointly moved to terminate three inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025‑01385, IPR2025‑01386, IPR2025‑01387) after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes concerning the challenged patents. The parties also requested that the settlement agreement be treated as business‑confidential information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The PTAB, finding good cause, granted the joint motion, dismissed the petitions, and ordered the settlement to be kept confidential, thereby terminating the proceedings prior to institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Volex plc vs CREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 7 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 unpatentable. The decision hinged on the Petitioner's successful anticipation challenge over the prior art reference Komata.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsDynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.
Dynamic Mesh Networks filed a statutory disclaimer for all claims of U.S. Patent 11,368,537, prompting a petition for Director Review to block the institution of Cisco's IPR. The patent owner argues that the disclaimer bars any IPR under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(e).
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
Sonos filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial to institute Google’s IPR over patent 10,541,883, arguing the Director’s discretion is unreviewable and that procedural requirements were met.
Apple Inc.vsCardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all 23 claims of CardWare’s U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579 covering mobile‑payment tokenization. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple NFC‑payment references such as Collinge, Lin, and Phillips. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.