Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the termination events, Daedalus Prime's background, and the IPR linkage.

Let me verify the '300 and '895 patent specifics and the PTAB outcomes.

I have enough verified material to draft the overview. Note on sourcing: docket-level details below are drawn from the complaint (D.I. 1), the Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 4), the Federal Register notices instituting ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1332/1335, and PTAB filings/mandatory notices; where I could not verify a fact (e.g., the '300 patent's exact title), I say so.

---

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 51 Pondfield Road, Suite 3, Bronxville, New York (the Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Daedalus Group, LLC as its corporate parent; later PTAB filings list a Croton-on-Hudson, NY address). Daedalus is a non-practicing entity/patent assertion entity: it makes no products and monetizes a portfolio acquired from Intel. Intel transferred a large set of U.S. patent assets to Daedalus Prime in transfers dated between April 2021 and October 2023 (reported as 250+ assets), and RPX and IAM report the entity is managed by patent-monetization veteran Ed Gomez, tied to affiliated vehicles Daedalus Group LLC and Daedalus Blue LLC. The defendants in this docket were the NXP semiconductor entities (NXP Semiconductors N.V. and NXP USA, Inc.) plus a set of authorized distributors — Arrow Electronics, Avnet, Digi-Key, Future Electronics, Mouser Electronics, Newark, and Rochester Electronics. Note a metadata discrepancy: the complaint as actually filed (D.I. 1, Aug. 23, 2022) was broader, also naming automakers Mazda and Mercedes-Benz and tier-one supplier Visteon (18 named entities in all); the case-summary defendant list is therefore a subset of the as-filed caption. The distributors were sued essentially as resellers of accused NXP (and other) chips, which is a common NPE tactic to sweep the distribution channel into the case.

Accused technology. Daedalus's accused products were semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, chipsets, and SoCs for automotive and consumer use, together with the printed circuit boards, automotive infotainment systems, instrument clusters, and automobiles containing them. In the parallel ITC complaint, Daedalus's own "plain English" description of the accused products was "semiconductors, printed circuit boards ('PCBs'), automotive parts including infotainment systems and instrument clusters, and automobiles," and the ITC's institution notice narrowed the scope to "semiconductor chips and printed circuit boards for use in automobile infotainment systems and instrument clusters, and automobile infotainment systems, instrument clusters, and automobiles containing the same, and components thereof" (87 FR 66208; 337-TA-1332 Notice of Institution, Oct. 7, 2022). This docket was the NXP-centered case of a three-complaint Delaware cluster, paralleling MediaTek-centered 1:22-cv-01108 and Qualcomm-centered 1:22-cv-01109, all filed the same day.

Patents asserted (six). The complaint asserted U.S. Patent Nos.:

• 8,775,833 — "Dynamically Allocating a Power Budget Over Multiple Domains of a Processor": a multi-domain processor where logic dynamically allocates a power budget between domains at runtime per user-level-controllable sharing-policy values (inventors Ananthakrishnan, Rotem, Rajwan, Weissmann, Shulman; issued July 8, 2014).
• 8,898,494 — "Power Budgeting Between a Processing Core, a Graphics Core, and a Bus on an Integrated Circuit When a Limit Is Reached": core/bus workload monitors feed balancing control that tunes power between core and bus against an IC power (thermal) limit while holding a low limit (Schluessler/Fenger; issued Nov. 25, 2014).
• 9,575,895 — a multiprocessor-socket/cache-coherency patent addressing I/O components integrated on the same chip as a multiprocessor and the snooping/caching-agent issues that creates (scope described in the PTAB's IPR2023-01344 final written decision; I did not independently verify the exact title).
• 10,049,080 — "Asymmetric Performance Multicore Architecture with Same Instruction Set Architecture": first and second pluralities of cores sharing an ISA, with power-management hardware that disables the higher-power cores on a demand drop without disabling the efficient ones, under OS control (George/Jahagirdar/Marr; issued Aug. 14, 2018).
• 10,394,300 — a processor power-management patent in the same Intel-derived family (issued Aug. 27, 2019); I was unable to independently verify its exact title/scope in the sources reviewed, so treat that one line as unconfirmed.
• 10,705,588 — "Enabling a Non-Core Domain to Control Memory Bandwidth in a Processor": cores and graphics operable at independent voltages/frequencies with an interconnect to memory running at yet another frequency (Ananthakrishnan/Sodhi

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal news outlets.

Let me dig into the docket history and related proceedings.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01107-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line up front: This case lived only about six months. It was a "complaint-and-park" filing — one of a coordinated wave of D. Del. complaints and ITC Section 337 complaints Daedalus Prime filed on the same day — and it closed on 2023-03-01 before any answer-driven motion practice, Markman, or discovery of substance. Most of the substantive action on these six patents happened in parallel venues (the ITC and the PTAB), not in this docket.

A note on sourcing: I hit a hard limit on my research tool before I could pull the full docket sheet and the specific entry that closed the case. Where I couldn't verify something (e.g., the exact docket entry for termination, whether any answers were filed), I say so rather than guess.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-08-23 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). Daedalus Prime LLC sued for infringement of six patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,775,833 ('833); 8,898,494 ('494); 9,575,895 ('895); 10,049,080 ('080); 10,394,300 ('300); and 10,705,588 ('588). Daedalus is a Delaware LLC with a Bronxville, NY address (per the complaint, 51 Pondfield Road, Suite 3). (Source: complaint PDF via Docket Alarm; Unified Patents lists the filing date as 2022-08-22.)
• Named defendants in the complaint were broader than the case caption in the metadata above: Arrow, Avnet, Digi-Key Electronics, Future Electronics, Mazda (three entities), Mercedes-Benz (three entities), Mouser, Newark, NXP Semiconductors N.V. and NXP USA, Rochester Electronics, and Visteon (per the complaint and the Justia docket listing). The metadata caption for this case lists the distributor/NXP group only; if the Mazda/Mercedes/Visteon defendants were later severed or dropped, I could not confirm that from a docket entry. Flagging this as an unresolved discrepancy.
• 2022-08-30 — D.I. 4: Corporate disclosure under Rule 7.1, identifying corporate parent Daedalus Group, LLC. (Daedalus Prime is an NPE; Unified Patents classifies the plaintiff entity type as "NPE" and the industry as high-tech.)
• 2022-08-31 — Case assignment: Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, with related cases flagged as 1:22-cv-01107-RGA, 1:22-cv-01108-RGA, and 1:22-cv-01109-RGA — i.e., Daedalus filed three parallel D. Del. suits that day. (Source: Justia docket)
• Answers/counterclaims: I found no record of an answer, affirmative defense, or counterclaim in this docket. Given the 2023-03-01 closure, it is likely the case was dismissed before, or around the time of, the Rule 12 answer deadline — but I could not verify this. Treat the absence of answers as an inference from the docket's age (last retrieved 2022-08-31 on free sources), not a confirmed fact.

2. Pre-trial motions, Markman, discovery — none reached

• No motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment appear to have been resolved on the merits in this docket. The case terminated roughly six months post-filing, which is well short of the typical Andrews-chambers track for claim construction (D. Del. Markman in a patent case of this vintage would ordinarily have been late 2023 into 2024).
• No Markman/claim-construction order — the case did not reach claim construction.
• No discovery milestones of strategic significance are reflected; no scheduling order or discovery-dispute activity surfaced.
• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

I want to be explicit: these are negative findings based on what surfaced, not affirmative proof of absence. A PACER pull of the full docket sheet would settle it.

3. Termination / final disposition

• 2023-03-01 — Case closed/terminated by Judge Andrews (case flags CLOSED and PATENT), per the Docket Alarm docket summary. The specific closing entry (e.g., a Rule 41(a) notice or stipulation of dismissal, with or without prejudice) was not retrieved. My strong suspicion is a voluntary dismissal, likely without prejudice, once the parallel ITC investigations were instituted (see §4) — but I cannot confirm the entry or whether it was with or without prejudice, and I won't assert it as fact.
• The patents were not invalidated or adjudicated in this case; the dismissal (whatever its terms) left the patents live.

4. The real action was elsewhere: parallel ITC and other proceedings

The strategic significance of this docket is that it was the district-court anchor for a multi-forum campaign filed the same day:

• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1332 — "Certain Semiconductors and Devices and Products Containing the Same, Including Printed Circuit Boards, Automotive Parts, and Automobiles." Based on Daedalus Prime's complaint filed 2022-08-23 (DN 3637, published at 87 FR), supplemented 2022-09-12; USITC voted to institute 2022-10-07. Respondents included Avnet, Digi-Key, Mercedes-Benz entities, Mouser, Newark, and NXP entities. Daedalus sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. (USITC press release, 2022-10-07)
• ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1335 — "Certain Integrated Circuits, Mobile Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof," instituted 2022-10-13 (87 FR 63528) on a complaint filed 2022-09-13, supplemented 2022-10-12. This one asserted the '833, '494, '080, and '588 patents, targeting integrated circuits fabricated using foreign wafers and the smartphones/tablets/smartwatches containing them. (The related-cases field for 337-TA-1335 lists this D. Del. case, 1:22-cv-01107.) (Federal Register notice)
• Parallel D. Del. cases 1:22-cv-01108 and 1:22-cv-01109, and E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00352 (filed ~2022-09-11/13), on the same patent family. The 01108 case docket is captioned in third-party databases as Daedalus Prime LLC v. Qualcomm Inc., et al., naming Mazda/Mercedes/Visteon alongside Qualcomm — which suggests the automaker/Qualcomm defendants may have been channeled into 01108 rather than 01107.
• TSMC v. Daedalus Prime LLC & Intel Corp., No. 1:22-cv-01647-MN-JLH (D. Del.) — a declaratory-judgment action brought against Daedalus Prime over this patent family. It was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation, entered 2023-11-01 (D.I. 52–53, Judge Noreika), with each side bearing its own fees. This is useful context: Daedalus was simultaneously defending its title/validity posture against TSMC and Intel while asserting the patents.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR)

The most concrete PTAB activity I found on these patents:

• IPR2023-01333, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. v. Daedalus Prime LLC — challenging the '080 patent. The Patent Owner's mandatory notice (dated 2023-08-29) identifies Daedalus Prime LLC as the sole real party-in-interest and lists this very litigation — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-01107 (D. Del.) — as a related matter with status "Terminated." (Source: PTAB mandatory notice PDF)
• IPR2023-01345, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. v. Daedalus Prime LLC — also lists 1:22-cv-01107 as related. (Source: Patexia case record)

Timing/effect: These IPRs were filed in August 2023 — roughly five months after this case was already closed. So the IPRs did not drive a stay or otherwise affect this litigation; instead, the district-court dismissal (and the ITC track) preceded and set up the PTAB filings.

Gap: I could not confirm whether other defendants (e.g., NXP, Qualcomm, Samsung-related entities) also filed IPRs against the '833, '494, '895, '300, or '588 patents, or the outcomes (institution/denial/FWD) of IPR2023-01333 and -01345. A PTAB-party search for "Daedalus Prime" would be the next step, along with the ITC EDIS records for 337-TA-1332 and -1335.

---

Chronological summary table

What to pull next if you need airtight detail

1. PACER docket sheet for 1:22-cv-01107 — to get the closing entry (and confirm no answers/counterclaims or Rule 12 motions).
2. PTAB P-TACTS search for "Daedalus Prime" across all six patents.
3. ITC EDIS for 337-TA-1332 and -1335 — including any termination based on settlement/license, which would explain the D. Del.

I'll search for press coverage of this case and the broader Daedalus Prime campaign.

Press and analyst coverage

Little coverage of this docket specifically; substantial coverage of the campaign it belonged to. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or JD Supra article addressing Daedalus Prime v. Arrow Electronics, 1:22-cv-01107, on its own terms — no coverage of the filing as docketed, no coverage of the March 2023 termination, and no reported damages figure, settlement term, or judgment. What exists is trade-press coverage of Daedalus Prime's August–September 2022 assertion wave, in which the NXP/distributor complaint is mentioned as one of several filings rather than analyzed separately. The two outlets that covered it substantively are IAM and RPX; the substantive-but-brief mentions are in The Register, EIP, and Korean and Italian tech press.

IAM was first, with a 30 August 2022 piece headlined "NPE uses former Intel patents to attack semiconductor companies," reported on IAM's Intel and Arrow Electronics organisation pages (IAM – Arrow Electronics), describing Daedalus Prime's district-court and ITC actions against MediaTek, NXP Semiconductors and Qualcomm "relating to chips used in automotive infotainment systems" — i.e., the press framed this docket as the NXP-centering complaint of the set, which matches the case metadata's defendant list. IAM followed on 18 September 2022 with "Samsung, TSMC, Qualcomm hit with new offensive by NPE wielding Intel patents" (IAM – Intel organisation page), reporting that Daedalus Prime was "asserting 22 patents in six complaints in a US district court, the US International Trade Commission and a German forum" — a scope figure (22 patents, six complaints, three venues) that goes beyond anything in this docket's record and is IAM's own campaign-level count. RPX's "Semiconductor Litigation Surged in Q3" (RPX) situates the August filing in a Q3 2022 semiconductor-litigation surge, describing Daedalus Prime as having "launched its first litigation in August with an ITC complaint and set of district court suits focused on semiconductor products used in the automotive industry, targeting automakers, an infotainment system provider, and a group of chipmakers," and reporting that the portfolio was acquired from Intel in early June 2022 and that the plaintiff is managed by a patent-monetization veteran behind Daedalus Group LLC and Daedalus Blue LLC.

Remedy sought, as reported — not damages. No outlet reported a damages demand, royalty rate, or license value for this case. Coverage of the companion ITC track reported only prospective relief: The Register reported on 2022-10-17 that Daedalus Prime was "seeking to have the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders, essentially blocking the import and sale in the US of any infringing products" (that article addressed the mobile-device investigation, 337-TA-1335, not 337-TA-1332); Italian outlet HWUpgrade reported the same on 2022-10-18, adding that the accused Samsung chips were 14nm-and-below and the TSMC chips 16nm-and-below and naming U.S. Patent 9,831,306 (a FinFET gate patent not among the six patents in this docket). Both The Register and HWUpgrade characterized Daedalus Prime as an NPE and emphasized that the underlying technology was developed at Intel — a framing that dominates the coverage and that cuts against reading these suits as ordinary supplier/distributor disputes.

Where accounts diverge, and an important correction to this case file. The most consequential press statement about the outcome comes from RPX's retrospective, republished by Mondaq on 2024-05-03: "The district court cases were stayed in favor of the ITC investigation—which ended after a withdrawal of the complaint in January 2023—and subsequently dismissed (without prejudice) prior to any substantive litigation." That is a materially firmer account than the earlier sections of this case file, which could not verify the closing entry and suspected a voluntary dismissal; it also contradicts this file's earlier statement that no motion to stay pending investigation appears in the docket, since RPX states a stay was entered. I could not verify the stay order or the dismissal-without-prejudice term against a docket entry, so I flag RPX's account as reported, not confirmed. Note the sequence it implies: Daedalus withdrew the ITC complaint on 2023-01-20 (ALJ Order No. 16 granting termination, per the Commission notice, 88 FR, Commission vote 2023-02-24, investigation terminated in its entirety) — which lines up almost exactly with this case's 2023-03-01 closure. On outcomes, IAM reported on 2024-01-18 that the "NPE wielding Intel patents scores settlements with TSMC, Samsung," with the subhead "Qualcomm is still battling litigation brought by Daedalus Prime in the US International Trade Commission" (IAM), and on 2024-06-06 that "NPE sells patents to Qualcomm, TSMC in close proximity to litigation settlements" (IAM – IBM organisation page). Those IAM reports are in tension with RPX's statement that "in each ITC action, a motion to terminate in light of settlement has since been granted" — most likely because the two outlets are tracking different ITC investigations (1332 automotive vs. the later Qualcomm/Samsung and TSMC/Samsung actions), but neither source resolves the tension explicitly, so treat the "settled with Qualcomm" characterization as unsettled. Neither outlet reported settlement amounts, and I found no party, court, or counsel statement about this docket from Daedalus Prime, Arrow, NXP, or any distributor.

Industry-reaction framing. The case is cited as a data point in semiconductor-IP commentary rather than analyzed. EIP (2022-10-21) used Daedalus Prime as its example of "an evolving secondary market for semiconductor patents, with a number of NPEs snapping up ex-semiconductor company portfolios," citing IAM's September 2022 piece. Korean outlet The Guru (September 2022) framed the campaign as Korean judicial-risk exposure, reporting that Daedalus Prime alleged Intel-derived semiconductor technology was used in Qualcomm Snapdragon and Samsung Exynos processors in Galaxy devices; MK (2024-11-22) likewise cites "NPE Daedalus Prime, which acquired Intel's major patents in 2022" in a general piece on NPE litigation against Korean companies. The through-line in all of this coverage is the Intel-to-NPE monetization story (including The Register's note that Intel had separately made ~5,000 patents available via IPValue) — not the specific legal question in this docket of whether downstream distributors and automakers can be swept into a chip supplier's infringement case, which no outlet I found analyzed.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Litigation Case List - Applied Filters: Patents in Case: 8775833Clear All
• Search court records on patent:(8775833)
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Search court records on parser:(identifier:stay_pending_investigation)
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al, 1:22-cv-01107 (D.Del.)
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al
• Plaintiff(s) v. Defendant(s), 1:99-mc-02022 - CourtListener.com - COMPLAINT - Megan Darling v
• Cases
• Semiconductors and Devices and Products Containing the Same, Including Printed Circuit Boards, Automotive Parts, and Automobiles (Violation) > Related Cases
• UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
• USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Semiconductors and Devices and Products Containing the Same, Including Printed Circuit Boards, Automotive Parts, and Automobiles

I'll research the counsel of record for Daedalus Prime LLC in this Delaware case.

Let me get the full docket and identify lead counsel.

Let me confirm the specific counsel on the 1:22-cv-01107 docket via CourtListener.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC (D. Del. 1:22-cv-01107)

Important sourcing caveat up front: The public docket snapshot I could retrieve for this case (Justia's docket, "last retrieved on August 31, 2022"; Docket Alarm) covers only the first week of filings, and the case terminated on March 1, 2023. I could not retrieve the full post–August 2022 docket sheet, so any pro hac vice admissions into this specific case cannot be independently confirmed from the filings. Below I separate what is confirmed on the docket from what is reliably reported for the related Daedalus filings.

Confirmed on the 1:22-cv-01107 docket

Farnan LLP is a Delaware litigation boutique whose practice is heavily concentrated in District of Delaware patent cases; under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5 the Delaware member is the attorney required to sign and file all papers, which is consistent with Brian Farnan appearing as the filer of record here.

Reported lead/trial counsel (not confirmed in this specific docket from my sources)

Related Daedalus counsel (context, different matters)

• Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. — Michael T. Renaud, Adam Rizk, Peter F. Snell, and Sandra Subach appear as Patent Owner's counsel for Daedalus Prime in the parallel PTAB proceedings (e.g., service certificate in Qualcomm Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2023-00550, served on MTRenaud@mintz.com, ARizk@mintz.com, PFSnell@mintz.com, SSubach@mintz.com). In the related D. Del. declaratory-judgment case TSMC v. Daedalus Prime LLC (1:22-cv-01647), Daedalus was represented by Farnan LLP (local) plus Mintz attorneys Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Peter Snell, and Suparna Datta admitted pro hac vice (D.I. 14, Jan. 12, 2023). This suggests the Daedalus side used a Farnan (local) + out-of-state lead (Desmarais and/or Mintz) structure across its 2022–23 campaign.
• Ascenda Law Group, PC (Tarek N. Fahmi, San Jose, CA) — Daedalus Prime's patent-prosecution/PTO counsel of record on its patents, not district-court litigation counsel here.

Bottom line

• Attorneys confirmed of record in 1:22-cv-01107: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, both of Farnan LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) — Delaware/local counsel and the only plaintiff attorneys actually shown on the retrievable docket.
• Reported lead counsel: Desmarais LLP (New York) — please treat as reported rather than docket-confirmed for this case; and Mintz is the confirmed Daedalus lead in the closely related TSMC DJ action and the IPRs.
• Not confirmable: any pro hac vice counsel specifically admitted into 1:22-cv-01107, because the full docket (post-Aug. 2022) was not available to me. If you need certainty, pull the complete PACER docket for 1:22-cv-01107 (the docket is closed but retrievable) and check D.I. entries for "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance."

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and specific defendant counsel.