CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. — Entry #60: ORDER
Case: CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. txwd · 7:25-cv-00505
filed October 30, 2025
What this document is
Docket entry #60 · filed September 04, 2026
ORDER. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)
Who is involved
- CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
- STMicroelectronics, Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its former name “MARA Holdings, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…..........1 Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG, Dkt. No. 94…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 01, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 2,708 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 60 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
CHIP PACKAGING §
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG
v. §
§
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., §
§
Defendant, §
ORDER
On this day the Court considered the above-styled and numbered cause. The Court
previously stayed this action pending resolution of ex parte reexaminations in all five of the
asserted patents in this case. See Dkt. No. 59.
In light of the stay, and for administrative purposes only, the Clerk of Court is directed to
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.1 This administrative closure is not a dismissal or final
adjudication and does not affect the stayed status of this action.
All provisions of the Court’s prior stay order remain in full force and effect, including the
requirements that the parties file a joint notice updating the Court as to the status of
the ex parte reexaminations every ninety (90) days, within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of
any of the ex parte reexaminations, and a motion requesting a status conference within thirty (30)
days of a final disposition in the last ex parte reexamination.
It is so ORDERED.
1
See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2014) (“District courts
frequently make use of this device to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily
active elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is
pending). The effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay. . . .”).
Page 1 of 2
Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 60 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 2
SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2026.
__________________________________
DEREK T. GILLILAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2