Amphenol Corp v. Credo Technology Group Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00835
• Patent #: 10,877,233
• Filed: April 10, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Amphenol Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Credo Technology Group LTD
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Active Electrical Cables
• Brief Description: The ’233 patent discloses active electrical cables for high-speed data communication, such as in data centers. The cables feature pluggable modules at each end containing transceivers that perform signal conditioning, including pre-equalization using transmit filter coefficients stored in non-volatile memory to improve signal integrity.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lugthart and Gorecki - Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are obvious over Lugthart in view of Gorecki.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lugthart-706 (Patent 9,882,706) and Gorecki-617 (Patent 7,233,617).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lugthart-706 discloses the core elements of the challenged claims, including an "active cable" with powered transceiver assemblies at each end. These transceivers function as the claimed "data recovery and re-modulation (DRR) devices" by performing clock and data recovery, handling inbound and outbound multi-lane data streams with a host device, and converting signals between the host and cable interfaces. Lugthart also teaches using finite impulse response (FIR) transmit filters for pre-equalization (termed "pre-emphasis"). However, during prosecution, the Examiner allowed the claims based on the limitation of storing transmit filter coefficient values in non-volatile memory. Petitioner asserted that Gorecki-617 explicitly remedies this deficiency. Gorecki teaches systems for transmitter pre-equalization using FIR filters and discloses storing the filter tap coefficients in non-volatile memory (NVM), such as EEPROM, so a transmitter can retrieve them during start-up or initialization.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Gorecki's NVM storage method with Lugthart's active cable system to enhance performance and solve a known problem. Using NVM to store coefficients is a conventional and convenient technique for ensuring pre-equalization settings persist across power cycles. This combination would predictably improve the functionality of Lugthart's system by incorporating a well-known method for managing equalization parameters.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved integrating known components (Lugthart's transceivers, Gorecki's NVM controller) using conventional techniques to achieve the predictable result of a more robust active cable system with persistent pre-equalization settings.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lugthart, Gorecki, and IEEE 802.3 - Claims 7, 14, and 20 are obvious over Lugthart and Gorecki in further view of the 802.3 Standard.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lugthart-706 (Patent 9,882,706), Gorecki-617 (Patent 7,233,617), and IEEE Std. 802.3-2015 ("802.3 standard").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims 7, 14, and 20, which add a negative limitation: the DRR devices do not perform pre-equalization of the multi-lane data streams provided to the host interface ports. The base combination of Lugthart and Gorecki provides the active cable with configurable pre-equalization. Petitioner argued the 802.3 standard, a well-known Ethernet standard, explicitly teaches a mechanism for disabling pre-equalization. The standard defines settings for a three-tap transmit filter where setting the side-tap coefficients (c(-1) and c(1)) to zero passes the input signal without equalization.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teaching of the 802.3 standard with the Lugthart/Gorecki system to solve the known problem of excessive power consumption. It was well understood in the art that disabling signal processing functions like pre-equalization, when not needed to meet performance objectives, was a conventional method to reduce power usage in transceivers. A POSITA would therefore incorporate the ability to disable pre-equalization as a low-power mode or for use in high-quality channels not requiring it.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing this feature. The 802.3 standard provides an explicit method for disabling pre-equalization, and doing so was a conventional technique for power management in transceiver design.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The petition was filed expeditiously, within four weeks of parallel complaints being filed in the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. Petitioner contended that a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board would likely issue before any trial date or final determination in the parallel proceedings, weighing heavily in favor of institution.
• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics Factors): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the Office never previously considered the core prior art. The primary references, Lugthart-706 and Gorecki-617, were not of record during prosecution. Critically, Gorecki-617 teaches the very limitation—storing filter coefficients in non-volatile memory—that the Examiner relied upon for allowance. Because this key art and the associated arguments were never presented to or considered by the Examiner, Petitioner asserted there is no basis for discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’233 patent as unpatentable.