Short Summary
Volex plc and Credo Technology Group Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,032,111 and jointly request that the settlement agreement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01387, Volex plc (petitioner) and Credo Technology Group Ltd. (patent owner) filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 following a settlement that resolves all disputes related to the patent. The parties seek to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), arguing that it contains no material patentability information. The motion includes signatures from counsel Eric S. Lucas for Volex and Jeremy J. Monaldo for Credo, and lists service to the parties’ counsel.
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
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
The USPTO Director denied TSMC's request for review of the office's refusal to institute five IPRs against Advanced Integrated Circuit Process patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Shenzhen Fbtech Electronics Ltd. et al.vsLithiumHub Technologies, LLC
LithiumHub Technologies and two Shenzhen firms settled IPR2025‑00822 concerning a solid‑state lithium battery patent, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
iRhythm, Inc.vsWelch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Accelight Technologies, Inc. et al.vsApplied Optoelectronics, Inc.
Applied Optoelectronics seeks a discretionary denial of an IPR petition filed by Accelight Technologies over its photonics patent (U.S. 10,042,116). The owner argues the petition repeats issues already litigated and relies on prior‑art already considered by the USPTO.
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.