Short Summary
Amphenol and Credo have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,233 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential as the proceeding is terminated.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00835, Amphenol Corporation and Credo Technology Group Ltd. reached a settlement that resolves all disputes concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233, including matters before the district court and the International Trade Commission. The parties filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c) and to keep it separate from the public file, asserting that the agreement contains no patentability‑relevant information. The motion seeks termination of the IPR proceeding.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Amphenol Corporation vs Credo Technology Group Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCM HK LIMITED
Samsung Electronics successfully navigated a PTAB institution challenge against CM HK LIMITED regarding motion sensing technology. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims based on obviousness (103).
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al.vsCobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references (Mgrdechian, Swartz, Kulakowski) under §§102 and 103. Google seeks institution of the review.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑10 of Ningde Amperex’s ’927 lithium‑ion battery separator patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Nishikawa, Chen and Zhang. The petition seeks institution and a finding that all claims are unpatentable.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,760 and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information, effectively terminating the proceeding.
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.