Short Summary
Amphenol and Credo Technology settled four related IPRs, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Detailed Summary
In August 2025, Amphenol Corporation and Credo Technology Group Ltd. jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025-00607, IPR2025-00699, IPR2025-00834, and IPR2025-00835) covering patents related to electronic connectors. The parties submitted a settlement agreement, which the Board accepted as a basis for termination, finding good cause to end the cases at an early stage and to treat the agreement as confidential business information. Consequently, all petitions were dismissed, and the settlement documents were placed under confidentiality protections, with no final written decision on patent validity issued.
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
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB held that Imperative Care proved all nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable, finding the term “filament” must be flexible and that the prior art renders the claims obvious.
Mito Red Light, Inc.vsJoovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater’s 8,631,102 patent covering mobile‑hotspot forwarding services, citing anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
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.