PTAB

IPR2025-01386

Volex PLC v. Credo Technology Group Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Active Ethernet Cable and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’252 patent discloses active electrical cables, such as high-speed Ethernet cables, that use transceivers at each end to process communication signals. The technology focuses on splitting the communication link into three segments (host-to-transceiver, transceiver-to-transceiver over the cable, and transceiver-to-host) and applying distinct equalization parameters to each segment to manage signal degradation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lugthart-993 and Aronson - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Lugthart-993 in view of Aronson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lugthart-993 (Patent 9,337,993) and Aronson (Patent 7,762,727).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lugthart-993, an active cable patent, discloses every element of the independent claims except for the use of "fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters" for host-side signal processing. Lugthart-993 teaches an active cable with transceivers at each end that perform equalization and Clock and Data Recovery (CDR) on both host-side and line-side (cable-side) signals, effectively splitting the communication link as claimed. Aronson was asserted to explicitly teach the missing element, disclosing that for an active copper cable, equalization for host-side losses (e.g., on PCB traces) should use cable-independent parameters, which could be fixed to reduce complexity and cost. Conversely, Aronson teaches that equalization for losses over the cable itself should use cable-dependent parameters, which could be fixed or adaptive.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Aronson’s specific equalization strategies with Lugthart-993’s active cable architecture to achieve predictable results and optimize performance. Applying fixed, cable-independent parameters for the stable host-side environment was a known design choice to reduce cost and complexity, while applying cable-dependent parameters for the variable line-side environment was necessary to ensure signal integrity across different cable lengths and conditions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying well-understood equalization principles from Aronson to a compatible active cable system disclosed in Lugthart-993 to solve a known problem of signal degradation in different parts of a communication link.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tang, TI-Retimer, and Aronson - Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are obvious over Tang in view of TI-Retimer and Aronson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tang (Application # 2013/0115803), TI-Retimer (a 2017 Texas Instruments datasheet), and Aronson (Patent 7,762,727).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that the claimed invention was essentially a commercial implementation of known concepts. Tang discloses an active Ethernet data cable with connectors containing "signal drivers" that perform CDR, establishing the basic claimed architecture. Petitioner contended that a POSA would implement Tang's generic signal drivers using a known, commercially available component like the TI-Retimer, a retimer chip designed for such applications. The TI-Retimer datasheet discloses all necessary signal conditioning functions, including a continuous time linear equalizer (CTLE), CDR, and a transmit FIR filter. The combination of Tang and TI-Retimer provides the complete active cable system. Aronson was then added to provide the explicit teaching for using different equalization parameter types (fixed, cable-independent for host-side; cable-dependent for line-side), as argued in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to combine these references as a matter of routine design. It would have been a simple and predictable substitution to implement the conceptual "signal drivers" of Tang with a suitable off-the-shelf component like the TI-Retimer chip to create a functional product. The further motivation to incorporate Aronson's teachings stems from the desire to optimize the system's performance by applying established best practices for equalization in different signal environments (host vs. cable).
    • Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected because the combination involves integrating a standard commercial chip (TI-Retimer) into a conventional cable architecture (Tang) and applying known, predictable equalization techniques (Aronson) to achieve their intended and well-documented benefits.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Claim 7 Publication Error: Petitioner argued that claim 7, as issued, contains nonsensical language ("each employ fixed, cable-independent, equalization parameters") resulting from a publication error. This language was never present in the examined application claim and contradicts the claim's own dependency, which introduces "cable-dependent" parameters. Petitioner asserted the claim should be construed to exclude the erroneous language, making it substantively identical to claim 2 for the purposes of the invalidity analysis.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted. This petition is substantially the same as a previously filed petition (IPR2025-00834) by another party, and Petitioner intends to file a motion to join that proceeding. The latest date for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the co-pending IPR is November 12, 2026, which precedes the January 11, 2027 trial date in the parallel Texas Litigation. Petitioner also stipulated not to pursue in the litigation any grounds raised or that could have been reasonably raised in this IPR.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’252 patent as unpatentable.