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
Luxottica of America Inc. et al.vsE-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against E-Vision Optics, LLC's patent (10613355). The Board found that Luxottica demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103) across all 21 challenged claims.
Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC
Apple and patent holder ImberaTek have settled their dispute over patent 7,989,944 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion relies on good‑cause authority to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The exhibit summarizes PTAB IPR outcomes for TSMC, highlighting that about 42% of its challenged claims were found unpatentable.
Plaid Inc.vsSecure Authentication Technologies LLC et al.
Plaid Inc. and Secure Authentication Technologies LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR 2026-00157 after a Utah district court invalidated the patent, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKeyless Licensing LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Keyless Licensing’s ’922 patent, arguing that all 21 claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority.
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.