Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. — Entry #68: ORDER
Case: Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. txwd · 7:24-cv-00231
filed September 20, 2024
What this document is
Docket entry #68 · filed August 27, 2026
ORDER. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (slt)
Who is involved
- Qualcomm Inc.
- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
- Redstone Logics LLC
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. et al v. Mara Holdings INC., No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. June…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 02, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
1 page(s), 2,245 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 68 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § NO. MO:24-CV-00231
§
QUALCOMM INC., ET AL., §
Defendants. §
ORDER
On this day the Court considered the above-styled and numbered cause. The Court
previously stayed this action pending the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (“the ‘339 patent”). See Doc. No. 67.
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 to
file a joint status report every six-months and within seven (7) day of the completion of the
reexamination of the ’339 Patent, and to move for entry of an amended scheduling order within
fourteen (14) days of the completion of the reexamination.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 27th day of August, 2026.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 stay (such as where a bankruptcy is pending). The effect of an administrative closure is no
different from a simple stay. . . .”)