Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC

I'll research this case across the sources you named.

Let me dig into the parties, the accused product, and the parallel PTAB/reexam activity.

Overview and background

Parties. Semisilicon Technology Corp. is a small Taiwanese semiconductor design house (矽诚科技股份有限公司, originally of Jhonghe City/Taipei County per the '988 file wrapper; corporate-disclosure filings in this case state "No Parents or Affiliates Listed," D.I. 4). It designs and sells EL (electroluminescent) driver ICs and LED control ICs and, per its IP-owner profile, has built a 60-odd-patent portfolio concentrated on LED light strings, pixel/sequencing control, and "burn-address" LED modules (ipqwery/OnScope owner profile for Semisilicon Technology Corp.; representative patents include U.S. 11,968,758 and 11,672,061). It is therefore best characterized as a hybrid: a genuine operating IC-design company that also runs an active licensing/enforcement program — it recently registered Nice class 45 services covering "patent licensing; … licensing of intellectual property," and Judge Virginia Kendall (N.D. Ill.) expressly discussed "Semisilicon's business model—licensing its patents" in a related case, Semisilicon Tech. Corp. v. Changzhou Jutai Electronic Co. (N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-07388, PI opinion, Dkt. 53). Defense-side dockets also place Semisilicon on the other side of the "v." — Aura Labs Inc. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., W.D. Wash. 2:26-cv-01297 (filed Apr. 15, 2026). The defendant, inMusic, LLC, is an affiliate of the well-known audio-gear group behind ION Audio (the complaint accuses "ION Audio" branded products). Whether the named entity, inMusic, LLC, is the same as or an affiliate of inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, R.I.), is not resolvable from the records I reviewed and should be verified before publication; inMusic is a sophisticated, frequent patent litigant in its own right, having itself asserted patents (e.g., U.S. 7,567,498) against Sony and defended IPR2023-00294, in which the S.D.N.Y. co-pending court held the claims invalid under § 101.

Patents and accused technology. One patent was asserted: U.S. 8,124,988, "Light emitting diode lamp package structure and assembly thereof" — filed May 28, 2008, issued Feb. 28, 2012, inventor Jacky Peng, assigned to Semisilicon (D.I. 3, Patent/Trademark Report; '988 file history, IPR2024-00157 Ex. 1002). Technically, the '988 patent is a component-level claim: a package containing multiple LEDs (e.g., R/G/B) sharing a common electrode, plus a control IC with data-in/data-out and power-in electrodes, all encapsulated with four exposed conductors — a Vdd pad, a data-input pad, a data-output pad, and a Vss pad — so that each lamp becomes an individually addressable "smart" pixel in a serially connected string. The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and accuses the "ION Audio Uber Boom Ultra" plus "dozens of other ION Audio-branded products with similar LED features," relying on a teardown photograph of the accused speaker's LED module (Compl. ¶¶ 10–15, 23; Ex Parte complaint analysis of 1:25-cv-01566). The accused product is a sub-$150 IP66 portable Bluetooth boombox with 80W output and "multi-color lighting that … dances to the beat" (Best Buy / B&H product listings; Uber Boom Ultra user guide describing ten LED light modes). The mismatch between a 2008 package-structure claim and a finished consumer speaker is the case's central technical issue: infringement turns on reverse-engineering the LED sub-assembly inside an imported end product, not on the speaker's functionality.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Dec. 29, 2025 in the District of Delaware (Wilmington division), assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams (D.I. 5–6, 1/30/2026 waiver of service sent 1/21/2026). The case never reached the merits: two stipulated extensions moved inMusic's response deadline to May 6, 2026 (D.I. 8–9), and on May 6, 2026 Semisilicon filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 10), which Judge Williams so-ordered and terminated the next day (D.I. 11), with the Commissioner report following (D.I. 12). Delaware mattered as the default patent forum with the deepest specialized bench and local patent rules, and the docket shows the parties were lining up Delaware's two go-to IP firms (defense: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Richards, Layton & Finger; plaintiff side appears to include McCarter & English's Alexandra M. Joyce/Daniel M. Silver — the docket's counsel line is ambiguous and I have not independently confirmed the Jackson Lewis/Law360-type counsel-of-record breakdown). The case is notable for three reasons. First, IPR linkage: the '988 patent already survived a PTAB challenge — IPR2024-00157 (Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Semisilicon), institution denied May 20, 2024 (Paper 9), with a request for rehearing filed June 18, 2024 — and it is simultaneously the subject of an ex parte reexamination, No. 90/015,328, ordered Feb. 15, 2024 on eight substantial new questions of patentability, the first of which is alleged anticipation by CN 201017882Y (Lai). That gives the '988 patent an unusually well-examined validity record for a patent of its vintage (and its term runs only to May 2028, capping exposure). Second, pattern: this Delaware filing fits Semisilicon's broader 2025–26 campaign asserting the same family against Chinese LED-string manufacturers and Amazon sellers (N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-02665, dismissed after service failures, refiled as N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-07388, where PI relief was denied on the merits, delay, and boilerplate irreparable-harm evidence), with this case adding a U.S. consumer brand rather than a foreign marketplace seller. Third, market context: it is an example of a foreign small-cap IC designer using a component patent to extract settlements from brand-name importers — the complaint's pre-suit timeline (an Oct. 30, 2025 demand for "complete sales information"; an alleged Nov. 3, 2025 refusal to "cooperate further"; filing Dec. 29, 2025) and the ~130-day life of the case are consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than litigation to judgment, and the dismissal is silent on whether a license was taken.

Sourcing caveats. Docket entries, judge, dates, and the termination are confirmed by PACER-derived docket aggregators (PacerMonitor case 62156722; Justia/Gaeflex dockets). Complaint allegations are sourced to the filed complaint (D.I. 1) and a published complaint analysis rather than to the complaint PDF itself, which I could not open directly. The PTAB/reexam posture (institution denial in IPR2024-00157; SNQs in 90/015,328) is sourced to PTAB filings and the petitioner's request for rehearing; I could not confirm the final outcome of the ex parte reexamination or any rehearing decision, and no IPR appears to have been filed against the '988 patent by inMusic. The relationship between "inMusic, LLC" and inMusic Brands, Inc., the identity of plaintiff's lead Delaware counsel, and the reason for dismissal (settlement vs. strategic withdrawal) are not confirmed by any source I found and are stated as open questions, not facts.

I'll research this case using web search across the suggested sources.

Let me dig into parallel PTAB proceedings, the reexamination, and the related litigation.

Bottom line

Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01566 (D. Del.), was a short-lived, pleadings-stage patent case that never produced a merits ruling. Semisilicon filed a one-patent complaint (U.S. 8,124,988) on 2025-12-29; inMusic never answered, obtaining two successive stipulations extending its response deadline; Semisilicon then filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2026-05-06, which Judge Gregory B. Williams so-ordered on 2026-05-07, terminating the case. There were no motions to dismiss, no transfer motion, no IPR stay motion, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no verdict, no fee motion, and no appeal.

The most legally significant development is not in this docket at all: the same day the Delaware case was dismissed (2026-05-07), Semisilicon refiled against inMusic and three affiliated entities (inMusic, Inc.; inMusic Brands, Inc.; ION Audio, LLC) in the S.D. Fla., and the underlying patent had already survived both an ex parte reexamination and a PTAB IPR that was denied institution.

---

1. Chronology of the Delaware docket

Sources: PACER Monitor docket page for 1:25-cv-01566 and the Docket Alarm/DocketUpdate mirror (gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com), both of which reproduce D.I. 1–12 verbatim; Justia dockets confirms the caption/patent.

Counsel (as docketed): Plaintiff — Alexandra M. Joyce and Daniel M. Silver, McCarter & English LLP. Defendant — Jeffrey L. Moyer, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA. (Note that Moyer is a Richards Layton attorney; the search results also show a "Daniel M. Silver" name adjacent to the defendant block on the aggregator page, which is almost certainly a formatting artifact of the aggregator — treat counsel attribution with mild caution and verify against PACER directly.)

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings

Complaint (D.I. 1, 2025-12-29). Single count of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,124,988, "Light emitting diode lamp package structure and assembly thereof" (issued 2012-02-28; filed 2008-05-28; inventor Jacky Peng; assignee Semisilicon Technology Corp.). The asserted technology is an integrated LED package in which multiple LEDs and a control IC are encapsulated in one package body with four conductors/pads (Vdd/power, data-in, data-out, Vss) — enabling individually addressable "smart" LED pixels in a daisy chain.

Semisilicon asserted at least independent claim 1 and pleaded §271(a), (b), and (c), plus willfulness premised on a 2025-05-15 notice letter and inMusic's subsequent conduct. Accused products were ION Audio-branded consumer electronics, principally the ION Audio Uber Boom Ultra portable Bluetooth speaker with beat-reactive multicolor LED lighting, plus dozens of other ION Audio models. The complaint attached teardown photos and oscilloscope captures of the accused LED driver. (See the secondary complaint analyses at ai-lab.exparte.com and ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net for 1:25-cv-01566, which map paragraph-by-paragraph to the claim chart.)

Answer / counterclaims: none. inMusic never filed an answer or counterclaim in Delaware. It appeared (D.I. 7, 2026-03-20) and twice obtained extensions of its response deadline (D.I. 8, 9). Because no answer was served, Semisilicon's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal was self-executing and, absent a statement otherwise, without prejudice.

Strategic read (inference, not record fact): two back-to-back 30-day extensions beginning right after defense counsel appeared are consistent with a defendant preparing a dispositive or venue motion — a common posture in Delaware LED cases is a §101/§112 motion or a motion to transfer/dismiss for improper venue. The docket does not disclose what inMusic was preparing; the stipulations are silent. I could not verify the content of any unfiled draft motion.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None in this case.

• Motion to dismiss / transfer: none filed. The venue allegation in the complaint was that inMusic, LLC is a Delaware corporation — a straightforward §1400(b) basis — so a transfer motion on TC Heartland grounds was unlikely to be a live battleground.
• Stay pending IPR: none filed, and none would have been needed on this record. The only IPR on the '988 patent, IPR2024-00157, had already been denied institution in 2024 (see §7), so there was no parallel PTAB trial to stay for.
• Summary judgment: none.
• The only contested-ish filings were the two stipulated extensions of the answer deadline (D.I. 8, 9).

---

4. Claim construction

The case never reached Markman. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction opinion. The Delaware case terminated roughly five months after filing and before the answer deadline had even run once.

The claim terms that would have mattered are identified in the secondary complaint analyses: "conductor" (the accused device uses flat surface-mount pads rather than the pin-like structures shown in several figures) and "control integrated circuit." Notably, that exact "pins vs. pads" issue is what defeated the IPR petitioner (see §7), so it is likely the same fault line the parties were positioning around in Delaware.

---

5. Discovery milestones

None of record. No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no initial disclosures, no discovery motions, and no protective-order or ESI disputes appear on the docket. The case was dismissed 128 days after filing, with the answer deadline having been extended twice.

The one quasi-discovery fact is pre-suit: the complaint alleged that inMusic supplied limited sales information on 2025-10-02, that Semisilicon requested complete sales data for all accused models on 2025-10-30, and that inMusic refused further cooperation on 2025-11-03 — which Semisilicon pleaded as a basis for willfulness. This is a complaint allegation only; it was never tested.

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no §285 fee motion, and no appeal. The case was terminated by voluntary dismissal on 2026-05-07, well before any of these stages. No settlement agreement was docketed, and none of the public aggregators report one — the dismissal notice (D.I. 10) is a one-line Rule 41 notice.

---

7. Final disposition

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice, effective 2026-05-06/2026-05-07, followed immediately by a refiling against an expanded defendant group in the Southern District of Florida:

• S.D. Fla. No. 1:26-cv-23238, Semisilicon Technology Corp. v. inMusic, LLC; inMusic, Inc.; inMusic Brands, Inc.; ION Audio, LLC — complaint filed 2026-05-07 (22 pages, Exs. A–E), asserting 35 U.S.C. §1126/§271 patent infringement. Counsel: Christopher Stephen Carver (Akerman LLP) and Tazio Ali Alpino Heller (Black Srebnick, P.A.).
• On 2026-05-08, the clerk administratively closed that case as "Wrong Venue selected by Filer" and renumbered it as No. 0:26-cv-61380 (Fort Lauderdale division), with no further entries on the original number.

So the present posture is: the Delaware action is closed; the operative dispute against inMusic has migrated to the S.D. Fla. (No. 0:26-cv-61380) on the same '988 patent. Why Florida was chosen is not stated in any source I found — the aggregator's "wrong venue selected by filer" note reflects an internal Fort Lauderdale-vs.-Miami divisional correction, not a merits venue holding. I could not confirm any Florida venue motion or whether the Florida action is still pending as of 2026-09-22.

---

8. Parallel PTAB and USPTO proceedings on U.S. 8,124,988

This is the most substantive part of the story and predates the Delaware case.

A. IPR2024-00157 — denied institution.

• Petitioner: Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.
• Petition filed 2023-11-08, challenging claims 1–17, 20, and 21 on seven grounds, using Lai (CN 201017882Y), Stoyan (US 2008/0087903), Morgan (US 2004/0240890), Allsop (US 2006/0012978), and Yan (US 7,473,933), supported by a declaration from Dr. E. Fred Schubert (RPI).
• 2024-05-20: Board denied institution (Paper 9). The panel (Boudreau, McShane, Reagan) held the Petition effectively conceded a structural difference between the pins disclosed in Lai and the pads recited in claim 1, and failed to show a POSITA would substitute pads for pins or be motivated to modify Lai. Because claims 2–15 depend from claim 1, the Lai-based grounds failed across the board.
• 2024-06-18: Petitioner's request for rehearing (Paper 11), arguing inter alia that the Board abused its discretion because the USPTO had already ordered an ex parte reexamination on the same Lai reference.
• 2024-09-16: Rehearing denied (Paper 12).

B. Ex parte reexamination 90/015,328 — patent confirmed.

• Reexamination ordered 2024-02-15 on eight Substantial New Questions of Patentability, the first being that claims 1–3, 5–12, and 23–24 are anticipated by Lai.
• A reexamination certificate issued 2024-12-13, confirming the patentability of the asserted claims. (Sourced from the secondary complaint analyses of the Delaware and Florida complaints; the certificate date is consistent across both, but I did not independently retrieve the certificate or the reexam file from USPTO Patent Center.)
• Effect on the litigation: by the time Semisilicon sued inMusic, the '988 patent had been twice tested and twice survived at the agency — IPR institution denied and reexam claims confirmed. That is a materially stronger posture than a typical assertion, and it also means there was no co-pending PTAB trial to supply a stay argument. The §315(e) estoppel question for the IPR petitioner (and any privies) may also have mattered in the parallel litigation.

C. Related Semisilicon IPRs (not on the '988 patent, but same petitioner). Xu Peicheng also petitioned against U.S. 8,884,546 ("Driving Apparatus for Light-Emitting Diode Curtain Lamp") — Semisilicon's Patent Owner Preliminary Response in that IPR attacks the petition for lack of particularity and for a conclusory Schubert declaration. This confirms a coordinated third-party validity campaign against Semisilicon's LED portfolio using the same expert; whether Xu Peicheng is affiliated with any Semisilicon litigation adversary (e.g., Jutai) is not established in the sources I reviewed — I would not assert a link.

---

9. Wider Semisilicon enforcement campaign (context for the Delaware→Florida move)

The inMusic suit is one thread of a broader 2025–2026 licensing/enforcement push:

1. N.D. Cal. No. 4:25-cv-02665 (filed 2025-03-19): Semisilicon v. Changzhou Jutai Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. (plus Linhai Caiyuan, Maanshan Haoluo Maoyi, Ningbo Yihai Yangtian Lighting, Taizhou Feixin Dengshi, and Amazon.com, Inc.), asserting the '935 and '117 patents against Amazon-sold LED holiday light strings. Counsel: Finnegan (Ming-Tao Yang, Jeffrey D. Smyth). Voluntarily dismissed after service problems.
2. N.D. Ill. No. 1:25-cv-07388 (refiling): Semisilicon v. Chanzhou Jutai Electronic Co. et al. Here the court ruled against Semisilicon on two fronts in a single opinion (D.I. 53): (a) the Amazon Defendants expressly assented to personal jurisdiction (so no dismissal as to them), while Jutai's Rule 12(b)(2) challenge succeeded — no minimum contacts, no sales in Illinois, only "existence of a website," and Rule 4(k)(2) unmet because Semisilicon failed to serve a summons; and (b) Semisilicon's preliminary injunction motion (filed 2025-10-21) was denied, the court finding no clear showing of likelihood of success (Amazon screenshots don't prove the claimed internal LED structures; the '117 "predetermined voltage" limitation was unaddressed), nearly ten months' delay undercutting irreparable harm, and a "boilerplate" declaration from Mr. Chi.
3. W.D. Wash. No. 2:26-cv-01297 (filed 2026-04-15): Aura Labs Inc. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp. — a defensive DJ action seeking a declaration that Aura's Smart TV Backlight does not infringe U.S. 8,884,546, plus tortious interference, after Semisilicon sent an Amazon takedown complaint on 2026-03-05. This shows the enforcement program generating counter-offensive DJ and business-tort litigation.

Combined with the Delaware→Florida refiling, the pattern is an aggressive, low-volume, forum-shopping-prone assertion strategy — consistent with the N.D. Ill. court's observation that Semisilicon dismissed its N.D. Cal. case after failing to effect service and "refiled in this district to forum shop."

---

10. What is not established (sourcing caveats)

• No public settlement agreement or license resolving the inMusic dispute is documented. The Delaware dismissal is a bare Rule 41 notice; there is no indication of payment, covenant not to sue, or license.
• The reason for dismissal and immediate Florida refiling is not stated in any filing I found. Adding inMusic, Inc., inMusic Brands, Inc., and ION Audio, LLC as defendants, and switching from Delaware (where inMusic, LLC's incorporation supplied venue) to Florida, is consistent with a venue/party-alignment recalculation — but that is my inference, not record fact.
• Counsel attributions come from docket aggregators (PACER Monitor, Docket Alarm mirror) rather than PACER directly; the defendant-side counsel field on one aggregator page appears garbled.
• The reexamination number (90/015,328), its 2024-02-15 order date, and the 2024-12-13 certificate date are drawn from the PTAB rehearing papers (for the reexam existence/order date) and from AI-generated complaint analyses (for the certificate date). The IPR facts are well-sourced from the Board's own decisions; the reexam certificate date should be confirmed against USPTO Patent Center / the '988 patent's reexamination certificate before being relied on.
• Trial-level facts: there simply are none in 1:25-cv-01566 — no substantive orders, opinions, or transcripts exist for this case.

---

Primary sources to cite: D.I. 1 (Compl.), D.I. 6 (waiver of service), D.I. 7–9 (appearance and two extensions), D.I. 10 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 2026-05-06), D.I. 11 (termination order, 2026-05-07), D.I. 12 (patent report). PTAB: IPR2024-00157, Paper 9 (Decision Denying Institution, 2024-05-20) and Paper 12 (Decision Denying Rehearing, 2024-09-16). Related: S.D. Fla. 1:26-cv-23238 → 0:26-cv-61380; N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-07388, D.I. 53; W.D. Wash. 2:26-cv-01297.

I'll research the counsel of record for Semisilicon Technology Corp. in this case.

Let me get more details on the docket and the specific counsel.

Let me dig into the complaint's signature block and the McCarter & English / Daniel Silver connection.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Semisilicon Technology Corp.

Important framing / sourcing caveat up front: This case was short-lived. The docket in D. Del. 1:25-cv-01566 is only twelve entries long, ending with the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 10) and the court's termination order (Dkt. 11, May 7, 2026). No answer, no IPR, no claim construction, and no pro hac vice motions were filed. I could not retrieve the complaint's signature block or any sealed materials; what follows is grounded in the docket entries and the party-attorney listings, which I flag where the record is ambiguous. The docket-service scrape (PacerMonitor/Docket Alarm) groups plaintiff and defendant counsel together under one "Represented By" heading, so I have separated them by docket-event attribution.

Plaintiff's counsel — McCarter & English, LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Basis for attributing Silver and Joyce to the plaintiff: The docket entries filed on behalf of Semisilicon carry Joyce's name (Dkt. 6 and Dkt. 10), which places her firmly on the plaintiff's side. Both Joyce and Daniel M. Silver are McCarter & English attorneys; the court's docket listing associates both with a represented party in this matter. I could not obtain the complaint's original signature block (Dkt. 1) to state with certainty which attorney signed first, so the "lead" designation for Silver is inferred from seniority, not from a docket order.

Experience note: Silver and Joyce are members of McCarter & English's intellectual property litigation group and have appeared together in Delaware patent matters (e.g., the NuVasive case cited above). I did not find a case-specific professional bio or a reported Semisilicon ruling crediting them by name, so treat the experience characterization as general, not case-specific.

Not plaintiff's counsel (for contrast)

• Jeffrey L. Moyer — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE. He appeared for the defendant, inMusic, LLC (Dkt. 7, Notice of Appearance, 3/20/2026) and signed the defense's extension stipulations (Dkts. 8, 9). He is defense counsel, not plaintiff's counsel.

Unconfirmed / not found

• No out-of-state "of counsel" or Finnegan attorneys are on this docket. Semisilicon's other LED-patent campaigns (N.D. Cal. No. 3:25-cv-02665 and N.D. Ill. No. 1:25-cv-07388) were filed and litigated by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Ming-Tao Yang; Jeffrey D. Smyth). Those attorneys do not appear on the D. Del. 1:25-cv-01566 docket, so I can't list them here as counsel of record in this case — only as context for the plaintiff's broader litigation team.
• In-house counsel: No in-house attorney for Semisilicon appears on the docket.
• Sealed filings: None apparent; the case closed on a voluntary dismissal before any sealing disputes arose.

Practical bottom line

For this case, the plaintiff Semisilicon Technology Corp. was represented of record by McCarter & English, LLP (Wilmington, Delaware) — Alexandra M. Joyce confirmed on the plaintiff-side filings (Dkt. 6, Dkt. 10), with Daniel M. Silver listed as a co-appearing attorney for the represented party. If you need the exact lead/counsel ordering, the definitive source is the signature block of the original complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 12/29/2025) on PACER/RECAP, which I could not retrieve here.

I'll research this docket and counsel. Let me run several searches.

Key docket lead found. Let me dig further on counsel and any related/refiled actions.

Let me check the parallel S.D. Fla. refiling for counsel and any Delaware pro hac vice activity.

Bottom line

The Delaware docket shows exactly one attorney of record for the defendant, and he was the only lawyer who ever appeared for inMusic, LLC before the case was voluntarily dismissed:

Supporting docket evidence (D. Del. 1:25-cv-01566, Judge Gregory B. Williams)

• D.I. 7 (Mar. 20, 2026) — "NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey L. Moyer on behalf of inMusic, LLC (Moyer, Jeffrey)." This is the only appearance entered by any attorney for the defendant. (PACER Monitor docket; docket mirror)
• D.I. 8 (Mar. 20, 2026) and D.I. 9 (Apr. 21, 2026) — stipulations to extend inMusic's deadline to move, answer or otherwise respond (to Apr. 22, 2026, then to May 6, 2026), both filed by Moyer on behalf of inMusic, LLC; both so-ordered (Mar. 23 and Apr. 22, 2026).
• D.I. 6 (Jan. 30, 2026) — waiver of service returned executed; inMusic's answer originally due Mar. 23, 2026.
• D.I. 10 (May 6, 2026) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by plaintiff's counsel (Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington); D.I. 11 (May 7, 2026) — SO ORDERED, civil case terminated; D.I. 12 — patent report to the Commissioner.

Important caveats on completeness:

• I found no pro hac vice motions and no second notice of appearance on the Delaware docket. The docket mirrors are marked "docket is incomplete," so I cannot fully exclude a sealed or late-filed appearance, but as of the last docket update (Aug. 27, 2026) only Moyer appears for inMusic.
• inMusic never filed an answer, motion, or Rule 7.1 disclosure in Delaware (the case died on plaintiff's voluntary dismissal), so there is no pleading signature block that might reveal additional counsel.
• No in-house counsel for inMusic is identified anywhere on the docket. If inMusic's legal department or its regular national patent counsel were advising behind the scenes, that is not reflected in any public filing — I won't name anyone I can't source.

Experience / background for the one attorney of record

Jeffrey L. Moyer's RLF biography underscores a patent- and IP-heavy D. Del. practice, including representations of semiconductor manufacturers in patent infringement and patent-portfolio-license disputes; he is listed in IAM Patent 1000 (since 2015) and repeatedly in Best Lawyers, Chambers USA, and Benchmark Litigation. Reported matters include Medtronic AVE, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir./3d Cir.) and Qualcomm Inc. v. Texas Instruments (Del. 2005), as well as patent and commercial litigation in Ciba Specialty Chemicals v. Hercules and Delaware Chancery/Superior matters like Crystallex Int'l v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. He is a Delaware-bar-only practitioner (D. Del., 3d Cir., U.S. Supreme Court). Source: RLF profile; Super Lawyers; Best Lawyers.

Context that bears on the counsel picture (useful, but not the answer)

• Plaintiff's Delaware counsel were Daniel M. Silver and Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP (Wilmington) — consistent with the ex parte party listing for this docket; Joyce filed the voluntary dismissal.
• The same patent ('988) was re-asserted the same day in S.D. Fla.: Semisilicon Tech. Corp. v. inMusic, LLC et al., No. 1:26-cv-23238 (S.D. Fla., filed May 7, 2026, administratively closed May 8, 2026 as "wrong venue" and renumbered 0:26-cv-61380). That Florida complaint names additional inMusic-family defendants (inMusic, Inc.; inMusic Brands, Inc.; ION Audio, LLC) and was signed by Christopher Stephen Carver (Akerman LLP) for the plaintiff. PACER Monitor's counsel field for that docket also shows Tazio Ali Alpino Heller (Black Srebnick, P.A., Miami) — which, given Carver is plaintiff-side, appears to be defense-side counsel for the inMusic entities in Florida. I flag this at medium confidence: the party-to-counsel pairing is not stated explicitly in the snippet I retrieved, and it is not an appearance in the Delaware case. (PACER Monitor, S.D. Fla.)
• Also relevant to the '988 patent family: Semisilicon has been the patent owner in PTAB proceedings on the same patent (e.g., Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Tech. v. Semisilicon, IPR2024-00157), where Semisilicon's PTAB counsel is Finnegan (Ming-Tao Yang, lead; Joshua L. Goldberg, Kai Rajan, backup). Those are plaintiff-side/patent-owner counsel, not defendant counsel, and no inMusic-side IPR on the '988 appears in what I retrieved.

Any statement about "lead counsel vs. local counsel" for inMusic should be read as de facto: Moyer was the only attorney of record, so he carried both the merits and the Delaware-local functions for the brief life of this case.