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
Ascend Elements, Inc.vsDuesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Juniper Networks, Inc.vsOrckit Corporation
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
HP Inc. et al.vsUniversal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
Apple Inc.vsDH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
DELL INC. et al.vsAX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
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.