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
Innoscience America, Inc. et al.vsInfineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Wilus Institute’s U.S. Patent 10,313,077 covering Wi‑Fi coexistence signaling. The petition asserts obviousness over multiple IEEE 802.11‑related prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.
Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.
Tessell, Inc.vsNutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.
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.