Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al. v. Daedalus Prime LLC

I'll research this case across PTAB, district court dockets, and industry coverage.

Let me dig into the district court litigation, the PTAB outcome, and Daedalus Prime's background.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. This IPR is the PTAB leg of a coordinated patent-monetization campaign by Daedalus Prime LLC, a Bronxville/Croton‑on‑Hudson, New York NPE (parent: Daedalus Group LLC; no publicly traded company holds ≥10%), against Mercedes‑Benz. Daedalus is a non‑practicing entity whose asserted portfolio was acquired from Intel in early 2022 — The Register and the ITC complaint both describe the patents as stemming from Intel's microprocessor and power‑management R&D, with Intel retaining a license and Daedalus describing Intel as "Complainant's licensee … authorized to practice the Asserted Patents." The petitioner side is the operating automaker family: Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC (a Delaware LLC, Sandy Springs, GA) with real parties‑in‑interest Mercedes‑Benz Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG, Mercedes‑Benz Group AG, and Mercedes‑Benz AG. Mercedes is represented by Hogan Lovells (Celine J. Crowson, lead; plus local/pro hac vice counsel such as Jiaxing "Kyle" Xu); Daedalus is represented in the PTAB by Ascenda Law Group (Tarek Fahmi) and, in the ITC matters, by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Christine E. Lehman). The accused technology is automotive semiconductor content — principally NXP chipsets used in Visteon infotainment systems and instrument clusters, and Qualcomm SoCs, as incorporated in Mercedes‑Benz and Mazda vehicles; Daedalus's ITC complaint framed the accused categories as "semiconductors and devices … including printed circuit boards, automotive parts, and automobiles," with the accused chips used "mainly in automotive electronic systems such as automotive infotainment systems and instrument clusters" (ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1332; D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑01107 ¶¶30–33).

The patents. The '080 patent at issue here, U.S. 10,049,080, "Asymmetric Performance Multicore Architecture with Same Instruction Set Architecture" (issued Aug. 14, 2018; App. No. 15/431,527; inventors Varghese George, Deborah T. Marr, Sanjeev S. Jahagirdar — all Intel names; Tech Center 2100/Art Unit 2183), claims a multicore processor with a first plurality of cores and a second plurality of cores having the same ISA but lower power draw "for a same applied operating frequency and supply voltage," plus power management hardware that, on a drop in demand below a threshold, disables all of the first (high‑power) cores without disabling any of the second (low‑power) cores. Claims 1–24 were challenged, with independent claims 1, 9 (method) and 17 (non‑transitory machine‑readable medium). It was one of six "CPU patents" asserted together in the Delaware actions — the '833, '494, '895, '080, '300 and '588 patents, generally directed to multicore processor power management and related CPU/SoC architecture (per the complaints and ITC notice of investigation; I have not independently verified a technical one‑liner for each of the '833, '494, '300 and '588 patents, and note Daedalus separately asserted a distinct "semiconductor fabrication" group — the '306, '812, '178 and '281 patents — in other ITC actions).

Procedural posture. The IPR was filed August 18, 2023 and instituted February 13, 2024 before a panel of Judges Gregg Anderson, Thomas Giannetti, and William Saindon; oral argument was held November 13, 2024, and the final written decision issued January 8, 2025. Per Bloomberg Law's January 9, 2025 report, the Board held the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over art directed to dynamic core switching (Sutardja '748/'785, Mathieson, Carmack, Rychlik), and an IPR certificate issued April 21, 2025 — this resolves the open question flagged in the prior summary: the '080 claims appear to have been cancelled in full (all 24 challenged claims), though the certificate itself should be pulled to confirm claim‑by

I'll research the full litigation timeline across the PTAB, district court, ITC, and Federal Circuit legs.

Let me dig into the final written decision outcome and the parallel district court/ITC dispositions.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Chronological

Framing note / contradiction flag. The case number given (IPR2023-01333) is a PTAB trial on the '080 patent, not a district-court infringement action. But the request asks for "this patent infringement litigation," so I cover the full enforcement campaign around U.S. 10,049,080 — the ITC § 337 legs (337‑TA‑1332 and ‑1335), the three Delaware complaints (1:22‑cv‑01107/01108/01109), the E.D. Tex. Samsung case (2:22‑cv‑00352), and the PTAB IPR wave — because all of it is the same dispute. One metadata note: docket aggregators list the IPR2023‑01333 "Termination Date" as 2025‑01‑08 (the FWD) while the case metadata says 2025‑04‑21; both are right — the FWD ended the merits on Jan. 8, and the certificate issued Apr. 21, 2025.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Aug.–Sep. 2022)

Answer/counterclaims. I could not locate Mercedes' answer or counterclaims on the public docket fragments retrieved; the Delaware dockets I could reach (Justia/Docket Alarm) stop at late Aug. 2022 and are largely pre‑answer. Treat the answer/counterclaim step as unverified.

---

2. ITC Proceedings — the First Real Merits Battleground

337‑TA‑1332 (the Mercedes/NXP action) — instituted 2022‑10‑27 (notice published 2022‑11‑02, 87 FR at 2022‑11‑02). Respondents: Avnet, Digi‑Key, Future, Mouser, Newark, Rochester, Mercedes‑Benz Group AG / Mercedes‑Benz AG / Mercedes‑Benz USA, NXP Semiconductors N.V. and NXP USA. Early partial terminations narrowed the case (Order No. 11, 2022‑12‑13; Order No. 13, 2023‑01‑03 — unreviewed 2023‑01‑11 and 2023‑01‑30). Then:

• 2023‑01‑20 — Daedalus moves to withdraw the complaint as to all respondents.
• 2023‑01‑30 — ALJ Order No. 16 grants termination in its entirety.
• 2023‑02‑24/27 — Commission determines not to review; 1332 terminated in its entirety. (FR Doc. 2023‑04429/04355.)

337‑TA‑1335 (Samsung/Qualcomm) — instituted 2022‑10‑14/19. Daedalus withdrew all asserted claims of the '080, '494, '833 and '588 patents (Orders 31, 32, 42, 49, 59; unreviewed June–Sept. 2023), then:

• 2023‑06‑21 / 2023‑07‑19 — investigation terminated as to Samsung by settlement (Order No. 39).
• 2024‑02‑29 — Daedalus and Qualcomm file a joint motion to terminate the entire investigation based on settlement (settlement agreement filed public + confidential).
• 2024‑03‑11 — OUII supports the motion.
• 2024‑03‑12 — ALJ Order No. 84 grants termination.
• 2024‑04‑11 — Commission declines review; 1335 terminated (88/89 FR notice, 2024‑04‑16).

Effect: the '080 patent was knocked out of the ITC by voluntary withdrawal and settlement — never adjudicated on the merits at the Commission.

---

3. Delaware Litigation — Stay, Then Close

• The Docket Alarm docket for 1:22‑cv‑01107 carries the parser flag stay_pending_investigation, indicating the Delaware actions were stayed pending the parallel ITC investigations (a standard § 337 stay posture). I could not pull the stay order text itself — flag as docket‑inferred.
• 2023‑03‑01 — 1:22‑cv‑01107 terminated/CLOSED (Docket Alarm). 1108 and 1109 are likewise shown Closed on Unified Patents' litigation portal. I could not confirm the precise closure mechanism (voluntary dismissal vs. dismissal after settlement); the ITC/PTAB record strongly implies settlement.
• No Markman, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict occurred in any of the three Delaware cases — they closed before claim construction. So the "Markman / SJ / trial / JMOL / fees" checklist is empty on the district-court side; the substantive claim-construction fight happened at the PTAB instead (see §5).
• Related: 2:22‑cv‑00352 (E.D. Tex.), Daedalus Prime v. Samsung Electronics (also

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioner (Mercedes-Benz entities) in IPR2023-01333.

I have the core docket data. Let me verify the original petition counsel and gather background on the individual attorneys.

Counsel of Record — Petitioner Mercedes-Benz (IPR2023-01333)

Important framing note: This is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement suit. The "plaintiff" side here is the petitioner, and the only entity named as petitioner on the IPR caption is Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (the other Mercedes entities in the case metadata — Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG, Mercedes-Benz Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG — appear in the parallel ITC/district-court matters but are not named parties to IPR2023-01333). All counsel of record are from a single firm, Hogan Lovells US LLP; there is no separate local counsel because the PTAB has no local-counsel rule. No Mercedes in-house attorney was listed on the mandatory notices or power of attorney.

Source: Petitioner's updated § 42.8(b)(3) Disclosure of Counsel / Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices (filed Apr. 29, 2024), and the signature blocks on Petitioner's filings (e.g., Paper 20, Petitioner's Objections to Evidence, May 14, 2024). PTAB docket via Docket Alarm/P-TACTS.

---

Lead counsel

Back-up counsel of record

---

Additional attorney appearing (not on the power of attorney)

• Cheryl Bracha Milevsky — Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C. Appears as petitioner-side counsel on the July 31, 2024 Brogioli deposition transcript in this proceeding. She is not listed as counsel of record on the § 42.8 mandatory notices or the power of attorney, so I flag her status as appearing/supporting rather than formal counsel of record.

Non-attorney support

• Ky-Yen Wong — Hogan Lovells US LLP, San Francisco; paralegal coordinator who signed the certificates of service on petitioner filings. Not an attorney.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• Role designations (lead vs. back-up) come directly from the petitioner's § 42.8(b)(3) disclosure and the Board's order granting pro hac vice admission for Lewis and Xu, which specifies they serve as back-up counsel only.
• The case docket is a PTAB administrative docket, not a PACER district-court docket. I did not find any sealed filings that would hide additional petitioner-side counsel of record; the counsel list above appears complete as of the final written decision (Jan. 8, 2025) and the IPR certificate (Apr. 21, 2025).
• I could not independently verify additional biographical details for Scott Hughes, Ryan Stephenson, and Nicholas Rotz beyond their appearance on this docket and the firm's Mercedes-Benz ITC trial-team press release; treat the notes for those three as docket-grounded rather than from a dedicated firm bio.
• For completeness, opposing (patent owner Daedalus Prime) lead counsel is Tarek N. Fahmi of Ascenda Law Group, PC (San Jose, CA) — noted only so it isn't confused with petitioner-side counsel, since the question asks about the plaintiff/petitioner side.

I'll research the counsel of record for the patent owner/defendant, Daedalus Prime LLC, in IPR2023-01333.

Let me dig deeper to confirm the full counsel roster and whether it changed during the proceeding.

Counsel of Record — Daedalus Prime LLC (Patent Owner / "Defendant")

Important framing note: The proceeding is an IPR, so the parties are styled Petitioner (Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC) and Patent Owner (Daedalus Prime LLC). Under the caption given in the case metadata, the entity on the defense side — and therefore the party whose counsel you're asking about — is Daedalus Prime LLC. There is no separate "defendant" group of Mercedes entities in this docket. PTAB trial proceedings are not docketed on PACER; the authoritative sources are the Board's PTACTS/End-to-End docket and the papers served/filed in IPR2023‑01333.

Defense-side roster (Daedalus Prime LLC)

Sources: Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (Aug. 29, 2023) and Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice (Paper 5, Aug. 29, 2023), both listing "Lead Counsel: Tarek N. Fahmi (Reg. No. 41,402) … Back‑up Counsel: Jonathan Tsao (Reg. No. 61,241), Ascenda Law Group, PC"; service certificates on Petitioner's papers in IPR2023‑01333 directed to "Tarek Fahmi (Lead Counsel), Ascenda Law Group, LLP"; PTAB counsel listings for IPR2023‑01333 (Respondent counsel: Fahmi, Tarek et al.). Representative links:

• PO Power of Attorney (customer no. 27571; covers "IPR2023‑01333 re U.S. Patent 10,049,080"): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1554528](/patent/1554528)/download-documents?artifactId=BgHpOpcO_wGr-fwS6AReXXBUG0PCiklIFd1d0cn0_I2_0yKeRHt6sbI
• PO Mandatory Notice, Paper 5 (Aug. 29, 2023): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-01333/Mercedes-Benz_USA_LLC_v._DAEDALUS_PRIME_LLC/docs/08-29-2023-Patent_Owner/Notice__Mandatory_Notice-5-PO_Mandatory_Notice.pdf
• Counsel listing: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2023-01333

What I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel for Daedalus Prime appears anywhere in the IPR2023‑01333 record. Daedalus Prime is a patent‑holding/monetization entity; its address of record is 75 South Riverside Avenue, Unit B, Croton‑on‑Hudson, NY 10520, and the POA is executed by Mr. Fahmi on its behalf rather than by an identified in‑house lawyer.
• I found no updated Power of Attorney for IPR2023‑01333 reflecting a post‑institution change of counsel (as distinct from the Aug. 2023 filing). Ascenda did file a later POA (Jan. 15, 2025) naming only Mr. Fahmi as lead for a different Daedalus Prime case, IPR2025‑00243, but that does not by its terms alter the counsel designation here. I cannot rule out an unnoted paper adding counsel.
• Other Ascenda attorneys (e.g., Holly Atkinson) and outside PTAB specialists appear on other Daedalus Prime/patent‑owner matters, but I found no filing in IPR2023‑01333 naming them as counsel of record in this proceeding.
• Not sealed: the POA, mandatory notice, and service certificates are public, so the counsel designation here is not obscured by sealing.

Context worth flagging

The record shows Daedalus Prime litigating this patent family on two fronts with the same defense team. In parallel, Daedalus Prime was the plaintiff in district court/ITC actions (e.g., E.D. Tex. and ITC Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1332/1335) against Mercedes‑Benz, Qualcomm, Samsung, Mazda and others — counsel in those litigations should not be conflated with the IPR roster above. The opposing (Petitioner) side in this IPR was represented by Hogan Lovells US LLP (lead: Celine Jimenez Crowson, with Joseph Raffetto, Scott Hughes, Helen Y. Trac, Ryan Stephenson, Nicholas Rotz and Damon M. Lewis), included here only to distinguish it from the defense-side counsel you asked about.

If you need counsel for a related district court Daedalus Prime v. Mercedes‑Benz action, say so and I'll pull that docket separately — the firms there may differ from Ascenda.