Short Summary
Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Credo’s ’252 active Ethernet cable patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art combinations and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Detailed Summary
Amphenol Corporation petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,012,252, which claims an active Ethernet cable with fixed, cable‑independent equalization parameters. The petitioner alleges that the claims are obvious in view of the Lugthart‑993 patent combined with Aronson, and alternatively over Tang together with a Texas Instruments retimer and Aronson. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d), citing favorable Fintiv factors and lack of procedural error. The petition requests cancellation of claims 1‑14 and awaits the Board’s institution decision.
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
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc.vsNorth Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers and North Atlantic Imports have settled their dispute over a cooking‑appliance patent and jointly moved to dismiss the inter partes review.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against BirchTech's patent as to WEC Energy Group following a settlement, but the case remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and other petitioners.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
CosMX seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR on Ningde’s battery patent. The request argues that conflicting claim constructions in two parallel petitions require denial under the Director’s guidance and discretionary authority.
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.