DCT
2:25-cv-00297
Credo Semiconductor Inc v. Te Connectivity PLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Credo Semiconductor Inc. (California) and Credo Technology Group Ltd. (Cayman Islands)
- Defendant: TE Connectivity PLC (Ireland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00297, E.D. Tex., Filed 03/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges that Defendant transacts business and has committed acts of infringement in the district through a nationwide distribution channel, including Texas-based distributors.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Active Electrical Cables (AECs) infringe three patents related to high-speed signal processing and equalization technology for data transmission.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns Active Electrical Cables, which contain integrated circuits to recondition signals, enabling high-speed data transfer over longer copper cables than passive alternatives and serving as a cost-effective option compared to optical cables in data centers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of the asserted patents via a letter dated September 1, 2023. It further alleges that Defendant responded on November 14, 2023, denying infringement without providing factual or legal support, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-08-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’111 Patent |
| 2019-03-01 | Earliest Priority Date for ’252 Patent |
| 2019-11-27 | Earliest Priority Date for ’233 Patent |
| 2020-12-29 | ’233 Patent Issued |
| 2021-05-18 | ’252 Patent Issued |
| 2021-06-08 | ’111 Patent Issued |
| 2023-09-01 | Credo sends notice letter to TE regarding asserted patents |
| 2023-11-14 | TE responds to Credo, denying infringement |
| 2025-03-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,877,233 - "Active Ethernet Cable with Preset Pre-Equalization," issued December 29, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of maintaining signal integrity in high-speed data transmission (e.g., beyond 50 Gbps) over copper cables longer than a few meters, where signal attenuation and dispersion become prohibitive for passive cables and active optical cables are too costly (’233 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an Active Ethernet Cable (AEC) with Data Recovery and Re-modulation (DRR) devices integrated into its end connectors. These devices actively reshape the signal. A key feature is the use of transmit-side "pre-equalization" based on filter coefficient values that are pre-determined and stored in nonvolatile memory within the cable itself, thereby conditioning the signal before it travels down the length of the cable (’233 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:53-65).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for the mass production of affordable, high-bandwidth copper cables that can operate robustly over longer distances (e.g., up to seven meters), which is critical for interconnecting equipment within modern data centers (’233 Patent, col. 1:32-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A cable with a first and second Data Recovery and Re-modulation (DRR) device, each in an end connector plug.
- Electrical conductors connecting the two DRR devices.
- The DRR devices convert multi-lane data streams from a host port into "electrical transit signals" for conveyance over the conductors, and vice-versa.
- Crucially, the DRR devices provide "pre-equalization of the electrical transit signals" using "transmit filter coefficient values stored in nonvolatile memories."
U.S. Patent No. 11,012,252 - "Active Ethernet Cable," issued May 18, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty in creating affordable, mass-manufactured network hardware that can perform robustly at very high data rates (e.g., 50 Gbps with PAM4 modulation) where signal degradation is a major issue (’252 Patent, col. 1:15-24).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes an active cable where transceivers in each connector perform clock and data recovery (CDR) on signals both entering and exiting the cable. The innovation lies in its specific equalization strategy: the transceivers employ "fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters" to process the clean signal received from the host, while employing separate (and potentially adaptive or cable-specific) equalization to process the degraded signal that has traveled through the cable (’252 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:28-36).
- Technical Importance: This architecture improves interoperability and manufacturing consistency by separating the equalization tasks. The cable is designed to handle its own internal signal degradation independently of the host system it connects to, ensuring robust performance across different hardware environments (’252 Patent, col. 4:18-26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
- Claim 1 requires:
- An active Ethernet cable with electrical conductors between two connectors.
- Each connector has a transceiver that performs clock and data recovery (CDR) on the "electrical input signal" from a host to create a "transit data stream."
- The transceiver at the other end performs CDR on the "electrical transit signal" to create an "outbound data stream" for its host.
- The key limitation is that the transceivers employ "fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters" for the CDR performed on the electrical input signal received from the host.
U.S. Patent No. 11,032,111 - "SerDes Pre-Equalizer Having Adaptable Preset Coefficient Registers," issued June 8, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for efficient transmitter pre-equalization in high-speed SerDes (Serializer-Deserializer) links. The invention involves a transceiver that includes multiple registers, each storing a different set of initial pre-equalizer coefficient values corresponding to a different channel model (e.g., a short vs. a long cable). The transceiver can select the best set of preset coefficients as a starting point for link training, which accelerates the adaptation process and improves performance (’111 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:40-52).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶30).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TE's OSFP and QSFP-DD AECs infringe by incorporating SerDes technology that selects from and adapts preset pre-equalizer coefficients (’111 Patent, Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies TE Connectivity's "OSFP 26AWG AEC, OSFP 30AWG AEC, and QSFP-DD, 28AWG AEC" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are "active electrical cables" designed for high-speed wired connectivity in the data infrastructure market (Compl. ¶1, ¶10). These products are marketed for use in environments with ever-growing data transfer needs driven by AI, 5G, and cloud workloads (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges these products are sold through a nationwide distribution channel to customers including data centers (Compl. ¶8). Functionally, the infringement allegations imply these cables contain active electronics within their connectors to perform signal processing, equalization, and re-transmission to overcome the limitations of passive copper cabling (Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits detailing the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶16, ¶23, ¶30). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint and the patent claim language.
10,877,233 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first data recovery and re-modulation (DRR) device that exchanges...data streams with a first host interface port via a first end connector plug; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "active electrical cables" which necessarily contain active electronics, such as DRR devices, within their connector plugs to interface with a host. | ¶16 | col. 8:53-59 |
| a second DRR device that exchanges...data streams with a second host interface port via a second end connector plug; | The Accused Products are cables with two connector ends, each of which is alleged to contain a DRR device to interface with a second host device. | ¶16 | col. 8:53-59 |
| electrical conductors connecting the first and second DRR devices to convey electrical transit signals therebetween... | The Accused Products are "active electrical cables" which, by their nature, use electrical conductors (wires) to connect the active components in each connector end. | ¶16 | col. 8:38-45 |
| the first and second DRR devices providing pre-equalization of the electrical transit signals using transmit filter coefficient values stored in nonvolatile memories. | The complaint's core allegation is that the Accused Products infringe by performing this specific function. The complaint references a YouTube video demonstrating TE Connectivity personnel using the Accused Products at a trade show. | ¶16, ¶18 | col. 2:11-14 |
11,012,252 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| each of the first and second connectors including a respective transceiver that performs clock and data recovery on the electrical input signal to extract and re-modulate the inbound data stream... | The Accused Products are alleged to be "active electrical cables" whose connectors contain transceivers that process inbound signals from a host. | ¶23 | col. 3:35-43 |
| the respective transceivers each employing fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters for...the clock and data recovery performed on the electrical input signal. | The infringement allegation centers on the Accused Products using this specific two-part equalization strategy, where the equalization for the host-side signal is fixed and not dependent on the cable's specific characteristics. | ¶23 | col. 9:31-36 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual and technical: Do the accused TE cables actually operate in the manner claimed? For the ’233 Patent, this raises the question of whether the cables use pre-equalization with coefficients stored in nonvolatile memory. For the ’252 Patent, the question is whether they employ a "fixed, cable-independent" equalization scheme for host-side signals while using a different scheme for internal signals. These questions will likely require discovery, including analysis of source code and reverse engineering of the products.
- Scope Questions: The case may also involve claim construction disputes. For example, for the ’233 Patent, what is the scope of "pre-equalization"? For the ’252 Patent, what precisely does it mean for equalization parameters to be "fixed" and "cable-independent"? The answers will determine whether the accused functionality falls within the scope of the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "pre-equalization" (from ’233 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central technical feature of claim 1 of the ’233 Patent. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the signal conditioning performed by the Accused Products meets the definition of "pre-equalization."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function in general terms as a "transmit filter" that "converts the digital data stream into an analog electrical signal with spectral shaping to combat channel degradation" (’233 Patent, col. 10:45-51). This language could support a construction covering a wide range of transmit-side filtering techniques.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes a specific embodiment as a "'long-tap' filter" that may "employ up to 30 or more taps" to provide sufficient equalization, which is more complex than a standard filter (’233 Patent, col. 10:52-58). A party could argue this points to a more specific and complex form of pre-equalization being required by the claims.
Term: "fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters" (from ’252 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the novel equalization strategy claimed in the ’252 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement determination will hinge on whether the Accused Products employ this specific two-part approach, as opposed to a uniformly adaptive or different scheme.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself separates the equalization for the "electrical input signal" (from the host) from the equalization for the "electrical transit signal" (from the other end of the cable). This context suggests "fixed, cable-independent" simply means the parameters for the host-facing receiver are not customized on a "cable-by-cable basis" (’252 Patent, col. 8:61-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "fixed" implies the parameters are not merely independent of the cable but are also non-adaptive and unchangeable during operation. The specification contrasts "fixed" parameters with "adaptive" parameters used for the cable-dependent equalization, which may support an argument that "fixed" carries a narrow, non-adaptive meaning (’252 Patent, col. 9:1-2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges TE induces infringement by providing materials and instructions to distributors and customers, including product data sheets, customer support, and online videos that allegedly instruct on the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18, ¶25, ¶32).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint pleads willfulness based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It specifically cites a notice letter sent to TE on September 1, 2023, and TE's subsequent denial on November 14, 2023. Plaintiff alleges TE continued to infringe "unabated" despite this knowledge of an objectively high risk, constituting willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶21, ¶28, ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff produce evidence, likely through reverse engineering and discovery, that the accused TE cables internally perform the specific signal processing methods recited in the claims—namely, the use of preset pre-equalization from nonvolatile memory (’233 Patent) and the distinct fixed, cable-independent equalization for host-facing signals (’252 Patent)?
- The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the key technical terms "pre-equalization" and "fixed, cable-independent"? Whether these terms are interpreted broadly to cover general functions or narrowly tied to the patent's specific embodiments will be critical to the infringement outcome.
- A significant question regarding damages will be the allegation of willfulness: Did TE's actions after receiving the September 1, 2023 notice letter constitute objective recklessness? The court's analysis will likely focus on the sufficiency of the notice and the reasonableness of TE's basis for continuing its allegedly infringing conduct.