Recorded US patent assignments recently made public include several transfers of former operating company patents worth watching, including a transfer of more than 20 US assets into the hands of a newly-formed Delaware entity tied by an experienced monetization team that has run several litigation campaigns with the backing of third-party litigation funding; a transfer from the same source to another Delaware entity of uncertain management but possible connection to a prolific foreign monetization operation; and a transfer between two active NPEs of a couple of wireless communications patents received by one of them from an operating company back in April 2021. Those USPTO records also contain the divestiture of more than two dozen memory patents from an operating company and its acquired subsidiary to a recipient with suggestive ties.

In August 2022, Daedalus Prime LLC, an entity associated with Daedalus Group LLC, launched its sole litigation campaign with a set of actions, one before the International Trade Commission (ITC) against MediaTek, NXP Semiconductors, certain automakers, and certain automaker suppliers; and three filed in the District of Delaware, one centered around each of MediaTek, NXP, and Qualcomm (but naming as defendants subsets of the proposed ITC respondents). Now, the plaintiff has sued MediaTek (2:24-cv-00235) alone, this time in the Eastern District of Texas. The asserted patents, described in the complaint as “relate[d] to groundbreaking improvements to microprocessor circuitry”, are broadly directed to various aspects of computer circuitry and semiconductor fabrication. The defendant is accused of infringement through the provision of devices containing microprocessors and systems-on-chip (SoCs), including certain Dimensity-series SoCs, that are based on the ARMv8.2 architecture and later.

A settlement between Daedalus Prime LLC and TSMC, noticed in mid-October in an action before the International Trade Commission (ITC), has ended the multiple district court cases between these two parties. Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap posted a heavily redacted order granting a joint motion to dismiss there, with a joint stipulation ending a Delaware declaratory judgment action that TSMC filed last December. TSMC’s departure from the campaign, following Samsung’s this past summer, leaves litigation to continue against Qualcomm, both before the ITC, where post-hearing briefing has gone in, and in district court, where a stay has stopped activity in favor of the ITC action.

As a noticed settlement with Samsung ripples through the campaign of Daedalus Prime LLC over former Intel patents, related litigation matters against Qualcomm and TSMC continues apace. Daedalus Prime has filed a second Eastern District of Texas complaint against TSMC (2:23-cv-00299), targeting the provision of integrated circuits and semiconductor devices that use TSMC’s 16nm and smaller technology nodes (e.g., 12nm, 10nm, 7nm, 6nm, 5nm, and 4nm), as well as products (e.g., smartphones, SoCs, and tablets) incorporating the accused TSMC devices, including those offered by Apple, Qualcomm, and Samsung. The -299 matter adds to the cases between Daedalus Prime and TSMC, including a declaratory judgment (DJ) action filed by TSMC in Delaware (1:22-cv-01647) and an investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC) (337-TA-1336). The latter has seen a flurry of June filings, as has a separate ITC action, now (in light of the recent grant of a motion to terminate Samsung from it) to continue only against Qualcomm (337-TA-1335).

Daedalus Prime LLC has accused TSMC of infringing four former Intel patents in complaints filed before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Eastern District of Texas. Litigation is active before the ITC, with TSMC pursuing a license defense based on what appears to be a springing license agreement between Intel and TSMC, termed the “LOT Agreement” in certain of the parties’ papers. TSMC filed a complaint of its own, this one seeking a declaratory judgment (DJ) from the District of Delaware that would sort out whether the former Intel patents asserted against it were moved to Daedalus Prime in April 2021 (before the date of the LOT Agreement) or June 2022 (after the LOT Agreement). Both Daedalus Prime and Intel have responded to TSMC’s complaint in Delaware, while ITC discovery concerning TSMC’s license defense heats up.

Late last year, TSMC (1:22-cv-01647) filed a declaratory judgment action against Daedalus Prime LLC in the District of Delaware. The suit came in partial response to the complaints that Daedalus Prime had filed against TSMC, together with Samsung, both in September 2022, one before the Eastern District of Texas (now stayed) and another before the International Trade Commission (ITC) (now in claim construction). TSMC’s Delaware complaint was filed under seal, a redacted version of which, together with a responsive motion to dismiss from Daedalus Prime, reveals at least some of the contours of the license defense that TSMC is mounting, including what appears to be the linchpin: whether the assignment of the patents that Daedalus Prime has asserted against TSMC was effective in April 2021, before the date of a key agreement between Intel and TSMC, or thereafter, in June 2022.

A couple of weeks after filing a flurry of complaints in both district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC), Daedalus Prime LLC has done it again, filing three district court complaints (2:22-cv-00352, 2:22-cv-00353, 2:22-cv-00354) and two ITC complaints (337-TA-3640, 337-TA-3641). Each names Samsung as a defendant/proposed respondent, with Qualcomm named as a proposed respondent in one of the ITC complaints and TSMC, in the other. TSMC is also a district court defendant, while Qualcomm is not, although Qualcomm products are mentioned throughout. The litigation centers around a portfolio that Daedalus Prime acquired from Intel in early June 2022.

Daedalus Prime LLC has filed a complaint before the International Trade Commission (ITC), naming as proposed respondents automakers Mazda and Mercedes-Benz; infotainment system provider Visteon; chipmakers MediaTek, NXP Semiconductors, and Qualcomm; and alleged NXP distribution partners Arrow Electronics, Avnet (Newark), Digi-Key Electronics, Future Electronics, Mouser Electronics, and Rochester Electronics (337-TA-3637). Six patents are asserted in the ITC complaint, as well as in a trio of parallel District of Delaware complaints that cover the same ground, one centered around each of MediaTek (1:22-cv-01108), NXP (1:22-cv-01107), and Qualcomm (1:22-cv-01109) (but naming as defendants subsets of the proposed ITC respondents as well). Daedalus Prime’s “clear statement in plain English” in the ITC complaint of the accused products reads: “semiconductors, printed circuit boards (‘PCBs’), automotive parts including infotainment systems and instrument clusters, and automobiles”.

Recent months have seen a number of patent divestments by operating companies made public, with a range of assignees including frequent filers, publicly traded patent assertion entities, third-party funded plaintiffs, and newly formed NPEs. Divestment size has also varied widely—from a single transacted patent to thousands.