Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al.

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

Let me dig into the parties' corporate background, the patents' technical content, and the parallel proceedings.

Case Overview: Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01108-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC is a Delaware-registered patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) with a Bronxville, New York business address (51 Pondfield Road, Suite 3), whose Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Daedalus Group, LLC as its corporate

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific docket events and related proceedings.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01108-RGA (D. Del.) — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Sourcing caveat up front: The D. Del. docket is behind PACER's paywall, and the free mirrors I could retrieve (Justia, UniCourt, Docket Alarm) are stale past late 2022. The chronology below is built from the complaint itself (D.I. 1), the Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 5), the AO‑120 patent report (D.I. 3), the court's case‑assignment entry, and — most importantly — the parties' mandatory notices and decisions in the parallel PTAB proceedings, which describe the district‑court case's disposition. Where I could not verify a fact (e.g., answer/counterclaim content, any Markman ruling, discovery orders), I say so rather than filling the gap.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022‑08‑23 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). Daedalus Prime LLC (a Bronxville, NY NPE; sole corporate parent Daedalus Group, LLC, per D.I. 5) sued in the District of Delaware, jury demand, asserting six patents — U.S. 8,775,833; 8,898,494; 9,575,895; 10,049,080; 10,394,300; 10,705,588 — under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Named defendants: Mazda Motor Corp., Mazda North American Operations, Mazda Motor of America, Inc.; MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.; Mercedes‑Benz Group AG, Mercedes‑Benz AG, Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC; and Visteon Corp. The theory was a vertically

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

Let me dig into the specific press articles I've found and search for more targeted coverage.

Based on my searches, here is what I found.

Overall picture. There is no mainstream or business-press coverage of Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. (1:22-cv-01108) as a stand-alone matter — no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF piece turned up, and the case was closed by voluntary dismissal rather than trial or verdict. The press that exists is specialty IP trade press and litigation-analytics commentary, and it treats the Mazda case only as one docket within a broader Daedalus Prime "automotive infotainment" campaign. IAM covered the launch in a 30 August 2022 report headlined "NPE uses former Intel patents to attack semiconductor companies," describing Daedalus Prime's parallel district-court and ITC actions "against MediaTek, NXP Semiconductors and Qualcomm in cases relating to chips used in automotive infotainment systems." RPX likewise characterized the August 2022 wave in a Q3 data-byte, writing that Daedalus Prime "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." RPX added that Daedalus Prime "acquired the asserted portfolio from Intel in early June 2022" and is "managed by a patent monetization veteran behind two other entities … Daedalus Group LLC and Daedalus Blue LLC." Neither outlet named Mazda individually in the text I could retrieve; the Mazda, Mercedes and Visteon defendants appear in the pleadings but not in the headline coverage.

The settlement/outcome reporting. The most substantive later piece is IAM's 18 January 2024 article, "NPE wielding Intel patents scores settlements with TSMC, Samsung," whose subhead states that "Qualcomm is still battling litigation brought by Daedalus Prime in the US International Trade Commission." That reporting goes beyond the Delaware docket and concerns the sibling campaigns; it does not disclose settlement dollar figures, and I found no outlet reporting a damages award, settlement amount, or license terms for the Mazda case itself. An EIP thought-leadership piece (21 October 2022) used the campaign as an illustration of "an evolving secondary market for semiconductor patents," noting that "Daedalus Prime acquired a portfolio of Intel patents, and has begun asserting against various semiconductor companies." Its footnote points back to the same IAM launch coverage — i.e., these analyst takes are derivative of the trade reporting rather than independently sourced.

Non-U.S. and trade-remedy coverage. The parallel ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1332, "Certain Semiconductors and Devices … Including Printed Circuit Boards, Automotive Parts, and Automobiles") drew coverage in non-U.S. trade outlets. The CCPIT trade-remedy bulletin reported on 2023-03-03 that the Commission declined to review the ALJ's 30 January 2023 initial determination terminating the investigation as to all named respondents based on complainant withdrawal, and it recounted the original 23 August 2022 Daedalus Prime complaint asserting the six patents ('833, '494, '895, '080, '300, '588) and requesting a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders; the ITC's own institution notice confirms the same six patents and the chip/printed-circuit-board-for-automotive-infotainment scope. Chinese financial outlet Zhitongcaijing framed the ITC complaints (its docket numbers 3640/3641, filed 13 September) alongside "multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Mazda, Qualcomm, Samsung and TSMC involving over 16 patents," and stated that the Qualcomm suit claims "six patents relating to power budgeting and controlling operating voltage … used in semiconductor chipsets within automotive infotainment systems." Korea's Maeil Business Newspaper (MK) mentioned Daedalus Prime in a 2024-11-22 NPE-trend piece, saying it "acquired Intel's major patents in 2022" and "filed indiscriminate lawsuits against semiconductor companies such as TSMC, Samsung Electronics and MediaTek."

Where accounts differ and what the record shows. The campaign's center of gravity in the press is the chipmakers and the ITC, not the automaker defendants: coverage consistently names MediaTek, NXP, Qualcomm, TSMC and Samsung, while Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Visteon are essentially only in the pleadings. There is also a discrepancy between the docket metadata and the pleadings as to party composition — the case as filed against this group included MediaTek and the Mercedes entities, whereas the sibling Delaware actions substituted Qualcomm (1:22-cv-01109) and the distributors/NXP (1:22-cv-01107). On outcomes, the reported facts are bare and unquantified: a reposted counsel-tracking alert on a message board (not original reporting) stated only that Qualcomm retained Karen E. Keller and Emily DiBenedetto of Shaw Keller LLP, that Daedalus Prime was represented by Farnan LLP and Desmarais LLP, and that the asserted patents concern power budgeting and operating-voltage control in automotive-infotainment chipsets. The IPR mandator-notice filings confirm the only dispositive event for this docket — that Daedalus Prime v. Mazda, 1:22-cv-01108, "was voluntarily dismissed by Daedalus on November 14, 2023." No outlet I found reported a trial, verdict, damages award, or settlement figure for the Mazda action, and no coverage reported executive statements or industry reaction specific to it. In short: the press documented the launch and the larger campaign's uneven resolution (settlements with TSMC and Samsung, litigation continuing against Qualcomm), but nothing in the located reporting quantifies the Mazda outcome or treats it as independently significant.

Sources

• Litigation Case List - Applied Filters: Patents in Case: 8775833Clear All
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

• DOCKET NO

• Search court records on patent:(8775833)
• Cases
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation et al, 1:22-cv-01108, No. 1 (D.Del. Aug. 23, 2022) - Exhibits:
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation et al - This case was last updated from U
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation et al
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. et al
• IPR2023-00550, No. 15 Notice Updated Mandatory Notice - Petitioner Qualcomm Incorporateds Updated Mandatory Notices (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2023) - Exhibits:
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
• Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corporation et al - This case was last updated from U

I'll research this case's docket and counsel records.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01108-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line: The plaintiff, Daedalus Prime LLC, appeared in this docket through Farnan LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) as Delaware local counsel — attorneys Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan are the only plaintiff-side attorneys identified in the free docket records for 22-1108. Trade-press reporting on the three companion complaints filed the same day names Desmarais LLP (New York) as plaintiff's lead/outside counsel, working with Farnan LLP. I could not obtain a filed notice of appearance, pro hac vice motion, or motion-to-withdraw naming an individual Desmarais attorney in 22-1108 itself, so I have flagged that attribution below rather than naming individuals I cannot source.

---

1. Confirmed — Delaware local counsel

Sourcing: The 22-1108 docket lists plaintiff attorney of record as Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan (Justia docket; UniCourt). The Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying corporate parent Daedalus Group, LLC was filed by "Farnan, Brian" (D.I. 5, Aug. 30, 2022).

2. Reported but not individually verified — national/lead counsel

Sourcing: Law360 item reproduced at siliconinvestor.com (describing the Aug. 23, 2022 Delaware filings by "Farnan LLP and Desmarais LLP" for Daedalus Prime; the cited case number there is the companion 1:22-cv-01109).

3. Adjacent counsel — not counsel of record in 22-1108

• Ascenda Law Group, PC — San Jose, CA: Tarek N. Fahmi (Lead, USPTO Reg. 41,402) and Jonathan Tsao (Backup, Reg. 61,241). These are Daedalus Prime's PTAB/patent-owner counsel (e.g., Power of Attorney filed in IPR2023-01333/01335/01343/01344/01345 and IPR2025-00207), not district-court counsel of record here (USPTO PTAB filing, Aug. 29, 2023).
• Reichman Jorgensen LLP — Christine Lehman (Washington, DC) filed Daedalus Prime's ITC § 337 complaint that accompanied these district-court suits (ITC Docket No. 3637 / Inv. No. 337-TA-1332), per the Commission's institution letter (EDIS Doc. ID 781870). Not an appearance in 22-1108.
• Michael Renaud, Adam Rizk, Peter Snell, Suparna Datta — appeared pro hac vice for Daedalus Prime in the TSMC DJ action, 1:22-cv-01647-MN (D.I. 14, ordered Jan. 13, 2023). That is the defense-side team in a different case; I have no evidence they appeared in 22-1108, so they should not be listed as counsel here.

4. In-house / party representative

• Ed Gomez, Managing Principal, Daedalus Prime LLC — signed Daedalus Prime's PTAB powers of attorney (2023–2024). He is the party-side representative, not a litigation attorney of record in 22-1108.

---

Gaps, caveats, and non-fabrication notes

1. No pro hac vice record found. The free docket snapshots for 22-1108 (Justia/UniCourt) were last refreshed in Aug.–Oct. 2022 and show only Farnan LLP on the plaintiff side. If a pro hac vice appearance for national counsel was filed, it is not reflected in those snapshots; I did not retrieve the full PAC

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case. Let me run several searches.

Let me pull the full docket and search for defendant appearances.

Let me try to retrieve the actual docket via CourtListener and search for specific defense counsel/firms.

Bottom line

I was unable to verify a complete counsel-of-record list for the defendants in Daedalus Prime LLC v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01108-RGA (D. Del.). The free public docket mirrors I could reach (Justia, UniCourt, Docket Alarm) were last refreshed in Aug–Oct 2022 and capture only docket entries 1–5, i.e., the complaint and the plaintiff's Rule 7.1 disclosure — no defendant appearances at all. The full PACER docket sheet would be required to answer this definitively, and I could not pull it. Rather than guess, here is exactly what is verified, what is probative but unconfirmed, and what remains unknown.

Caveat up front: the case is marked closed, and the only timing signal in the record is Qualcomm's Oct. 29, 2023 PTAB mandatory notice describing 1:22-cv-01108 (D. Del.) as "(closed)" (IPR2023-00550, Paper 15). I could not confirm the closure date or the disposition (dismissal, consolidation, or transfer), so I cannot rule out that some defendant appearances postdate the snapshots I have.

---

What the public docket actually shows for 1:22-cv-01108

Sources: Justia docket (retrieved Aug. 31, 2022) https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2022cv01108/79821; UniCourt (last updated Oct. 22, 2022) https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-daedalus-prime-llc-v-mazda-motor-corporation-et-al-[1275673](/patent/1275673).

Plaintiff's counsel (for completeness): Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE — the only attorneys appearing in the entries available.

No defendant notice of appearance was visible in any source I could reach. I therefore cannot give you names, roles, firms, or offices for Mazda, MediaTek, Mercedes-Benz, or Visteon district-court counsel without inventing them.

---

Verified defendant-side counsel — but in the parallel PTAB track, not this case

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC — Hogan Lovells US LLP (Washington, DC). Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC was the petitioner in five IPRs against Daedalus on the same patents (IPR2023-01333, -01335, -01343, -01344, -01345, filed Aug. 18–23, 2023). The service certificate in IPR2023-01344 (Patent Owner's Power of Attorney) lists the petitioner's attorneys of record as Celine J. Crowson, Joseph J. Raffetto, Scott Hughes, Helen Y. Trac, Ryan Stephenson, and Nicholas Rotz — Hogan Lovells US LLP, 555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC. Source: USPTO PTAB filing, IPR2023-01344, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554528](/patent/1554528)/download-documents.

• Note: this is PTAB counsel. It is strong evidence of who Mercedes-Benz's outside patent team was, but it is not proof of who entered an appearance in D. Del. 1:22-cv-01108. Celine Crowson is a well-known PTAB/IPR practitioner (former lead of Hogan Lovells' PTAB group), so a Hogan Lovells role in the district case is plausible — but I am flagging it as inference, not verified.

---

Probative but NOT confirmed for this case

Mazda — Akerman LLP (Miami, FL). A Takata bankruptcy service list (In re Takata, S.D.N.Y. No. 17-11375-BLS, Doc. 5390) lists Michael C. Marsh and Ryan Roman, Akerman LLP, Miami, FL, signing as "Counsel for Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Mazda Motor Corporation." That is a product-liability/restructuring representation, in a different court and matter — it tells you who Mazda's automotive-defense relationship firm is, but it is not evidence of an appearance in 1:22-cv-01108. Do not treat it as the answer.

Qualcomm-side Delaware counsel (sister case only). In the companion case Daedalus Prime v. Mazda Motor Corp. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01109-RGA, Delaware appearances were filed by Karen Elizabeth Keller and Emily DiBenedetto (D.I. 4, 5, Aug. 30, 2022) on behalf of Qualcomm. Those lawyers are Qualcomm's counsel, and Qualcomm is not a defendant in 1:22-cv-01108 — cited only to show that the matching Delaware papers exist in the sibling case while the 1108 docket snapshot does not show them.

---

Unknown / not verifiable from the sources available to me

• Mazda entities (Mazda Motor Corp.; Mazda North American Operations; Mazda Motor of America, Inc.) — district-court counsel not identified.
• MediaTek Inc. / MediaTek USA Inc. — district-court counsel not identified. (For context, MediaTek later used different counsel in Daedalus Prime v. MediaTek, No. 2:24-cv-00235 (E.D. Tex.), but that is a 2024 case and I did not verify the firm.)
• Mercedes-Benz Group AG / Mercedes-Benz AG / Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC — district-court counsel not identified; PTAB counsel is Hogan Lovells (above).
• Visteon Corp. — district-court counsel not identified.
• Lead vs. local counsel designations, office locations, and pro hac vice admissions for all defendants — not determinable from what I have.
• Whether any appearances were made at all before closure. Given the "closed" status and the fact that the three Delaware complaints (1107/1108/1109) were filed the same day as the ITC complaints (337‑TA‑1332 / 337‑TA‑1335), it is entirely possible appearances were filed and then the case was dismissed without the appearance docket propagating to the free mirrors — or that the case closed before defendants appeared. I cannot distinguish these.

---

How to close this out (recommended next step)

The answer requires the live PACER docket sheet for 1:22-cv-01108-RGA (D. Del.), specifically (a) all "NOTICE of Appearance" and "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Admission" entries after D.I. 5, and (b) the order of dismissal/closure and any stipulation identifying defense counsel by signature block. The Court's CM/ECF attorney-report view for the case will list every attorney "to be noticed" per defendant. I did not have PACER access in this session, and I am declining to name attorneys I could not ground in a filing.

If you can pull the D. Del. docket (or the firm-side press releases / Delaware local-counsel announcements), I'll map each appearance to defendant, role, firm, and office, and add the PTAB-side counsel (Hogan Lovells for Mercedes-Benz; and note the IPR petitioners' other counsel, e.g., Norton Rose Fulbright for Qualcomm in IPR2023-00550) as corroboration.