Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case details, patents, and accused products.

Case Overview — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00313 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

The parties. Daedalus Prime LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) — a Delaware LLC with a principal place of business in Bronxville, New York (51 Pondfield Road) that makes no products and derives income from licensing and litigation. Its portfolio is made up of former Intel assets: Daedalus and Intel executed a Patent Assignment Agreement effective June 3, 2022 (recorded with the USPTO June 6, 2022). RPX describes Daedalus as "managed by a patent monetization veteran behind two other entities active in the patent space, Daedalus Group LLC and Daedalus Blue LLC," and TSMC's declaratory-judgment complaint in TSMC v. Daedalus Prime, No. 1:22-cv-01647 (D. Del.), states flatly that "Daedalus is an NPE." Daedalus has been a serial filer since 2022, asserting Intel-derived silicon patents against TSMC, Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek, NXP, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Visteon and others in district courts, the ITC (e.g., 337-TA-1335 v. Qualcomm, settled April 2024) and Germany, and has even sold patents back to Qualcomm and TSMC around settlements (IAM, June 2024). Google LLC is the operating-company defendant — Alphabet's subsidiary and a hyperscaler that designs its own ARM-based silicon.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The accused products are Google's custom processors: the Tensor SoCs used in Pixel devices (multicore CPU clusters, GPU, a System Control Processor/"SCP," LPDDR5 memory, ARM CMN-700 mesh interconnect) and the Axion CPUs Google announced for its cloud/data-center services. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent 8,984,228 ("Multiprocessor Cache Coherency," to Liu et al.; app. 13/324,053) as at issue — an apparatus/method patent on a single caching agent, distributed across portions each tied to a CPU core, that handles cache coherency for both the cores and an integrated I/O (IIO) module, including direct-to-cache ("cache injection") I/O allocation transactions that bypass system memory. The separate Arm IPR petition confirms the '228 patent is at issue in this WDTX case, and it is the parent of U.S. 9,575,895, which Daedalus asserted against Mercedes-Benz (IPR2023-01344, terminated) — strong circumstantial evidence the '228 is a former Intel asset. Note a sourcing caveat: although the case metadata lists only '228, the case summary says "including" and secondary complaint-analysis sources (Ex Parte's analysis of Dkt. 1's exhibits) report that the complaint also charts U.S. 8,775,833 (a processor power-management patent on multiple power domains — cores, graphics engine, system agent — with power-sharing logic that dynamically allocates a variable power budget) and U.S. 8,898,494 (an IC with core and bus workload monitors and "balancing control" that dynamically tunes power allocation between core and bus against a power limit). I could not verify the full asserted-patent list against the complaint itself from primary sources.

Posture, venue and why it matters. Suit was filed in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division on July 14–15, 2025. The Waco Division is the division long associated with Judge Alan D. Albright's patent docket — historically the nation's busiest and a magnet for NPE filings because of its speed, patent-savvy bench and plaintiff-friendly track record; the docket I reviewed shows pretrial motions referred to and signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, but the presiding district judge is not confirmed in the sources retrieved. Google answered the complaint's willfulness/indirect theories with a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Claims for Pre-Suit Willful and Indirect Infringement (Dkt. 16, Sept. 26, 2025), alongside its Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 15) and a wave of pro hac vice motions from a large outside team (local counsel Nathaniel St. Clair II; Dkts. 17–24, granted Dkts. 25–29, Sept. 29, 2025); the case remains open. It is notable on several fronts. First, it is the latest front in Daedalus's Intel-portfolio monetization campaign, now aimed at a hyperscaler's in-house AI/cloud silicon rather than merchant chipmakers. Second, it is tightly linked to a parallel PTAB proceeding: Arm Ltd. (joined by MediaTek) v. Daedalus Prime, IPR2025-00207, challenging '228 claims 1–7, 11–14 and 16–19. That IPR was initially discretionarily denied on May 16, 2025 on Fintiv grounds, but after Daedalus and MediaTek settled their E.D. Tex. case, the Acting Director — in the first reversal of her own discretionary denial under the USPTO's new bifurcated institution procedure — granted Director Review and vacated the denial (Paper 14, Aug. 6, 2025), and the Board instituted trial on Sept. 25, 2025 (a joint motion to terminate as to MediaTek followed the settlement). Because the Board had already held "substantially identical claims" of the child '895 patent unpatentable, validity risk to the '228 claims is material. Third, the same '228 patent is also asserted in a companion WDTX action, Daedalus Prime v. Marvell Technology, No. 7:25-cv-00413 (filed Sept. 7, 2025; listed as closed on Unified Patents' docket tracker), confirming a coordinated multi-defendant assertion wave fitting the broader surge in semiconductor NPE litigation that RPX began flagging in 2022.

Key uncertainties: the complete asserted-patent list and the '833/'494 titles/claim scope are drawn from secondary complaint-analysis material, not the complaint itself; the assigned district judge (vs. Magistrate Judge Gilliland) is unconfirmed; and Google's and Daedalus's litigation counsel beyond the names in Dkts. 12–29 are not reliably attributable from the sources reviewed.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Good initial data. Let me dig deeper into the docket, the answer/counterclaims, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00313 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Bottom line: This is a young, still-pending NPE case (filed mid‑July 2025) that has not progressed past initial pleadings and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. There is no Markman order, no discovery milestones of record, no trial, and no final disposition. The most legally significant activity to date is actually outside the district court: the PTAB's Aug. 6, 2025 Acting‑Director decision reviving the Arm/MediaTek IPR against the '228 patent after the MediaTek settlement.

⚠️ Sourcing note: The public docket data I could retrieve is current only through roughly late September/early October 2025. A full PACER run was not available, so items after that (answer, opposition briefing, any venue motion, institution decision on IPR2025-00207) are not confirmed below and are flagged as such. I have not fabricated any entry.

---

1. Case snapshot

• Filed: 2025‑07‑15 (complaint); some aggregators list a 2025‑07‑14 filing date (Unified Patents).
• Court/Division: W.D. Tex., Waco Division; assigned to Judge David Counts under the court's patent‑case assignment order; Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland handles referred motions.
• Patents: Case metadata lists US 8,984,228 ("Multiprocessor Cache Coherency"). Note a discrepancy: the complaint's own infringement contentions also map US 8,775,833 and US 8,898,494, and Unified Patents lists '833 as a patent in this case. So the asserted set appears to be multiple patents (at least '833, '494, '228), not '228 alone.
• Accused products: Google Tensor SoCs (Pixel) and Axion cloud/data‑center processors, including ARM Cortex cores and the ARM CMN‑700 mesh. Complaint attaches a Google blog screenshot announcing Axion.
• Plaintiff type: Non‑practicing entity (Unified Patents classifies Daedalus Prime as an NPE).

2. Filing & initial pleadings (chronological)

Answer / counterclaims: I could not confirm a filed answer or any Google counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non‑infringement). Under Rule 12, Google's 12(b)(6) motion (below) would suspend its answer deadline, so an answer may still be forthcoming. Treat "no counterclaims" as unverified rather than established.

3. Pre‑trial motions of substance

Google's motion to dismiss (the only substantive motion of record):

• 2025‑09‑26 — Doc. 16: Motion to Dismiss Claims for Pre‑Suit Willful and Indirect Infringement Under Rule 12(b)(6), filed with Doc. 15 (Google's Rule 7 disclosure statement). This is the motion referenced in the existing case summary. Status: pending as of the last retrievable docket data.
• Same day (2025‑09‑26), Google moved pro hac vice for a large team: Andrew S. Bruns, Christopher S. Sun, David Silbert, Jacqueline Concilla, Niharika S. Sachdeva, Ryan J. Hayward, Vishesh Narayen, Erin Meyer (Docs. 17–24); local counsel is Nathaniel St. Clair II. Orders granting PHV issued 2025‑09‑29 (Docs. 25–29); Doc. 25 was corrected 2025‑10‑08. A "VanHoutan" was also added as Google counsel per the docket.

Directly on point precedent from the parallel case: In Daedalus Prime v. MediaTek, No. 2:24‑cv‑00235 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted MediaTek's analogous 12(b)(6) motion on 2025‑03‑12, dismissing both (i) §271(f) infringement and (ii) pre‑suit willfulness for failure to plead knowledge + culpable conduct (citing Fractus). That order is a strong signpost for how the Google motion may be resolved.

• Transfer: No venue‑transfer motion (e.g., to N.D. Cal.) is confirmed in the retrieved docket. Given the recent WDTX practice of transferring patent cases to other divisions/districts, this remains a watch item but is not established.
• Stay pending IPR: No stay motion confirmed. The IPR posture (below) suggests a stay fight could emerge once institution is decided.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, claim‑construction briefing, or Markman order is reflected in the available record. The complaint's contentions foreshadow the eventual disputes: whether the accused ARM "System Control Processor" + "Power Policy Units" collectively satisfy "power sharing logic" (single block vs. distributed), and whether the SCP meets the "third domain … fixed power budget" limitation.

5. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance confirmed. The case was still in the pleadings/motion stage through the last retrievable entry (early Oct. 2025). No discovery‑order, ESI, or fact‑discovery milestone is of record in the sources I could reach.

6. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new‑trial, or fee motion exists. The case is nowhere near trial.

7. Settlement / dismissal / judgment / appeal — present posture

Pending. No settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal in the Google case. The case remains open per Unified Patents and the docket aggregators (last status "Open," plaintiff still litigating). The final disposition is unknown.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents (the real action)

IPR2025‑00207 — Arm Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, U.S. Pat. No. 8,984,228 (Petitioners: Arm Ltd., joined by MediaTek Inc.; challenged claims 1–7, 11–14, 16–19):

• Petition filed ~2024‑12‑13. Grounds: (1) obviousness of claims 1–2, 4–7, 11–14 over Agarwal (US 7,805,575); (2) claims 1, 4, 6–7, 11–14 over Sinharoy (IBM POWER7 article); (3) claims 2–3, 16–18 over Sinharoy + Blumrich (App. 2011/0219188). The core dispute: whether distributed directory/coherence controllers (Agarwal's PCC, POWER7's L3 coherence fabric) constitute the claimed "single caching agent" with "distributed portions."
• 2025‑05‑15: Daedalus and MediaTek filed a notice of settlement in the E.D. Tex. case.
• 2025‑05‑16: Acting Director discretionarily denied institution (Paper 10) under the new bifurcated institution procedure, citing Fintiv/duplicative effort with the then‑pending MediaTek litigation. (The MediaTek case was dismissed ~one week later.)
• ~June 2025: Arm filed a Request for Director Review (Paper 12), arguing it was not a party to the settled litigation and had independent interests; noted the Board had already held substantially identical claims of the child patent (US 9,575,895) unpatentable. Daedalus opposed (Paper 13) that Arm showed no verified interest.
• 2025‑08‑06 — Arm Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025‑00207, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B.): Acting Director reversed her own discretionary denial, citing changed circumstances (the MediaTek settlement/dismissal) and efficiency because the Board had found "substantially identical claims" in the related patent unpatentable. This was the first reversal of a discretionary denial under the bifurcated institution procedures — a notable PTAB‑procedure development widely covered (PTAB Litigation Blog; LexBlog, 2025‑08‑29).
• Effect on the litigation: This is the '228 patent that Daedalus asserted against Google. A later institution would create an immediate stay‑pending‑IPR pressure point and validity risk for the Google case. Institution status after the Aug. 6 referral could not be confirmed from my sources.

Related PTAB/litigation context:

• IPR2023‑01344 (Mercedes‑Benz USA v. Daedalus Prime) — US 9,575,895 (child of '228); terminated with substantially identical claims held unpatentable. This is the decision the Acting Director cited.
• Other MediaTek IPRs (IPR2024‑01488, IPR2025‑00100, IPR2025‑00243) challenged four of the eight patents in the E.D. Tex. suit.
• A PTAB petition paper dated 2025‑09‑25 lists this Google case (7:25‑cv‑00313, WDTX, Pending) as a related matter for the '228 patent — indicating ongoing PTAB activity tied to the Google litigation. The exact filing and its effect are unverified.

9. Related proceedings

• Daedalus Prime v. MediaTek, Inc., No. 2:24‑cv‑00235 (E.D. Tex.) — filed 2024‑04‑08 (8 patents); Gilstrap's 2025‑03‑12 partial‑dismissal order; settled/dismissed late May 2025.
• Daedalus Prime v. Arrow Electronics et al., No. 1:22‑cv‑01107 (D. Del.) — filed 2022‑08‑23 (asserting '833, '494, '895, '080, '300, '588).
• UPC proceedings — Daedalus Prime infringement action, UPC No. UPC_CFI_169/2024 / ACT_19012/2024 (procedural order 2025‑01‑28), reflecting parallel European enforcement.

---

Chronological summary (what actually happened)

1. 2024‑12‑13 — Arm/MediaTek petition for IPR on '228 (IPR2025‑00207).
2. 2025‑03‑12 — E.D. Tex. grants MediaTek's 12(b)(6) motion (dismisses §271(f) and pre‑suit willfulness).
3. 2025‑05‑15/16 — MediaTek settlement filed; Acting Director initially denies IPR institution (Fintiv).
4. 2025‑07‑15 — Daedalus sues Google in WDTX Waco (7:25‑cv‑00313); Google served 2025‑07‑22.
5. 2025‑08‑06 — Acting Director reverses the IPR denial on changed circumstances (Paper 14) — first such reversal under the bifurcated procedure.
6. 2025‑09‑26 — Google moves to dismiss pre‑suit willful/indirect infringement (Doc. 16); PHV team appears.
7. Present — Case pending on the motion to dismiss; no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no disposition. IPR2025‑00207 institution status unresolved in available sources.

What to watch next

• Ruling on Doc. 16 (compare to Gilstrap's MediaTek order).
• Institution/non‑institution in IPR2025‑00207 and any resulting stay motion in Waco.
• Whether Google seeks transfer out of WDTX.
• An answer/counterclaims (invalidity, non‑infringement) from Google.
• Confirmation of the full asserted‑patent set (metadata says '228; complaint contentions include '833 and '494).

Caveat: Party names, case number, court, and the '228 patent are taken as authoritative from the case metadata. All docket‑date and order citations above are drawn from Dockets.Justia, Unified Patents, Justia/CourtListener (MediaTek order), PTAB/PT Acts documents, and IP‑blog coverage of the Aug. 6, 2025 Director decision; any item I could not independently source is expressly flagged as unverified.

I'll search across several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Initial results are mostly docket aggregators. Let me search press-specific angles.

Found one directly relevant item. Let me search more angles.

Press coverage summary

Bottom line: there is essentially no dedicated press coverage of Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00313, itself. Searches framed around the caption, the parties ("Daedalus Prime" + Google), the asserted patent number, and Waco/patent-verdict angles returned no news articles from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360's editorial desk, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra or EFF Deeplinks. What surfaced instead were (a) docket aggregators (Justia Dockets, RPX Empower, Law360's docket-tracking pages, Unified Patents) that show the case exists but contain no editorial content, and (b) legal-blog coverage of the parallel PTAB fight over the same patent, which is the closest thing to press analysis the case has generated. No outlet has reported a damages demand, settlement figure, verdict, claim-construction ruling, or any Google or Daedalus executive statement about this suit, and none has reported on the merits of the infringement allegations against Tensor/Axion silicon.

The most substantive coverage concerns U.S. Patent 8,984,228, the patent asserted against Google, before the PTAB in Arm Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207. The PTAB Litigation Blog reported on 2025-08-29 (republished the same day on Lexology and on Mondaq via Jones Day) that the Acting Director reversed her own discretionary denial of institution in IPR2025-00207 — Paper 14, P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2025 — after Arm and MediaTek challenged the '228 patent. According to that post, Daedalus filed its complaint against MediaTek in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2024 asserting eight chip-technology patents; MediaTek filed four IPRs between October 2024 and January 2025 (IPR2024-01488, IPR2025-00100, IPR2025-00207, IPR2025-00243); Daedalus and MediaTek filed a notice of settlement on 2025-05-15 with dismissal following about a week later; and the Acting Director had initially exercised Fintiv discretion to deny institution on 2025-05-16 (Paper 10). The blog called the reversal the first time the Acting Director has reversed her own denial under the USPTO's new bifurcated institution procedure, quoting her reasoning that "[n]ow that the litigation has been dismissed, the balance of factors weighs in favor of referral" and that because the Board already found "substantially identical claims" in a related patent unpatentable, "it is efficient for the Board to take up this case." The underlying Office decision (PDF hosted on the PTAB Litigation Blog) attributed the initial denial partly to the parallel district court's scheduled trial date of 2026-01-26 and the time-to-trial statistics. Notably, none of this coverage mentions the Google case — every account ties the Fintiv analysis to the MediaTek litigation, so the significance of the Google suit (a live WDTX case now running against the same '228 patent) has not been reported anywhere I could find.

Two other kinds of coverage touch the parties but not this case directly. IPWatchdog reported on 2023-02-09 that Qualcomm and Samsung had filed IPRs against the "Intel-originated Daedalus Prime portfolio (as run by Ed Gomez)," and IPWatchdog reported on 2024-02-22 that Mercedes-Benz had obtained favorable institutions on two Daedalus Prime patent challenges — context on the campaign, not the Google dispute. O'Melveny reported on 2023-06-08, summarizing Law360, that Judge Rodney Gilstrap dismissed Daedalus Prime's infringement litigation against Samsung after a joint motion, with Daedalus's 18 asserted patents described as relating to "groundbreaking improvements to microprocessor circuitry and mobile wireless." Separately, Law360 and Law360 maintain docket entries recording "July 15, 2025 DAEDALUS PRIME LLC v. Google LLC, Texas Western," confirming the outlet is tracking the case, and those pages list Google-side attorneys Andrew S. Bruns and Vishesh Narayen of Keker, Van Nest & Peters — but these are database records, not reporting, and I found no corresponding Law360 article.

Where reporting departs from the record, treat it cautiously. The only item I found that purports to describe an outcome on the merits is a syndicated aggregator piece, Legal News Feed, posted 2026-09-10, which states that the PTAB "invalidated all challenged claims of a chip patent held by licensing company Daedalus Prime," called it "a significant victory for British semiconductor firm Arm Ltd.," characterizes the patent as "initially associated with former tech giant Intel," and offers analyst-style speculation that the ruling "could potentially deter similar patent assertions by Daedalus Prime." That item cites no docket number, does not identify the patent, gives no claim-level detail, and merely points readers to Law360 ("More details on the ruling can be found on Law360") without a link; I could not locate the Law360 article it references, nor confirm that the ruling concerns the '228 patent rather than another Daedalus Prime patent. I therefore cannot verify it, and it should not be relied on as an account of the Google litigation. Finally, on the scope of the allegations: the case metadata lists only '228, but third-party AI-generated complaint analyses — not press, and of unknown accuracy — describe the WDTX complaint as mapping Google's Tensor SoCs, Axion processors and ARM System Control Processor/Power Policy Unit architecture against additional patents (referred to as the '833 and '494 patents), accusing functions such as "intelligent power allocation" and the CMN-700 mesh interconnect. No news outlet has independently reported which patents are asserted or what products are accused.

Sources

• Complaint analysis | 7:25-cv-00313 | Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• DAEDALUS PRIME LLC v. Google LLC
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Tort Product Liability Cases containing Opinions or Orders filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina matching "google"
• Bankruptcy Cases containing Opinions or Orders filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee matching "google"
• 7:25-cv-00313 | Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 14 MOTION to Dismiss IN PART DAEDALUS PRIME LLC'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT filed by MediaTek Inc.. (Motion(s) 14 terminated). Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 3/12/2025. (NKL)
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Andrew S. Bruns, Keker Van Nest & Peters
• Vishesh Narayen, Keker Van Nest & Peters
• Ward Smith : Dockets :: Law360
• PTAB Ruling Marks Key Victory for Arm Ltd. in Semiconductor Patent Dispute

I'll research plaintiff's counsel systematically.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC

Bottom line: Plaintiff's side is a two-layer team — an out-of-state patent-litigation boutique (Blue Peak Law Group LLP) plus Waco local counsel who filed the complaint. There is no in-house counsel appearing for Daedalus Prime (consistent with its NPE posture), and I found no attorney from any other firm entering an appearance for plaintiff in this docket as of the last retrievable data (early Oct. 2025).

⚠️ Sourcing caveat up front: I could retrieve the docket entries (filing numbers, titles, dates) and firm/profile pages, but not the full text of the pro hac vice motions (Docs. 9–10) or the complaint's signature block beyond "Filed by Mark D. Siegmund." Where below I attribute a firm or office, it is drawn from firm/Law360 profiles rather than from the WDTX filings themselves; that limit is flagged.

---

1. Plaintiff-side / lead patent counsel — Blue Peak Law Group LLP

Robert S. Magee — Partner; lead counsel (plaintiff-side patent counsel of record)

• Firm/office: Blue Peak Law Group LLP — Silicon Valley, CA (firm profile lists Palo Alto/Silicon Valley; PTAB filings for Daedalus give the firm address as 3790 El Camino Real, PMB 846, Palo Alto, CA 94306). USPTO Reg. No. 70,227. Email on file with the PTO: robert@bluepeak.law.
• Docket footprint here: PHV counsel of record for plaintiff; Blue Peak's appearance is reflected in the plaintiff-side pro hac vice filings in this case (Docs. 9–10, filed 2025‑07‑24), which the earlier section of this case summary identified as the Heng Gong and Robert Magee motions.
• Relevant experience: Magee has been Daedalus Prime's appointed counsel of record in PTAB proceedings — e.g., in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2023‑00868, Daedalus Prime formally designated "the practitioners of Blue Peak Law Group LLP as its attorneys," naming Robert S. Magee as lead counsel (Patent Owner Mandatory Notice, Apr. 20, 2023). That is directly on point: the same client, the same district-court campaign (the E.D. Tex. Daedalus v. MediaTek/Samsung matters), and the same patents/spec family. His firm bio lists trial and IPR work for CareDx, Altria v. R.J. Reynolds (M.D.N.C.), Illumina v. BGI, Pacific Biosciences v. Oxford Nanopore, Nuance v. MModal, Zscaler v. Symantec, and several Google-side defenses (Arendi v. Google, Walker Digital v. Google) — i.e., he has litigated against Google before, though as defense counsel. (Bio: bluepeak.law/attorneys/robert-magee.)

Heng Gong — Attorney (plaintiff-side patent counsel)

• Firm/office: Blue Peak Law Group LLP — Law360's firm/attorney profile lists Gong in Scarsdale, NY.
• Docket footprint here: Named on the plaintiff's pro hac vice motion in this case (Doc. 9 / related PHV filings, July 2025); Law360's appearance tracker lists "July 15, 2025 — DAEDALUS PRIME LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, Texas Western" under his name.
• Relevant experience: Law360 shows a 9-entry appearance history, including the parallel Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc. (W.D. Tex., appearance logged Sept. 8, 2025) — indicating he is part of the same Blue Peak team running Daedalus Prime's current WDTX campaign. (Law360 profile: law360.com/firms/blue-peak-law-group/attorneys/heng-gong.) I could not independently verify a longer standalone patent-trial record for Gong beyond the firm's Daedalus Prime docket; treat "extensive prior experience" as unconfirmed.

Note on firm lineage: the Samung–Daedalus IPR correspondence in 2023 (Docket Alarm copy of PTAB Exhibit 3001) shows Blue Peak's Magee already in the Daedalus Prime counsel chain then, with an "Anna Dwyer" copied. I could not confirm whether Dwyer is Blue Peak personnel or another firm, so I do not list her.

2. Local counsel (W.D. Tex.)

Mark D. Siegmund — Local counsel; filer of the complaint

• Firm/office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC, 7901 Fish Pond Road, Suite 200, Waco, TX 76710 (cjsjlaw.com). (Avvo lists an older Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC address/association; Super Lawyers and the firm site show the current CJSJ firm.)
• Docket footprint here: Doc. 1 (Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand) and Doc. 3 (Rule 7 Disclosure Statement) were filed by Siegmund.
• Relevant experience/notable cases: Baylor Law; former law clerk to Judge Alan D. Albright (W.D. Tex., Waco) — useful when appearing in that division; admitted W.D./E.D./N.D. Tex. and the Federal Circuit. Notable results include Textron Innovations LLC v. DJI (helped secure a $279M jury verdict in W.D. Tex.), RSB Spine LLC v. Orthofix (E.D. Tex.), Future Link Systems v. Realtek, Webroot/OpenText v. CrowdStrike, and Repeat v. DynaEnergetics (non-infringement defense verdict). (Super Lawyers profile; firm bio.)

3. Not identified / open items

• No in-house plaintiff counsel appears; Daedalus Prime has not been identified with an in-house legal department on this docket.
• No additional plaintiff-side firm (e.g., a second boutique or appellate counsel) is confirmed in the retrievable docket. Any others would most likely appear through additional pro hac vice motions, which I could not pull in full.
• Signature-block verification gap: Because I could not retrieve the complaint PDF's signature page or the text of Docs. 9–10, I cannot say with certainty which attorney is designated lead versus merely admitted pro hac vice in this specific case. The Blue Peak identification is well grounded (Law360's Google-case appearance entry for Heng Gong; the firm's established role as Daedalus Prime's counsel of record in the related PTAB matters); the precise lead vs. supporting labeling is inferred, not docket-confirmed.

---

Cross-check against your existing case summary: consistent — the earlier section flagged plaintiff's PHV counsel as Heng Gong and Robert Magee (Docs. 9–10, 2025‑07‑24) and local filing by Siegmund (Doc. 1). This section adds the firm identification (Blue Peak Law Group LLP), office locations, and the PTAB counsel-of-record link confirming Magee's role for Daedalus Prime. No contradiction found; the only refinement is that Siegmund's current firm is Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC (not the older Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love affiliation shown on Avvo).

I'll research Google's defense team in this case systematically.

Good initial data. Let me dig into the specific attorneys and their firms.

I have most of the picture. Let me confirm the remaining Google-side attorneys and the Keker case page.