Daedalus Prime LLC v. MediaTek Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me gather more detail on the patents, parties, and procedural history.

Let me verify patent titles and additional details.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Defendant MediaTek Inc. is a Taiwanese fabless semiconductor company — the world's fifth-largest by the complaint's own characterization (Compl. ¶50) — that designs application processors and systems-on-chip (SoCs) for smartphones, tablets, automotive infotainment, and consumer electronics, selling under the Dimensity, Helio, and Kompanio brands. It has substantial U.S. design and engineering operations (including the Austin, Texas design center identified in the complaint's cited ISSCC paper and an office in Richardson, Texas, at 2435 N. Central Expressway). Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC is a non-practicing entity. Its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies corporate parent Daedalus Group LLC (Dkt. 2), and it was formed in Delaware on January 26, 2021, tied by public records to patent-monetization veteran Ed Gomez. Daedalus Prime acquired more than 250 U.S. patent assets from Intel between April 2021 and October 2023 — the original development work for the asserted patents was done at Intel — and it launched a litigation campaign in August 2022 against MediaTek, NXP, and Qualcomm (automotive infotainment chips), followed by ITC and district court actions against Samsung, TSMC, and Qualcomm over mobile SoCs. (Bloomberg Law, MediaTek Hit With Suit Over Chip Patents Acquired From Intel, Apr. 9, 2024; RPX; Unified Patents; Mondaq/RPX, Daedalus Prime Sues MediaTek Alone In Latest Complaint, May 3, 2024.) The TSMC declaratory-judgment litigation in Delaware describes Daedalus squarely as "an NPE."

Accused technology. The complaint accuses MediaTek SoCs/application processors "based on or derived from ARMv8.2 architecture, as well as subsequent revisions … such as the ARMv9 architecture," naming the flagship Dimensity 9300 and a broad list of Helio G/P-series and Kompanio parts (e.g., MT6769V, MT6785V, MT8186). The technical theories map to power/performance management (MediaTek's "Intelligent Power Allocation" (IPA) that dynamically splits a power budget between CPU and GPU domains), heterogeneous multi-core clustering (Cortex-X4/A720/A510 cores with a DynamIQ Shared Unit and shared L3 cache), and on-die security hardware (a "CryptoCore" module). Plaintiff also pled induced infringement based on supplying accused chips into the U.S. and instructing consumers in their ordinary use. (Compl. ¶¶ 50–59, 76–80, 101, 109, 185; Exhibit excerpts in the IPR petitions.)

Patents asserted. Eight U.S. patents, all descending from Intel work with an earliest estimated priority date of September 2011, issuing July 2014–July 2020: 8,769,316 ("Dynamically Allocating a Power Budget Over Multiple Domains of a Processor" — power-budget allocation across CPU/GPU domains); 8,984,228 (the patent emphasized in this case's metadata; parent of US 9,575,895, and the subject of IPR2025-00207); 9,887,838; 10,372,197 (processor core/cache/interconnect architecture with "energy performance bias (EPB)" value claims); 10,705,960 (cache management and power management circuitry in multi-cluster, multi-threaded cores); 10,725,919; 10,740,281 (core-enabling/scheduling claims over heterogeneous core groups); and 11,507,167 (core "power control unit" claims). I should flag that I have confirmed the '316 title and the claim-term sketches for the '197, '281, '960, and '167 patents from the parties' P.R. 4-1/4-2 claim-construction materials and petition exhibits, but I have not independently verified the exact titles/abstracts of the '838 and '919 patents, and the '228 patent's specific technical subject matter is only partially sourced (its relationship to the '895 child patent and the IPR record).

Procedural posture and venue. Filed April 8, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, assigned to Chief/ District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap (2:24-cv-00235-JRG). MediaTek waived service (Dkt. 7) and filed a partial motion to dismiss on August 5, 2024 (Dkt. 14). Judge Gilstrap's March 12, 2025 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 52) granted the motion, dismissing the § 271(f) and pre-suit willfulness allegations without prejudice and giving Daedalus 14 days' leave to amend; the § 271(f) theory failed because the complaint's allegation was a "threadbare recitation" with no pleaded facts about components supplied from the U.S., and willfulness failed because the only pre-suit notice theory rested on a 2022 Delaware complaint that was never served and did not reference the asserted patents. MediaTek separately petitioned for IPR on four of the eight patents — IPR2024-01488 ('281, filed Oct. 7, 2024), IPR2025-00100 ('838), IPR2025-00207 ('228, with Arm Ltd. joining as petitioner), and IPR2025-00243 ('316, filed Jan. 6, 2025). The parties settled: a notice of settlement hit the docket on May 15, 2025 and the court dismissed the case on/around May 22, 2025 (per MediaTek's SEC-filed financial statements), making this case "terminated." The IPRs were then terminated by joint motion (settlement) in June 2025 (termination decisions June 17, 2025), with the confidential settlement agreement filed under seal (e.g., IPR2025-00243 Ex. 1017).

Why it matters. Three features make this case notable. First, it is a data point in the Intel patent-portfolio divestiture → NPE assertion wave: Daedalus Prime is a Gomez-linked monetization vehicle that acquired a large Intel portfolio and has run a multi-front campaign (ITC § 337 actions, EDTX and Delaware district court cases, and German proceedings) against essentially the entire mobile/automotive semiconductor supply chain — TSMC, Samsung, Qualcomm, NXP, and MediaTek. Second, MediaTek's IPR counterattack plus rapid settlement illustrates the standard NPE-defense playbook and the leverage IPRs create. Third, and legally most distinctive, the parallel Arm IPR on the '228 patent produced a precedent-setting PTAB ruling: after the Acting Director discretionarily denied institution on May 16, 2025 under Fintiv (citing the then-pending EDTX case), Arm — not bound by the Daedalus–MediaTek settlement — sought Director Review, and on August 6, 2025 the Acting Director reversed her own discretionary denial in Arm Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 14, the first time under the USPTO's bifurcated institution procedures that such a reversal occurred on "changed circumstances" (the district court's dismissal). (Jones Day / PTAB Litigation Blog; Lexology/Mondaq, Aug.–Sept. 2025.) The '228 patent also remains live in Daedalus's later W.D. Tex. case against Google (No. 7:25-cv-00313, pending), so the technology and validity fight over the '228 patent continues beyond this terminated case, and Arm's reinstated challenge could yield a final written decision on claims that the parties themselves never litigated to judgment here.

Caveats: I could not verify MediaTek's district-court trial counsel from the sources retrieved (its IPR lead counsel is Cory C. Bell; Daedalus is represented by Ward Smith & Hill PLLC, including Charles Everingham and Claire Abernathy Henry). The exact dismissal date (May 22 vs. May 23, 2025) rests on MediaTek's financial-report language rather than a docket entry I retrieved directly.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with broad searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the IPRs, and the settlement.

Let me find the full list of asserted patents, the answer/counterclaims, and docket details.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00235-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Below is a chronological reconstruction of the material developments. Where a fact could not be confirmed from a primary source, I flag it as such rather than assume it.

---

1. Pre-suit context (helpful framing)

This suit is part of Daedalus Prime's broader monetization campaign over a portfolio of ~250+ U.S. patents it acquired from Intel (2021–2023). Daedalus Prime (formed in Delaware 2021-01-26; linked to patent-monetization figure Ed Gomez) had earlier filed an ITC action and Delaware complaints (Aug. 2022) against MediaTek, NXP, and Qualcomm, then added Samsung, TSMC, and others; those disputes ended by settlement or dismissal. The earlier Delaware action against MediaTek is significant because it resurfaced in the § 271(f)/willfulness briefing (see § 3 below). (Mondaq case note, "Daedalus Prime Sues MediaTek Alone," 2024-05-03)

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2024-04-08 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Daedalus Prime sued MediaTek Inc. alone in the Marshall Division, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserts eight U.S. patents: 8,769,316; 8,984,228; 9,887,838; 10,372,197; 10,705,960; 10,725,919; 10,740,281; and 11,507,167. All are Intel-origin; each was newly asserted in litigation except the '838, '197, and '960 patents. The accused instrumentalities are MediaTek SoCs/mobile application processors based on or derived from ARMv8.2 and later (including ARMv9) — e.g., Dimensity-series SoCs and Helio-series chips. (Justia/CourtListener, Dkt. 52 opinion text; Mondaq; RPX Empower docket)
  • Note: The case metadata lists only US 8,984,228 as "patents at issue." The '228 patent (Multiprocessor Cache Coherency) is one of the eight asserted patents and is the one that generated the parallel PTAB fight with Arm (see § 7).
• Answer / counterclaims. MediaTek appeared and litigated (it filed the motion to dismiss in Aug. 2024), but I could not confirm from a primary source the exact date of its answer or whether it pleaded declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity. Those counterclaims are typical in this posture, but I am not asserting them as established.
• 2024-09-04 — P.R. 3-1/3-2 disclosures (infringement contentions). Daedalus served infringement contentions identifying accused SoCs (e.g., Dimensity 9300, Helio G70/G80/G85/G88/G90/G95/G96/G99/G100/P65/P90/P95, etc.). (IPR2025-00100 exhibit record; PTAB Ex-1019 "Infringement Contentions Cover" in the '207 record)

3. Pre-trial motions of substance — the motion to dismiss (the only substantive motion decided)

• 2024-08-05 — MediaTek's Motion to Dismiss in Part (Dkt. 14). MediaTek sought dismissal of (1) Daedalus's 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) infringement theory and (2) pre-suit willfulness. Daedalus responded (Dkt. 21).
• 2025-03-12 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 52), Judge Gilstrap. The court GRANTED the motion and dismissed both theories:
  • § 271(f): Daedalus pleaded no more than a "threadbare recitation" of the statutory elements; it identified no specific component supplied from the U.S. Facts first raised in the opposition (U.S. design centers, employees supplying components) were disregarded because review is confined to the pleadings.
  • Pre-suit willfulness: Daedalus failed to plead facts showing both (a) knowledge of the asserted patents and (b) culpable conduct. The complaint's reliance on a footnote to a 2022 Delaware complaint that was never served and did not relate to the asserted patents (and its failure to plead the same-family overlap it later argued) was insufficient. Citations: Fractus, S.A. v. TCL Corp., 2021 WL 2483155 (E.D. Tex.); Intell. Ventures line.
  • (Dkt. 52, docs.justia.com; CourtListener)
• No stay pending IPR was granted or, based on the record I found, even reached. Although MediaTek filed four IPRs (see § 7), the Docket Control Order reflects an active case schedule, and the case ended by settlement before any stay ruling. I found no order granting or denying a stay.
• No summary judgment / JMOL / new-trial / fee motions were decided — the case settled before the dispositive-motion deadline.

4. Claim construction (never reached)

• The Docket Control Order (dated 2024) set a full Patent Local Rules schedule with an in-person Markman/claim-construction hearing for 2025-07-31 in Marshall before Judge Gilstrap, preceded by: P.R. 4-1 (2025-03-27), P.R. 4-2 (2025-04-17), P.R. 4-3 (2025-05-08), P.R. 4-5(a) opening brief (2025-06-18), responsive (2025-07-03), reply (2025-07-10), and joint chart (2025-07-17). (DCP excerpt in PTAB Ex-1018, IPR2025-00207 record)
• However, the case settled on 2025-05-15, well before the hearing. There is no claim construction order in this case; the Markman stage was never completed.

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

From the Docket Control Order (same source as above):

• 2024-10-30 — Standing Order re: Subject-Matter Eligibility contentions; P.R. 3-3/3-4 invalidity contentions.
• 2025-03-27 — P.R. 4-1 exchange of proposed claim terms.
• 2025-05-15 — Deadline to amend pleadings (never used to add patents; case settled the same day).
• 2025-06-05 — P.R. 4-4 claim-construction discovery deadline.
• 2025-06-18 — Substantial completion of document production / privilege logs.
• 2025-08-28 — Fact discovery and motions-to-compel deadline.
• 2025-09-04 / 2025-09-25 — Expert disclosures (opening / rebuttal).
• 2025-10-09 — Expert discovery close; 2025-10-16 — dispositive and Daubert motions.
• 2025-08-21 — P.R. 3-7 opinion-of-counsel deadline.

Strategically, the § 1782 discovery fight in N.D. Cal. is the notable discovery-side episode: Daedalus sought a subpoena to MediaTek USA Inc. for documents (power-allocation, caching, cryptographic-module technical materials; cross-border access and communication methods) for use in its German patent infringement actions. (N.D. Cal. § 1782 ruling, No. 5:24-mc-80208) The German actions (asserting German counterparts to two asserted U.S. patents against MediaTek) also surfaced in Daedalus's failed willfulness/fact pleading (Dkt. 21, noted in Dkt. 52).

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The case never reached trial. No verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial or fee motions. Schedule contemplates a jury trial in late 2025/early 2026, but settlement intervened.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

MediaTek challenged four of the eight asserted patents in IPRs between Oct. 2024 and Jan. 2025. In one, Arm Ltd. joined MediaTek as petitioner.

Sources: IPVerse PTAB tracker for Daedalus Prime; IPR2024-01488; IPR2025-00100; IPR2025-00243; IPR2025-00207 record.

Effect on the litigation:

• The IPRs did not produce a stay or an early validity ruling before the district case ended. The three MediaTek-only IPRs (two of which were instituted) were wound up by the same global settlement that ended the district case — joint motions to terminate filed 2025-06-11, termination decisions 2025-06-16/17.
• The '228/Arm dispute is the one surviving thread, and it is legally notable:
  • On 2025-05-16, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied institution of IPR2025-00207, crediting Daedalus's Fintiv-style argument that the final written decision would not issue before the (then-scheduled) district trial and that there was no probative evidence a stay would be granted.
  • One day earlier (2025-05-15), the parties filed their notice of settlement — a timing that made the denial immediately contestable.
  • Arm, not a party to the district case and not bound by the settlement, sought Director Review, arguing it "was not a party to the litigation and ha[d] separate interests that were not vindicated by the dismissed district court proceedings," and that the Board had already held "substantially identical claims" in a child patent unpatentable (referencing IPR2023-01344). Daedalus opposed, arguing Arm had no verified interest in the patent's validity.
  • On 2025-08-06 (Paper 14), the Acting Director reversed her own prior discretionary denial — the first such reversal under the PTO's bifurcated institution procedures — reasoning that "[n]ow that the litigation has been dismissed, the balance of factors weighs in favor of referral," and that it was efficient to proceed given the Board's unpatentability findings on "substantially identical claims" in the related child patent. IPR2025-00207 was therefore instituted.
  • (PTAB Litigation Blog, 2025-08-29; Lexology; Petitioner Arm's Request for Director Review; IP UPDATE summary of the four May 2025 discretionary-denial decisions)
  • The '207 petition asserted, e.g., obviousness of claims 1–7, 11–14, 16–19 over Agarwal (US 7,805,575), Sinharoy (IBM POWER7), and Sinharoy + Blumrich. (IPR2025-00207 grounds)

8. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

• 2025-05-15 — Notice of settlement filed by Daedalus Prime and MediaTek in the district court docket.
• ~2025-05-22 — Order dismissing the infringement case (about one week after the notice). — Date approximate; the blog sources describe it as "a week later." I have not confirmed the exact docket entry date.
• 2025-06-11 — Joint motions to terminate IPR2024-01488, IPR2025-00100, and IPR2025-00243, with a confidential settlement agreement filed under seal; the parties represented the agreement "resolves all underlying disputes between Petitioner and Patent Owner, including the related district court proceeding" and "ends all patent disputes between Petitioner and Patent Owner." (IPR2025-00100 Joint Motion to Terminate)
• 2025-06-16 / 2025-06-17 — PTAB termination decisions issued in the three MediaTek IPRs.
• Final posture: The case is terminated in the district court; the docket status is "Closed." There was no judgment on the merits, no trial, no damages award, and no appeal. The only remaining live proceeding tied to this dispute is IPR2025-00207 (Arm/MediaTek v. Daedalus, US 8,984,228), which the Acting Director ordered instituted on 2025-08-06 after the district case settled.
• Counsel (for context): Daedalus Prime was represented in the campaign by Ward Smith & Hill PLLC (Mondaq). In the PTAB proceedings, Cory C. Bell appeared as lead counsel for MediaTek and Tarek N. Fahmi as lead counsel for Daedalus Prime (IPR2025-00100 record). I could not independently confirm MediaTek's district-court lead counsel.

---

Bottom line

Daedalus Prime's eight-patent assertion against MediaTek in Judge Gilstrap's court produced exactly one substantive merits ruling — the 2025-03-12 partial dismissal (Dkt. 52) striking the § 271(f) theory and pre-suit willfulness. The case settled 2025-05-15 and was dismissed about a week later, so it never reached claim construction (scheduled 2025-07-31), summary judgment, or trial. Nearly all of the consequential legal activity migrated to the PTAB: three MediaTek IPRs were terminated as part of the settlement, while the Arm-joined IPR against the '228 patent survived—notably becoming the first case in which the Acting Director reversed her own bifurcated-procedure discretionary denial (2025-08-06) after the parallel district litigation settled.

Sourcing caveats: the exact dismissal-order date (~2025-05-22) and the precise answer/counterclaim filing details are not confirmed from primary documents; the docket-control dates and PTAB events are drawn from the PTAB exhibit record, IPVerse/Justia docket data, and secondary legal-press coverage cited above.

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

Good leads. Let me pull the full docket and verify each attorney's role.

Let me pull the full CourtListener docket and check for all plaintiff-side appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Daedalus Prime LLC — 2:24-cv-00235-JRG

Bottom line: Daedalus Prime's district-court team followed the same two-firm structure it used in its earlier E.D. Tex. campaign (Daedalus Prime v. Samsung, 2:22-cv-00353/354-JRG): a Texas local-counsel firm — Ward Smith, PLLC (formerly Ward Smith & Hill), Longview, TX — paired with its outside patent-litigation firm, Blue Peak Law Group LLP. The E.D. Tex. docket (Dkt. 1, Dkt. 5) confirms the Ward Smith appearances by name; the Blue Peak participation is documented by Law360 docket records and by Blue Peak's role as Daedalus Prime's counsel of record in the parallel PTAB proceedings, though I could not retrieve a Blue Peak appearance entry (Dkt.) in this specific docket before running out of search steps — treat that one attribution as high-confidence but not docket-verified.

Role clarifications and cautions

• PTAB counsel is a third firm, not district-court counsel. In the IPR campaign over the asserted family — including IPR2025-00207 (ARM Ltd. & MediaTek Inc. v. Daedalus Prime, U.S. Pat. No. 8,984,228, the patent at issue in the case metadata) and IPR2024-01488 (MediaTek v. Daedalus Prime) — Daedalus Prime's counsel is Tarek N. Fahmi (Reg. No. 41,402), Ascenda Law Group, PC, San Jose, CA, with back-up Jonathan Tsao (Reg. No. 61,241). I found no evidence Fahmi or Ascenda entered an appearance in 2:24-cv-00235; Ascenda appears to handle Daedalus Prime's prosecution/PTAB work only. Do not list them as district-court counsel of record.
• Attorneys on the docket who are not plaintiff's counsel. Law360's case page also surfaces Kyle S. Smith (McGuireWoods, Raleigh, NC) in connection with this matter; the Finnegan firm has publicly taken credit for defending MediaTek in Daedalus Prime's E.D. Tex./German/UPC actions. Those are defense-side, not plaintiff-side, and I could not confirm individual defense appearance entries.
• No in-house counsel appears of record. Daedalus Prime is a non-practicing patent-holder entity; its Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure (Dkt. 2) identifies Daedalus Group LLC as corporate parent. Reports link the Daedalus entities to Fortress Investment Group's IP monetization program — I flag that as press/industry reporting rather than a docket-verified fact.
• Sealed filings: none of the plaintiff-side appearance documents I located (Dkt. 1, 5, and the AO 120 notice) are sealed; the substantive briefing in this case was public (e.g., Dkt. 14, 21).

Case-posture note relevant to counsel's work product

The public record shows the case ended with plaintiff-side losses on the pleadings: Judge Gilstrap's Memorandum Opinion and Order of March 12, 2025 (Dkt. 52) granted MediaTek's partial motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14), dismissing without prejudice the § 271(f) and pre-suit willfulness allegations and giving Daedalus Prime 14 days to amend. The docket (as retrieved from Free Law/Justia through March 13, 2025) does not show the amended pleading in the retrieved entries, and the metadata plus MediaTek's later IPR petition characterizes 2:24-cv-00235 as terminated. I could not verify from the sources retrieved whether termination came via voluntary dismissal, settlement, or a joint stipulation — that specific event is unverified in my research, so I am not asserting a reason.

Sources: E.D. Tex. docket 2:24-cv-00235 (Dkt. 1, 2, 5; retrieved via dockets.justia.com / Free Law, last retrieved Mar. 13, 2025); Dkt. 52, Mem. Op. & Order (Mar. 12, 2025), https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00235/[229219](/patent/229219)/52/0.pdf; Law360 firm/attorney docket pages for Ward Smith, Blue Peak Law Group, and McGuireWoods; Blue Peak Law Group PTAB Mandatory Notices, IPR2023-00868 (Apr. 20, 2023), via Docket Alarm; USPTO PTAB filings listing Tarek N. Fahmi/Ascenda Law Group as Daedalus Prime's counsel in IPR2025-00207 (Sept. 25, 2025) and as respondent counsel in IPR2024-01488; Law.com Radar case card for Daedalus Prime v. Samsung, 2:22-cv-00354.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

I have some leads. Let me dig into the docket and the specific defense counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendant MediaTek, Inc.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00235-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — terminated

Caveat up front: I was able to retrieve the docket's substantive filings (Dkt. 14 motion to dismiss; Dkt. 52 opinion) and the parallel PTAB papers, but not the docket-sheet attorney-appearance entries themselves (PACER/CourtListener's appearance tab and, per the rules of this exercise, the sealed/limited entries). The names below are drawn from the USPTO PTAB signature blocks in MediaTek's own inter partes review petitions (same client, same patent family, same coordinated defense) and from firm directories and third-party litigation reporting. I have flagged where a role is inferred rather than directly confirmed. No attorneys have been invented; where I could not substantiate a name, I say so.

---

Primary defense firm — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Finnegan is the firm of record for MediaTek in this matter. Legal 500's firm profile expressly credits Finnegan with having "[d]efended MediaTek Inc. in actions filed by Daedalus Prime LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, Germany and the UPC." IAM Patent 1000 likewise reports that Finnegan's Gary C. Ma (managing partner, Taipei) "has been leading the defence of MediaTek in a coordinated set of patent actions brought by Daedalus Prime LLC across the United States, Germany and the Unified Patent Court," acting as "central strategist" and contributing to the parties' global settlement.

Possible local / additional counsel (unverified)

• Kyle S. Smith — McGuireWoods LLP. Law360's docket aggregation lists this case (filed April 8, 2024, D. Tex. E.) under Smith's attorney profile. MediaTek is not a reported McGuireWoods client in the defense of this case by any other source I located, so I cannot confirm whether Smith appeared in this matter, on which side, or in what capacity. Treat as an unverified lead only.
• No Texas local counsel has been confirmed. Notably, I found no evidence that a Marshall/Tyler firm (e.g., Gillam & Smith, Potter Minton, Findlay Craft) entered an appearance for MediaTek here. (The "Ward, Smith & Hill" and "Blue Peak Law Group" attorneys surfaced in searches — e.g., Justin L. Constant and Claire Abernathy Henry — are plaintiff-side counsel for Daedalus Prime, not defense counsel, and should not be listed for MediaTek.)

In-house

I found no named in-house MediaTek counsel on the docket. MediaTek, Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation; the complaint notes MediaTek offices in Austin and Richardson, Texas, but no in-house attorney is identified in the public filings.

---

Why this matters to the case posture

• MediaTek moved to dismiss on August 5, 2024 (Dkt. 14); Judge Gilstrap granted the motion in part on March 12, 2025 (Dkt. 52), dismissing the § 271(f) and pre-suit willfulness theories.
• The parties filed a notice of settlement on May 15, 2025, and the court dismissed the infringement action approximately one week later — making the docket "terminated."
• MediaTek simultaneously pressed four IPRs (IPR2024-01488, IPR2025-00100, IPR2025-00207, IPR2025-00243) covering four asserted patents, with Arm Ltd. joining as a co-petitioner on U.S. Pat. 8,984,228 — the patent specifically flagged in this case's metadata. The Acting Director initially discretionarily denied IPR2025-00207 under Fintiv (tied to this litigation), then reversed that denial after the district-court settlement. Those PTAB filings are the strongest available public record of who was actually steering MediaTek's defense.

Bottom line: The verifiable defense counsel of record cluster is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, anchored by Cory C. Bell (lead, Boston) with Joseph Long and Alexander Boyer, and Gary C. Ma (Taipei) coordinating the multi-jurisdiction defense. The precise district-court appearance list — including whether any Texas local counsel was designated — could not be confirmed from the sources available to me and should be verified against the PACER docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00235 (appearance entries would be early- to mid-2024 docket items).