Daedalus Prime LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

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

Good material. Let me dig into the patents, IPRs, TSMC parallel litigation, and Daedalus Prime's background.

Let me verify the technical subject matter of each asserted patent and the ITC 1335/1336 split.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches across multiple sources.

Daedalus Prime LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 2:22-cv-00352-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Analyst note on posture: The case metadata labels this case "stayed." That is accurate as to the 2022–23 window, but the docket shows the action was fully terminated by November 2, 2023 — first by dismissal of the Samsung claims (June 2023) and then by dismissal of the remaining TSMC claims (November 2023), both pursuant to settlements. There was no Markman, no merits discovery of substance, no summary judgment, no trial, and no appeal. The real legal action occurred in two parallel fora: the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1336) and the PTAB (a large wave of Samsung IPRs). This report is organized chronologically with those threads interleaved.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (Sept–Dec 2022)

• 2022-09-12 — Complaint filed. Daedalus Prime LLC (Bronxville, NY; a Delaware LLC; an Intel patent-monetization vehicle) sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC) in the Marshall Division, E.D. Tex., before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Complaint, Dkt. 1. (CourtListener)
  • Eight asserted patents, split into two families:
    • "CPU Patents": U.S. 8,775,833; 8,898,494; 10,049,080; 10,705,588 (asserted against Samsung).
    • "Semic Patents": U.S. 9,831,306; 10,319,812; 10,700,178; 11,251,281 (asserted against both Samsung and TSMC).
  • Theory: Samsung's 14nm-and-smaller nodes, Exynos SoCs, and downstream Galaxy products infringe; TSMC's 7nm node (e.g., the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 in the Galaxy S20 FE) infringes the Semic Patents. Direct infringement under §271(a)/(g); induced infringement under §271(b); contributory infringement under §271(c). Daedalus alleged it gave notice by letter dated 2022-09-09. (Complaint ¶¶ 32–36.)
  • Jury trial demanded. Counsel: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo (Andrea Fair, Charles Everingham, et al.) for Daedalus; later Fish & Richardson, O'Melveny & Myers, Reed Smith, and Gillam & Smith for Samsung. (Law.com Radar)
• 2022-09-14 / 09-15 — Service on SEA; waiver of service later returned for TSMC (Dkt. 6, 7).
• 2022-09-30 → 2022-10-05 — Samsung's unopposed motion to extend time to answer (Dkt. 8), granted by Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 9 on 10/4–10/5); answers ultimately due 2023-01-03. (Justia docket)
• 2022-10-21 — Consolidation order (Dkt. 11). The three parallel Daedalus suits — 2:22-cv-00352 (lead), -00353, and -00354 — were consolidated for all pretrial issues, lead case 352, with individual cases remaining active for trial.
• No answers or counterclaims of substance were reached before the stay. Because the stay came down before the 2023-01-03 answer deadline, the case never progressed to pleadings-stage counterclaims (e.g., DJ counterclaims of invalidity/non-infringement) in the Texas action.

---

2. The § 1659 stay, severance, and the ITC parallel

• 2022-09-12/09-13 — ITC complaint. Same day/shortly after, Daedalus filed an ITC § 337 complaint on the Semic Patents only ('306, '812, '178, '281). The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1336 on 2022-10-14, notice published 2022-10-19 (87 FR 63524-25). Respondents: Samsung (SEC/SEA), TSMC (TSMC Ltd. + TSMC North America), and — initially — Qualcomm. (USITC notice, 8/15/2023)
• 2022-10-28 — Samsung's Unopposed Motion to Stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, and to sever the member cases not subject to the stay (Dkts. 21–24). Daedalus did not oppose.
• 2022-11-01 — Order granting the stay. Judge Gilstrap stayed the case under § 1659(a) pending the ITC investigation and severed the non-covered member cases (the CPU-patent claims were not part of the ITC Semic-patent investigation, so severance/management was needed). (Referenced as Exhibit 1103 to IPR2023-00536: "Order Granting Stay … (November 1, 2022)".)
• Effect: The Texas case was frozen at the pleading stage for the remainder of its life. No scheduling order, no Markman, no fact discovery of consequence.

---

3. The TSMC declaratory-judgment flank (D. Del.)

• 2022-12-30 — TSMC v. Daedalus Prime LLC, 1:22-cv-01647 (D. Del.) (naming Intel as a co-defendant). TSMC sought a declaration that it was licensed to the "Transferred Patents" by virtue of a May 2022 cross-license/assignment agreement with Intel, arguing Intel still owned the patents when it signed the agreement and that the later June 3, 2022 Intel→Daedalus assignment could not cut off TSMC's license.
  • Daedalus moved to dismiss or stay under the first-to-file rule (arguing the license defense belonged in E.D. Tex. and/or the ITC) and moved to dismiss non-asserted patents for lack of Article III case-or-controversy. (Daedalus MTD, D. Del. Dkt. 20)
  • The license/ownership question became the central issue in both the ITC and Delaware actions, and TSMC argued the Texas action could not resolve it because § 1659 compelled the stay and because Intel was not a party to the Texas case. ([TSMC opposition, D. Del. Dkt. 32](https://www.courtlistener

I'll research press coverage of this litigation across multiple angles.

The first searches surfaced mostly primary court documents. Let me search specifically for press coverage outlets.

Good, I'm finding press coverage now. Let me dig deeper on specific outlets and angles.

I've reached my search limit. Here's what I found — reporting exists, but it's concentrated in Reuters, one trade/tech outlet, and a handful of legal-industry and non-U.S. write-ups, with no Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra coverage surfacing in my searches.

The ITC angle drove the bulk of the press. The most-widely cited item is a Reuters story dated 2022-10-14, which reported that U.S. regulators would investigate units of Samsung, Qualcomm and TSMC "over certain semiconductor devices and integrated circuits and mobile devices using those components," following a complaint filed by New York-based Daedalus Prime LLC. The Register followed on 2022-10-17 with more detail: the ITC probe covered chips made by Samsung on 14nm-and-smaller nodes and by TSMC on 16nm-and-smaller nodes, plus downstream smartphones, tablets and smartwatches; Daedalus was seeking a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist orders. The Register also flagged the commercial posture — describing Daedalus as a non-practicing entity whose asserted patents "cover technology developed by Intel, which Daedalus Prime acquired the rights to earlier this year," singling out U.S. Patent 9,831,306 (self-aligned gate edge) as an example, and noting this was one of several ITC complaints Daedalus had filed. International Trade Today reported on 2022-10-18 that the ITC launched two Section 337 investigations (Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1335 and 337-TA-1336) off two September 2022 Daedalus complaints — the first against Samsung and Qualcomm over four patents on integrated circuits, SoCs and CPU/GPU technology, the second against Samsung and TSMC over four patents on semiconductor devices and fabrication methods. Chinese- and Korean-language outlets (China Press, Chinatimes, Zaobao, Business Post Korea) carried translated versions of the same Reuters/TelecomLead reporting, all emphasizing that the patents were originally developed by Intel and later acquired by Daedalus, that the target devices included the Galaxy S20 FE and Galaxy A71 5G, and that no merits decision had yet been made.

The Texas case itself (2:22-cv-00352) and the eventual Samsung resolution were covered mainly by legal trade press. Law360 reported on 2022-09-14 that chips used in various Samsung phones allegedly infringed patents initially issued to Intel researchers, describing "an avalanche of new lawsuits filed by a licensing company in courts stretching from Marshall, Texas, to Dusseldorf, Germany" — framing the East Texas filing as part of a coordinated multi-forum campaign rather than an isolated suit. Law360 then reported on 2023-06-08 that Judge Rodney Gilstrap "agreed to let a patent licensing company drop its claims against Samsung Electronics over semiconductor and circuit technology initially held by Intel, greenlighting an agreement between the parties that ends infringement allegations against accused products like smartphones." Samsung's counsel O'Melveny & Myers republished the Law360 item, adding that Daedalus had asserted claims over 18 patents relating to "groundbreaking improvements to microprocessor circuitry and mobile wireless" with application to smartphones, tablets and personal computers, and listing its defense team. Note that the reported "18 patents" figure is broader than this docket's eight asserted patents (or the six described in some aggregator write-ups), because Daedalus's remarketing campaign spanned several consolidated and parallel suits.

Outcome and licensing-dispute reporting came largely from non-U.S. IP/tech sources and official-adjacent roundups. DoNews reported (translated) that on 2023-12-14 the ITC issued a partial final determination in Inv. No. 337-TA-1336 declining to review ALJ Initial Determination No. 78 (dated 2023-11-14) and terminating the investigation as to Samsung and TSMC based on a settlement motion — a termination that aligns with the sealed/redacted dismissals on the Texas docket (D.I. 33/36 and D.I. 38/41). Separately, Taiwan's STPI (iknow) reported that the ITC on 2023-07-17 issued ruling #49 granting Daedalus's motion for summary determination that TSMC was not licensed to the asserted patents and denying TSMC's non-infringement-by-license motion, and that TSMC had earlier filed a Delaware declaratory-judgment action on 2022-12-30 asking the court to confirm it had obtained a license under a May 2022 Intel‑TSMC cross-license (LOT) agreement predating Intel's patent transfer to Daedalus. On the parties' positions, the underlying Delaware filings (TSMC's complaint and Daedalus's opposition, available via CourtListener/RECAP) show TSMC arguing the transferred Intel patents were already licensed to it and warning that an ITC exclusion order "to the exclusion order to TSMC" would harm "countless U.S. companies, universities, and consumers" — an advocacy framing that goes beyond the neutral court record.

Where accounts differ or exceed the record. No outlet I found reported a damages figure sought or awarded, settlement terms, or a jury verdict — consistent with the case being stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 and then dismissed via sealed joint motions, so any monetary terms are non-public. The Register's characterization of Daedalus as an NPE pressing "to force others into paying up" and its reference to Intel's separate ~5,000-patent licensing arrangement with IPValue Management Group are editorial/industry-analysis gloss rather than court findings. Aggregator profiles (e.g., Law.com Radar and PatSnap) supply counsel rosters and strategic "signals" but are database/marketing content, not reported journalism. I did not find any Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article specifically about this docket, so claims about, e.g., "market impact" or executive reaction are not supported by anything I located.

Sources

• Daedalus Prime v. Samsung: Multi-Patent Processor & Security Case | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Cases filed in the Fifth Circuit Courts
• Complaint analysis | 2:22-cv-00353 | Daedalus Prime LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Search court records on patent:(8775833)
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Daedalus Prime LLC - Track Docket
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• AO 120 (Rev

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

Let me dig deeper into the specific docket and appearances for this case number.

Now let me confirm the specific appearances on the 2:22-cv-00352 docket and the firms behind each name.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Daedalus Prime LLC, Daedalus Prime LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00352-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Sourcing note / caveat: I was able to pull the docket entries and firm affiliations below from CourtListener/RECAP docket text, the Justia and Patexia docket mirrors, Law.com Radar, the PTAB consolidated filings, and the parallel ITC complaint. I hit a research-step limit before I could retrieve the raw PACER docket sheet and firm bio pages for every name, so where a fact comes only from a secondary aggregator (not a court filing) I flag it. No attorney below is invented; where the record is ambiguous I say so.

Two structural points matter here: (1) the case was stayed on 11/1/2022 (Dkt. 31) under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 and deconsolidated from Nos. 2:22-cv-00353 and 2:22-cv-00354, and (2) it was later dismissed — claims against Samsung by redacted order entered 6/7/2023 (Dkt. 34), and all remaining claims (TSMC) by redacted order entered 11/2/2023 (Dkt. 41). So the plaintiff's appearance list is short and frozen as of the stay.

Lead counsel (national)

Mintz attorneys appearing on the related ITC complaint caption (same Sept. 12, 2022 filing campaign)

Listed as "Counsel for Complainant" on the verified ITC complaint in 337-TA-1335 — not necessarily district-court counsel of record in 2:22-cv-00352, but they are the core Daedalus trial team:

• Adam S. Rizk — Mintz, Boston; also named First Back-up Counsel on the PTAB powers of attorney for the '494 patent (IPR2023-00617).
• Serge Subach — Mintz; back-up counsel on the IPR2023-00617 POA.
• James W. Wodarski, Michael J. McNamara, Marguerite McConihe, Samuel F. Davenport, Matthew A. Karambelas, Catherine Xu — Mintz, Boston (One Financial Center).
• Meena Seralathan — Mintz, New York.
• Jonathan J. Engler — Mintz, Washington, DC (555 12th St. NW).

Local counsel

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record across the docket, firm announcements, and related proceedings.

Now let me identify TSMC's counsel of record in this case.

Let me check whether TSMC entered an appearance in the Texas docket and confirm the Samsung firm lineup.

Defense Counsel of Record — Daedalus Prime LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 2:22-cv-00352-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Threshold caveat up front: The case was stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 on November 1, 2022, before any defendant answered. The defense-side appearance docket therefore reflects only entry-of-appearance notices filed in late October 2022, plus one local-counsel motion. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no protective order, and no trial-team designation to work from. Everything below is drawn from the E.D. Tex. docket (Dkts. 8, 12–23, 27, 40–41), Law.com Radar, and the firms' own filings elsewhere. TSMC never entered an appearance on the 352 docket that I can locate — see Part C.

---

A. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA)

Samsung fielded a three-firm defense: national patent counsel (Fish & Richardson), a second national team (O'Melveny & Myers), and Marshall local counsel (Gillam & Smith). The split maps onto the consolidated family — the Fish team entered on the -353 member case (Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC / Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.) and the O'Melveny team on the -354 member case — but all appearances were docketed in the lead case 352.

1. Fish & Richardson P.C. — national counsel

(Other Fish attorneys associated with Samsung's E.D. Tex. defense — e.g., Ruffin B. Cordell, Thad C. Kodish, Leonard E. Davis, Christopher O. Green — appear in the firm's signature blocks in companion Samsung matters; I did not find notices of appearance for them in 352 itself, so I do not list them as counsel of record here.)

2. O'Melveny & Myers LLP — national counsel (the "Samsung settlement" team)

| Attorney | Role | Office (per firm/IPR filings) | Docket entry |