Xockets, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation — Entry #248: ORDER GRANTING 242 Motion to Stay Case
Case: Xockets, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation txwd · 6:24-cv-00453
filed September 05, 2024
What this document is
Docket entry #248 · filed July 14, 2026
ORDER GRANTING 242 Motion to Stay Case. Signed by District Judge Leon Schydlower. (cap) (Entered: 07/14/2026)
Who is involved
- Microsoft Corporation
- NVIDIA Corporation
- RPX Corporation
- Xockets, Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Nebius: its name “Nebius” appears in a filing in this case.
…CoreWeave, Crusoe, IBM Cloud, Lambda and Nebius. Sovereign AI clouds will also provide…
- CoreWeave: its name “CoreWeave” appears in a filing in this case.
…program companies Applied Digital, CoreWeave, Crusoe, IBM Cloud, Lambda and Nebius…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved September 30, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
1 page(s), 2,188 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 6:24-cv-00453-LS Document 248 Filed 07/14/26 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
XOCKETS, INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. 6:24-CV-00453-LS
§
NVIDIA CORPORATION, §
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, RPX §
CORPORATION, §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND VACATING HEARING
Defendants move, unopposed, to stay this case during parallel litigation before the
International Trade Commission (“ITC”). The Court GRANTS the motion [ECF No. 242],
STAYS this case pending resolution of the claims before the ITC, and VACATES the hearing set
for July 31, 2026.1 The parties shall file a joint status report on the ITC litigation every ninety days
from entry of this order.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED and ENTERED on July 14, 2026.
______________________________
LEON SCHYDLOWER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) (“In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before
the [ITC] . . . , at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before
the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final,
proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the
proceeding before the Commission . . . .”).