Credo Semiconductor v. Amphenol: High-Speed Cable IP Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal
Credo Semiconductor filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of three patents covering high-speed electrical cable technology by Amphenol’s OSFP and QSFP-DD 112G cable assemblies. The case resolved in just 161 days via a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice — a timeline that typically signals a negotiated resolution reached before significant litigation costs accrued.
Three Signal-Integrity Patents, One Joint Exit: How This Case Resolved in Under Six Months
On March 13, 2025, Credo Semiconductor Inc. filed suit against Amphenol Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00296), asserting infringement of three U.S. patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — covering high-speed electrical cable technologies. The accused products included Amphenol’s OSFP Cable Assembly DSP Active 32AWG 112G/Lane and QSFP-DD Cable Assembly DSP Active 32AWG 112G/Lane product lines, which are widely deployed in data centre and high-performance computing interconnect applications.
The case closed on August 21, 2025, when Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The dismissal with prejudice means Credo is permanently barred from asserting these specific claims against Amphenol in future litigation. The order also directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral outcome that neither party can characterise as a public win or loss on the merits.
A 161-day resolution — before any substantive claim construction or discovery disputes appear on the public docket — is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement reached shortly after filing. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are hallmarks of a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side. The underlying commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed, leaving the strength of Credo’s patent portfolio against Amphenol’s 112G cable product lines an open question for the broader interconnect industry.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 161 days
161 days — faster than the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases reaching trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice: a permanent close
A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2) is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Credo cannot refile these specific patent claims against Amphenol in any federal court. The joint nature of the motion means both sides agreed to this finality — distinguishing it from a court-ordered dismissal. This is a common mechanism to close a case following a confidential settlement or licence agreement.
Permanent bar on re-filingCredo forfeits future claims — but likely on its own terms
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Credo permanently relinquishes the right to assert US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 against Amphenol. This concession is substantial, but it is consistent with a licensing deal in which Credo received commercial value in exchange. The 161-day timeline suggests the parties reached terms before expending significant litigation resources — a rational outcome given the cost of E.D. Tex. patent proceedings.
Possible licence securedAmphenol secures permanent IP peace on its 112G cable lines
Amphenol’s 112G OSFP and QSFP-DD cable assemblies are commercially significant data centre products. A with-prejudice dismissal provides Amphenol with certainty that Credo cannot re-litigate these three patents against those specific product lines. Whether Amphenol paid a licence fee or structured a technology arrangement remains unknown from the public record. Each party bearing its own costs signals neither side sought to characterise the other as the losing party.
Litigation peace on 112G productsCredo’s cable IP portfolio remains a live threat to other 112G vendors
The dismissal resolves the Amphenol dispute but leaves Credo’s three patents fully intact and enforceable against all other market participants. Competitors shipping OSFP or QSFP-DD 112G/lane active cable assemblies — particularly those using DSP-based signal conditioning — should treat this case as a signal that Credo is actively enforcing its interconnect IP. The absence of any invalidity ruling means the patents have not been tested on the merits.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Credo Semiconductor Inc. | Company | High-speed interconnect semiconductor company — holder of US11032111B2, US10877233B1, US11012252B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amphenol Corp. | Company | Amphenol Corp. — global connector and cable assembly manufacturer; accused via OSFP and QSFP-DD 112G productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Livedalen | Attorney | Counsel for Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Alex Sterba | Attorney | Counsel for Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruffin B. Cordell | Attorney | Counsel for Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Edward Garten | Attorney | Counsel for Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Covington & Burling, LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Amphenol Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order is procedurally straightforward but commercially significant. Judge Gilstrap granted the joint motion without imposing conditions, confirming both parties’ consent to finality. The with-prejudice designation carries full res judicata effect: Credo’s claims under these three patents against Amphenol are permanently extinguished. The cost-neutrality clause — each party bearing its own fees — is notable because it signals neither side had leverage sufficient to extract a prevailing-party fee award, consistent with a mutually negotiated exit rather than a unilateral concession.
US11032111B2, US10877233B1 & US11012252B2 — High-Speed Electrical Cable Signal Integrity
The three asserted patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — originate from U.S. patent applications filed in 2019 (application numbers US16/552927, US16/698935, and US16/539910 respectively). They sit within the technical domain of high-speed electrical interconnects, specifically covering signal integrity architectures used in active cable assemblies. These patents are directly relevant to the DSP-based signal conditioning techniques that enable 112 Gbps per-lane data transmission over copper cable — a capability central to modern data centre switching and AI cluster interconnect.
Credo Semiconductor is an active participant in the 112G and emerging 224G interconnect ecosystem, and this patent portfolio represents core IP for that product category. The accused Amphenol products — OSFP and QSFP-DD form-factor active electrical cables operating at 112G/lane — are among the most widely deployed interconnect solutions in hyperscale data centres. With no invalidity ruling and no claim construction order on the public record, the full claim scope of these patents remains untested, creating ongoing freedom-to-operate risk for any vendor shipping comparable active electrical cable products without a Credo licence.
Should your team run an FTO against US11032111B2, US10877233B1 & US11012252B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or sources OSFP, QSFP-DD, or similar active electrical cable assemblies operating at 112G per lane or above — particularly those using DSP-based signal conditioning — these three Credo patents warrant a formal freedom-to-operate review. The Amphenol dismissal confirms Credo will assert these patents commercially. Absence of a public invalidity ruling means the patents cannot be presumed vulnerable without independent analysis of the prosecution history and prior art landscape.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 against your product architecture in minutes, surfacing prior art, claim differentiation pathways, and prosecution history flags. For R&D teams designing next-generation 112G or 224G active cable products, running this analysis before design lock-in is materially cheaper than litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11032111B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Related High-Speed Interconnect & Cable Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving active electrical cable and high-speed interconnect patents before the Eastern District of Texas, including OSFP, QSFP, and 112G signal integrity disputes.
What this case signals for the high-speed interconnect IP landscape
A three-patent assertion against a tier-one cable maker, resolved in under six months, points to an active IP monetisation strategy in the 112G interconnect space.
Credo’s three-patent package signals a structured licensing campaign
Filing three related signal-integrity patents in a single complaint is consistent with a portfolio licensing approach rather than a one-off dispute. Competitors shipping 112G active cable assemblies should expect Credo to continue asserting this portfolio. The E.D. Tex. venue choice before Judge Gilstrap reinforces that this is a deliberate enforcement strategy.
With-prejudice + own costs = hallmarks of a confidential settlement
In E.D. Tex. patent practice, joint motions to dismiss with prejudice where each party bears its own costs almost universally reflect a negotiated exit. There is no public record of licence terms, royalty rates, or cross-licences. IP teams at companies competing with Amphenol in the 112G cable market should assume a commercial deal was reached and factor that into competitive and IP strategy.
Credo v Amphenol — key questions answered
Credo Semiconductor filed suit against Amphenol in the Eastern District of Texas on March 13, 2025, asserting three patents covering high-speed electrical cable technology against Amphenol’s OSFP and QSFP-DD 112G active cable assemblies. The case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on August 21, 2025 via a joint motion, with each party bearing its own costs. The case resolved in 161 days without any merits ruling.
Credo asserted three U.S. patents: US11032111B2 (App. No. US16/552927), US10877233B1 (App. No. US16/698935), and US11012252B2 (App. No. US16/539910). All three originate from 2019 patent applications and cover signal integrity technologies applicable to high-speed active electrical cable assemblies used in data centre interconnect applications.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final determination that bars Credo from re-filing the same patent claims against Amphenol in any federal court. It carries res judicata effect. In practice, a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice — where both parties agree — typically reflects a negotiated settlement or licence. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against all other parties not covered by any agreement reached between Credo and Amphenol.
The complaint targeted Amphenol’s OSFP Cable Assembly DSP Active 32AWG 112G/Lane and QSFP-DD Cable Assembly DSP Active 32AWG 112G/Lane products, along with other electrical cables in Amphenol’s portfolio. These are active electrical cable assemblies widely used in high-performance data centre switching and AI interconnect infrastructure.
No. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Amphenol and only to the specific claims Credo raised in Case No. 2:25-cv-00296. Credo’s three asserted patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — remain fully in force against all other parties. Vendors shipping OSFP, QSFP-DD, or similar 112G active electrical cable products should consider whether their architectures fall within the scope of these patents and obtain appropriate FTO opinions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.