US10877233B1 Patent litigation record

Patent 5 cases

US10877233B1 has been asserted in 5 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

5 cases on record

Cases on record
5
Asserted by
Credo Semiconductor
Asserted against
Molex · Amphenol · TE Connectivity · Volex
Courts
D. Del. · E.D. Tex. · United States International Trade Commission
Technology
digital information transmission and optical elements & systems
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:25-cv-00316 Credo Semiconductor Inc. v. Molex, LLC D. Del. 13 Mar 2025 385 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:25-cv-00296 Credo Semiconductor Inc. v. Amphenol Corp. E.D. Tex. 13 Mar 2025 161 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:25-cv-00297 Credo Semiconductor Inc. v. TE Connectivity PLC E.D. Tex. 13 Mar 2025 383 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:25-cv-00298 Credo Semiconductor Inc. v. Volex PLC E.D. Tex. 13 Mar 2025 168 d Dismissed with Prejudice
337-TA-1446 Credo Semiconductor Inc v. Amphenol Corp. United States International Trade Commission 13 Mar 2025 412 d Case Settled
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US10877233B1 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US10877233B1?

Closest prior art, compared claim by claim, with every reference rated for how hard it hits.

Run a novelty search
10,000 free credits to start

Browse

Courts
Technologies
Patents
Law firms

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information — including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing — use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.