Credo Semiconductor v. Volex PLC — Dismissed With Prejudice in 168 Days
Credo Semiconductor filed a three-patent infringement action against Volex PLC in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents covering active electrical cable (AEC) technology used in high-speed 400G and 800G interconnects. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after just 168 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three AEC cable patents, one joint dismissal, zero merits ruling
On March 13, 2025, Credo Semiconductor Inc. filed suit against Volex PLC in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of three US patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — covering active electrical cable technology. The accused products span Volex’s entire high-speed AEC cable line, including 400G QSFP-DD, 400G QSFP112, 800G OSFP, and 800G QSFP-DD variants, products central to hyperscale data center and high-performance computing interconnect markets.
The case ended on August 28, 2025, when both parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Judge Gilstrap accepted the joint motion, dismissing all of Credo’s claims against Volex with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Credo is barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Volex on these facts. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution with no admitted liability.
Resolution in 168 days — well before any claim construction hearing would typically occur in E.D. Tex. — strongly suggests the parties reached a commercial agreement, potentially a licensing deal or supply arrangement, before the litigation entered its most costly phase. The public record does not disclose settlement terms. What remains unknown is whether Volex obtained a license, whether Credo agreed to a covenant not to sue on related products, and what, if any, royalty or cross-licensing arrangement underlies the dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 168 days
168 days — resolved significantly faster than the E.D. Tex. median of ~24 months for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissal with prejudice — a deliberate, final act
A Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice requires court approval and operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this order permanently extinguishes Credo’s right to re-litigate these specific claims against Volex. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement, not unilateral withdrawal.
No re-filing permittedCredo’s patents survive — but Volex gains permanent peace on these claims
A with-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate Credo’s three AEC patents. US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 remain in force and enforceable against other parties. However, Credo has permanently relinquished its right to pursue Volex under these specific claims, which typically reflects a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a concession on patent validity.
Patents remain validVolex secures finality — likely at a commercial price not disclosed in the record
Volex exits litigation with no finding of infringement and no public admission of liability. The with-prejudice dismissal offers Volex strong protection against re-assertion of these three patents for the accused products. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a settlement in which both parties made concessions. The undisclosed terms are the critical unknown for competitors monitoring this space.
No liability findingAEC cable IP landscape: early settlement signals high commercial sensitivity
The 168-day resolution — before claim construction — suggests both parties valued commercial continuity over litigation risk. For other AEC cable manufacturers supplying 400G and 800G interconnects, Credo’s three patents remain live enforcement tools. The speed of resolution may indicate Credo is pursuing a licensing strategy across the data center interconnect supply chain rather than seeking injunctive relief.
Active licensing risk for AEC suppliersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Credo Semiconductor Inc. | Company | Semiconductor IP company — holder of US11032111B2, US10877233B1, US11012252B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Volex PLC | Company | Volex PLC — global cable and power products manufacturer, accused AEC cable supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brendan Frederick McLaughlin | Attorney | Counsel for Credo Semiconductor Inc.Search 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 | Law Firm | Representing 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 | Abdul Althebaity | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adi Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Jeffrey Cooperberg | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Philip Whittlesey | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Sebastian Lucas | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas R. Makin | Attorney | Counsel for Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Volex PLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting the Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is a consent-based final disposition — no claim was adjudicated on the merits. The phrase ‘all claims by Plaintiffs against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ confirms the finality: Credo’s cause of action is extinguished as to Volex. The mutual cost-bearing clause is consistent with negotiated resolution; it forecloses any fee-shifting argument under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No validity or infringement findings were made.
US11032111B2, US10877233B1, US11012252B2 — AEC cable technology patents
The three asserted patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — derive from US patent applications filed in 2019 and 2020 (application numbers US16/552927, US16/698935, and US16/539910 respectively). They cover architectural and circuit-level innovations in active electrical cables, a technology that embeds signal-processing electronics directly into cable assemblies to extend reach and signal integrity at 400G and 800G data rates. This places them squarely in the infrastructure layer of hyperscale and AI data centre buildouts.
Strategically, these patents cover components now in high demand across hyperscale cloud and AI compute clusters, where 400G QSFP-DD and 800G OSFP AEC cables are standard short-reach interconnects. Credo’s position as a semiconductor IP company — not a cable manufacturer — means its enforcement posture is oriented toward licensing the supply chain rather than competing in it. Any cable OEM or ODM supplying US data centres with AEC assemblies should assess design freedom against these three patents as a priority FTO exercise.
Should your AEC cable products be cleared against Credo’s patent portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing 400G or 800G active electrical cable assemblies — including QSFP-DD, QSFP112, OSFP, or breakout variants — faces non-trivial exposure to the Credo patent portfolio. The accused Volex products in this case are representative of the broad category of AEC cables now deployed across hyperscale data centres. R&D and product teams should not assume that design differences from Volex’s specific implementations confer freedom to operate.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows engineering and IP teams to map claim-level language from US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 against their own product architectures in minutes. Eureka surfaces claim charts, identifies potentially problematic independent claims, and flags prior art candidates that may support design-around or IPR strategies — giving procurement and IP counsel the intelligence they need before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11032111B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar AEC cable and high-speed interconnect patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Browse comparable active electrical cable and data centre interconnect patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the high-speed AEC cable IP landscape
Credo’s rapid, multi-patent enforcement action against a major cable supplier reveals a coordinated IP monetisation posture in the 400G/800G AEC market.
Three concurrent patents signal a patent thicket strategy around AEC technology
Asserting US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 simultaneously — all filed within a narrow window — suggests Credo built a coordinated patent portfolio around AEC cable architecture. Competitors shipping 400G or 800G QSFP-DD, OSFP, or QSFP112 cables should treat this as a portfolio-level risk, not a single-patent exposure.
E.D. Tex. + Judge Gilstrap = plaintiff-friendly venue for AEC patent enforcement
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas is a deliberate venue choice. Gilstrap oversees more patent cases than any other US federal judge, and plaintiffs in E.D. Tex. benefit from predictable scheduling and a strong infrastructure for patent trial. AEC cable suppliers should factor this venue risk into their response strategy if they receive a demand letter from Credo.
Credo v Volex — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) on August 28, 2025, after 168 days of litigation. No merits determination was made. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. The dismissal with prejudice means Credo cannot reassert the same claims against Volex.
Credo asserted three US patents: US11032111B2 (App. No. US16/552927), US10877233B1 (App. No. US16/698935), and US11012252B2 (App. No. US16/539910). All three cover active electrical cable technology and stem from patent applications filed in 2019–2020.
The accused products included Volex’s 400G QSFP-DD AEC Cable, 400G QSFP112 AEC Cable, 800G OSFP AEC Cable, 800G OSFP to QSFP112 AEC Breakout Cable, 800G QSFP-DD AEC Cable, and 800G QSFP-DD to QSFP112 AEC Breakout Cable — spanning Volex’s full high-speed data centre AEC cable portfolio.
A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Credo’s right to re-sue Volex on the same claims. However, the underlying patents — US11032111B2, US10877233B1, and US11012252B2 — remain valid and enforceable against other parties. The dismissal is case-specific, not a ruling on patent validity or infringement.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is a preferred plaintiff venue for patent litigation due to its patent-specialised infrastructure, predictable scheduling orders, and historically plaintiff-friendly outcomes. Filing in E.D. Tex. maximises litigation pressure on defendants and is a common strategy for IP-focused plaintiffs seeking early settlement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.