Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple authoritative sources.

Let me dig deeper into the patents asserted, the NPE background, and the related IPRs.

Let me verify the patent details, the IPR, and the post-transfer status.

Case Overview & Background — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex.), now No. 1:26-cv-00081-ADA (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.)

The parties. Daedalus Prime LLC is a patent-assertion entity (PAE/NPE). It is a Delaware LLC with a principal place of business at 51 Pondfield Road, Bronxville, New York, and it makes no products — as TSMC put it in a related declaratory-judgment suit, "Daedalus, which makes nothing" (TSMC v. Daedalus Prime LLC and Intel Corp., D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01647, D.I. 17 ¶ 37). Daedalus Prime was formed in 2021 and its asserted portfolio was acquired from Intel (Patent Assignment Agreement effective June 3, 2022, recorded June 6, 2022, premised on an April 21, 2021 patent agreement); RPX notes the entity "is managed by a patent monetization veteran behind two other entities active in the patent space, Daedalus Group LLC and Daedalus Blue LLC," and that the Intel portfolio transfer closed in early June 2022. Defendant Marvell Technology, Inc. is the operating company — a fabless semiconductor designer/supplier (data-infrastructure and connectivity silicon, custom ASICs, storage, networking) with no NPE character whatsoever. This is a classic operating-company-vs.-NPE posture in which the patent owner is asserting Intel-origin assets that Intel itself is alleged to have monetized rather than manufactured. (Note: Unified Patents' case list displays the defendant as "Marvell International Technology Ltd," which appears to be a database artifact; PACER/Justia identify the defendant as Marvell Technology, Inc.)

The accused technology. The complaint targets Marvell's microprocessor products, specifically including the OCTEON 10 DPU, and "all reasonably similar products" (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 59). Per the publicly indexed complaint analysis, Daedalus quotes Marvell's own product brief describing the OCTEON 10 DPU Platform as "a DPU family designed for demanding cloud, 5G wireless, enterprise, carrier and datacenters applications," built on a 5nm Arm Neoverse N2 platform with hardware acceleration engines and DDR5/PCIe 5.0 I/O; the complaint generically characterizes the accused goods as semiconductors/processors used in mobile phones and data centers (Compl. ¶ 8). The DPU/smartNIC segment is a strategically important and fast-growing market (NVIDIA BlueField, AMD/Pensando, Marvell OCTEON), which is part of why an assertion against this product line draws attention.

The patents. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 8,984,228, "Providing Common Caching Agent for Core and Integrated Input/Output (IO) Module" (issued March 17, 2015; inventors Liu, Blankenship, Santhanakrishnan, Srinivasa, Creta, Muthrasanallur, Fahim; Intel-origin) — a one-line sketch: a multicore processor having a shared cache and an integrated I/O (IIO) module, in which a single, distributed caching agent performs cache-coherency operations for both the cores and the IIO module. That is the patent the complaint analysis ties to Marvell's alleged "common caching agent architecture" (Compl. ¶ 107). The same complaint analysis also walks through at least two further asserted patents — what it labels the '197 patent (U.S. 10,372,197, "User Level Control of Power Management Policies" — a power controller that receives a workload configuration input and multiple energy-performance-bias (EPB) values, derives a global EPB value, and updates power-management settings) and the '960 patent (symmetric multi-threaded cores with distributed cache portions, coherent non-uniform cache access, cluster-level frequency control and power gating, and multiple integrated memory controllers). The complaint was filed with six claim-chart appendices (A–F) and six patent exhibits (A–F), which strongly suggests up to six asserted patents, but I could not independently confirm the complete list of asserted patent numbers in this docket from the sources I reviewed — the same Intel portfolio family was asserted against MediaTek in E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00235 (eight patents) and against Google in W.D. Tex. No. 7:25-cv-00313, so the '228 patent is best treated as confirmed and the '197/'960 as complaint-analysis-confirmed but numerically unverified here.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed September 8, 2025 in Waco (jury demand; § 271 infringement and damages), initially assigned to Judge David Counts and reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on September 11, 2025 (D.I. 6). Marvell was served October 17, 2025 (D.I. 7); the answer deadline was extended to December 22, 2025 (D.I. 8, granted Oct. 24, 2025); Daedalus filed a Notice of IPR Proceedings on November 24, 2025 (D.I. 9); Daedalus filed a stipulation dismissing certain of its claims without prejudice on December 16, 2025 (D.I. 15); Marvell appeared through local counsel Jennifer Parker Ainsworth plus pro hac vice counsel Rachael Catherine Chan, Karineh Khachatourian, David T. Xue, and Trevor Giampaoli; and on January 9, 2026 Marvell moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (D.I. 21). Critically, the parties jointly stipulated to transfer venue to the Austin Division (D.I. 19), which Judge Albright granted on January 9, 2026 (D.I. 20), and the case was intradistrict-transferred to Austin on January 14, 2026 as No. 1:26-CV-81-ADA. That resolves the "conflicting records" noted in the case summary: the Waco case number 7:25-cv-00413 shows as Closed in Unified Patents and Ex Parte AI-Lab because that docket was closed on intradistrict transfer, while the dispute itself remains Pending — consistent with Daedalus's own September 25, 2025 IPR mandatory notice (in IPR2025-00207) listing Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., 7:25-cv-00413, WDTX, as "Pending." Waco mattered because it is Judge Albright's home division, long regarded as among the fastest and most plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the country; the move to Austin keeps Judge Albright but relocates the case, a pattern consistent with the court's recent intradistrict-reassignment practice and, plausibly, with Marvell's substantial Austin-area presence (I could not independently verify Marvell's Austin footprint from the sources reviewed, so treat that motive as inference rather than fact).

Why the case is notable. Three things. First, NPE assertion pattern: Daedalus Prime is the same plaintiff that ran an ITC-plus-district-court campaign on Intel-origin semiconductor patents against Samsung, TSMC, Qualcomm, MediaTek, NXP, and Mercedes-Benz starting in 2022 (including ITC actions and a German filing), which produced settlements with TSMC and Samsung while Qualcomm litigated on. The Marvell and Google WDTX suits are a later wave aimed at chip-architecture and power-management patents rather than the earlier FinFET/process-node patents. Second, IPR linkage: the '228 patent is under review in IPR2025-00207, Arm Ltd. and MediaTek Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, challenging claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19, with Arm and MediaTek jointly petitioning (petition citing Agarwal and Sinharoy, with Blumrich and Sistla on dependent claims) and MediaTek offering a Sotera-style stipulation; the '228 patent's child, U.S. 9,575,895, was already invalidated in IPR2023-01344 (Mercedes-Benz USA v. Daedalus Prime), where the Board's Final Written Decision of January 24, 2025 held all challenged claims unpatentable over Sinharoy and rejected Daedalus's "single caching agent" construction — a materially adverse finding the petitioners argue collaterally bears on the '228 claims nearly verbatim. That is a serious invalidity headwind, and it explains why the Marvell docket includes a plaintiff's notice of IPR proceedings. Notably, Arm is a co-petitioner, while the accused OCTEON 10 DPU is built on Arm's Neoverse N2 cores — a supplier/customer dynamic that could shape indemnity, discovery, and settlement leverage. Third, market context: DPUs and data-infrastructure silicon are a high-growth, high-visibility segment, and a claim against Marvell's flagship OCTEON 10 line invites attention from Marvell's cloud/5G customers; combined with the Google WDTX case, Daedalus Prime is running a coordinated multi-front program against hyperscaler- and carrier-facing silicon.

Sourcing caveats: the docket chronology, case numbers, judges, and counsel come from the Justia PACER docket listing and PACER Monitor for 7:25-cv-00413; patent titles/abstracts and the IPR2025-00207 petition, expert declaration, and petitioners' Fintiv/discretionary-denial response come from USPTO PTACTS documents and Ex Parte AI-Lab's PTAB and complaint-analysis pages; the NPE characterization, Intel acquisition, and campaign history come from RPX, IAM, and the TSMC and MediaTek pleadings. I could not verify the current status of the institution decision in IPR2025-00207, the full list of patents asserted against Marvell, or the outcome of Marvell's Rule 12(b)(6) motion; those should be confirmed against PACER for 1:26-cv-00081-ADA and PTAB Patent Trial Tracker before being relied on.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex.)

Analyst note on the "conflicting records." The conflict is explainable: the Waco/Midland case number 7:25-cv-00413 was closed on intradistrict transfer to the Austin Division on 2026-01-14, and the action continues under a new case number, 1:26-cv-81-ADA. Aggregators (Unified Patents, Ex Parte AI-Lab) docket by case number and therefore report 7:25-cv-00413 as "Closed," while Daedalus's own case list reports the litigation as pending. Both are "right" about different things. (Sources: Justia docket; Unified Patents litigation portal; Ex Parte AI-Lab case page. Filing headers in the complaint also read "Midland/Odessa Division," i.e., the "7:" series — the file was not, strictly, a Waco-division filing; Judge Albright sits in Waco and inherited it by reassignment.)

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Patents asserted. The complaint (per the pleading text reproduced by Ex Parte AI-Lab) asserted six Intel-origin patents: U.S. 10,372,197 ('197, "User Level Control of Power Management Policies"); 10,705,960 ('960) and 10,725,919 ('919) (both "Processors Having Virtually Clustered Cores and Cache Slices"); 8,769,316 ('316, "Dynamically Allocating a Power Budget Over Multiple Domains of a Processor"); 8,775,833 ('833); and 8,984,228 ('228, "Multiprocessor Cache Coherency"). Accused instrumentality: the Marvell® OCTEON 10 DPU platform (5nm Arm Neoverse N2-based) and "reasonably similar" products.

Important caveat: the Dec. 16, 2025 stipulation (Dkt. 15) is not reproduced in the sources I could retrieve, so I cannot state as a sourced fact which claims/patents were dropped. The case metadata (and the Unified Patents "Patents in Case" filter for the '833 patent) strongly suggest the action was narrowed to the '228 patent, with the other five patents dismissed without prejudice — but treat that as an inference, not a documented fact. See also the parallel Google action below, which likewise centers on the '228.

No answer or counterclaims appear on the docket. Marvell elected to respond by motion (12(b)(6)) rather than answer, so there are no pleaded counterclaims (invalidity/non-infringement) in the record I retrieved.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Venue / transfer (granted).

• 2026-01-08 — Dkt. 19: Joint Motion and Stipulation to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division (filed by Marvell). Because it was a joint stipulation, this is a convenience transfer between divisions of the same district, not a § 1404(a)/TC Heartland transfer motion.
• 2026-01-09 — Dkt. 20: Order granting the joint transfer motion (Judge Albright).
• 2026-01-14 — Intradistrict transfer to W.D. Tex. Austin Division; new case number 1:26-CV-81-ADA. Judge Albright continues to preside.

Motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21, filed 2026-01-09). Marvell moved under Rule 12(b)(6). I could not locate any ruling on that motion. Based on the pattern in Daedalus's related cases — Judge Gilstrap in Daedalus v. MediaTek, No. 2:24-cv-00235 (E.D. Tex.), Mem. Op. & Order, Dkt. 52 (2025-03-12), granted a motion to dismiss in part, striking the § 271(f) allegations as "threadbare recitation of the elements" and dismissing pre-suit willfulness — the most likely target of Marvell's motion is the same § 271(f) theory and/or pre-suit willfulness. That is a prediction, not a sourced finding. A 12(b)(6) ruling (if any) in the Austin case is the single most important docket event I could not verify.

Stay pending IPR. Petitioners in the related IPR (see §6) represented that "the district court has not granted a stay and neither party has requested one" (IPR2025-00207, Petitioners' Response to PO's Request for Discretionary Denial). No stay motion appears on the Marvell docket through the last retrieval (2026-01-14).

Summary judgment. None.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman in this case has occurred (through the last available docket data). The action was ~13 months old and still at the pleading stage. Note, however, that the only term of significance identified in the related '228 litigation is "single caching agent" — the PTAB in IPR2023-01344 construed it against Daedalus (FWD at 23–28), and the parties in the MediaTek action identified it as a disputed term. That construction will be the battleground if this case reaches Markman. (The July 31, 2025 Markman hearing and Jan. 26, 2026 trial date referenced in the PTAB briefing belong to the MediaTek EDTX case, which settled — not to Marvell.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

Effectively none of strategic significance yet. The case did not reach a scheduling/Docket Control Order, fact-discovery cutoff, or invalidity-contention stage that I can source. The docket shows only service, extensions, appearances, and a claim-narrowing stipulation. If the case follows Albright's standard Waco/Austin DCO, contentions and a Markman order would post-date the January 2026 transfer.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL/new-trial motion, or fee motion exists in this action.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted '228 patent — and their effect

This is the most consequential part of the picture.

(a) IPR2023-01344 — Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLC (child patent U.S. 9,575,895).

• The '895 patent is a child of the '228; its claim 1 contains "all elements of the '228 patent's claim 1 largely verbatim."
• 2025-01-24 — Final Written Decision (Paper 31) holding all challenged claims unpatentable over Sinharoy ("IBM POWER7 Multicore Server Processor," 2011). The Board issued the FWD ~6 weeks early and rejected Daedalus's "single caching agent" arguments (FWD at 23–28).
• Daedalus did not appeal, so the decision is final. Petitioners in the later IPR characterize this as raising estoppel issues for Daedalus on the shared term.

(b) IPR2025-00207 — Arm Ltd. & MediaTek Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC (U.S. 8,984,228). This is the directly relevant IPR. Challenged claims 1–7, 11–14, 16–19; petition filed 2024-12-13; grounds: (1) Agarwal (U.S. 7,805,575); (2) Sinharoy; (3) Sinharoy + Blumrich; (4) Sinharoy + Sistla; (5) Sinharoy + Sistla + Blumrich. MediaTek served a Sotera-style stipulation not to pursue the IPR grounds in district court.

Timeline:

• 2025-05-16 — Acting Director (Coke Morgan Stewart) granted Daedalus's request for discretionary denial of institution (Paper 10) — one of the first decisions under the PTO's new bifurcated institution procedure, applying Fintiv in view of the then-pending Daedalus v. MediaTek EDTX case.
• 2025-05-15 / 2025-05-22 — Daedalus and MediaTek settled the EDTX case (notice of settlement filed 2025-05-15; dismissal order ~2025-05-22), removing the Fintiv predicate.
• 2025-08-06 — Director Review granted (Paper 14); the denial was vacated and the petition referred to the Board — the first time the Acting Director reversed her own discretionary denial under the bifurcated procedures. The Office reasoned that the settlement was a "changed circumstance" and that efficiency favored Board review because the Board had already found "substantially identical claims" unpatentable in IPR2023-01344. (USPTO order; Jones Day / PTAB Litigation Blog analyses.)
• 2025-09-25 — Board instituted trial (Paper 15). FWD statutorily due 2026-09-25 — i.e., roughly now, given today's date (2026-09-14).
• 2025-10-27 — Joint motion to terminate as to petitioner MediaTek (settlement resolving all MediaTek–Daedalus disputes; Patent Owner had not yet filed its Response). Arm Ltd. remains the sole active petitioner. President/Board authorization email dated 2025-10-16.

Effect on the Marvell litigation: (i) Daedalus affirmatively surfaced the IPRs to the district court via its Notice of IPR Proceedings (Dkt. 9, 2025-11-24); (ii) the institution decision on 2025-09-25 created the option/value case for a stay pending IPR (never sought, as of the last docket data); (iii) an adverse FWD against '228 would eliminate the sole (apparently) remaining asserted patent.

(c) Other MediaTek IPRs — IPR2024-01488, IPR2025-00100, IPR2025-00243 targeted four of the eight patents in the EDTX MediaTek case. Their present status is not sourced in what I retrieved.

---

7. Related Daedalus Prime litigations (settlement / disposition context)

• Daedalus Prime LLC v. MediaTek, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00235 (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap) — filed 2024-04-08 on eight patents; 2025-03-12 partial dismissal of § 271(f) and pre-suit willfulness allegations (Dkt. 52); settled and dismissed 2025-05-22.
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Google LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00313 (W.D. Tex.) — filed 2025-07-14; asserted '228 and other patents; still open, and not subject to any MediaTek settlement. This is the true sibling case to Marvell and shares the '228 validity exposure.
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex.) — this case (now 1:26-cv-81-ADA).
• Earlier campaigns: D. Del. suits against Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, NXP, Qualcomm (2022); ITC Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1332 and 337-TA-1335 (2022); one ITC investigation (337-TA-3640) shows as open on Unified's tracker.

---

8. Present posture (as of 2026-09-14)

• District court: Active, in the W.D. Tex. Austin Division, No. 1:26-cv-81-ADA, before Judge Alan D. Albright. Apparently narrowed to the '228 patent after the 2025-12-16 stipulation. Marvell's 12(b)(6) motion (filed 2026-01-09) is the last substantive filing I can confirm; its disposition, and any DCO/Markman schedule in Austin, are unverified — the last publicly retrievable docket snapshot (Justia/PACER Monitor) is 2026-01-14.
• PTAB: IPR2025-00207 remains instituted as to Arm Ltd. only, with a final written decision due 2026-09-25. Given IPR2023-01344's holding on the near-identical child claim over Sinharoy, the '228's survival is genuinely at risk.
• Counsel. Plaintiff: Mark D. Siegmund (local, Waco), Richard M. Koehl, John P. Brinkmann, Garland T. Stephens, William D. Ellerman, Shuya Yang, Robert S. Magee, Heng Gong. In IPR: Tarek N. Fahmi and Jonathan Tsao (Ascenda Law Group). Defendant: Jennifer Parker Ainsworth (local) plus PHV attorneys Rachael C. Chan, Karineh Khachatourian, David T. Xue, and Trevor Giampaoli (firm affiliation not verified in my sources). IPR petitioners: Kevin Anderson, Patrick D. McPherson (Duane Morris, for Arm) and Cory C. Bell, J. Preston Long, Alexander M. Boyer (Finnegan, for MediaTek).

---

9. Bottom line

There is no judgment, verdict, settlement, or appeal in the Marvell action. It is a ~1-year-old, early-stage case that has produced three reportable developments: (1) a claim-narrowing stipulation (Dec. 2025) that likely stripped the case to the '228 patent; (2) a joint intradistrict transfer from the "7:" (Midland/Odessa/Waco-assigned) docket to Austin (Jan. 2026), which is the source of the "closed/pending" records conflict; and (3) a pending 12(b)(6) motion. The decisive risk to the litigation lies outside the district court: IPR2025-00207, instituted 2025-09-25 after an unprecedented Director-Review reversal, with a final written decision due 2026-09-25 that will resolve the validity of the last asserted patent.

Unverified items I would flag for follow-up: the exact scope of Dkt. 15; the outcome of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion; any stay motion filed after institution; any scheduling order or Markman date in 1:26-cv-81-ADA; and whether the Board has issued (or extended) the IPR2025-00207 final written decision.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel of record for the plaintiff.

Good — I have the docket. Now let me identify and profile the specific plaintiff-side attorneys and their firms.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Marvell Technology, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Quick answer. Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC is represented by a two-firm team: Blue Peak Law Group LLP (Houston/Silicon Valley — the patent-specialist firm that also serves as Daedalus's PTAB counsel) and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Waco, Texas — the firm that actually filed the complaint and signs nearly every plaintiff filing in this docket). The publicly indexed docket lists eight attorneys for the plaintiff. I could positively source the firm and role of four of them; three I could only confirm as plaintiff-side counsel of record without a verified firm affiliation. Details and caveats below.

---

Counsel of record for Daedalus Prime (plaintiff)

Also relevant — PTAB counsel (not district-court counsel of record)

• Tarek N. Fahmi, Ascenda Law Group, PC, San Jose, CA — signed Patent Owner Daedalus Prime's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2025-00207 (ARM Ltd. & MediaTek Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, U.S. Pat. No. 8,984,228 — the same patent flagged in this case's metadata), dated Sept. 25, 2025. Ascenda is Daedalus's prosecution/PTAB firm; it does not appear as counsel of record in the W.D. Tex. case.

---

How I verified this

• Complaint and Rule 7 corporate disclosure: Dkt. 1 (filed 9/8/2025) and Dkt. 3, both filed by Mark Siegmund — corroborating the complaint-caption report on Ex Parte AI-Lab listing plaintiff's counsel as "Blue Peak Law Group LLP; Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC."
• Docket entries signed by plaintiff's counsel: Dkt. 4 (summons request), Dkt. 8 (unopposed extension motion), Dkt. 15 (stipulation dismissing certain claims without prejudice, 12/16/2025) — all signed by Siegmund; Dkt. 9 (Notice of IPR Proceedings, 11/24/2025) signed by Richard Koehl.
• Justia docket's plaintiff "Represented By" list for this case: Mark D. Siegmund, William D. Ellerman, Shuya Yang, Robert Stephen Magee, Richard M. Koehl, John P. Brinkmann, Heng Gong, Garland T. Stephens. (Justia docket page, last retrieved 1/14/2026.)
• Blue Peak's role as Daedalus's portfolio litigation/PTAB counsel is independently confirmed by Daedalus's own PTAB filings (e.g., Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices in IPR2023-00868 appointing Blue Peak's Robert S. Magee as lead counsel) and by Law.com Radar's coverage of the related Daedalus Prime v. Samsung case ("filed … by Blue Peak Law Group and Ward, Smith & Hill on behalf of Daedalus Prime").
• Siegmund's firm/background: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC firm and attorney profiles (Super Lawyers, firm bios, Docket Alarm notice-of-appearance in VOIP-PAL v. Amazon, and a W.D. Tex. trial transcript in Hafeman v. LG listing him among plaintiff's trial counsel).

---

Explicit caveats (please read before relying on the table)

1. No formal "lead counsel" designation was found in the public record. In W.D. Tex., lead-counsel designations typically appear in the scheduling order rather than at the pleading stage. The "lead counsel" label for Magee is based on his PTAB designation, not a district-court order. I have not fabricated a designation.
2. Three names are unsourced as to firm. William D. Ellerman, Shuya Yang, and John P. Brinkmann appear in the docket-derived plaintiff representation list, but I could not verify their current firm, office, or case-specific role from the sources I retrieved. The Justia attorney lists are occasionally aggregated across related Daedalus matters (e.g., Daedalus Prime v. Google, 7:25-cv-00313), so treat these three as "listed for plaintiff — firm unconfirmed." I did not invent affiliations for them.
3. Richard Koehl's current firm is uncertain. Secondary directories conflict (Hughes Hubbard; Fried Frank), and he clearly acted for Daedalus in the 2023 Samsung IPRs alongside Blue Peak. His firm as of the 2025–26 filings is unverified.
4. Docket staleness. The docket I could retrieve was last updated January 14, 2026 — roughly eight months before today (Sept. 14, 2026). Any pro hac vice motions, notices of appearance, or substitutions filed after that date are not reflected here. Notably, in the portion of the docket I could see, all pro hac vice applications were filed by defense counsel (Dkts. 11–14, 16–18) — no plaintiff-side PHV motion appears, which may simply be a gap in the snapshot.
5. No sealed filings were identified in the public docket. If any filings were sealed, counsel information for them would not be available publicly.
6. Case-status discrepancy explained. The "Closed" flags on Unified Patents and Ex Parte AI-Lab are almost certainly artifacts of the intradistrict transfer: on Jan. 14, 2026, the matter was transferred from the Waco Division to the Austin Division as 1:26-cv-00081-ADA (same judge, Alan D. Albright). A joint stipulation/motion to transfer venue was granted (Dkt. 20), and Marvell filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21) on Jan. 9, 2026 — events inconsistent with a truly "closed" case. Daedalus's own PTAB mandatory notices (Sept. 25, 2025) list the case as Pending. Current counsel of record should be re-verified against PACER for 1:26-cv-00081-ADA, which is where any post-January-2026 appearances will live.

Would you like me to draft the parallel defendant-side counsel table (Ainsworth + Marvell's four PHV counsel) or a short note reconciling the "closed vs. pending" status for the case summary?

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

I found the docket. Let me now identify each attorney's firm and role.