Daedalus Prime, LLC v. Mazda Motor, Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 23 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 6 Jan 2023, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case stayed.
Case record
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01109
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Richard G. Andrews
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Aug 2022 – 6 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 136 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Stayed
- Products & marks
- Asymmetric performance multicore architecture with same instruction set architecture · Controlling operating voltage of a processor · Dynamically allocating a power budget over multiple domains of a processor · Enabling a non-core domain to control memory bandwidth in a processor · Power budgeting between a processing core, a graphics core, and a bus on an integrated circuit when a limit is reached · Providing common caching agent for core and integrated input/output (IO) module
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Controlling operating voltage of a processor
In an embodiment, a processor includes a core domain with a plurality of cores and a power controller having a first logic to receive a first request to increase an operating voltage of a first core of the core domain to a second voltage, to instruct a voltage regulator to increase the operating voltage to an interim voltage, and to thereafter instruct the voltage regulator to increase the operating voltage to the second voltage. Other embodiments are described and claimed.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Aug 2019
- Est. expiry
- 11 Mar 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WELLS, RYAN D. · FEIT, ITAI · RAJWAN, DORON · SHULMAN, NADAV · OFFEN, ZEEV · SODHI, INDER M.
- Classification
- G06F1/28G06F1/324G06F1/26G06F1/3206
- Prosecution counsel
- KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
- Examiner
- TRAN, VINCENT H
Asymmetric performance multicore architecture with same instruction set architecture
A method is described that entails operating enabled cores of a multi-core processor such that both cores support respective software routines with a same instruction set, a first core being higher performance and consuming more power than a second core under a same set of applied supply voltage and operating frequency.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 Aug 2018
- Est. expiry
- 22 Dec 2031
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2023-01333 · Patentability · filed by Mercedes-BenzIPR2023-00567 · Patentability · filed by Qualcomm, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GEORGE, VARGHESE · JAHAGIRDAR, SANJEEV S. · MARR, DEBORAH T.
- Classification
- G06F15/80G06F1/32G06F13/40
- Prosecution counsel
- Ascenda Law Group, PC
- Examiner
- COLEMAN, ERIC
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US9575895B2Providing common caching agent for core and integrated input/output (IO) module
- US8898494B2Power budgeting between a processing core, a graphics core, and a bus on an integrated circuit when a limit is reached
- US8775833B2Dynamically allocating a power budget over multiple domains of a processor
- US10705588B2Enabling a non-core domain to control memory bandwidth in a processor
Parties of record
Daedalus Prime, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F1/28G06F1/324G06F1/26G06F1/3206
- Counsel
- Brian E. Farnan · Michael J. Farnan
- Firm
- Farnan LLP
Mazda Motor, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Stephanie E. O
- Firm
- DLA Piper US LLP
- Also named
- Mercedes-Benz Group AG · Mazda North American Operations · Mercedes-Benz AG · Mazda Motor of America, Inc. · Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. · Visteon Corporation · Qualcomm, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian E. Farnan | Daedalus Prime, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael J. Farnan | Daedalus Prime, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Stephanie E. O | Mazda Motor, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was completely stayed on January 5, 2023, due to proceedings that are presently pending before the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) (D.I. 8; D.I. 10; D.I. 14; D.I. 18); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the proceedings before the “ITC” have been resolved so that this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.”
Case 1:22-cv-01109 · D. Del. · closed 6 January 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:22-cv-01109?
1:22-cv-01109 is a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime, LLC against Mazda Motor, Corp., filed on 23 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 6 January 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-01109?
US10394300B2 (“Controlling operating voltage of a processor”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, currently active; US10049080B2 (“Asymmetric performance multicore architecture with same instruction set architecture”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, currently active; US9575895B2 (“Providing common caching agent for core and integrated input/output (IO) module”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC; US8898494B2 (“Power budgeting between a processing core, a graphics core, and a bus on an integrated circuit when a limit is reached”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC; US8775833B2 (“Dynamically allocating a power budget over multiple domains of a processor”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC; US10705588B2 (“Enabling a non-core domain to control memory bandwidth in a processor”), assigned to DAEDALUS PRIME LLC. The record also lists Asymmetric performance multicore architecture with same instruction set architecture, Controlling operating voltage of a processor, Dynamically allocating a power budget over multiple domains of a processor, Enabling a non-core domain to control memory bandwidth in a processor, Power budgeting between a processing core, a graphics core, and a bus on an integrated circuit when a limit is reached and Providing common caching agent for core and integrated input/output (IO) module.
How was case 1:22-cv-01109 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case stayed. The termination text reads: “WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was completely stayed on January 5, 2023, due to proceedings that are presently pending before the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) (D.I. 8; D.I. 10; D.I. 14; D.I. 18); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the proceedings before the “ITC” have been resolved so that this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.”
How long did case 1:22-cv-01109 take?
136 calendar days, from filing on 23 Aug 2022 to closure on 6 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01109?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Daedalus Prime. Stephanie E. O appears for defendant Mazda Motor.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01109 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.