{"cached_at":"2026-11-02T10:56:01.967707+00:00","cl_docket_id":"69183589","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","id":69183589,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txwd/","court_id":"txwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8533/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2024-09-20T16:17:02.210876-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T15:06:44.845694-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Alan D Albright","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:50:45.112449-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-09-20","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-08-27","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc","docket_number":"7:24-cv-00231","docket_number_core":"2400231","docket_number_raw":"7:24-cv-00231","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"7","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"ADA","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1172805520","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-09-20T16:17:02.203208-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14903145/","id":14903145,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012108/","attorney_id":10012108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012108/","attorney_id":10012108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012109/","attorney_id":10012109,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012110/","attorney_id":10012110,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012111/","attorney_id":10012111,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-26T08:06:43.079178-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-26T08:06:43.079188-08:00","name":"Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14903144/","id":14903144,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012108/","attorney_id":10012108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012108/","attorney_id":10012108,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012109/","attorney_id":10012109,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012110/","attorney_id":10012110,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012111/","attorney_id":10012111,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-26T08:06:42.663447-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-26T08:06:42.663458-08:00","name":"Qualcomm Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14903143/","id":14903143,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012103/","attorney_id":10012103,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012103/","attorney_id":10012103,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012104/","attorney_id":10012104,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012105/","attorney_id":10012105,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012106/","attorney_id":10012106,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10012107/","attorney_id":10012107,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","docket_id":69183589,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-12-26T08:06:40.966635-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-26T08:06:40.966647-08:00","name":"Redstone Logics LLC","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476085756/","id":476085756,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491637953/","id":491637953,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/68/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-27T14:53:51.436664-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T15:20:09.123299-07:00","sha1":"05bf973f96a88844a371f7ad9cca2cab48524b8a","page_count":1,"file_size":146904,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.68.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.68.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 68 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC, \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 NO. MO:24-CV-00231\n \u00a7\nQUALCOMM INC., ET AL., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n On this day the Court considered the above-styled and numbered cause. The Court\npreviously stayed this action pending the United States Patent and Trademark Office\u2019s\nreexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (\u201cthe \u2018339 patent\u201d). See Doc. No. 67.\n In light of the stay, and for administrative purposes only, the Clerk of Court is directed to\nADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.1 This administrative closure is not a dismissal or\nfinal adjudication and does not affect the stayed status of this action.\n All provisions of the Court\u2019s prior stay order remain in full force and effect, including to\nfile a joint status report every six-months and within seven (7) day of the completion of the\nreexamination of the \u2019339 Patent, and to move for entry of an amended scheduling order within\nfourteen (14) days of the completion of the reexamination.\n It is so ORDERED.\n\n\n\n SIGNED this 27th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n1\n See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2014) (\u201cDistrict courts frequently make use of\nthis device to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily active elsewhere (such as before an\narbitration panel) or stay (such as where a bankruptcy is pending). The effect of an administrative closure is no\ndifferent from a simple stay. . . .\u201d)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T14:53:51.764442-07:00","document_number":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037288918","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T14:53:51.388596-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T15:06:45.210430-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"16:52:42","entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":218,"description":"ORDER. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (slt)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467684267/","id":467684267,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482952524/","id":482952524,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/67/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-16T09:38:38.369495-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T04:43:05.350725-07:00","sha1":"6a9636c048552d6781ee9de4bb3c3890313d01f6","page_count":2,"file_size":161133,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.67.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.67.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 67 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC, \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 7:24-CV-00231-ADA\n \u00a7\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM \u00a7\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Having considered Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay (Dkt. 62, 64), Plaintiff\u2019s Response (Dkt.\n\n65), and the applicable facts and law, the Court is of the opinion that it should be GRANTED.\n\n \u201c[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to\n\ncontrol the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for\n\ncounsel, and for litigants.\u201d Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In patent cases,\n\ncourts commonly consider three familiar factors in deciding whether to order a stay: \u201c(1) whether\n\na stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2)\n\nwhether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether\n\ndiscovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.\u201d Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon,\n\nInc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005).\n\n Here, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (\u201cPTO\u201d) is reexamining all asserted\n\nclaims of the only asserted patent (\u201cthe \u2019339 patent\u201d). Dkt. 62 at 1. The Court does not find any\n\nundue prejudice or clear tactical disadvantage to Plaintiff. If any asserted claim survives\n\nreexamination, Plaintiff can still seek damages. Additionally, the stage of the case favors a stay.\n\nDiscovery is still ongoing, and there is no trial date currently scheduled.\n\n Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay (Dkt. 62, 64).\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 67 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nSIGNED this 16th day of June, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-16T09:38:38.722116-07:00","document_number":"67","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036770871","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay AND Order on Motion to Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-16T09:38:38.322959-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-16T10:05:45.529073-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-16","time_filed":"11:20:56","entry_number":67,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":215,"description":"ORDER GRANTING [62] Motion to Stay Case; GRANTING [64] Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ktm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467252255/","id":467252255,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482511339/","id":482511339,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-06-12T09:05:11.385461-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T09:05:11.394016-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T09:05:11.366723-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T09:05:11.366740-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":"10:42:00","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467247838/","id":467247838,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482506878/","id":482506878,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/66/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-12T08:43:02.091241-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T08:43:02.182521-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T08:43:01.945357-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T08:43:01.966616-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Sealed Declaration of Joshua Scheufler in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay filed by Redstone Logics LLC pursuant to W.D. Texas SDS procedures. (slt)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467183845/","id":467183845,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482441466/","id":482441466,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/65/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T16:50:21.571631-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T03:34:05.687871-07:00","sha1":"ee122236b963f63f9e1830de3702a02d497a6204","page_count":13,"file_size":275016,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO STAY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1\nII. Legal Standard ........................................................................................................................ 1\nIII. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2\n A. Redstone Will Be Prejudiced By A Stay ............................................................................ 2\n B. There Is No Simplification To Be Had By A Stay ............................................................. 4\n C. Two Years Of Litigation Do Not Favor a Stay ................................................................... 6\nIV. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 7\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases\nApple Inc. v. Redstone Logics LLC,\n IPR2025-01532, Paper 10 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2026)....................................................................... 5\n\nCybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,\n 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 3\n\nEastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,\n 114 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 3\n\nEchoStar Techs. Corp. v. TiVo, Inc.,\n No. 5:05-CV-81, 2006 WL 2501494 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2006). ............................................... 1\n\nEON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA Inc.,\n No. 6:09-CV-116, 2009 WL 9506927 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2009) ............................................. 2\n\nE-Watch, Inc. v. Lorex Canada, Inc.,\n No. H-12-3314, 2013 WL 55425298, (S.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2013)) ............................................ 1\n\nImpinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc.,\n No. 6:21-CV-00530-ADA, 2023 WL 7476358 (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023) .......................... 4, 7\n\nKirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. IKO Indus. Inc.,\n No. 6:20-CV-00317- ADA, 2021 WL 455610 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021) .................................. 1\n\nMalikie Innovations LTD. et al v. Mara Holdings INC.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2026) ............................................................ 1\n\nMediaTek, Inc. et al v Redstone Logics LLC,\n IPR2025-00085, Paper 7 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2025) ........................................................................ 5\n\nMiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Tissue Transplant Tech. Ltd.,\n 2015 WL 11573771 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2015) ........................................................................... 3\n\nNXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics LLC,\n IPR2025-00485, Paper 1 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2025)......................................................................... 2\n\nNXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics LLC,\n IPR2025-00485, Paper 11 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2025) ....................................................................... 2\n\nRealtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc.,\n No. 6:16-CV-00961-RWS-JDl, 2017 WL 772654 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017) ........................... 1\n\nRedstone Logics LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00182, Dkt 40 (W.D. Tex. May 8, 2026) ............................................................... 5\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\nRedstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek Inc. et al,\n No. 7:24-cv-00029 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2024) ........................................................................... 3\n\nRedstone Logics LLC v. Samsung Electronics Col, Ltd et al,\n No. 2:23-cv-00485 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023) ............................................................................ 3\n\nTC Tech. LLC v. T-Mobile USA,\n No. 6-20-CV-00899- ADA, 2021 WL 8083373 (W.D. Tex. 2021) ........................................... 3\n\nVideoshare, LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc.,\n No. 6-21-CV-00254-ADA, 2022 WL 3142622 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2022) ............................... 6\n\nWalker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc.,\n No. CV 11-318-LPS, 2014 WL 2880474 (D. Del. June 24, 2014) ............................................. 3\n\nWorldwide Oilfield Mach., Inc. v. Ameriforge Grp., Inc.,\n No. H-13-3123, 2015 WL 12780757 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2015) ................................................. 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n After just shy of two years of litigation, with trial in sight, and after sitting on the underlying\n\nEPR decision for four months, Defendants now ask the Court for a stay. It is too late. Although,\n\nbased on Defendants delays and conflicts, no trial has been set in this case, it is entirely certain\n\nthat the average and median time to completion of EPRs places the conclusion of this EPR well\n\nafter trial in this case. If that were not enough, a stay will offer no simplification here, any claim\n\nlikely to be canceled will be narrowed out and unlike an IPR no estoppel can attach meaning the\n\nCourt will have to consider the exact issues raised in the EPR regardless. The only result will be\n\ncostly delay, a cost born only by Plaintiff. As such, a stay is not justified here and Defendants\n\nmotion should be denied.\n\nII. LEGAL STANDARD1\n\n Patent infringement suits are not automatically stayed pending the resolution of parallel\n\nUSPTO proceedings. See Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. IKO Indus. Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00317-\n\nADA, 2021 WL 455610, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021) (quoting Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace\n\nUS, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-00961-RWS-JDl, 2017 WL 772654, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017)).\n\nRather, courts must first determine if the stay\u2019s benefits outweigh its inherent costs. Id. (quoting\n\nEchoStar Techs. Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., No. 5:05-CV-81, 2006 WL 2501494, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July\n\n14, 2006). To do so, courts generally weigh (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or tactically\n\ndisadvantage the non-movant; (2) the stage of the proceedings; and (3) whether a stay would\n\nsimplify the issues in this case. See id.; see also Worldwide Oilfield Mach., Inc. v. Ameriforge\n\nGrp., Inc., No. H-13-3123, 2015 WL 12780757, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2015) (citing E-Watch,\n\nInc. v. Lorex Canada, Inc., No. H-12-3314, 2013 WL 55425298, (S.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2013)).\n\n\n1\n See Malikie Innovations LTD. et al v. Mara Holdings INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. June 1,\n2026).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\nIII. ARGUMENT\n\n A. Redstone Will Be Prejudiced By A Stay\n\n Defendants ignore the law and the circumstances in an attempt to get not a second, but a\n\nthird bite at the proverbial apple. A stay will permit Defendants a full three attacks at the validity\n\nof Plaintiff\u2019s patent on largely the same grounds. Moreover, a stay will materially damage\n\nRedstone, harming its licensing position, while the only \u201cprejudice\u201d Defendants can allege is\n\nsimply continuing its litigation.\n\n First, while Defendants attempt to hide this issue in a footnote, it is indisputable that a stay\n\nwould grant Defendants a full three attempts at the same invalidity argument. First, Defendants\n\nassert invalidity in this case, including based on White. Ex. 1 at 10. Second, Defendants sought to\n\nhave an IPR instituted raising White as its primary reference. See NXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP\n\nSemiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics LLC, IPR2025-00485, Paper 1 (PTAB Jan. 22,\n\n2025). This IPR was defeated on discretionary grounds. See NXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP\n\nSemiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics LLC, IPR2025-00485, Paper 11 (PTAB Jul.\n\n10, 2025). Third, though brought by a different defendant, the EPR at the heart of Defendants\n\nmotion likewise raises White and other references Defendants also raises in its contentions.\n\nCompare Motion Ex. 4 with Ex. 1. A stay will permit Defendants to learn not only from its failed\n\nIPR (which although it was denied on discretionary grounds, Redstone still had to file its patent\n\nowner preliminary response addressing the merits), but to also learn from Plaintiff\u2019s EPR\n\narguments and modify their invalidity arguments in this case based on those arguments.\n\nEffectively, Defendants will have three attempts to invalidate Redstone\u2019s patent when justice\n\ngrants them but one. This is real prejudice to Redstone. See EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus\n\nUSA Inc., No. 6:09-CV-116, 2009 WL 9506927, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2009).\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Second, contrary to Defendants arguments, Redstone is still prejudiced by a stay even if\n\nonly seeking monetary damages. As this Court has previously held, a patent owner that seeks solely\n\nmonetary relief still has an interest in enforcing its patent right. TC Tech. LLC v. T-Mobile USA,\n\nNo. 6-20-CV-00899- ADA, 2021 WL 8083373, at *2 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (citing MiMedx Grp., Inc.\n\nv. Tissue Transplant Tech. Ltd., 2015 WL 11573771, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2015)). As\n\nrecognized by now Federal Circuit Judge Stark, the longer Defendants are allowed to fragrantly\n\ninfringe the patent-in-suit, the lower the value of the patent-in-suit. Walker Digital, LLC v. Google,\n\nInc., No. CV 11-318-LPS, 2014 WL 2880474, at *1 (D. Del. June 24, 2014). Other infringers\n\nseeing Apple practice without payment will be less inclined to take a license and that damage\n\ncannot be cured by a monetary award when such an award is limited to a reasonable royalty.\n\n Moreover, Redstone has not delayed its case. While Qualcomm identifies its infringement\n\ndating back to 2015, Redstone only came to possess the \u2019339 in late 2022. Ex. 2. Shortly thereafter,\n\nRedstone began enforcing its rights. See Redstone Logics LLC v. Samsung Electronics Col, Ltd et\n\nal, Case No. 2:23-cv-00485 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023); Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek Inc. et\n\nal, Case No. 7:24-cv-00029 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2024); Redstone Logics LLC v. NXP\n\nSemiconductors NV et al, Case No. 7:24-cv-00028 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2024); Redstone Logics\n\nLLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 20, 2024). Redstone should\n\nnot be faulted for not having brought suit against Defendants sooner, 2 unlike Defendants,\n\nRedstone\u2019s resources are limited and it cannot support unlimited litigation and must instead\n\n\n\n\n2\n While Defendants attempt to blame Redstone for the prior patent owner not having brought suit, it has no support\nfor such a contention. Indeed, the case Defendants cite addresses laches and specifically explained that laches had\nalready rendered the patent unenforceable before the assignment and \u201c[a] patentee cannot avoid the consequences of\nhis laches by transferring the patent.\u201d Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1559\n(Fed. Cir. 1997), abrogated by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Unlike the\nunenforceability associated with laches that had attached to the patent prior to transfer, in this case when Redstone\nacquired the patent the EPR in question had not even been filed and no case against Defendants had been brought.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\napproach litigation piecemeal. As such, while Redstone\u2019s limited resources have delayed its case\n\nagainst Defendants, that is no basis to contend further delay will not prejudice Redstone.\n\n By contrast, Defendants are not entitled to claim prejudice. A prejudice here is an injury or\n\nharm not merely failing to gain a boon to which Defendants never had a claim. Defendants\u2019 claim\n\nof prejudice is having to litigate this action. That is not prejudice, that is standard litigation.\n\n Because Redstone\u2019s prejudice here will be serious and indefinite and Defendants have no\n\nclaim to prejudice if a stay is not granted, this factor weighs against a stay.\n\n B. There Is No Simplification To Be Had By A Stay\n\n \u201c[W]hether a stay would likely result in a simplification of issues before the court\u201d is the\n\nmost important factor (Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00530-ADA, 2023 WL\n\n7476358, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023)) but Defendants argument on this factor misrepresents\n\nhow this case will proceed. First, unlike with an IPR, there will be no estoppel here narrowing the\n\ninvalidity case. The only possible simplification is to Redstone\u2019s infringement case, but this\n\nsimplification will occur regardless of the stay and thus there is no simplification to be gained by\n\nstaying this action. Second, the history of the \u2019339 Patent demonstrates it is particularly unlikely\n\nany claim will be canceled. And last, any conclusion of the EPR will arrive well after trail and thus\n\nnot arrive in time to simplify any issues for trial.\n\n It is a simple fact that the parties are not going to litigate every single claim of the \u2019339\n\nPatent and Redstone will be well positioned to avoid claims likely to be changed or canceled.\n\nIndeed, the parties have already agreed to narrow the number of asserted claims in this action with\n\na deadline to meet and confer in September. Dkt. 59. Redstone\u2019s choice in narrowing its claims\n\nwill be informed by the progression of the ex parte reexamination. The examiner will enter office\n\nactions informing Redstone and the public of its position as to what claims are or are not valid.\n\nRedstone will aim to avoid claims it might need to change or that will be canceled. In the meantime,\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\nthere is nearly no difference in the effort the parties and the Court will expend in addressing\n\nRedstone\u2019s patent claims. The effort required to litigation even one patent claim is largely\n\nequivalent to that of litigating multiple claims from that same patent. The claims, by their nature,\n\nhave a similar scope and common subject matter.\n\n While Defendants contend this means \u201cthe target is moving\u201d and a stay is \u201cthe most\n\nappropriate and efficient solution,\u201d it offers no explanation why. The target is not \u201cmoving,\u201d the\n\nexaminer is not going to decide some claims are valid in the first office action but then in the\n\nsecond action are invalid. Nor has Qualcomm identified any additional effort that the Court or\n\nparties will expend by following this path. As such it is unclear why a hugely disruptive stay, at\n\nthe close of fact discovery, would be more efficient.\n\n Only if all of the claims of the \u2019339 Patent are canceled will Redstone not be able to simply\n\nassert only the claims expected to be confirmed. Historically, that has only occurred in about 15%\n\nof EPRs. Motion Ex. 3 at 2. But here, the EPR is particularly weak and unlikely to result in any\n\ncancelation or changing of any claim. 3\n\n Indeed, Redstone has already defeated three prior patent office challenges to its \u2019339\n\nPatent, including one from Apple. See MediaTek, Inc. et al v Redstone Logics LLC, IPR2025-\n\n00085, Paper 7 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2025); NXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. et al.\n\nv. Redstone Logics LLC, IPR2025-00485, Paper 11 (PTAB Jul. 10, 2025); Apple Inc. v. Redstone\n\nLogics LLC, IPR2025-01532, Paper 10 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2026). More strikingly, the EPR cites only\n\na single reference not included in these failed IPRs. See Motion Ex. 4. While two of these IPRs\n\nwere denied on discretionary factors, those factors include weakness of the petition. The Patent\n\n\n\n\n3\n Indeed, the original party to file the EPR recognized this and took a license settling Redstone\u2019s action against\nAMD. Redstone Logics LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 7:25-cv-00182, Dkt 40 (W.D. Tex. May 8, 2026).\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\nOffice has thus spoken, the grounds underlying the EPR are weak and unlikely to result in\n\ncancellation of any, much less all claims.\n\n Last, under the current schedule, trial can be expected between 6 months and a year before\n\nthe EPR concludes. The median pendency for an EPR places the certificate issuing in August of\n\n2027 with the average pendency placing it at January 2028. See Motion Ex. 3 at 2. This case will\n\nbe ready for trial in December of 2026, see Dkt. 59, and while trial is not currently set a delay of\n\nmore than 6 months is not reasonable. When \u201cthe USPTO will not complete the reexamination\n\nuntil after trial has occurred, [] the reexamination decision will not arrive in time to simplify any\n\nissues for trial.\u201d Videoshare, LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 6-21-CV-00254-ADA, 2022 WL\n\n3142622, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2022).\n\n Because any simplification is unlikely, untimely, and will be achieved regardless of a stay,\n\nthis factor weighs strongly against staying this case.\n\n C. Two Years Of Litigation Do Not Favor a Stay\n\n This case was not just filed, the parties have argued multiple motions to dismiss, claim\n\nconstruction, and discovery disputes. The parties are exchanged discovery with deposition\n\nscheduled and expert discovery just around the corner. While trial is not set, the case will be\n\nprepared for trial by December. That is a significant investment that the Court should not simply\n\ndiscard.\n\n Moreover, Defendants has been lackadaisical not diligent in this matter. If Defendants were\n\ngoing to seek a stay in this case, it should have done so in March, when the EPR was granted.\n\nMotion Ex. 1. Instead, Defendants delayed four months. Four months in which the parties litigated\n\nthis case, engaged in discovery, and ran up legal bills. For Defendants to now claim a stay \u201cwould\n\navoid the most burdensome and expensive phases of patent litigation\u201d rings entirely hollow.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Defendants\u2019 counter arguments misconstrue this factor and flip it on its head. Defendants\n\nare correct there is still significant work to be done on this case, but this factor is backwards\n\nlooking; \u201cthe question is whether the court has expended significant resources already, not whether\n\nthe most burdensome part of the case has occurred, which will inevitably result in further\n\nexpenditures.\u201d Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00530-ADA, 2023 WL 7476358, at\n\n*3 (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023) (internal citations omitted). The parties have accomplished much in\n\nthis action, this weighs against a stay.\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n\n In light of Defendants\u2019 many months of delay, placing its request for a stay nearly 2 years\n\ninto this case and that a stay will grant no greater simplification than simple rational litigation on\n\nthe part of Redstone will, Defendants\u2019 motion to stay should be denied for the same reasons as\n\nApple\u2019s motion.\n\n\n\n\n Dated: June 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Joshua Scheufler\n Reza Mirzaie\n CA State Bar No. 246953\n Marc A. Fenster\n CA State Bar No. 181067\n Neil A. Rubin\n CA State Bar No. 250761\n Christian W. Conkle\n CA State Bar No. 306374\n Jonathan Ma\n CA State Bar No. 312773\n Joshua Scheufler\n TX State Bar No. 24123406\n RUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor\n Los Angeles, CA 90025\n Telephone: 310-826-7474\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com\n Email: mfenster@raklaw.com\n Email: nrubin@raklaw.com\n Email: cconkle@raklaw.com\n Email: jma@raklaw.com\n Email : jscheufler@raklaw.com\n\n Qi (Peter) Tong\n TX Bar No. 24119042\n RUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n 8080 N. Central Expy., Suite 1503\n Dallas, TX 75206\n Telephone: 310-826-7474\n Email: ptong@raklaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65 Filed 06/11/26 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that on June 11, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was\n\nelectronically filed with the Court and served on all parties of record via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF\n\nsystem.\n\n /s/ Joshua Scheufler\n Joshua Scheufler\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-11T16:50:21.955847-07:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036749219","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482441467/","id":482441467,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/65/1/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T16:50:22.963025-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T04:17:35.831831-07:00","sha1":"699826fe3d14ffcb3c65cc08fbe01449d21f2cdc","page_count":2,"file_size":165636,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF JOSHUA SCHEUFLER IN SUPPORT OF\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION TO STAY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-1 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n I, Joshua, declare and state as follows:\n\n 1. I am a member of the State Bar of Texas and am an associate at Russ August &\n\nKabat, counsel of record for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC in the above-captioned action. I submit\n\nthis declaration in support of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition to Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay. I have personal\n\nknowledge of the facts set forth herein, and if called upon to testify, could and would testify\n\ncompetently thereto.\n\n 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from\n\nDefendants\u2019 Invalidity Contentions, dated August 4, 2025.\n\n 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy the Patent Assignment\n\nrecorded at REEL:064575 FRAME: 0934-37.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct.\n\n Executed on June 11, 2026 at Houston, Texas.\n\n /s/ Joshua Scheufler\n Joshua Scheufler\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-11T16:50:29.369838-07:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036749220","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit of Joshua Scheufler","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482441468/","id":482441468,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/65/2/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T16:50:22.977386-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T03:34:05.176406-07:00","sha1":"be022991104fece465f40c4cce42791a85521b75","page_count":1,"file_size":64003,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-2 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1\n FILED UNDER SEAL\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-11T16:50:35.077684-07:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181036749221","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482441469/","id":482441469,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/65/3/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T16:50:22.990646-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T03:34:05.554965-07:00","sha1":"1c30cda8a6f63768dff05b51b9694397db6084eb","page_count":5,"file_size":246546,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.65.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-3 Filed 06/11/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2\n\f 508064222 08/14/2023\n Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-3 Filed 06/11/26 Page 2 of 5\n PATENT ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET\n\nElectronic Version v1.1 EPAS ID: PAT8111376\nStylesheet Version v1.2\nSUBMISSION TYPE: NEW ASSIGNMENT\nNATURE OF CONVEYANCE: ASSIGNMENT\n\n CONVEYING PARTY DATA\n Name Execution Date\n EMPIRE TECHNOLGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 12/12/2022\n\n\n RECEIVING PARTY DATA\n Name: REDSTONE LOGICS, LLC\n Street Address: 2150 S. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY\n Internal Address: SUITE 200\n City: MCKINNEY\n State/Country: TEXAS\n Postal Code: 75070\n\n\n PROPERTY NUMBERS Total: 2\n Property Type Number\n Patent Number: 8615633\n Patent Number: 8549339\n\n\n CORRESPONDENCE DATA\n Fax Number: (631)844-0081\n Correspondence will be sent to the e-mail address first; if that is unsuccessful, it will be sent\n using a fax number, if provided; if that is unsuccessful, it will be sent via US Mail.\n Phone: 6318440080\n Email: John@tb-iplaw.com\n Correspondent Name: JOHN TUTUNJIAN\n Address Line 1: 401 BROADHOLLOW ROAD\n Address Line 2: SUITE 402\n Address Line 4: MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11747\nATTORNEY DOCKET NUMBER: 569-0\nNAME OF SUBMITTER: JOHN TUTUNJIAN\nSIGNATURE: tutunjian/\nDATE SIGNED: 08/14/2023\nTotal Attachments: 3\nsource=Empire to Redstone Assignment#page1.tif\nsource=Empire to Redstone Assignment#pagec.tif\nsource=Empire to Redstone Assignment#page3.tif\n PATENT\n 508064222 REEL: 064575 FRAME: 0934\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-3 Filed 06/11/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n PATENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n CONFIRMATORY ASSIGNMENT DOCUMENT\n\n Empire Technology Development, LLC, a Delaware corporation having a place of business at\n 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808 (\u201cAssignor\u201d), hereby irrevocably\n confirms the assignment to Redstone Logics, LLC, a Texas limited liability company located\n at 2150 S. Central Expressway, Suite 200, McKinney, TX 75070 (\u201cAssignee\u201d), as of the date\n set forth below, the entire rights, privileges, title and interest for the United States of America\n and its territomal possessions, and all foreign countries including all rights of priority, in\n inventions disclosed in the patents and patent applications identified on EXHIBIT A, together\n with future applications for patents under U.S. law or regulation or of any foreign country with\n respect to the patentable inventions from which any of the foregoing arise, including without\n limitation, divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, substitutions, reexaminations,\n reissues, extensions or foreign counterparts therefrom the (collectively, \u201cPurchased Patents\u201d),\n and all causes of action, rights, and remedies arising under any such Purchased Patents prior\n ta, on or after the Effective Date of this Agreement and all claims for damages by reason of\n past, present or future infringement or other unauthorized use of such Purchased Patents with\n the right to sue for and collect such damages.\n\n Assignor also hereby authorizes the respective patent office or governmental agency in each\n jurisdiction to issue any and all patents or certificates of invention which may be granted upon\n any of the Purchased Patents in the name of Assignee, as the assignee to the entire interest\n therein.\n\n IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor has caused its duly authorized representatives ta execute\n this Assignment.\n\n ASSIGNOR, Empire Technology Development, LLC.\n\n By: Thomas Hang\n ow\u00bb\n\n\n Printed Name: Thomas Kang\n\n Title: CEO\n\n Execution Date:__ 12/12/2022\n\n\n\n\n Dated: 12/12/2022 By: Ben Lours, bdiapenUbe\n Notary Public\n Name: Ana Laura Salazar Uribe\n Address: 110 Coliseum Crossing\n Hampton VA 23666\n Official Seal:\n\n Please see attachod\n All Purpose\n Acknowledgement fonn\n for: sdditionst\n SUBJECT TO NDA Notary Events 12\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2014\n\n\n\n\n TED\n -OH40-7B0F\nCocument 1a: 99F76330-7A7D- EUB4ESES. PATE N T\nOniineNatary.net\n REEL: 064575 FRAME:\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-3 Filed 06/11/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT\n\n A notary public\n or other officer completing\n this certificate verifies the only identity\n of the individual who signed\n the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or of that validity\n document.\n\n\n STATE OF Texas }\n\n COUNTY OF Harris )\n\n\n\n\n On 12/12/2022 before me, _Ana Laura Salazar Uribe , on this day\n Date (Notary Public}\n personally appeared by means of an interactive two-way audio and video communication\n Thomas Kang\n\n\n who has ,\n\n\n\n\n provided satisfactory evidence of identity in accordance with Chapter\n 406, Texas Government\n Code to be the person whose name is subscribed to the instrument and foregoing acknowledged\n to me that they\n executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. This\n notarial act was an online notarization.\n\n\n\n\n WITNESS my hand and official seal.\n\n\n\n ae rey, ANA LAURA SALAZAR URIBE\n AP\n am ba\n ececrRome NOTARY\n STATR OF\n PUBLIC\n\n NOTARY: 134287023.\n Pegs EXE.\n CONASIOM OCT 11, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n Signature: (Seal)\n\n OPTIONAL\n\n Description of Attached Document\n Redstone2022-12-09-EmpirePatentPurchaseAgreemant-ExhibitC pdf\n 3\n Title or Type of Document: Number of Pages:\n\n Document Date: 12/12/2022 Other:\n\n\n\n\nBosumant kt: 74130-7A70-11E0-0F4D-7BOFEOBIEREC\nOnlinaNotary-net YUE AL PATENT\n REEL: 064575 FRAME: 0936\n Page 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 65-3 Filed 06/11/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n PATENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n PURCHASED PATENTS\n\n\n U.S, Patent. No. 8,615,633\n\n U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339\n\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIAL ~\n SUBJECT TO NDA\n\n\n\n\n PATENT\nRECORDED: 08/14/2023 REEL: 064575 FRAME: 0937\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-11T16:50:41.016531-07:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"181036749222","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T16:50:21.533309-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T17:03:24.806101-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-11","time_filed":"18:49:16","entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":210,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Redstone Logics LLC, re [64] MOTION to Stay filed by Defendant Qualcomm Inc., Defendant Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (Attachments: (1) Affidavit of Joshua Scheufler, (2) Exhibit 1, (3) Exhibit 2)(Scheufler, Joshua)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466919499/","id":466919499,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170425/","id":482170425,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:55.974969-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T03:35:57.502550-07:00","sha1":"4c3001e2438b833edecf12ad078090effbc9b57d","page_count":15,"file_size":281838,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1\n\nII. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2\n\nIV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3\n\n A. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Redstone, But Proceeding Would\n Prejudice Qualcomm. .......................................................................................3\n\n B. The Reexamination Could Moot This Case by Cancelling All Asserted\n Claims. ..............................................................................................................5\n\n C. The Stage of This Case Favors a Stay. .............................................................6\n\nV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nBarnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp.,\n 849 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................4\n\nCrossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp.,\n No. A-13-CA-1025-SS, 2015 WL 3773014 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2015) ..............................3, 5\n\nDestination Maternity Corp. v. Target Corp.,\n 12 F. Supp. 3d 762 (E.D. Penn. 2014) .......................................................................................6\n\nEastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire, & Rubber Co.,\n 114 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Cybor Corp.\n v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................4\n\nJoy Mfg. Co. v. Nat\u2019l Mine Serv. Co, Inc.,\n 810 F.2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................2\n\nKatana Silicon Techs. LLC v. GlobalFoundries, Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-852-RP, 2024 WL 5169808 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2024) .....................................3\n\nLandis v. N. Am. Co.,\n 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ...................................................................................................................2\n\nLELO, Inc. v. Standard Innovation (US) Corp.,\n No. 13-CV-01393-JD, 2014 WL 2879851 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ......................................5\n\nPolaris Powerled Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-0973-RP, 2023 WL 5282381 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2023) ..............................3, 5\n\nRedstone Logics, LLC. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00182-DC-DTG.....................................................................................................2\n\nRedstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 45.....................................................................1, 6\n\nSegin Sys., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.,\n 30 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2014) ..........................................................................................3\n\nSmartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n 621 F. App\u2019x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................3\n\nSoverain Software LLC v. Amazon, Inc.,\n 356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .......................................................................................3\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\nVirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,\n 759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................3, 5\n\nZomm, LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n 391 F. Supp. 3d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................6\n\nRules and Statutes\n\nRule 12 .............................................................................................................................................2\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF EXHIBITS\n\n\n\nShort Name Description\nGreen Decl. Declaration of Eric C. Green in Support of Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay\nExhibit 1 Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, dated March 6,\n 2026\nExhibit 2 Redstone\u2019s Final Infringement Contentions, dated August 4, 2025\nExhibit 3 \u201cEx Parte Reexamination Filing Data\u201d from the U.S. Patent and\n Trademark Office\nExhibit 4 Excerpts of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.\u2019s Request for Ex Parte\n Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 in In re Patent of Wolfe, et\n al., dated December 9, 2025\nExhibit 5 Redstone\u2019s Response to Qualcomm\u2019s Interrogatory No. 10, excerpted\n from its Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendants\u2019\n First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16)\nExhibit 6 Qualcomm\u2019s Response to Redstone\u2019s Interrogatory No. 3, excerpted\n from its March 26, 2026 Third Supplemental Objections and Responses\n to Redstone\u2019s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15)\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., (collectively,\n\n\u201cQualcomm\u201d) respectfully request that the Court stay this case pending the ex parte reexamination\n\nof the only patent in this case\u2014U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (\u201cthe \u2019339 patent\u201d). 1 That reexamination\n\ncovers every claim Redstone Logics LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d) asserts. Compare Ex. 2 1 at 18, with Ex. 2.\n\nThe reexamination may therefore resolve this case.\n\n A stay is particularly appropriate in this case for several reasons:\n\n First, the reexamination is likely to materially affect this case. The request has already been\n\ngranted, and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (\u201cPTO\u201d) is reexamining all asserted\n\nclaims of the asserted patent. Once the PTO grants a request for reexamination, it cancels or\n\nchanges the asserted claims in 78.1% of cases. See Ex. 3. Here, the PTO granted reexamination on\n\nsix separate substantial new questions. See Ex. 1. If the PTO cancels the asserted claims, there will\n\nbe no case to try. Even if some claims of the \u2019339 patent are not canceled, the reexamination could\n\nmaterially simplify the case by canceling the asserted claims, amending claims, or determining\n\nthat the scope of one or more claims is affected by the prosecution record.\n\n Second, there would be little, if any, prejudice to Redstone resulting from a stay. Redstone\n\ndoes not compete with Qualcomm or sell any products practicing the \u2019339 patent. See generally\n\nThird Am. Compl., Dkt. 41; Ex. 5 (Redstone\u2019s response to Qualcomm\u2019s damages interrogatory).\n\nFurther, Redstone seeks monetary relief. See Third Am. Compl., Dkt. 41 \u00b6 16. If any asserted claim\n\nsurvives reexamination, Redstone can still seek damages.\n\n Third, this case remains at a stage where a stay would preserve resources rather than waste\n\n\n1\n Apple Inc. filed a motion to stay on similar grounds in Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc., No.\n7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 45.\n2\n Citations to \u201cEx.\u201d refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Eric C. Green (\u201cGreen Decl.\u201d).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\nthem. Discovery is still in progress, and there is no trial date currently scheduled. The Court\u2019s\n\ninvolvement thus far has been limited to Rule 12 and Markman proceedings and a handful of\n\ndiscovery disputes, but Qualcomm anticipates the need to move for summary judgment of at least\n\nnon-infringement and\u2014based on Redstone\u2019s representations\u2014Daubert proceedings to preclude\n\nRedstone\u2019s impermissible damages theories. By staying this case, the Court\u2019s burden in addressing\n\nthose and other pretrial motions is potentially eliminated.\n\nII. BACKGROUND\n\n Redstone filed this action in September 2024, 11 years after the \u2019339 patent issued and nine\n\nyears after the first Qualcomm product allegedly using the accused functionality was announced.\n\nDkt. 1-1; Ex. 6. On December 9, 2025, Advanced Micro Devices (\u201cAMD\u201d) 3 filed a request for ex\n\nparte reexamination of the \u2019339 patent. Ex. 4. The request challenges every claim Redstone asserts\n\nagainst Qualcomm in this litigation. Compare Ex. 4 at 1, with Ex. 2. On March 6, 2026, the PTO\n\ngranted the request and ordered reexamination of all asserted claims. Ex. 1.\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n \u201c[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to\n\ncontrol the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for\n\ncounsel, and for litigants.\u201d Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In patent cases, courts\n\ncommonly consider three familiar factors in deciding whether to order a stay: \u201c(1) whether a stay\n\nwill unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether\n\na stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is\n\n\n3\n AMD and Redstone have since resolved their litigation through settlement. See Redstone Logics,\nLLC. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00182-DC-DTG (ECF Nos. 37 and 40). As\nthe name implies, ex parte reexaminations may continue after settlement, because once the USPTO\ninstitutes reexamination, the \u201crequestor[] has no future role to play\u201d in the proceeding. Joy Mfg.\nCo. v. Nat\u2019l Mine Serv. Co, Inc., 810 F.2d 1127, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\ncomplete and whether a trial date has been set.\u201d Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon, Inc., 356 F.\n\nSupp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005).\n\n This Court has granted stays under circumstances analogous to those present here\u2014where\n\nan ordered reexamination covers all asserted claims of the asserted patent. See, e.g., Katana Silicon\n\nTechs. LLC v. GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-852-RP, 2024 WL 5169808, at *3 (W.D. Tex.\n\nApr. 11, 2024) (granting motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination following order granting\n\nEPR where no undue prejudice existed).\n\nIV. ARGUMENT\n\n A. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Redstone, But Proceeding Would Prejudice\n Qualcomm.\n\n A stay pending the ordered reexamination will not unduly prejudice Redstone. 4 Delay\n\nalone is not undue prejudice, particularly where any alleged injury can be addressed through\n\ndamages if the asserted claims survive reexamination. Polaris Powerled Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs.\n\nInc., No. 1:22-CV-0973-RP, 2023 WL 5282381, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2023) (\u201cPolaris\u2019s\n\nremedy in this case is monetary damages, and a stay will not adversely impact its ability to collect\n\ndamages for any injury.\u201d); Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp., No. A-13-CA-1025-SS,\n\n2015 WL 3773014, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2015) (\u201c[M]ere delay in collecting [monetary]\n\ndamages does not constitute undue prejudice.\u201d). Redstone does not compete with Qualcomm. See\n\ngenerally Third Am. Compl., Dkt. 41; Ex. 5 (Redstone\u2019s response to Qualcomm\u2019s damages\n\n\n4\n Similarly, Redstone will not face a \u201cclear tactical disadvantage\u201d if a stay is implemented. Courts\nhave found that such a disadvantage is present, for instance, where a stay would afford a party\n\u201ctwo separate opportunities in two separate forums to challenge the validity of Plaintiff\u2019s patent.\u201d\nSee Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 621 F. App\u2019x 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Segin Sys., Inc.\nv. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 476, 484 (E.D. Va. 2014)). Alternatively, a clear\ndisadvantage may arise where a party deliberately withholds prior art from a PTAB petition to\npreserve it for district court litigation in the event the petition fails. See VirtualAgility Inc. v.\nSalesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014). No such circumstance is present here.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\ninterrogatory). Thus, if any asserted claim survives reexamination, Redstone can still seek\n\ndamages.\n\n Redstone\u2019s own delay further undercuts any claim of prejudice. The \u2019339 patent issued in\n\n2013 (see Dkt. 1-1), and Qualcomm\u2019s earliest identified U.S. order of an accused product was\n\nAugust 2015. Ex. 6 (Qualcomm\u2019s March 6, 2026 Supplemental Response to Redstone\u2019s\n\nInterrogatory No. 3). Yet Redstone and its predecessors in interest delayed until September 2024\n\nto bring this case. Dkt. 1. That history is inconsistent with any claim that a stay pending\n\nreexamination would cause undue prejudice. And while it is true that Redstone itself only obtained\n\nthe \u2019339 Patent in 2022, the delay of its predecessors in interest are fairly attributable to Redstone.\n\nSee Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire, & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)\n\n(in the context of a claim of laches, \u201cZimmer\u2019s actions prior to the assignment of the patent rights\n\nare imputed to Eastman. A patentee cannot avoid the consequences of his laches by transferring\n\nthe patent.\u201d), abrogated on other grounds by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d\n\n1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931 (N.D. Cal.\n\n2012) (\u201c[A prior assignee\u2019s] conduct may be imputed to [the patentee] for at least some theories\n\nof unenforceability of patent rights, including laches, estoppel, and inequitable conduct\u201d and\n\ncollecting cases).\n\n By contrast, proceeding now would impose real and avoidable prejudice on Qualcomm.\n\nWithout a stay, Qualcomm would be forced to continue litigating discovery, invalidity, non-\n\ninfringement, damages, and pretrial issues based on claims whose validity and scope are under\n\nactive reexamination. If the PTO cancels or changes the asserted claims, as happens 78.1% of the\n\ntime, then the resources spent in this Court will have been wasted and Qualcomm\u2014and\n\nRedstone\u2014may face the risk of duplicative or inconsistent proceedings involving the scope and\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\nvalidity of the claims. That risk is especially acute because the prosecution history is actively\n\ndeveloping during the reexamination. Avoiding precisely that prejudice and risk of inconsistency\n\nis one reason courts stay patent cases pending resolution of reexamination requests. See Polaris,\n\n2023 WL 5282381, at *4; TC Tech., 2021 WL 8083373, at *2\u20133; Crossroads Sys., 2015 WL\n\n3773014, at *3 (all focusing on conservation of parties\u2019 and the Court\u2019s resources).\n\n B. The Reexamination Could Moot This Case by Cancelling All Asserted Claims.\n\n The second factor strongly favors a stay because the ordered reexamination covers every\n\nasserted claim. This is not a case where the PTO is reviewing only some asserted claims or issues\n\nperipheral to the litigation. The PTO is reexamining the same claims Redstone asks this Court to\n\nadjudicate.\n\n If the PTO cancels the asserted claims, there will be no case to try. That is the ultimate\n\nsimplification. Even if the PTO does not cancel every asserted claim, the reexamination may still\n\nsubstantially simplify the case. Quartz Auto, Dkt. 125, at *3 (quoting LELO, Inc. v. Standard\n\nInnovation (US) Corp., No. 13-CV-01393-JD, 2014 WL 2879851, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014))\n\n(\u201cThe standard is simplification of the district court case, not complete elimination of it[.]\u201d). The\n\nPTO may issue some rejections or create a prosecution record bearing on claim scope. Redstone\n\nmay also amend claims, which could affect infringement, invalidity, damages, and intervening-\n\nrights issues. Should trial go forward on claims that are ultimately amended or invalidated, the\n\nefforts of the Court, the parties, and the jury would be for naught.\n\n The PTO\u2019s published statistics make it clear that there is a significant chance of\n\nsimplification. As discussed above, in more than three quarters of completed third-party requested\n\nex parte reexaminations, the certificate does not confirm all claims. Ex. 3 at 2. Where, as here,\n\nevery asserted claim is under reexamination, that likelihood of claim cancellation or change\n\nstrongly favors a stay. Polaris, 2023 WL 5282381, at *3 (quoting VirtualAgility Inc. v.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\nSalesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (finding review of all claims of the\n\nonly asserted patent \u201cweighs heavily in favor of the stay\u201d).\n\n Redstone may contend, as it did in its opposition to Apple\u2019s Motion to Stay, that if some,\n\nbut not all, claims of the \u2019339 Patent are changed or canceled, Redstone can change its infringement\n\nallegations to \u201cavoid\u201d the changed or canceled claims. See Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc., No.\n\n7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 49, at 3\u20134. But Redstone\u2019s argument demonstrates\n\nprecisely why this case should be stayed\u2014if the target is moving as Redstone suggests, a stay until\n\nthe reexamination has concluded is the most appropriate and efficient solution.\n\n C. The Stage of This Case Favors a Stay.\n\n The stage of the case also favors a stay. Fact discovery is ongoing. Expert discovery has\n\nnot begun and does not begin for months. And no trial date is currently set. At base, this is a good\n\ntime to stay this case because the parties and the Court have not yet invested the resources that\n\nmight make a stay less efficient. See Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc., 391 F. Supp. 3d 946, 956 (N.D.\n\nCal. 2019) (stage of the litigation favored a stay where \u201c[n]o expert discovery has been conducted,\n\nno substantive motions have been filed, and no trial date has been set.\u201d); Destination Maternity\n\nCorp. v. Target Corp., 12 F. Supp. 3d 762, 771 (E.D. Penn. 2014) (stage of the litigation favored\n\na stay where \u201cfact and expert discovery is nowhere near complete\u201d and \u201ca trial date is not set\u201d).\n\n Staying the case now would avoid the most burdensome and expensive phases of patent\n\nlitigation, including expert reports, depositions, dispositive motions practice, pretrial filings, and\n\ntrial preparation. Additionally, Qualcomm anticipates the need for the Court to resolve substantial\n\npre-trial briefing, including, at least, a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and\n\ndamages-related Daubert motions. Staying the case now will therefore maximize the savings to\n\nthe Court and the parties while the PTO reexamines every asserted claim of the only asserted\n\npatent.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\n The absence of a current trial date also supports a stay. Given the logistical difficulties of\n\nscheduling a patent jury trial, it is very likely that the median certificate-issuance of July 2027 will\n\noccur prior to a scheduled trial date. Further, certificate issuance is not the only relevant milestone.\n\nSubstantive PTO activity may occur before then, and may itself simplify the case by addressing\n\nwhether the asserted claims survive, whether Redstone amends them, and whether the prosecution\n\nrecord affects their scope. The fact that no trial date has yet been set makes a stay at this time\n\nparticularly appropriate.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court stay this action\n\npending the ordered reexamination concerning the \u2019339 patent. A stay will not unduly prejudice\n\nRedstone, will conserve judicial and party resources, and is likely to eliminate or substantially\n\nsimplify this case.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\nDate: June 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)\n richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Daniel S. Leventhal (SBN 24050923)\n daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\n Houston, TX 77010\n Telephone: (713) 651-5151\n Fax: (713) 651-5246\n\n Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Brett A. McKean (SBN 24057994)\n brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\n Austin, Texas 78701\n Telephone: (512) 474-5201\n Fax: (512) 536-4598\n\n COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM\n INCORPORATED AND QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I certify that on June 1, 2026, the parties met and conferred via teleconference, and counsel\n\nfor Redstone indicated it opposes this motion.\n\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64 Filed 06/10/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that on June 4, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court\n\nusing the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.\n\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:36:56.467362-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726255","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170426/","id":482170426,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/1/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:57.420189-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T04:09:30.521045-07:00","sha1":"be1b6cfcc889f64027ec3d498285de9b4aabcfb5","page_count":1,"file_size":94892,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-1 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\n\n The Court has considered Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay and is of the opinion that the Motion\n\nshould be GRANTED.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n SIGNED this __________ day of _______________, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:37:05.874130-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726256","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170427/","id":482170427,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/2/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:57.431194-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T03:35:59.469597-07:00","sha1":"58b3e4e99cb14ec37b40affe895abe3c1081815e","page_count":2,"file_size":155266,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-2 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF ERIC C. GREEN\n IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\n I, Eric C. Green, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, counsel of\n\nrecord for Defendants Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively,\n\n\u201cQualcomm\u201d) in this action. I am a member of good standing of the Bar of the State of Texas, and\n\nI am admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge\n\nof the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently\n\ntestify to them.\n\n 2. The parties met and conferred on June 1, 2026, counsel for Redstone confirmed\n\nthat Redstone opposes a stay pending reexamination.\n\n 3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Request for\n\nEx Parte Reexamination, dated March 6, 2026, excerpted from the prosecution history of U.S.\n\nPatent No. 8,549,339.\n\n 4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Redstone\u2019s Final Infringement\n\nContentions, dated August 4, 2025.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-2 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a document titled \u201cEx Parte\n\nReexamination Filing Data\u201d from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.\n\n 6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Advanced Micro\n\nDevices, Inc.\u2019s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 in In re Patent\n\nof Wolfe, et al., dated December 9, 2025.\n\n 7. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Redstone\u2019s Response to\n\nQualcomm\u2019s Interrogatory No. 10, excerpted from its Second Supplemental Objections and\n\nResponses to Defendants\u2019 First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16).\n\n 8. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Qualcomm\u2019s Response to\n\nRedstone\u2019s Interrogatory No. 3, excerpted from its March 26, 2026 Third Supplemental Objections\n\nand Responses to Redstone\u2019s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15).\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above\n\nstatements are true and correct.\n\n Executed on the 4th day of June, 2026, in Austin, Texas.\n\n\n /s/ Eric C. Green\n Eric C. Green\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:37:14.009956-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726257","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Eric C. Green","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170428/","id":482170428,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/3/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:57.440437-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T04:09:16.223845-07:00","sha1":"4d9d869726cb8b320deb4a1e303bb2e1620eba5b","page_count":21,"file_size":937842,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page1of21\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\n\fcument 64\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nATENT AND [TRADEMARK\n\nNITED STATES\n\n6 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 21\nFFICE\n\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\n\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE\n\nFIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,761 12/09/2025 0440101RX1 4243\n25700 7590 EXAMINER\n\nFARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP\n26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360\n\nMISSION VIEJO, CA 92691\n\nCAMPBELL, JOSHUA D\n\nART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\nMAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n03/06/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 3of 21\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nDO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER\n\n(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)\n\nDLA PIPER LLP US - Reston\nATTIN: PATENT GROUP\n11911 FREEDOM DR.\nSUITE 300\n\nRESTON, VA 20190\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/015,767 .\nPATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 8549339.\n\nART UNIT 3992.\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice in the above identified ex parfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a\nreply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parfe reexamination requester will be\nacknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nPTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 4of 21\n\nControl No. Patent Under Reexamination\n. 90/015,761 8549339\nOrder Granting Request For\nEx Parte Reexamination Examiner Art Unit | AIA (FITF) Status\nJOSHUA D CAMPBELL 3992 No\n\n--The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--\n\nThe request for ex pavfe reexamination filed 09 December 2025 has been considered and a determination\nhas been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the\ndetermination are attached.\n\nAttachments: a)(] PTO-892, b)\u00a5} PTO/SB/08, c).) Other:\n\n1. The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.\nRESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:\n\nFor Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication\n(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\nFor Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed\n\nPatent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.\nIf Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester\n\nis permitted.\n\nJOSHUA D CAMPBELL/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n\ncc:Requester ( if third party requester )\n\nU.S. Patent and Trademark Office\nPTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20251218\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 5of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 2\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nDecision on Request\n1. A substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability affecting claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of\nUnited States Patent Number 8,549,339 (hereinafter \u201cthe \u201c339 Patent\u201d) is raised by the request for ex\n\nparte reexamination filed December 9, 20235.\n\nInformation Disclosure Statement\n2. Where the IDS citations are submitted but not described, the examiner is only responsible for\ncursorily reviewing the references. The initials of the examiner on the PTO-1449 indicate only that degree\nof review unless the reference is either applied against the claims, or discussed by the examiner as\npertinent art of interest, in a subsequent office action.\n\nSee Guidelines for Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d\n786, 42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FR at 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response to\ncomment 6).\n\nConsideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner\nwill consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered\nby the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the\nexaminer placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08A and O8B or its equivalent\nmean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above.\n\nRegarding IDS submissions MPEP 2256 recites the following: \"Where patents, publications, and\nother such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner) in compliance with the\nrequirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration to be given to such information will be\nnormally limited by the degree to which the party filing the information citation has explained the content\n\nand relevance of the information.\u201d\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 6of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 3\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nPrior art cited in the Request\n3. The present request indicates that the Requester considers that a substantial new question of\n\npatentability is raised as to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the *339 Patent by the following prior art\n\nreferences:\na. White \u2014 U:S. Patent No. 7,263,457\nb. Talwar \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0271646\nC. Boyle \u2014 U.S. Patent No. 7,669,151\nd. Lee \u2014- \u201cDynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) Scheme for Multi-Domains\nPower Management\u201d\ne. De Oliverira \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0152087\nf. Flautner \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0034002\ng. Kato \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210738\nh. Vajda \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0060170\nProsecution History\n4, The 339 Patent application was assigned serial number 12/713,220 (hereinafter \u201cthe \u2018220\n\napplication\u201d), effectively filed February 26, 2010. During the original prosecution, the \u2018220 application\ninitially included claims 1-20. A preliminary amendment was filed on August 2, 2011 that added claims\n21-23.\n\nIn anon-final action mailed August 29, 2012, the previous examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9,\n14, and 21 in view of Jacobowitz et al.; claims 2-4, 7, 12, and 13 in view of Jacobowitz et al. and Kim et\nal.; and claims 10, 11, 15-20, 22, and 23 in view of Jacobowitz et al., Kim et al., and von Kaenel. Claims\n18-20 were also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 15-20 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,\n\nsecond paragraph.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 7 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 4\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nIn response, the patent owner filed an amendment on November 29, 2012, amending claims 1, 10,\n11, 15, and 18-23. The following amendments were made to the independent claims (using claim | as\nexample):\n\n1. (Currantly Amended) A multi-core processor, comprising:\n\na first aet of prosesscr corea of the mulfi-core processar, wherein each pronesaar core\nfram the first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first\nsupply vollage and a first oulput clock signal_of a first phage fork loon (PLL)\nhaving & first clock sina! as input:\n\n& seoond set of processor cores of fhe multi-core processor, wherein gach processor\ncore from the second set of processor cores is configured to dynarainally receive\n4 send supmy voltage and a second gutpul clock signalot a secend PLL having\n\n\u00ae second cock signal as input wherein the first sumcly vollage is indacencen}\n\nfrom the sepoon suophy voltage. anc the fst clock sional is indenerdeant from the\n\nart interface hfock coupled ie the fret set of processar cares and aisa coupled fa the\naccom) set af procesoor cores, wherein the intedace block is configured to\nfandiaie communination between the first set of praceascr onras and the second\nast of processor cores.\n\nPatent owner also presented the following arguments in view of the amendments.\n\nFirst, Jacobowiz fails to disclase or teach a first set of processor cores and secand set\nof processar cores configured tu dynaraioally rensive a frei supcly vallags and a second supply\nvoltage, resuectively. lyeadditien, the Irst supply vallage is incdepencderit frore the seoanc supphy\nyoltage, as raquired in the amended indagendent clairas 7 and 21. Paragraph (00434 of\nJacobowitz meony mentions thai \u201cWlurther power manacqeniot can be malized by controling\nihe power supply vollage (Vdd) to gach core and/or chip.\u201d in other words, Jacabowl2 is silent\nwith respect tc least the recited diferent seta of processor cores configured lo receive\nindependert sunply vollages.\n\nSecond, FG. 6 and all other figures of Jacobowylz clearly show thal the microprocessor\nchip (\u00a2.g., B00} receives a system reterence oscillator clock frequency (og and disiiibutes vy, to\nfocal oxciflators 108. Ree Jaoobowilz, paragraphs (BOS? HOR3E] ard FRG. 6. weeobowiiz hades io\n\nsclese or teach a first set of processor cares and second set of processor cores configured to\n\ndynamically receive a first cuigul clock sional of 4 first PLL having a first clook signal as input\n\nreanociively. In addition, the frst clock signal is independent fram the second clock signal, as\nrequired in the amended independent claims t and 2.\n\nFor at least the reasons set tarth shove, the arnended independent claims 1 and 21 and\nthe relaiad dependent daims 2 ~ 14 and 22 ~ 29 ara patentable over Jacobowitz. Applicart\n\nreaneciiuily requests. ihe withdrawal of the rejections under $5 LLE.C. 102.\n\n(pages 9 and 10 of PO\u2019s response filed November 29, 2012 in the \u2018220 application)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 8 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 5\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nIn response to the amendment, the application was passed to allowance in the Notice of\nAllowance mailed February 14, 2013. The examiner stated no reasons for allowance. Thus, as it\ncurrently stands based on the prosecution history of the \u2018220 application, it appears that the claims of the\n*339 Patent were allowed at least in part based on the following limitations (using claim las example:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\n\nfirst set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a\nfirst output clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from\n\nthe second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply\n\nvoltage and a second output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as\n\ninput, wherein the first supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the\n\nfirst clock signal is independent from the second clock signal; (patent claim 1)\nFollowing the issuance of the *339 Patent, IPR2025-00085 was requested to challenge claims 1-6, 8-11,\n14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent based on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, 21 \u2014 Knoth in view of Allarey\n\nGround 2: Claims 2-4 \u2014- Knoth in view of Allarey and Flautner\n\nGround 3: Claim 6 \u2014 Knoth in view of Allarey, Wolfe, and Kumar\n\nGround 4: Claim 11 - Knoth in view of Allarey and Wolfe\n\nGround 5: Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 21 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey\n\nGround 6: Claims 4 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey and Flautner\n\nGround 7: Claim 6 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey, Wolfe, and Kumar\n\nGround 8: Claim 11 - Naffzinger in view of Allarey and Wolfe\nOn April 22, 2025, the PTAB issued a decision to Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review based on a\nlack of demonstration of a reasonable likelihood to prevail by the petitioner.\n\nIPR2025-00485 was also requested to challenge claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent\nbased on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 White in view of Talwar\n\nGround 2: Claims 5, 14 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Cho\n\nGround 3: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Vajda\n\nGround 4: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer\n\nGround 5: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer and Vajda\nGround 6: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer and Williams\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 9 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 6\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nGround 7: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer, Williams, and Vajda\nOn July 10, 2025, a decision Denying Institution of the /nter Partes Review based on a request for\ndiscretionary denial.\n\nIPR2025-01532 was also requested to challenge claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent\nbased on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Lee\n\nGround 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Lee\n\nGround 3: Claim 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Lee and Vajda\n\nThe PTAB has yet to issue a decision granting or denying institution of Jnter Partes Review.\n\nSubstantial New Question of Patentability\n5. The italicized sections of claim | are utilized by the examiner to show how specific teachings of\nthe proposed references create a substantial new question of patentability.\n1. A multi-core processor, comprising:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from\nthe first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply\nvoltage and a first output clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first\nclock signal as input;\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core\nfrom the second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second\nsupply voltage and a second output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock\nsignal as input, wherein the first supply voltage is independent from the second supply\nvoltage, and the first clock signal is independent from the second clock signal; and\n\nan interface block coupled to the first set of processor cores and also coupled to the second\n\nset of processor cores, wherein the interface block is configured to facilitate\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 10 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 7\nArt Unit: 3992\n\ncommunication between the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor\n\ncores.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNOQ 1)\n\n6. The Request shows that White in view Talwar and Boyle provide teachings relevant to the\ndetermination of patentability regarding the following limitations, for claim 1:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the first\nset of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a first\noutput clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\nWhite discloses a multi-core integrated circuit which allows for any number of logic\ncores being configured to operate at independent voltages and/or frequencies (column 2, lines\n15-44 and column 6, lines 56-67 of White). Additionally, White discloses multi-core\nintegrated circuits may be configured to operate and frequencies and/or voltages from other\nmulti-core integrated circuits (column 8, lines 41-58 of White).\n\nTalwar discloses a multi-core processor design in which the cores and voltage\nsources are divided into clusters, where each cluster receives power for a single voltage\nsource and may have a different cluster frequency (paragraphs [0011], [0018] and [0019] of\nTalwar).\n\nBoyle discloses integrated circuits that are organized into various clock domains (Fig.\n9; column 2, lines 54-61; and column 9, lines 61-67 of Boyle).\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\nsecond set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply voltage and a\nsecond output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as input, wherein the\nfirst supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the first clock signal is\n\nindependent from the second clock signal;\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 11 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 8\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nWhite discloses a multi-core integrated circuit which allows for any number of logic\ncores being configured to operate at independent voltages and/or frequencies (column 2, lines\n15-44 and column 6, lines 56-67 of White). Additionally, White discloses multi-core\nintegrated circuits may be configured to operate and frequencies and/or voltages from other\nmulti-core integrated circuits (column 8, lines 41-58 of White).\n\nTalwar discloses a multi-core processor design in which the cores and voltage\nsources are divided into clusters, where each cluster receives power for a single voltage\nsource and may have a different cluster frequency (paragraphs [0011], [0018] and [0019] of\nTalwar).\n\nBoyle discloses integrated circuits that are organized into various clock domains (Fig.\n9; column 2, lines 54-61; and column 9, lines 61-67 of Boyle). Boyle discloses the clock\n\ndomains are clocked using independent clock sources (column 10, lines 15-20 of Boyle).\n\nThe White, Talwar, and Boyle references were not previously discussed by the previous examiner\nnor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 patent. Additionally,\nwhile the White and Talwar references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims 1-3, 5,\n8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White and\nTalwar in said IPR proceedings.\n\nIn a decision to order reexamination made on or after November 2, 2002, reliance on old art does\nnot necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability that is based\nexclusively on that old art. See Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1899-1906 (2002), which expanded\nthe scope of what qualifies for a substantial new question of patentability upon which a reexamination\nmay be based. Determinations on whether a substantial new question of patentability exists in such an\ninstance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry done on a case-by-case basis. For example, a\nsubstantial new question of patentability may be based solely on old art where the old art is being\n\npresented/viewed in a new light, or in a different way, as compared with its use in the earlier\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 12 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 9\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nexamination(s), in view of a material new argument or interpretation presented in the request. Such\nmaterial new argument or interpretation may be based solely on claim scope of the patent being\nreexamined (see: MPEP 2242(II)(A)).\n\nThe White and Talwar references were cited in the previously filed IPR proceedings, however the\ncurrent presentation of the combination of these references with the Boyle reference is in a new light (see\nMPEP 2216).\n\nIt is agreed that White in view of Talwar and Boyle raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent. There is a substantial\nlikelihood that an examiner would consider these new, non-cumulative technological teachings important\nin deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, White in view of Talwar and Boyle raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent, a question which has\nnot been decided in a previous examination of the \u2018339 Patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity\n\nby the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar and Lee (SNO 2)\n\n7. The Request shows that White in view Talwar and Lee provide teachings relevant to the\ndetermination of patentability regarding the following limitations, for claim 1:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the first\nset of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a first\noutput clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\nWhite discloses the reception of location-dependent incident information such as an\nemergency or hazard (column 7, lines 53-65; column 8, lines 12-21; and column 10, line 50-\n\ncolumn 11, line 8 of Franco)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 13 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 10\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nJanke discloses a vehicle occupant\u2019s ability to inform the server of any discrepancies\nbetween what is actually present and what the map indicates is present, including modifying\nor deleting the description of the event (column 4, lines 35-54 of Janke).\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\nsecond set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply voltage and a\nsecond output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as input, wherein the\nfirst supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the first clock signal is\nindependent from the second clock signal;\n\nFranco discloses a display interface of a mobile phone that is configured to present\nincident alerts if the computed score for said event exceeds a threshold level (column 9, line\n\n45-column 10, line 24 of Franco)\n\nThe White, Talwar, and Lee references were not previously discussed by the previous examiner\nnor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 patent. Additionally,\nwhile the White, Talwar, and Lee references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims\n1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White,\nTalwar, and Lee in said IPR proceedings.\n\nIt is agreed that White in view of Talwar and Lee raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent. There is a substantial\nlikelihood that an examiner would consider these new, non-cumulative technological teachings important\nin deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, White in view of Talwar and Lee raises a substantial new question of patentability\nwith respect to at least claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 of the 339 Patent, a question which has not been\ndecided in a previous examination of the *339 Patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the\n\nFederal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 14 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 11\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and De Oliverira (SNQ 3)\n\n8. The De Oliverira reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences in the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the\nprior examination of the \u2018339 patent. Additionally, the De Oliverira reference was also not previously\ndiscussed by the previous examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of\nthe \u2018339 Patent. The De Oliverira reference in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nraises an SNQ at least based on the discussion found of above regarding White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the combination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide\nteachings that are relevant to the limitations noted above which may have been material in determining\nthe patentability of the \u201c339 Patent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of De Oliverira with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ\nwith respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the De Oliverira reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Flautner (SNO 4)\n\n9. The Flautner reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences in the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the\n\nprior examination of the \u2018339 patent. Additionally, the Flautner reference was also not previously\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 15 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 12\nArt Unit: 3992\n\ndiscussed by the previous examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of\nthe *339 Patent. Additionally, while the Flautner references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed\nabove, claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the\ncombination of White, Talwar, and Flautner in said IPR proceedings. The Flautner reference in\ncombination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based on the discussion\nfound of above regarding White in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the\ncombination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to the limitations\nnoted above which may have been material in determining the patentability of the \u201c339 Patent claims at\nthe time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Flautner with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Flautner reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Kato (SNO 5)\n\n10. The Kato reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nin the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and Boyle was not\npreviously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination\nof the *339 patent. Additionally, the Kato reference was also not previously discussed by the previous\nexaminer nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 Patent. The\n\nKato reference in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 16 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 13\nArt Unit: 3992\n\non the discussion found of above regarding White in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request\nshows that the combination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to\nthe limitations noted above which may have been material in determining the patentability of the \u2018339\nPatent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Kato with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Kato reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nraises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of\nthe *339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition, there has\n\nbeen no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Vajda (SNQ 6)\n\n11. The Vajda reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nin the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and Boyle was not\npreviously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination\nof the \u201c339 patent. Additionally, the Vajda reference was also not previously discussed by the previous\nexaminer nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of the *339 Patent.\nAdditionally, while the Vajda references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims 1-3,\n5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White,\nTalwar, and Vajda in said IPR proceedings. The Vajda reference in combination with the White, Talwar,\nand Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based on the discussion found of above regarding White in\n\nview of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the combination of White in view of Talwar\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 17 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 14\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nand Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to the limitations noted above which may have been\nmaterial in determining the patentability of the \u00ab339 Patent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Vajda with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Vajda reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 325(d)\n\nSection 325(d) states in part, \u201c[1]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under\nthis chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition\nor request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to\nthe Office.\u201d Thus, for the Director to exercise discretion as to whether to Order a reexamination under\nchapter 30, the Request must first be determined to be based on the same or substantially the same prior\nart or arguments that were previously presented to the Office.\n\nA review of the post-grant history of the \u201c339 patent indicates three post-grant challenges filed\nprior to the filing of the current Request: IPR2025-00085, IPR2025-00485, and IPR2025-01532\n\nIPR2025-00085\n\nOn Oct. 22, 2024, Petitioners, MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., filed a Petition for inter\npartes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (\u201cBoard\u201d). In that Petition, eight grounds were\nasserted by Petitioner as raising a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that the challenged claims of the\n\u201c339 patent are invalid over the cited prior art. On April 22, 2025, the Board concluded that Petitioner did\n\nnot show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits over three of the cited prior art references\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 18 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 15\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n(Knoth', Allarey\u201d, and Naffziger\u2019) as to claims 1 and 21 presented in the Petition. As a result, the Board\ndenied the Petition and trial was not instituted.\n\nIPR2025-00485\n\nOn Jan. 22, 2025, Petitioners, NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated, filed a Petition for\ninter partes review with the Board. In that Petition, seven grounds were asserted by Petitioner as raising a\nreasonable likelihood of prevailing that the challenged claims of the *339 patent are invalid over the cited\nprior art. On July 10, 2025, the Acting Director for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office discretionarily\ndenied the Petition under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 314(a) and trial was not instituted. The merits of the Petition were\nnot discussed or analyzed.\n\nIPR2025-01532\n\nOn Sept. 16, 2025, Petitioner, Apple Inc., filed a Petition for infer partes review with the Board.\nIn that Petition, three grounds were asserted by Petitioner as raising a reasonable likelihood of prevailing\nthat the challenged claims of the \u201c339 patent are invalid over the cited prior art. On Jan. 27, 2026, the\nDirector of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office discretionarily denied the Petition under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\n314(a) and trial was not instituted. The merits of the Petition were not discussed or analyzed.\n\nCurrent Reexamination No. 90/015,761\n\nAs noted above, on Dec. 9, 2025, Third-Party Requester, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed the\ncurrent Request challenging claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 patent over six grounds argued to\nraise SNQs. These SNQs are summarized above in this Order.\n\n325(d) Analysis\n\nA comparison between the prior art and arguments cited in the prior IPR Petitions and the current\nRequest shows no identical or overlapping grounds. Despite this, it is noted that White, Talwar, Lee,\n\nFlautner, and Vajda are common references cited in the current Request and various ones of the prior IPR\n\n'U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0158078 A1, to Matthias Knoth (\u201cKnoth\u2019).\n7 US. Patent No. 8,122,270 B2, to Allarey et al. (\u201cAllarey\u201d).\n3U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0122101 A1, to Naffziger et al. (\u201cNaffziger\u201d).\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 19 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 16\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nPetitions. However, the current Request also cites Boyle, De Oliverira, and Kato in various combinations\nwith White, Talwar, Lee, Flautner, and Vajda. None of Boyle, De Oliverira, or Kato were cited in the\nprevious IPR Petitions. This means that the combinations presented in the current Request are not\nidentical to any of the presented grounds in the previous IPR Petitions because of the newly cited prior\nart. Additionally, because of the newly cited prior art and their respective newly presented combinations,\nthe current Request also presents new and additional arguments that were not presented in the previous\nIPR Petitions. In other words, the prior art and arguments presented in the current Request are not the\nsame or substantially the same as the prior art or arguments presented in the prior proceedings. Moreover,\nthe Third-Party Requester in this proceeding is not the same as any of the Petitioners in the prior IPR\nproceedings, thus, there is no abusive filings practices against the \u2018339 patent evident by the Third-Party\nRequester.\n\nAs aresult, the statutory threshold under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 325(d) for the Director to exercise\ndiscretion in deciding whether or not to Order reexamination based on the current Request is not met.\nAccordingly, in view of the discussion above, the current Request for ex parfe reexamination is Ordered\nfor the *339 patent based on the determination that the current Request has been determined to raise a\n\nsubstantial new question of patentability (SNQ) of the challenged claims.\n\nScope of Reexamination\n\n12. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 will be reexamined as requested.\n\nConclusion\n13. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because the\nprovisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to \"an applicant\" and not to parties in a reexamination proceeding.\nAdditionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings \"will be conducted with special\ndispatch\" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for\n\nin 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 20 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 17\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n14. The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to apprise\nthe Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving Patent No.\n8,549,339 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party requester is also\nreminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the\n\ncourse of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP \u00a7\u00a7 2207, 2282 and 2286.\n\n15. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:\n\nElectronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center at bttps://patenicenter uspio gov/.\n\nBy Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\nUnited States Patent & Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nBy FAX to: (571) 273-9900\nCentral Reexamination Unit\n\nBy hand: Customer Service Window\nKnox Building\n501 Dulany Street\nAlexandria, VA 22314\n\nFor Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)()(C) and (ii) states that correspondence\n(except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be\nconsidered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with\n37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating\nthe date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.\n\nAny inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Joshua Campbell at telephone\n\nnumber (571) 272-4133.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-3 Filed 06/10/26 Page 21 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 18\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n\nConferee:\n\n/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/\nSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:37:22.453863-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726258","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170429/","id":482170429,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/4/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:57.451073-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T04:09:19.391649-07:00","sha1":"1b88585891a84086f9af0f0c76d9006a3522dc72","page_count":19,"file_size":526149,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 19\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2025\n\n1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 16022\n a. By patent owner 4039 25.2%\n b. by other member of the public 11808 73.7%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.1%\n\n2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 4101 25.6%\n b. Electrical Operation 6220 38.8%\n c. Mechanical Operation 5175 32.3%\n d. Design Patents 526 3.3%\n\n3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 337\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 288\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355 2024 417\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244 2025 491\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 6495 40.5%\n\n5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 15998\n a. No. granted 14833 92.7%\n (1) By examiner 14644\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1294 8.1%\n (1) By examiner 1165\n (2) Reexam vacated 129\n\n6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1138\n a. Patent owner requester 531 46.7%\n b. Third party requester 607 53.3%\n\n\n\n\n 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 3 of 19\n\n\n\n\n7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.2 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.9 (mos.)\n\n8. Reexam certificate claim analysis 3: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\na. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 16% 0% 22.2% 2919\nb. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 11% 0% 14.5% 1898\nc. Certificates with claims changes 21% 41% 1% 63.3% 8309\n\n9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 13126\n\n10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 4025\n a. All claims confirmed 859 21.3%\n b. All claims canceled 413 10.3%\n c. Claims changed 2753 68.4%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8927\n a. All claims confirmed 2043 22.9%\n b. All claims canceled 1439 16.1%\n c. Claims changed 5445 61.0%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that did not receive a filing date or have been vacated or are pending\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515.\n3 Claims analysis is only of requested claims and certificates of merged reexams are only counted once. Reexaminations\nmerged with reissues are not include in analysis\n\n\n\n\n 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 4 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2024\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 15541\n a. By patent owner 4066 26.2%\n b. by other member of the public 11300 72.7%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 4032 25.9%\n b. Electrical Operation 5978 38.5%\n c. Mechanical Operation 5095 32.8%\n d. Design Patents 436 2.8%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 337\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 290\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355 2024 425\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 6099 39.2%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 15536\n a. No. granted 14386 92.6%\n (1) By examiner 14197\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1244 8.0%\n (1) By examiner 1150\n (2) Reexam vacated 94\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1138\n a. Patent owner requester 533 46.8%\n b. Third party requester 605 53.2%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 5 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.1 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.7 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 13% 9% 0% 21.9% 2809\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 6% 8% 0% 14.1% 1807\n c. Certificates with claims changes 35% 28% 1% 64.0% 8205\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12821\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 6853\n a. All claims confirmed 1620 23.6%\n b. All claims canceled 781 11.4%\n c. Claims changed 4452 65.0%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 5794\n a. All claims confirmed 1172 20.2%\n b. All claims canceled 980 16.9%\n c. Claims changed 3642 62.9%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 6 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2023\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 15114\n a. By patent owner 4027 26.6%\n b. by other member of the public 10912 72.2%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3977 26.3%\n b. Electrical Operation 5796 38.3%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4989 33.0%\n d. Design Patents 352 2.3%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 338\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 287\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5593 37.0%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14485\n a. No. granted 13376 92.3%\n (1) By examiner 13187\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1198 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1109\n (2) Reexam vacated 89\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1110\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.4%\n b. Third party requester 584 52.6%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 7 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.2 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.9 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 15% 0% 21.6% 2675\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.7% 1696\n c. Certificates with claims changes 22% 42% 1% 64.7% 8012\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12383\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3983\n a. All claims confirmed 854 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 400 10.0%\n c. Claims changed 2729 68.5%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8226\n a. All claims confirmed 1804 21.9%\n b. All claims canceled 1250 15.2%\n c. Claims changed 5172 62.9%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 8 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2022\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14827\n a. By patent owner 4001 27.0%\n b. by other member of the public 10651 71.8%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3937 26.6%\n b. Electrical Operation 5644 38.1%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4917 33.2%\n d. Design Patents 329 2.2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 338\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5592 37.7%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14485\n a. No. granted 13376 92.3%\n (1) By examiner 13187\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1198 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1109\n (2) Reexam vacated 89\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1110\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.4%\n b. Third party requester 584 52.6%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 9 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.0 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.1 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 14% 0% 21.3% 2592\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.3% 1623\n c. Certificates with claims changes 22% 42% 1% 65.3% 7947\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12162\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3980\n a. All claims confirmed 851 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 395 9.9%\n c. Claims changed 2734 68.7%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8008\n a. All claims confirmed 1724 21.5%\n b. All claims canceled 1182 14.8%\n c. Claims changed 5102 63.7%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 10 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2021\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14489\n a. By patent owner 3979 27.5%\n b. by other member of the public 10335 71.3%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3889 26.8%\n b. Electrical Operation 5452 37.6%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4844 33.4%\n d. Design Patents 304 2.1%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5593 38.6%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14491\n a. No. granted 13386 92.4%\n (1) By examiner 13197\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1185 8.2%\n (1) By examiner 1105\n (2) Reexam vacated 80\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1105\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.6%\n b. Third party requester 579 52.4%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 11 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 26.0 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.9 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 14% 0% 21.2% 2530\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 9% 0% 13.1% 1559\n c. Certificates with claims changes 23% 42% 1% 65.8% 7854\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11943\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3957\n a. All claims confirmed 846 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 386 9.8%\n c. Claims changed 2725 68.9%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 7812\n a. All claims confirmed 1667 21.3%\n b. All claims canceled 1127 14.4%\n c. Claims changed 5018 64.2%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n NEEDS FOOTNOTE!\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 12 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2020\n\n1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14185\n a. By patent owner 3954 27.9%\n b. by other member of the public 10056 70.9%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3843 27.1%\n b. Electrical Operation 5279 37.2%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4790 33.8%\n d. Design Patents 273 1.9%\n\n3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734 2019 163\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780 2020 198\n\n4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5428 38.3%\n\n 2\n5. Decisions on requests \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14185\n a. No. granted 13082 92.2%\n (1) By examiner 12888\n (2) By Director (on petition) 194\n b. No. denied 1183 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1103\n (2) Reexam vacated 80\n\n6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1103\n a. Patent owner requester 525 47.6%\n b. Third party requester 578 52.4%\n\n\n\n\n 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 13 of 19\n\n\n\n7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.7 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.3 (mos.)\n\n8. Reexam certificate claim analysis:3 Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\na. Certificates with all claims confirmed 6% 14% 0% 20.9% 2672\nb. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.1% 1668\nc. Certificates with claims changes 22% 44% 1% 66.0% 8424\n\n9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12764\n\n10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3960\n a. All claims confirmed 809 20.4%\n b. All claims canceled 396 10.0%\n c. Claims changed 2755 69.6%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8630\n a. All claims confirmed 1846 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 1226 14.2%\n c. Claims changed 5558 64.4%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 14 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2019\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13987\n a. By patent owner 3919 28%\n b. by other member of the public 9893 71%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3791 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5214 37%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4732 34%\n d. Design Patents 250 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734 2019 163\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 1938 14%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 14130\n a. No. granted 12905 91%\n (1) By examiner 12718\n (2) By Director (on petition) 187\n b. No. denied 1277 9%\n (1) By examiner 1225\n (2) Reexam vacated 52\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1226\n a. Patent owner requester 524 43%\n b. Third party requester 702 57%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 15 of 19\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.8 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 20.7% 2480\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 12.7% 1517\n c. Certificates with claims changes 19% 46% 1% 66.6% 7983\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11980\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3325\n a. All claims confirmed 693 21%\n b. All claims canceled 300 9%\n c. Claims changed 2332 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8481\n a. All claims confirmed 1769 21%\n b. All claims canceled 1170 14%\n c. Claims changed 5542 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 18 10%\n b. All claims canceled 47 27%\n c. Claims changed 109 63%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 16 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2018\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81. 1 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13824\n a. By patent owner 3910 28%\n b. by other member of the public 9739 70%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3741 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5160 37%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4681 34%\n d. Design Patents 242 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 1854 13%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 13966\n a. No. granted 12745 91%\n (1) By examiner 12561\n (2) By Director (on petition) 184\n b. No. denied 1272 9%\n (1) By examiner 1221\n (2) Reexam vacated 51\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1222\n a. Patent owner requester 524 43%\n b. Third party requester 698 57%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 17 of 19\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.8 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. All claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 21% 2473\n b. All claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13% 1504\n c. Claims changed 20% 46% 1% 67% 7962\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11939\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3323\n a. All claims confirmed 693 21%\n b. All claims canceled 299 9%\n c. Claims changed 2331 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8442\n a. All claims confirmed 1762 21%\n b. All claims canceled 1158 14%\n c. Claims changed 5522 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 18 10%\n b. All claims canceled 47 27%\n c. Claims changed 109 63%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 18 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2017\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13641\n a. By patent owner 3912 29%\n b. by other member of the public 9686 71%\n c. By order of Commissioner 43 0%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by dicipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3670 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5148 38%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4596 34%\n d. Design Patents 227 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 601 2015 243\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 691 2016 219\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 605 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 698\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 736\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 781\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 4648 34%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 13147\n a. No. granted 12047 92%\n (1) By examiner 11913\n (2) By Director (on petition) 134\n b. No. denied 1100 8%\n (1) By examiner 1054\n (2) Reexam vacated 46\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1056\n a. Patent owner requester 494 47%\n b. Third party requester 562 53%\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 26.4 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\ndata as of 9/30/2016\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-4 Filed 06/10/26 Page 19 of 19\n\n\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall\n\n a. All claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 21%\n b. All calims cancled 3% 9% 0% 12%\n c. Claims changed 21% 46% 0% 67%\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11403\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 2391 21%\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 1404 12%\n c. Certificates with claims changes 7608 67%\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3296\n a. All claims confirmed 690 21%\n b. All calims cancled 293 9%\n c. Claims changed 2313 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 7917\n a. All claims confirmed 1681 21%\n b. All calims cancled 1062 13%\n c. Claims changed 5174 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 41\n a. All claims confirmed 2 5%\n b. All calims cancled 23 56%\n c. Claims changed 16 39%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\ndata as of 9/30/2017 2/2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:37:30.549598-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726259","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482170430/","id":482170430,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/64/5/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:57.463023-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T04:09:23.100491-07:00","sha1":"b9aa02a0a35e78cf3847e6200a4050978ed348c6","page_count":5,"file_size":183703,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.64.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-5 Filed 06/10/26 Pagelof5\n\nEXHIBIT 4\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-5 Filed 06/10/26 Page2of5\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nIn re patent of Wolfe, et al. Attorney Docket No.:\n\n500712.000038\nUSS. Patent 8,549,339\n\nCustomer No.: 47604\nIssue Date: October 1, 2013\n\nFiling Date: February 26, 2010\n\nFor: PROCESSOR CORE\nCOMMUNICATION IN MULTI-\nCORE PROCESSOR\n\nCH LO? LOR LOR LOR WOR WOR WOR? WOR WOR KOR KOR LOR\n\nREQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF\nU.S. PATENT 8,549,339\n\nMail stop \u201cEx Parte Reexam\u201d\nAttn: Central Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nDear Commissioner:\n\nPursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 301-307, Advanced Micro Devices,\nInc. (\u201cRequester\u201d) hereby requests an ex parte reexamination of claims 1-5, 8-11,\n14, and 21 (the \u201cChallenged Claims\u201d) of U.S. Patent 8,549,339 (the \u201c\u2019339 Patent,\nEx. 1001\u201d), which issued on October 1, 2013 to Wolfe et al. from U.S. Patent\n\nApplication 12/713,220 (the \u201c\u2019220 Application\u201d) filed on February 26, 2010.\u2019 The\n\n' At this time, Requester assumes this priority date is correct.\ni\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-5 Filed 06/10/26 Page 3of5\n\n\u00b0339 Patent is currently assigned Redstone Logics LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d or \u201cPatent\nOwner\u201d). The assignment is recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n(\u201cUSPTO\u201d) at reel/frame 062120/0206, 064575/0934, 048373/0217, and\n024009/0530.\n\nRequester submits that this Request presents substantial new questions of\npatentability based on prior art references that are non-cumulative of the\nconsiderations that were before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the\n\u00b0339 Patent. Requester also submits that this Request shows that the Challenged\nClaims are invalid over these references. Requester therefore requests that an order\nfor reexamination and an Office Action rejecting claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 be\nissued.\n\nEx Parte Patent Reexamination Filing Requirements\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.510(b)(1), statements pointing out at least one\nsubstantial new question of patentability based on material, non-cumulative reference\npatents and printed publications for the Challenged Claims of the \u2019339 Patent are\nprovided in Sections I and II of this Request.\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.510(b)(2), reexamination of the Challenged Claims\nof the *339 Patent is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinence and\nmanner of applying the cited references to the Challenged Claims is provided in\n\nSection II of this Request.\n\nil\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-5 Filed 06/10/26\n\nPage 4 of 5\n\nRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 8,549,339\n\nelectronics Co.\n\nName Number District Status\nRedstone Logics LLC v. NXP 7-24-cv-00028 | W.D. Tex. Terminated\nSemiconductors NV\nRedsione Logies LLC v. Mediale& | 5 54 \u00a2v.00029 | W.D. Tex.| Terminated\nRedstone Logics LLC. Samsung) 453, \u00a2y.90485 | B.D. Tex. | Terminated\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n\nThe Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge Deposit Account Number\n\n503266 under Docket No. 500712.000038 the Ex Parte Reexamination fee of\n\n$13,545 under 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.20(c)(1). Requester believes no other fee is due with\n\nthis submission, however the Commissioner 1s hereby authorized to charge any fee\n\ndeficiency or credit any over-payment to Deposit Account Number 503266.\n\nPlease direct all correspondence in this matter to the undersigned.\n\n120\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 64-5 Filed 06/10/26 Page5of5\n\nRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 8,549,339\n\nDated: December 9, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n(Jennifer Librach Nall/\n\nJennifer Librach Nall\n\nReg. No. 57,053\n\nMichael Saulnier\n\nReg. No. 78,432\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n303 Colorado St., Suite 3000\nAustin, TX 78701\n\nTelephone: (512) 457-7000\nFacsimile: (512) 457-7001\nJonmfor Nall pisb@fus dlanmmer cor\nNocbael sauinisri@us diapiper com\n\nDaniel Valencia\n\nReg. No. 56,463\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n500 Eighth Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20004\nTelephone: (202) 799-4000\nFacsimile: (202) 799-5000\nDaniel valenciagons dlariper cont\n\nChris M. Katsantonis\n\nReg. No. 78,388\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n444 West Lake Street, Suite 900\nChicago, IL 60606\n\nTelephone: (312) 368-4000\nFacsimile: (312) 236-7516\n\nAttorneys for Advanced Micro Devices,\nInc.\n\n121\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T06:37:38.469178-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"181036726260","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-10T06:36:55.949636-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-10T07:06:55.618376-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-10","time_filed":"08:32:59","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":208,"description":"MOTION to Stay by Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order, (2) Declaration of Eric C. Green, (3) Exhibit 1, (4) Exhibit 3, (5) Exhibit 4)(slt)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466430823/","id":466430823,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481669453/","id":481669453,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/63/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-05T07:32:07.245018-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-08T03:42:33.262360-07:00","sha1":"1b9301123485b9d7c96f6a1a77e258459154bc77","page_count":4,"file_size":135923,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.63.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.63.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 63 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 UNOPPOSED NOTICE REGARDING\n DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n\n Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., (collectively,\n\n\u201cQualcomm\u201d) respectfully request that the Court enter certain exhibits to Qualcomm\u2019s Motion to\n\nStay (Dkt. 62, the \u201cMotion\u201d), filed June 4, 2026, under seal. Specifically, Exhibits 2, 5, and 6 were\n\ninadvertently not designated in ECF as sealed (Dkts. 62-4, 62-7, and 62-8). The Motion itself and\n\nall other exhibits may be filed on the Court\u2019s public docket.\n\n Pursuant to Judge Albright\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents Under Seal and\n\nRedacted Public Versions (Feb. 13, 2025), \u201c[p]arties need not file a separate motion for leave\u201d to\n\nfile under seal. Qualcomm therefore requests that the clerk enter Exhibits 2, 5, and 6 to the Motion\n\nto Stay under seal.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 63 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nDate: June 5, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n By: Richard S. Zembek\n\n Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)\n richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Daniel S. Leventhal (SBN 24050923)\n daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\n Houston, TX 77010\n Telephone: (713) 651-5151\n Fax: (713) 651-5246\n\n Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Brett A. McKean (SBN 24057994)\n brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\n Austin, Texas 78701\n Telephone: (512) 474-5201\n Fax: (512) 536-4598\n\n COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM\n INCORPORATED AND QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 63 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that on June 5, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court\n\nusing the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.\n\n\n By: Richard S. Zembek\n Richard S. Zembek\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 63 Filed 06/05/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I certify that on June 5, 2026, the parties met and conferred and counsel for Redstone\n\nconfirmed it does not oppose the filing of this Notice.\n\n\n By: Richard S. Zembek\n Richard S. Zembek\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-05T07:32:07.689855-07:00","document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036700917","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-05T07:32:07.221567-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T08:03:58.063654-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-05","time_filed":"09:30:40","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":206,"description":"NOTICE Regarding Documents to be Filed Under Seal (Unopposed) by Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (Zembek, Richard)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466385006/","id":466385006,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622085/","id":481622085,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:44.411663-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:18.645443-07:00","sha1":"bac55e70ed053c0f2d97e813ebde4b9ca793de4e","page_count":15,"file_size":281843,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page\n\nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1\n\nII. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2\n\nIV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3\n\n A. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Redstone, But Proceeding Would\n Prejudice Qualcomm. .......................................................................................3\n\n B. The Reexamination Could Moot This Case by Cancelling All Asserted\n Claims. ..............................................................................................................5\n\n C. The Stage of This Case Favors a Stay. .............................................................6\n\nV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nBarnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp.,\n 849 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .......................................................................................4\n\nCrossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp.,\n No. A-13-CA-1025-SS, 2015 WL 3773014 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2015) ..............................3, 5\n\nDestination Maternity Corp. v. Target Corp.,\n 12 F. Supp. 3d 762 (E.D. Penn. 2014) .......................................................................................6\n\nEastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire, & Rubber Co.,\n 114 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Cybor Corp.\n v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................4\n\nJoy Mfg. Co. v. Nat\u2019l Mine Serv. Co, Inc.,\n 810 F.2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................2\n\nKatana Silicon Techs. LLC v. GlobalFoundries, Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-852-RP, 2024 WL 5169808 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2024) .....................................3\n\nLandis v. N. Am. Co.,\n 299 U.S. 248 (1936) ...................................................................................................................2\n\nLELO, Inc. v. Standard Innovation (US) Corp.,\n No. 13-CV-01393-JD, 2014 WL 2879851 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ......................................5\n\nPolaris Powerled Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-0973-RP, 2023 WL 5282381 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2023) ..............................3, 5\n\nRedstone Logics, LLC. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00182-DC-DTG.....................................................................................................2\n\nRedstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 45.....................................................................1, 6\n\nSegin Sys., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.,\n 30 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2014) ..........................................................................................3\n\nSmartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n 621 F. App\u2019x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................3\n\nSoverain Software LLC v. Amazon, Inc.,\n 356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .......................................................................................3\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\nVirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,\n 759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................3, 5\n\nZomm, LLC v. Apple Inc.,\n 391 F. Supp. 3d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................6\n\nRules and Statutes\n\nRule 12 .............................................................................................................................................2\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF EXHIBITS\n\n\n\nShort Name Description\nGreen Decl. Declaration of Eric C. Green in Support of Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay\nExhibit 1 Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, dated March 6,\n 2026\nExhibit 2 Redstone\u2019s Final Infringement Contentions, dated August 4, 2025\nExhibit 3 \u201cEx Parte Reexamination Filing Data\u201d from the U.S. Patent and\n Trademark Office\nExhibit 4 Excerpts of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.\u2019s Request for Ex Parte\n Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 in In re Patent of Wolfe, et\n al., dated December 9, 2025\nExhibit 5 Redstone\u2019s Response to Qualcomm\u2019s Interrogatory No. 10, excerpted\n from its Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendants\u2019\n First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16)\nExhibit 6 Qualcomm\u2019s Response to Redstone\u2019s Interrogatory No. 3, excerpted\n from its March 26, 2026 Third Supplemental Objections and Responses\n to Redstone\u2019s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15)\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., (collectively,\n\n\u201cQualcomm\u201d) respectfully request that the Court stay this case pending the ex parte reexamination\n\nof the only patent in this case\u2014U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (\u201cthe \u2019339 patent\u201d). 1 That reexamination\n\ncovers every claim Redstone Logics LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d) asserts. Compare Ex. 2 1 at 18, with Ex. 2.\n\nThe reexamination may therefore resolve this case.\n\n A stay is particularly appropriate in this case for several reasons:\n\n First, the reexamination is likely to materially affect this case. The request has already been\n\ngranted, and the United States Patent & Trademark Office (\u201cPTO\u201d) is reexamining all asserted\n\nclaims of the asserted patent. Once the PTO grants a request for reexamination, it cancels or\n\nchanges the asserted claims in 78.1% of cases. See Ex. 3. Here, the PTO granted reexamination on\n\nsix separate substantial new questions. See Ex. 1. If the PTO cancels the asserted claims, there will\n\nbe no case to try. Even if some claims of the \u2019339 patent are not canceled, the reexamination could\n\nmaterially simplify the case by canceling the asserted claims, amending claims, or determining\n\nthat the scope of one or more claims is affected by the prosecution record.\n\n Second, there would be little, if any, prejudice to Redstone resulting from a stay. Redstone\n\ndoes not compete with Qualcomm or sell any products practicing the \u2019339 patent. See generally\n\nThird Am. Compl., Dkt. 41; Ex. 5 (Redstone\u2019s response to Qualcomm\u2019s damages interrogatory).\n\nFurther, Redstone seeks monetary relief. See Third Am. Compl., Dkt. 41 \u00b6 16. If any asserted claim\n\nsurvives reexamination, Redstone can still seek damages.\n\n Third, this case remains at a stage where a stay would preserve resources rather than waste\n\n\n1\n Apple Inc. filed a motion to stay on similar grounds in Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc., No.\n7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 45.\n2\n Citations to \u201cEx.\u201d refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Eric C. Green (\u201cGreen Decl.\u201d).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\nthem. Discovery is still in progress, and there is no trial date currently scheduled. The Court\u2019s\n\ninvolvement thus far has been limited to Rule 12 and Markman proceedings and a handful of\n\ndiscovery disputes, but Qualcomm anticipates the need to move for summary judgment of at least\n\nnon-infringement and\u2014based on Redstone\u2019s representations\u2014Daubert proceedings to preclude\n\nRedstone\u2019s impermissible damages theories. By staying this case, the Court\u2019s burden in addressing\n\nthose and other pretrial motions is potentially eliminated.\n\nII. BACKGROUND\n\n Redstone filed this action in September 2024, 11 years after the \u2019339 patent issued and nine\n\nyears after the first Qualcomm product allegedly using the accused functionality was announced.\n\nDkt. 1-1; Ex. 6. On December 9, 2025, Advanced Micro Devices (\u201cAMD\u201d) 3 filed a request for ex\n\nparte reexamination of the \u2019339 patent. Ex. 4. The request challenges every claim Redstone asserts\n\nagainst Qualcomm in this litigation. Compare Ex. 4 at 1, with Ex. 2. On March 6, 2026, the PTO\n\ngranted the request and ordered reexamination of all asserted claims. Ex. 1.\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n \u201c[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to\n\ncontrol the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for\n\ncounsel, and for litigants.\u201d Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In patent cases, courts\n\ncommonly consider three familiar factors in deciding whether to order a stay: \u201c(1) whether a stay\n\nwill unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether\n\na stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is\n\n\n3\n AMD and Redstone have since resolved their litigation through settlement. See Redstone Logics,\nLLC. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00182-DC-DTG (ECF Nos. 37 and 40). As\nthe name implies, ex parte reexaminations may continue after settlement, because once the USPTO\ninstitutes reexamination, the \u201crequestor[] has no future role to play\u201d in the proceeding. Joy Mfg.\nCo. v. Nat\u2019l Mine Serv. Co, Inc., 810 F.2d 1127, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1987).\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\ncomplete and whether a trial date has been set.\u201d Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon, Inc., 356 F.\n\nSupp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005).\n\n This Court has granted stays under circumstances analogous to those present here\u2014where\n\nan ordered reexamination covers all asserted claims of the asserted patent. See, e.g., Katana Silicon\n\nTechs. LLC v. GlobalFoundries, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-852-RP, 2024 WL 5169808, at *3 (W.D. Tex.\n\nApr. 11, 2024) (granting motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination following order granting\n\nEPR where no undue prejudice existed).\n\nIV. ARGUMENT\n\n A. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Redstone, But Proceeding Would Prejudice\n Qualcomm.\n\n A stay pending the ordered reexamination will not unduly prejudice Redstone. 4 Delay\n\nalone is not undue prejudice, particularly where any alleged injury can be addressed through\n\ndamages if the asserted claims survive reexamination. Polaris Powerled Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs.\n\nInc., No. 1:22-CV-0973-RP, 2023 WL 5282381, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2023) (\u201cPolaris\u2019s\n\nremedy in this case is monetary damages, and a stay will not adversely impact its ability to collect\n\ndamages for any injury.\u201d); Crossroads Sys., Inc. v. Dot Hill Sys. Corp., No. A-13-CA-1025-SS,\n\n2015 WL 3773014, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2015) (\u201c[M]ere delay in collecting [monetary]\n\ndamages does not constitute undue prejudice.\u201d). Redstone does not compete with Qualcomm. See\n\ngenerally Third Am. Compl., Dkt. 41; Ex. 5 (Redstone\u2019s response to Qualcomm\u2019s damages\n\n\n4\n Similarly, Redstone will not face a \u201cclear tactical disadvantage\u201d if a stay is implemented. Courts\nhave found that such a disadvantage is present, for instance, where a stay would afford a party\n\u201ctwo separate opportunities in two separate forums to challenge the validity of Plaintiff\u2019s patent.\u201d\nSee Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 621 F. App\u2019x 995, 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Segin Sys., Inc.\nv. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 30 F. Supp. 3d 476, 484 (E.D. Va. 2014)). Alternatively, a clear\ndisadvantage may arise where a party deliberately withholds prior art from a PTAB petition to\npreserve it for district court litigation in the event the petition fails. See VirtualAgility Inc. v.\nSalesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014). No such circumstance is present here.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\ninterrogatory). Thus, if any asserted claim survives reexamination, Redstone can still seek\n\ndamages.\n\n Redstone\u2019s own delay further undercuts any claim of prejudice. The \u2019339 patent issued in\n\n2013 (see Dkt. 1-1), and Qualcomm\u2019s earliest identified U.S. order of an accused product was\n\nAugust 2015. Ex. 6 (Qualcomm\u2019s March 6, 2026 Supplemental Response to Redstone\u2019s\n\nInterrogatory No. 3). Yet Redstone and its predecessors in interest delayed until September 2024\n\nto bring this case. Dkt. 1. That history is inconsistent with any claim that a stay pending\n\nreexamination would cause undue prejudice. And while it is true that Redstone itself only obtained\n\nthe \u2019339 Patent in 2022, the delay of its predecessors in interest are fairly attributable to Redstone.\n\nSee Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire, & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)\n\n(in the context of a claim of laches, \u201cZimmer\u2019s actions prior to the assignment of the patent rights\n\nare imputed to Eastman. A patentee cannot avoid the consequences of his laches by transferring\n\nthe patent.\u201d), abrogated on other grounds by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d\n\n1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 849 F. Supp. 2d 925, 931 (N.D. Cal.\n\n2012) (\u201c[A prior assignee\u2019s] conduct may be imputed to [the patentee] for at least some theories\n\nof unenforceability of patent rights, including laches, estoppel, and inequitable conduct\u201d and\n\ncollecting cases).\n\n By contrast, proceeding now would impose real and avoidable prejudice on Qualcomm.\n\nWithout a stay, Qualcomm would be forced to continue litigating discovery, invalidity, non-\n\ninfringement, damages, and pretrial issues based on claims whose validity and scope are under\n\nactive reexamination. If the PTO cancels or changes the asserted claims, as happens 78.1% of the\n\ntime, then the resources spent in this Court will have been wasted and Qualcomm\u2014and\n\nRedstone\u2014may face the risk of duplicative or inconsistent proceedings involving the scope and\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\nvalidity of the claims. That risk is especially acute because the prosecution history is actively\n\ndeveloping during the reexamination. Avoiding precisely that prejudice and risk of inconsistency\n\nis one reason courts stay patent cases pending resolution of reexamination requests. See Polaris,\n\n2023 WL 5282381, at *4; TC Tech., 2021 WL 8083373, at *2\u20133; Crossroads Sys., 2015 WL\n\n3773014, at *3 (all focusing on conservation of parties\u2019 and the Court\u2019s resources).\n\n B. The Reexamination Could Moot This Case by Cancelling All Asserted Claims.\n\n The second factor strongly favors a stay because the ordered reexamination covers every\n\nasserted claim. This is not a case where the PTO is reviewing only some asserted claims or issues\n\nperipheral to the litigation. The PTO is reexamining the same claims Redstone asks this Court to\n\nadjudicate.\n\n If the PTO cancels the asserted claims, there will be no case to try. That is the ultimate\n\nsimplification. Even if the PTO does not cancel every asserted claim, the reexamination may still\n\nsubstantially simplify the case. Quartz Auto, Dkt. 125, at *3 (quoting LELO, Inc. v. Standard\n\nInnovation (US) Corp., No. 13-CV-01393-JD, 2014 WL 2879851, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014))\n\n(\u201cThe standard is simplification of the district court case, not complete elimination of it[.]\u201d). The\n\nPTO may issue some rejections or create a prosecution record bearing on claim scope. Redstone\n\nmay also amend claims, which could affect infringement, invalidity, damages, and intervening-\n\nrights issues. Should trial go forward on claims that are ultimately amended or invalidated, the\n\nefforts of the Court, the parties, and the jury would be for naught.\n\n The PTO\u2019s published statistics make it clear that there is a significant chance of\n\nsimplification. As discussed above, in more than three quarters of completed third-party requested\n\nex parte reexaminations, the certificate does not confirm all claims. Ex. 3 at 2. Where, as here,\n\nevery asserted claim is under reexamination, that likelihood of claim cancellation or change\n\nstrongly favors a stay. Polaris, 2023 WL 5282381, at *3 (quoting VirtualAgility Inc. v.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\nSalesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (finding review of all claims of the\n\nonly asserted patent \u201cweighs heavily in favor of the stay\u201d).\n\n Redstone may contend, as it did in its opposition to Apple\u2019s Motion to Stay, that if some,\n\nbut not all, claims of the \u2019339 Patent are changed or canceled, Redstone can change its infringement\n\nallegations to \u201cavoid\u201d the changed or canceled claims. See Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple Inc., No.\n\n7:25-cv-00183-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 49, at 3\u20134. But Redstone\u2019s argument demonstrates\n\nprecisely why this case should be stayed\u2014if the target is moving as Redstone suggests, a stay until\n\nthe reexamination has concluded is the most appropriate and efficient solution.\n\n C. The Stage of This Case Favors a Stay.\n\n The stage of the case also favors a stay. Fact discovery is ongoing. Expert discovery has\n\nnot begun and does not begin for months. And no trial date is currently set. At base, this is a good\n\ntime to stay this case because the parties and the Court have not yet invested the resources that\n\nmight make a stay less efficient. See Zomm, LLC v. Apple Inc., 391 F. Supp. 3d 946, 956 (N.D.\n\nCal. 2019) (stage of the litigation favored a stay where \u201c[n]o expert discovery has been conducted,\n\nno substantive motions have been filed, and no trial date has been set.\u201d); Destination Maternity\n\nCorp. v. Target Corp., 12 F. Supp. 3d 762, 771 (E.D. Penn. 2014) (stage of the litigation favored\n\na stay where \u201cfact and expert discovery is nowhere near complete\u201d and \u201ca trial date is not set\u201d).\n\n Staying the case now would avoid the most burdensome and expensive phases of patent\n\nlitigation, including expert reports, depositions, dispositive motions practice, pretrial filings, and\n\ntrial preparation. Additionally, Qualcomm anticipates the need for the Court to resolve substantial\n\npre-trial briefing, including, at least, a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and\n\ndamages-related Daubert motions. Staying the case now will therefore maximize the savings to\n\nthe Court and the parties while the PTO reexamines every asserted claim of the only asserted\n\npatent.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\n The absence of a current trial date also supports a stay. Given the logistical difficulties of\n\nscheduling a patent jury trial, it is very likely that the median certificate-issuance of July 2027 will\n\noccur prior to a scheduled trial date. Further, certificate issuance is not the only relevant milestone.\n\nSubstantive PTO activity may occur before then, and may itself simplify the case by addressing\n\nwhether the asserted claims survive, whether Redstone amends them, and whether the prosecution\n\nrecord affects their scope. The fact that no trial date has yet been set makes a stay at this time\n\nparticularly appropriate.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court stay this action\n\npending the ordered reexamination concerning the \u2019339 patent. A stay will not unduly prejudice\n\nRedstone, will conserve judicial and party resources, and is likely to eliminate or substantially\n\nsimplify this case.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\nDate: June 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)\n richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Daniel S. Leventhal (SBN 24050923)\n daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\n Houston, TX 77010\n Telephone: (713) 651-5151\n Fax: (713) 651-5246\n\n Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Brett A. McKean (SBN 24057994)\n brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\n Austin, Texas 78701\n Telephone: (512) 474-5201\n Fax: (512) 536-4598\n\n COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM\n INCORPORATED AND QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I certify that on June 1, 2026, the parties met and conferred via teleconference, and counsel\n\nfor Redstone indicated it opposes this motion.\n\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62 Filed 06/04/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that on June 4, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court\n\nusing the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.\n\n\n By: Daniel S. Leventhal\n Daniel S. Leventhal\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:37:44.944784-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699204","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622086/","id":481622086,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/1/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.080518-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:24:49.282894-07:00","sha1":"e4766ff3bccf255dd2ef14d3d094f04e8cf3114e","page_count":1,"file_size":94892,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\n\n The Court has considered Defendants\u2019 Motion to Stay and is of the opinion that the Motion\n\nshould be GRANTED.\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n SIGNED this __________ day of _______________, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:37:57.260993-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699206","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622087/","id":481622087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/2/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.104177-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:16.310721-07:00","sha1":"5f317d2c9bec7dfd83159c8efcff44a3f6d0e774","page_count":2,"file_size":155266,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-2 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF ERIC C. GREEN\n IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\u2019 OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY\n\n I, Eric C. Green, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, counsel of\n\nrecord for Defendants Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively,\n\n\u201cQualcomm\u201d) in this action. I am a member of good standing of the Bar of the State of Texas, and\n\nI am admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration on my own personal knowledge\n\nof the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently\n\ntestify to them.\n\n 2. The parties met and conferred on June 1, 2026, counsel for Redstone confirmed\n\nthat Redstone opposes a stay pending reexamination.\n\n 3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting Request for\n\nEx Parte Reexamination, dated March 6, 2026, excerpted from the prosecution history of U.S.\n\nPatent No. 8,549,339.\n\n 4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Redstone\u2019s Final Infringement\n\nContentions, dated August 4, 2025.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-2 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a document titled \u201cEx Parte\n\nReexamination Filing Data\u201d from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.\n\n 6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of Advanced Micro\n\nDevices, Inc.\u2019s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 in In re Patent\n\nof Wolfe, et al., dated December 9, 2025.\n\n 7. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Redstone\u2019s Response to\n\nQualcomm\u2019s Interrogatory No. 10, excerpted from its Second Supplemental Objections and\n\nResponses to Defendants\u2019 First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16).\n\n 8. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Qualcomm\u2019s Response to\n\nRedstone\u2019s Interrogatory No. 3, excerpted from its March 26, 2026 Third Supplemental Objections\n\nand Responses to Redstone\u2019s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15).\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above\n\nstatements are true and correct.\n\n Executed on the 4th day of June, 2026, in Austin, Texas.\n\n\n /s/ Eric C. Green\n Eric C. Green\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:38:13.355492-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699207","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of E. Green","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622088/","id":481622088,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/3/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.126106-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:12.415485-07:00","sha1":"67ebd782a727512fac33a73b106e0f31ea5d15a0","page_count":21,"file_size":937844,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page1of21\n\nEXHIBIT 1\n\n\fcument 62\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\nATENT AND [TRADEMARK\n\nNITED STATES\n\n6 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 21\nFFICE\n\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\n\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE\n\nFIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,761 12/09/2025 0440101RX1 4243\n25700 7590 EXAMINER\n\nFARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP\n26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360\n\nMISSION VIEJO, CA 92691\n\nCAMPBELL, JOSHUA D\n\nART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\nMAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n03/06/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3of 21\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nDO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER\n\n(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)\n\nDLA PIPER LLP US - Reston\nATTIN: PATENT GROUP\n11911 FREEDOM DR.\nSUITE 300\n\nRESTON, VA 20190\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/015,767 .\nPATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 8549339.\n\nART UNIT 3992.\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice in the above identified ex parfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a\nreply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parfe reexamination requester will be\nacknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nPTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4of 21\n\nControl No. Patent Under Reexamination\n. 90/015,761 8549339\nOrder Granting Request For\nEx Parte Reexamination Examiner Art Unit | AIA (FITF) Status\nJOSHUA D CAMPBELL 3992 No\n\n--The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--\n\nThe request for ex pavfe reexamination filed 09 December 2025 has been considered and a determination\nhas been made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the\ndetermination are attached.\n\nAttachments: a)(] PTO-892, b)\u00a5} PTO/SB/08, c).) Other:\n\n1. The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.\nRESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:\n\nFor Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication\n(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\nFor Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed\n\nPatent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.\nIf Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester\n\nis permitted.\n\nJOSHUA D CAMPBELL/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n\ncc:Requester ( if third party requester )\n\nU.S. Patent and Trademark Office\nPTOL-471G(Rev. 01-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20251218\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page5of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 2\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nDecision on Request\n1. A substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability affecting claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of\nUnited States Patent Number 8,549,339 (hereinafter \u201cthe \u201c339 Patent\u201d) is raised by the request for ex\n\nparte reexamination filed December 9, 20235.\n\nInformation Disclosure Statement\n2. Where the IDS citations are submitted but not described, the examiner is only responsible for\ncursorily reviewing the references. The initials of the examiner on the PTO-1449 indicate only that degree\nof review unless the reference is either applied against the claims, or discussed by the examiner as\npertinent art of interest, in a subsequent office action.\n\nSee Guidelines for Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d\n786, 42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FR at 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response to\ncomment 6).\n\nConsideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the examiner\nwill consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered\nby the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the\nexaminer placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08A and O8B or its equivalent\nmean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above.\n\nRegarding IDS submissions MPEP 2256 recites the following: \"Where patents, publications, and\nother such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner) in compliance with the\nrequirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration to be given to such information will be\nnormally limited by the degree to which the party filing the information citation has explained the content\n\nand relevance of the information.\u201d\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 3\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nPrior art cited in the Request\n3. The present request indicates that the Requester considers that a substantial new question of\n\npatentability is raised as to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the *339 Patent by the following prior art\n\nreferences:\na. White \u2014 U:S. Patent No. 7,263,457\nb. Talwar \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0271646\nC. Boyle \u2014 U.S. Patent No. 7,669,151\nd. Lee \u2014- \u201cDynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) Scheme for Multi-Domains\nPower Management\u201d\ne. De Oliverira \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0152087\nf. Flautner \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0034002\ng. Kato \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0210738\nh. Vajda \u2014 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0060170\nProsecution History\n4, The 339 Patent application was assigned serial number 12/713,220 (hereinafter \u201cthe \u2018220\n\napplication\u201d), effectively filed February 26, 2010. During the original prosecution, the \u2018220 application\ninitially included claims 1-20. A preliminary amendment was filed on August 2, 2011 that added claims\n21-23.\n\nIn anon-final action mailed August 29, 2012, the previous examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9,\n14, and 21 in view of Jacobowitz et al.; claims 2-4, 7, 12, and 13 in view of Jacobowitz et al. and Kim et\nal.; and claims 10, 11, 15-20, 22, and 23 in view of Jacobowitz et al., Kim et al., and von Kaenel. Claims\n18-20 were also rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 15-20 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,\n\nsecond paragraph.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 7 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 4\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nIn response, the patent owner filed an amendment on November 29, 2012, amending claims 1, 10,\n11, 15, and 18-23. The following amendments were made to the independent claims (using claim | as\nexample):\n\n1. (Currantly Amended) A multi-core processor, comprising:\n\na first aet of prosesscr corea of the mulfi-core processar, wherein each pronesaar core\nfram the first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first\nsupply vollage and a first oulput clock signal_of a first phage fork loon (PLL)\nhaving & first clock sina! as input:\n\n& seoond set of processor cores of fhe multi-core processor, wherein gach processor\ncore from the second set of processor cores is configured to dynarainally receive\n4 send supmy voltage and a second gutpul clock signalot a secend PLL having\n\n\u00ae second cock signal as input wherein the first sumcly vollage is indacencen}\n\nfrom the sepoon suophy voltage. anc the fst clock sional is indenerdeant from the\n\nart interface hfock coupled ie the fret set of processar cares and aisa coupled fa the\naccom) set af procesoor cores, wherein the intedace block is configured to\nfandiaie communination between the first set of praceascr onras and the second\nast of processor cores.\n\nPatent owner also presented the following arguments in view of the amendments.\n\nFirst, Jacobowiz fails to disclase or teach a first set of processor cores and secand set\nof processar cores configured tu dynaraioally rensive a frei supcly vallags and a second supply\nvoltage, resuectively. lyeadditien, the Irst supply vallage is incdepencderit frore the seoanc supphy\nyoltage, as raquired in the amended indagendent clairas 7 and 21. Paragraph (00434 of\nJacobowitz meony mentions thai \u201cWlurther power manacqeniot can be malized by controling\nihe power supply vollage (Vdd) to gach core and/or chip.\u201d in other words, Jacabowl2 is silent\nwith respect tc least the recited diferent seta of processor cores configured lo receive\nindependert sunply vollages.\n\nSecond, FG. 6 and all other figures of Jacobowylz clearly show thal the microprocessor\nchip (\u00a2.g., B00} receives a system reterence oscillator clock frequency (og and disiiibutes vy, to\nfocal oxciflators 108. Ree Jaoobowilz, paragraphs (BOS? HOR3E] ard FRG. 6. weeobowiiz hades io\n\nsclese or teach a first set of processor cares and second set of processor cores configured to\n\ndynamically receive a first cuigul clock sional of 4 first PLL having a first clook signal as input\n\nreanociively. In addition, the frst clock signal is independent fram the second clock signal, as\nrequired in the amended independent claims t and 2.\n\nFor at least the reasons set tarth shove, the arnended independent claims 1 and 21 and\nthe relaiad dependent daims 2 ~ 14 and 22 ~ 29 ara patentable over Jacobowitz. Applicart\n\nreaneciiuily requests. ihe withdrawal of the rejections under $5 LLE.C. 102.\n\n(pages 9 and 10 of PO\u2019s response filed November 29, 2012 in the \u2018220 application)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 8 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 5\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nIn response to the amendment, the application was passed to allowance in the Notice of\nAllowance mailed February 14, 2013. The examiner stated no reasons for allowance. Thus, as it\ncurrently stands based on the prosecution history of the \u2018220 application, it appears that the claims of the\n*339 Patent were allowed at least in part based on the following limitations (using claim las example:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\n\nfirst set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a\nfirst output clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from\n\nthe second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply\n\nvoltage and a second output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as\n\ninput, wherein the first supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the\n\nfirst clock signal is independent from the second clock signal; (patent claim 1)\nFollowing the issuance of the *339 Patent, IPR2025-00085 was requested to challenge claims 1-6, 8-11,\n14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent based on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, 21 \u2014 Knoth in view of Allarey\n\nGround 2: Claims 2-4 \u2014- Knoth in view of Allarey and Flautner\n\nGround 3: Claim 6 \u2014 Knoth in view of Allarey, Wolfe, and Kumar\n\nGround 4: Claim 11 - Knoth in view of Allarey and Wolfe\n\nGround 5: Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 21 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey\n\nGround 6: Claims 4 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey and Flautner\n\nGround 7: Claim 6 \u2014 Naffzinger in view of Allarey, Wolfe, and Kumar\n\nGround 8: Claim 11 - Naffzinger in view of Allarey and Wolfe\nOn April 22, 2025, the PTAB issued a decision to Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review based on a\nlack of demonstration of a reasonable likelihood to prevail by the petitioner.\n\nIPR2025-00485 was also requested to challenge claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent\nbased on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 White in view of Talwar\n\nGround 2: Claims 5, 14 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Cho\n\nGround 3: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Vajda\n\nGround 4: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer\n\nGround 5: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer and Vajda\nGround 6: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer and Williams\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 9 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 6\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nGround 7: Claims 8, 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Ozer, Williams, and Vajda\nOn July 10, 2025, a decision Denying Institution of the /nter Partes Review based on a request for\ndiscretionary denial.\n\nIPR2025-01532 was also requested to challenge claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent\nbased on the following grounds:\n\nGround 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 White in view of Talwar and Lee\n\nGround 2: Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 14, 21 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Lee\n\nGround 3: Claim 9 \u2014 Elgebaly in view of Lee and Vajda\n\nThe PTAB has yet to issue a decision granting or denying institution of Jnter Partes Review.\n\nSubstantial New Question of Patentability\n5. The italicized sections of claim | are utilized by the examiner to show how specific teachings of\nthe proposed references create a substantial new question of patentability.\n1. A multi-core processor, comprising:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from\nthe first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply\nvoltage and a first output clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first\nclock signal as input;\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core\nfrom the second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second\nsupply voltage and a second output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock\nsignal as input, wherein the first supply voltage is independent from the second supply\nvoltage, and the first clock signal is independent from the second clock signal; and\n\nan interface block coupled to the first set of processor cores and also coupled to the second\n\nset of processor cores, wherein the interface block is configured to facilitate\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 10 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 7\nArt Unit: 3992\n\ncommunication between the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor\n\ncores.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNOQ 1)\n\n6. The Request shows that White in view Talwar and Boyle provide teachings relevant to the\ndetermination of patentability regarding the following limitations, for claim 1:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the first\nset of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a first\noutput clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\nWhite discloses a multi-core integrated circuit which allows for any number of logic\ncores being configured to operate at independent voltages and/or frequencies (column 2, lines\n15-44 and column 6, lines 56-67 of White). Additionally, White discloses multi-core\nintegrated circuits may be configured to operate and frequencies and/or voltages from other\nmulti-core integrated circuits (column 8, lines 41-58 of White).\n\nTalwar discloses a multi-core processor design in which the cores and voltage\nsources are divided into clusters, where each cluster receives power for a single voltage\nsource and may have a different cluster frequency (paragraphs [0011], [0018] and [0019] of\nTalwar).\n\nBoyle discloses integrated circuits that are organized into various clock domains (Fig.\n9; column 2, lines 54-61; and column 9, lines 61-67 of Boyle).\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\nsecond set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply voltage and a\nsecond output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as input, wherein the\nfirst supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the first clock signal is\n\nindependent from the second clock signal;\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 11 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 8\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nWhite discloses a multi-core integrated circuit which allows for any number of logic\ncores being configured to operate at independent voltages and/or frequencies (column 2, lines\n15-44 and column 6, lines 56-67 of White). Additionally, White discloses multi-core\nintegrated circuits may be configured to operate and frequencies and/or voltages from other\nmulti-core integrated circuits (column 8, lines 41-58 of White).\n\nTalwar discloses a multi-core processor design in which the cores and voltage\nsources are divided into clusters, where each cluster receives power for a single voltage\nsource and may have a different cluster frequency (paragraphs [0011], [0018] and [0019] of\nTalwar).\n\nBoyle discloses integrated circuits that are organized into various clock domains (Fig.\n9; column 2, lines 54-61; and column 9, lines 61-67 of Boyle). Boyle discloses the clock\n\ndomains are clocked using independent clock sources (column 10, lines 15-20 of Boyle).\n\nThe White, Talwar, and Boyle references were not previously discussed by the previous examiner\nnor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 patent. Additionally,\nwhile the White and Talwar references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims 1-3, 5,\n8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White and\nTalwar in said IPR proceedings.\n\nIn a decision to order reexamination made on or after November 2, 2002, reliance on old art does\nnot necessarily preclude the existence of a substantial new question of patentability that is based\nexclusively on that old art. See Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1899-1906 (2002), which expanded\nthe scope of what qualifies for a substantial new question of patentability upon which a reexamination\nmay be based. Determinations on whether a substantial new question of patentability exists in such an\ninstance shall be based upon a fact-specific inquiry done on a case-by-case basis. For example, a\nsubstantial new question of patentability may be based solely on old art where the old art is being\n\npresented/viewed in a new light, or in a different way, as compared with its use in the earlier\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 12 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 9\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nexamination(s), in view of a material new argument or interpretation presented in the request. Such\nmaterial new argument or interpretation may be based solely on claim scope of the patent being\nreexamined (see: MPEP 2242(II)(A)).\n\nThe White and Talwar references were cited in the previously filed IPR proceedings, however the\ncurrent presentation of the combination of these references with the Boyle reference is in a new light (see\nMPEP 2216).\n\nIt is agreed that White in view of Talwar and Boyle raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent. There is a substantial\nlikelihood that an examiner would consider these new, non-cumulative technological teachings important\nin deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, White in view of Talwar and Boyle raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent, a question which has\nnot been decided in a previous examination of the \u2018339 Patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity\n\nby the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar and Lee (SNO 2)\n\n7. The Request shows that White in view Talwar and Lee provide teachings relevant to the\ndetermination of patentability regarding the following limitations, for claim 1:\n\na first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the first\nset of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a first\noutput clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input;\n\nWhite discloses the reception of location-dependent incident information such as an\nemergency or hazard (column 7, lines 53-65; column 8, lines 12-21; and column 10, line 50-\n\ncolumn 11, line 8 of Franco)\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 13 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 10\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nJanke discloses a vehicle occupant\u2019s ability to inform the server of any discrepancies\nbetween what is actually present and what the map indicates is present, including modifying\nor deleting the description of the event (column 4, lines 35-54 of Janke).\n\na second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor, wherein each processor core from the\nsecond set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a second supply voltage and a\nsecond output clock signal of a second PLL having a second clock signal as input, wherein the\nfirst supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the first clock signal is\nindependent from the second clock signal;\n\nFranco discloses a display interface of a mobile phone that is configured to present\nincident alerts if the computed score for said event exceeds a threshold level (column 9, line\n\n45-column 10, line 24 of Franco)\n\nThe White, Talwar, and Lee references were not previously discussed by the previous examiner\nnor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 patent. Additionally,\nwhile the White, Talwar, and Lee references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims\n1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White,\nTalwar, and Lee in said IPR proceedings.\n\nIt is agreed that White in view of Talwar and Lee raises a substantial new question of\npatentability with respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u2018339 Patent. There is a substantial\nlikelihood that an examiner would consider these new, non-cumulative technological teachings important\nin deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, White in view of Talwar and Lee raises a substantial new question of patentability\nwith respect to at least claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 of the 339 Patent, a question which has not been\ndecided in a previous examination of the *339 Patent nor was there a final holding of invalidity by the\n\nFederal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 14 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 11\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and De Oliverira (SNQ 3)\n\n8. The De Oliverira reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences in the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the\nprior examination of the \u2018339 patent. Additionally, the De Oliverira reference was also not previously\ndiscussed by the previous examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of\nthe \u2018339 Patent. The De Oliverira reference in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nraises an SNQ at least based on the discussion found of above regarding White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the combination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide\nteachings that are relevant to the limitations noted above which may have been material in determining\nthe patentability of the \u201c339 Patent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of De Oliverira with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ\nwith respect to at least independent claims | and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the De Oliverira reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Flautner (SNO 4)\n\n9. The Flautner reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences in the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and\nBoyle was not previously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the\n\nprior examination of the \u2018339 patent. Additionally, the Flautner reference was also not previously\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 15 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 12\nArt Unit: 3992\n\ndiscussed by the previous examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of\nthe *339 Patent. Additionally, while the Flautner references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed\nabove, claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the\ncombination of White, Talwar, and Flautner in said IPR proceedings. The Flautner reference in\ncombination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based on the discussion\nfound of above regarding White in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the\ncombination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to the limitations\nnoted above which may have been material in determining the patentability of the \u201c339 Patent claims at\nthe time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Flautner with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Flautner reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Kato (SNO 5)\n\n10. The Kato reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nin the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and Boyle was not\npreviously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination\nof the *339 patent. Additionally, the Kato reference was also not previously discussed by the previous\nexaminer nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of the \u201c339 Patent. The\n\nKato reference in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 16 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 13\nArt Unit: 3992\n\non the discussion found of above regarding White in view of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request\nshows that the combination of White in view of Talwar and Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to\nthe limitations noted above which may have been material in determining the patentability of the \u2018339\nPatent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Kato with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Kato reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nraises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of\nthe *339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition, there has\n\nbeen no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\nWhite in view of Talwar, Boyle, and Vajda (SNQ 6)\n\n11. The Vajda reference has been cited in combination with the White, Talwar, and Boyle references\nin the Request as part of the asserted SNQ. As stated above, White in view of Talwar and Boyle was not\npreviously discussed by the examiner nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination\nof the \u201c339 patent. Additionally, the Vajda reference was also not previously discussed by the previous\nexaminer nor applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 14-21 in the prior examination of the *339 Patent.\nAdditionally, while the Vajda references are present in the IPR proceedings discussed above, claims 1-3,\n5, 8, 10, and 21 were not subject to any Final Written Decision in view of the combination of White,\nTalwar, and Vajda in said IPR proceedings. The Vajda reference in combination with the White, Talwar,\nand Boyle references raises an SNQ at least based on the discussion found of above regarding White in\n\nview of Talwar and Boyle (SNQ 1). The Request shows that the combination of White in view of Talwar\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 17 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 14\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nand Boyle provide teachings that are relevant to the limitations noted above which may have been\nmaterial in determining the patentability of the \u00ab339 Patent claims at the time of allowance.\n\nIt is agreed that the consideration of Vajda with White, Talwar, and Boyle raises an SNQ with\nrespect to at least independent claims 1 and 21 of the \u201c339 Patent based on the teachings of White,\nTalwar, and Boyle cited above. There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would\nconsider these teachings important in deciding whether or not these claims are patentable.\n\nAccordingly, the combination of the Vajda reference with the White, Talwar, and Boyle\nreferences raises a substantial new question of patentability with respect to at least claims 1-5, 8-11, 14,\nand 21 of the \u201c339 Patent, a question which has not been decided in a previous examination. In addition,\n\nthere has been no final holding of invalidity by the Federal Courts regarding the \u201c339 Patent.\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 325(d)\n\nSection 325(d) states in part, \u201c[1]n determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under\nthis chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition\nor request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to\nthe Office.\u201d Thus, for the Director to exercise discretion as to whether to Order a reexamination under\nchapter 30, the Request must first be determined to be based on the same or substantially the same prior\nart or arguments that were previously presented to the Office.\n\nA review of the post-grant history of the \u201c339 patent indicates three post-grant challenges filed\nprior to the filing of the current Request: IPR2025-00085, IPR2025-00485, and IPR2025-01532\n\nIPR2025-00085\n\nOn Oct. 22, 2024, Petitioners, MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., filed a Petition for inter\npartes review with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (\u201cBoard\u201d). In that Petition, eight grounds were\nasserted by Petitioner as raising a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that the challenged claims of the\n\u201c339 patent are invalid over the cited prior art. On April 22, 2025, the Board concluded that Petitioner did\n\nnot show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits over three of the cited prior art references\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 18 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 15\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n(Knoth', Allarey\u201d, and Naffziger\u2019) as to claims 1 and 21 presented in the Petition. As a result, the Board\ndenied the Petition and trial was not instituted.\n\nIPR2025-00485\n\nOn Jan. 22, 2025, Petitioners, NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated, filed a Petition for\ninter partes review with the Board. In that Petition, seven grounds were asserted by Petitioner as raising a\nreasonable likelihood of prevailing that the challenged claims of the *339 patent are invalid over the cited\nprior art. On July 10, 2025, the Acting Director for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office discretionarily\ndenied the Petition under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 314(a) and trial was not instituted. The merits of the Petition were\nnot discussed or analyzed.\n\nIPR2025-01532\n\nOn Sept. 16, 2025, Petitioner, Apple Inc., filed a Petition for infer partes review with the Board.\nIn that Petition, three grounds were asserted by Petitioner as raising a reasonable likelihood of prevailing\nthat the challenged claims of the \u201c339 patent are invalid over the cited prior art. On Jan. 27, 2026, the\nDirector of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office discretionarily denied the Petition under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\n314(a) and trial was not instituted. The merits of the Petition were not discussed or analyzed.\n\nCurrent Reexamination No. 90/015,761\n\nAs noted above, on Dec. 9, 2025, Third-Party Requester, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., filed the\ncurrent Request challenging claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 of the \u2018339 patent over six grounds argued to\nraise SNQs. These SNQs are summarized above in this Order.\n\n325(d) Analysis\n\nA comparison between the prior art and arguments cited in the prior IPR Petitions and the current\nRequest shows no identical or overlapping grounds. Despite this, it is noted that White, Talwar, Lee,\n\nFlautner, and Vajda are common references cited in the current Request and various ones of the prior IPR\n\n'U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0158078 A1, to Matthias Knoth (\u201cKnoth\u2019).\n7 US. Patent No. 8,122,270 B2, to Allarey et al. (\u201cAllarey\u201d).\n3U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0122101 A1, to Naffziger et al. (\u201cNaffziger\u201d).\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 19 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 16\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nPetitions. However, the current Request also cites Boyle, De Oliverira, and Kato in various combinations\nwith White, Talwar, Lee, Flautner, and Vajda. None of Boyle, De Oliverira, or Kato were cited in the\nprevious IPR Petitions. This means that the combinations presented in the current Request are not\nidentical to any of the presented grounds in the previous IPR Petitions because of the newly cited prior\nart. Additionally, because of the newly cited prior art and their respective newly presented combinations,\nthe current Request also presents new and additional arguments that were not presented in the previous\nIPR Petitions. In other words, the prior art and arguments presented in the current Request are not the\nsame or substantially the same as the prior art or arguments presented in the prior proceedings. Moreover,\nthe Third-Party Requester in this proceeding is not the same as any of the Petitioners in the prior IPR\nproceedings, thus, there is no abusive filings practices against the \u2018339 patent evident by the Third-Party\nRequester.\n\nAs aresult, the statutory threshold under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 325(d) for the Director to exercise\ndiscretion in deciding whether or not to Order reexamination based on the current Request is not met.\nAccordingly, in view of the discussion above, the current Request for ex parfe reexamination is Ordered\nfor the *339 patent based on the determination that the current Request has been determined to raise a\n\nsubstantial new question of patentability (SNQ) of the challenged claims.\n\nScope of Reexamination\n\n12. Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 will be reexamined as requested.\n\nConclusion\n13. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings because the\nprovisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to \"an applicant\" and not to parties in a reexamination proceeding.\nAdditionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that reexamination proceedings \"will be conducted with special\ndispatch\" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extension of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for\n\nin 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 20 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 17\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n14. The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR 1.565(a) to apprise\nthe Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent proceeding, involving Patent No.\n8,549,339 throughout the course of this reexamination proceeding. The third party requester is also\nreminded of the ability to similarly apprise the Office of any such activity or proceeding throughout the\n\ncourse of this reexamination proceeding. See MPEP \u00a7\u00a7 2207, 2282 and 2286.\n\n15. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding should be directed:\n\nElectronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center at bttps://patenicenter uspio gov/.\n\nBy Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\nUnited States Patent & Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nBy FAX to: (571) 273-9900\nCentral Reexamination Unit\n\nBy hand: Customer Service Window\nKnox Building\n501 Dulany Street\nAlexandria, VA 22314\n\nFor Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)()(C) and (ii) states that correspondence\n(except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be\nconsidered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with\n37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating\nthe date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.\n\nAny inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Joshua Campbell at telephone\n\nnumber (571) 272-4133.\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-3 Filed 06/04/26 Page 21 of 21\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/015,761 Page 18\nArt Unit: 3992\n\n/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n\nConferee:\n\n/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/\nSupervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:38:27.197054-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699208","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622089/","id":481622089,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/4/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.141409-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:18.871686-07:00","sha1":"73dc2d3bf8cdb41ba14fd27ec6ede2895bf8e947","page_count":167,"file_size":14587708,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 167\n\nEXHIBIT 2\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nU.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (\u201c\u2019339 Patent\u201d)\n\nAccused Products: Qualcomm\u2019s products comprising one or more SoC each comprising two or more sets of processors\nimplementing or based on the DynamIQ Shared Unit architecture or big. LITTLE architecture, including without limitation: SM4250-\nAA (Snapdragon 460), SM4350 (Snapdragon 480), SM4350-AC (Snapdragon 480+), SM4375 (Snapdragon 4 Gen 1), SM4450\n(Snapdragon 4 Gen 2, Snapdragon 4 Gen 2 Accelerated Edition), SM4635 (Snapdragon 4s Gen 2), DM630 (Snapdragon 630), SDM632\n(Snapdragon 632), SDM636 (Snapdragon 636), MSM8956 (Snapdragon 650), MSM8976 (Snapdragon 652), MSM8976 Pro\n(Snapdragon 653), SDM660/SDA660 (Snapdragon 660), SM6115 (Snapdragon 662), SM6125 (Snapdragon 665), SDM670\n(Snapdragon 670), SM6150 (Snapdragon 675), SM6150-AC (Snapdragon 678), SM6225 (Snapdragon 680), SM6225-AD (Snapdragon\n685), SM6350 (Snapdragon 690), SM6375 (Snapdragon 695), SM6450 (Snapdragon 6 Gen 1), SM6115-AC (Snapdragon 6s Gen 1),\nSM6475-AB (Snapdragon 6 Gen 3), SM6375-AC (Snapdragon 6s Gen 3), SDM710 (Snapdragon 710), SDM712 (Snapdragon 712),\nSM7125 (Snapdragon 720G), SM7150-AA, (Snapdragon 730), SM7150-AB (Snapdragon 730G), SM7150-AC (Snapdragon 732G),\nSM7225 (Snapdragon 750G), SM7325 (Snapdragon 778G), SM7325-AE (Snapdragon 778G+), SM7350-AB (Snapdragon 780G),\nSM7325-AF (Snapdragon 782G), SM7435-AB (Snapdragon 7s Gen 2), SM7550-AB (Snapdragon 7 Gen 3), SM7675-AB (Snapdragon\n7+ Gen 3), SM7635 (Snapdragon 7s Gen 3), MSM8992 (Snapdragon 808), MSM8994 (Snapdragon 810), MSM8994v2 (Snapdragon\n810), MSM8994v2.1 (Snapdragon 3810), MSM8996Lite (Snapdragon 820), MSM8996 (Snapdragon 820), MSM8996Pro-AB\n(Snapdragon 821), MSM8996Pro-AC (Snapdragon 821), MSM8998 (Snapdragon 835), SDM845 (Snapdragon 845), SM8150\n(Snapdragon 855), SM8150-AC (Snapdragon 855+), SM8150-AC (Snapdragon 860), SM8150P (Snapdragon 855+), SM8250\n(Snapdragon 865), SM8250-AB (Snapdragon 865+), SM8250-AC (Snapdragon 870), SM8350 (Snapdragon 888), SM8350-AC\n(Snapdragon 888+), SM8450 (Snapdragon 8 Gen 1), SM8475 (Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1), SM8425-100-AC (Snapdragon 8+ Gen 1 4G),\nSM8550-AB (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2), SM8550-AC (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy), SM8650-AB (Snapdragon 8 Gen 3), SM8650-AC\n(Snapdragon 8 Gen 3 for Galaxy), SM8635 (Snapdragon 8s Gen 3), MSM8998 (Snapdragon 835 Mobile PC Platform), SDM850\n(Snapdragon 850 Mobile Compute Platform), SC7180 (Snapdragon 7c), SC7180P (Snapdragon 7c Gen 2), SC7280 (Snapdragon 7c+\nGen 3), SC8180 (Snapdragon 8c), SC8180X (Snapdragon 8cx), SC8180XP (Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2), SC8280 (Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3),\nMSM8996AU (Snapdragon 820A), SA6155P, SA8155P (Snapdragon 855A), SA8195P, SA8255P, SA8295P, APQ8094 (Snapdragon\n810E), APQ8096 (Snapdragon 820E), QCS603, QCS605, XR1, XR2, XR2+ Gen 1, XR2 Gen 2, XR2+ Gen 2, G3x Gen 1, G3x Gen 2,\nSQ]1, SQ2, and SQ3.\n\nEach Accused Product infringes the claims in substantially the same way, and the evidence shown in this chart is similarly\napplicable to each Accused Product. For example, each Accused Product includes a DynamIQ Shared Unit or big. LITTLE architecture\nand, on information and belief, implements substantially the same architectural features described in the reference documentation cited\nin this chart. Thus, the descriptions and evidence below relating to the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core and Snapdragon 835 Mobile\nPlatform representative products are similarly applicable to the remaining Accused Products listed above (for DynamIQ and big. LITTLE\narchitectures respectively). Each claim limitation is literally infringed by each Accused Product. However, to the extent any claim\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\nlimitation is not met literally, it is nonetheless met under the doctrine of equivalents because the differences between the claim limitation\nand each Accused Product would be insubstantial, and each Accused Product performs substantially the same function, in substantially\n\nthe same way, to achieve the same result as the claimed invention. Notably, Qualcomm has not yet articulated which, if any, particular\nclaim limitations it believes are not met by the Accused Products\n\nClaim 1\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n[1pre] 1. A multi-core To the extent the preamble is limiting, each Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor.\n\nProcessor, COMPHSINE: For example, Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core processor, designated QCS8550 with die code name\n\nKailua, see Defendants\u2019 Objections and Responses to Redstone Logics LLC\u2019s First Set of\nInterrogatories Nos. 1-15 (\u2018ROG Responses\u201d) at 15, contains eight cores implementing the ARM\nDynamIQ Shared Unit-110 architecture. In a further example, the Snapdragon 835 Mobile\nPlatform contains eight cores implementing the ARM big.LITTLE architecture.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nSnapdragon 8 Gen 2 (2023) [edit]\n\nThe Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 was announced on November 15, 2022.!292!\n\nNotable features over its predecessor (8 Gen 1):\n\ne 4nm (TSMC N4) process\ne Support up to 16 GB LPDDR5X 4200 MHz\ne Support UFS 4.0\ne CPU features\ne 1 Kryo Prime (ARM Cortex-X3), up to 3.36 GHz. Prime core\ne 1MB L2 cache\ne Only 64-bit support [253]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A715), up to 2.8 GHz. High Performance cores\ne Only 64-bit support [29\u00b0]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A710), up to 2.8 GHz. Performance cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!?\u00b0\u00a5!\ne 3 Kryo Silver (ARM Cortex-A510), up to 2 GHz. Efficiency cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!2!\ne 35% performance uplift and 40% power efficiency improvement\ne 8 MB system-level cache\n\nhttps://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm _Snapdragon_ systems _on_chips#Snapdragon_8_\n\nGen_2_(2023\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 5 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nProduct _ .\nModel number Fab Die size CPU\nName\n4+4cores\n10 nm Kryo 280\nSnapdragon FinFET 72.3 2.45 GHz\nMsmeoge!*?e) ees 3\n835 (Samsung, mm Cortex-A73 +\n10LPE) 1.9 GHz\nCortex-A53)\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems _on_chips#Snapdragon 80\nO_series (2013%E2%80%932021)\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nDynamlQ Shared Unit-110\n\nFirst DynamIQ Shared Unit of the Armv9 generation, up to 12 cores\nsupported, up to 16MB L3, and enhanced power management\nfeatures.\n\nSupporting:\n\ne Cortex-A715\n\nhttps://www.arm.com/technologies/dynamiq\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 7 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nFigure 2-2: Example configuration with two Cortex\u00ae-A510 single-core complexes\n\nDynamlQ cluster\n\nCortex-A510 complex 0\n\nCortex-A510 core 0\n\nDedicated logic\n\nL2 TLB\n\nVPU LD External memory interface\u2014>\ncache DynamlQ <\u2014 Interrupt interface\u2014\u2014p>\ncluster Power management and\nCortex-A510 complex 1 shared + clock control\n\nlogic +\u2014Design for Test (DFT) \u2014\u00bb>\n\nCortex-A510 core 1 . .\n<\u2014CoreSight infrastructure\u2014\u00bb>\nDedicated logic <4 Utility bus: >\n\nL2 TLB\n\nL2\ncache\n\nVPU\n\nArm Cortex-A510 Core Technical Reference Manual at p. 23\n\nOur initial testing shows that Snapdragon 835\u2019s Kryo 280 CPU is an octa-core, big.LITTLE configuration with\nfour semi-custom A73 \u201cperformance\u201d cores and four semi-custom A53 \u201cefficiency\u201d cores. Kryo 280\u2019s\nperformance cores are pretty much equivalent to Kirin 960\u2019s A73 cores in both integer and floating-point IPC,\nbut comparing them to Snapdragon 820\u2019s Kryo CPU shows mixed results: integer IPC improves but floating-\npoint regresses.\n\nhttps://www.anandtech.com/show/11201/qualcomm-snapdragon-835-performance-preview/6\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 8 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n1.2 Document scope\n\nCortex\"-A7.\n\nCortex\"-A15.\nCortex\"-A17.\nCortex\"-A53.\nCortex\"-A57.\nCortex\"-A72.\nCortex\"-A73.\n\nThis application note focuses on the following processors and highlights important issues when\npowering up or powering down processor cores and clusters on an SoC.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n2.1 ARM? big.LITTLE\u2122 system example\n\nA big.LITTLE system uses two different types of cores that are combined in a coherent system.\nbig cores are designed for high performance while LITTLE cores are designed for high energy\nefficiency. The big cores are used for resource-intensive software threads, and energy-efficient\nLITTLE cores handle low-intensity software threads that use fewer compute resources. The\nresult is high energy efficiency and high performance.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 9 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\nnlRQOUT Control signals\nInterrupt Controller\nPPIs nIRQnFIQ/ nIRQ/nFIQ/ PP ls\nnVFIOinVIQ nVFIOInVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\n\nACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 10 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n[la] a first set of processor\ncores of the multi-core\nprocessor, wherein each\nprocessor core from the first\nset of processor cores is\nconfigured to dynamically\nreceive a first supply voltage\nand a first output clock signal\nof a first phase lock loop\n(PLL) having a first clock\nsignal as input;\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor,\nwherein each processor core from the first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically\nreceive a first supply voltage and a first output clock signal of a first phase lock loop (PLL) having\na first clock signal as input.\n\nFor example, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core includes a first set of high efficiency processor\ncores (two or more ARM Cortex-A510 cores). The processor cores in the first set receive a\ndynamic supply voltage and a first output clock signal of a first PLL having a first clock signal as\ninput.\n\nFor another example, the Snapdragon 835 Mobile Platform includes a first set of high efficiency\nprocessor cores (two or more A53 cores). The processor core(s) in the first set receive a dynamic\nsupply voltage and a first output clock signal of a first PLL having a first clock signal as input.\n\nARM documentation for the big LITTLE and DynamIQ architectures used in the Accused\nProducts directly shows that each core cluster receives its own clock domain. At the time the\nAccused Products were designed, it was typical to produce this clock using a PLL that has a\ncorresponding clock input. Furthermore, ARM documentation for an earlier, related device (the\nCortex-A15_A7 MPCore test chip, which also has independent clock domains for different CPU\nclusters) shows each CPU cluster receiving an output clock signal from a PLL having a\ncorresponding clock signal as input (e.g. from an oscillator).\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 11 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nSnapdragon 8 Gen 2 (2023) [edit]\n\nThe Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 was announced on November 15, 2022.!292!\n\nNotable features over its predecessor (8 Gen 1):\n\ne 4nm (TSMC N4) process\ne Support up to 16 GB LPDDR5X 4200 MHz\ne Support UFS 4.0\ne CPU features\ne 1 Kryo Prime (ARM Cortex-X3), up to 3.36 GHz. Prime core\ne 1MB L2 cache\ne Only 64-bit support [253]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A715), up to 2.8 GHz. High Performance cores\ne Only 64-bit support [29\u00b0]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A710), up to 2.8 GHz. Performance cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!?\u00b0\u00a5!\ne 3 Kryo Silver (ARM Cortex-A510), up to 2 GHz. Efficiency cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!2!\ne 35% performance uplift and 40% power efficiency improvement\ne 8 MB system-level cache\n\nhttps://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm _Snapdragon_ systems _on_chips#Snapdragon_8_\n\nGen_2_(2023\n\n10\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 12 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nProduct _ .\nModel number Fab Die size CPU\nName\n4+4cores\n10 nm Kryo 280\nSnapdragon FinFET 72.3 2.45 GHz\nMsmeoge!*?e) ees 3\n835 (Samsung, mm Cortex-A73 +\n10LPE) 1.9 GHz\nCortex-A53)\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems _on_chips#Snapdragon 80\nO_series (2013%E2%80%932021)\n\n11\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 13 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nCluster features\nThe DSU-110 has the following cluster features:\n\nSupport for Arm\u00aev9.0-A architecture cores\nSupport for up to four types of core, and a maximum of 12 cores in the cluster\n\nPower Policy Units (PPUs) providing autonomous power management of the L3 cache and the\ncores\n\nSupport for cores running independently at different frequencies and voltages known as\nDynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling (DVFS). For cores in a complex, DVFS is only possible for the\nwhole complex not for individual cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual, available at\nhttps://documentation-service.arm.com/static/62bb28beb334256d9ea8cc32, at p. 19\n\nA cluster can be configured with up to four different types of cores in the same cluster. Each core\ntype targeting different power efficiency and performance levels. This arrangement allows for\n\nan intermediate core that has an intermediate performance and efficiency level. The cluster also\nsupports complexes.\n\nA cluster can be configured in many arrangements. Examples of cluster arrangements are:\n\nOne or more cores of the same type.\n\nVarious arrangements of two types of cores. For example, one or more cores targeting either a\nhigh-performance level or a higher power efficiency level.\n\nVarious arrangements of three or four types of cores. For example, one or more high-\npeformance cores, power-efficient cores, and intermediate cores.\n\nOne or more complexes and no individual cores. For information on complexes, see 2.3.1 What\n5 a complex? on page 25.\n\nOne or more complexes and individual cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 22\n\n12\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 14 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nDynamlQ cluster\n\nDynamlQ cluster shared logic\n\n[i High efficiency core\nfi High performance core\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 23\n\n13\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 15 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nDynamlQ cluster\n\n-~|- Ee\n\nDynamlQ cluster shared logic\n\n1 High performance core\ni Balanced performance core\n[J High efficiency core\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 24\n\n14\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 16 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nDynamiQ cluster\nComplex 0 Complex 1\nCore 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3\nShared logic Shared logic\nComplex 2 Complex 3\nCore 4 Core 5 Core 6 Core 7\nShared logic Shared logic\nDynamiQ cluster shared logic\n\n[ij Supported core in complex\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 24\nThe DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster supports blocks that are called complexes which contain up to\ntwo cores of the same type and some shared logic. Sharing some logic between the two cores of a\n\ndual core complex can make the dual core complex area efficient. However, this area efficiency is at\nthe cost of reduced performance compared with using two single-core complexes.\n\nArm\u00ae DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 25\n\n15\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Docu\n\nment 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 17 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nThe Dynam!Q\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) has multiple clock domains. Each core or complex can\nbe implemented in a separate clock domain.\n\nThe following figure shows the clock domains for an example cluster with four standalone cores.\n\nFigure 4-1: DSU-110 clock domains\n\nDynamlQ Shared Unit\n\nDynamlQ Cluster\n\nCPU 0 bridge CPU 1 bridge CPU 2 bridge CPU 3 bridge\n\nPower\nfs = |=]\n\nL3 memory system\nSCU and L3 cache\n\nSnoop filter _\nTrace RAM arrays L3 RAM arrays APB:\nfunnel APB:\n\nfi PPUCLK (J ATCLK\n[Mj PERIPHCLK = [_] SCLK\nfj GICCLK fi PCLK\n\nDynamlQ\u201d\u2122 cluster.\n\nGi COREOCLK to CORE3CLK\n[_] Includes COREXCLK, PERIPHCLK, ATCLK, and SCLK domains\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 46\n\nThe DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) Power Policy Units (PPUs) control power management\nfor the Cortex\u00ae-A510 core. A Cortex\u00ae-A510 complex supports separate gated power domains\nfor the complex, for each core inside the complex, and for the Vector Processing Unit (VPU). It also\nsupports a dedicated voltage domain for each complex, and a voltage domain for the DSU-110\n\nArm Cortex-A510 Core Technical Reference Manual at p. 39\n\n16\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 18 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nThe cluster contains several clock domains for functionality that is likely to be connected to\ndifferent clocks in the system. Within each core, the CPU bridge contains asynchronous bridges fo\nall crossings between the core and cluster clock domains. Each CPU bridge is split, with one half\nof each bridge in the core clock domain and the other half in the relevant cluster domain. At the\ncluster level, there is the Snoop Control Unit (SCU) bridge which contains crossings between the\ncluster clock domains as required.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 46\n\nmM at-m Darlin ORs )ar-le eR Ola) ] om mt ROR (DLO LW LO) Nar-\\-e-01~oy-1\u00a2-1<-kal (ole @t-441-1 Bo) ma) ela ler- l(a -eeel eee) meee) (> em Male oe- lee] ons) oy-1e-) eka (ole \u00aboe folm aa lal imal) 8 (oem ln Rolin elm tata\n\nTeele\n\nMM aTBice)i (oly Tiny =M tle) ome (-xeg | ol -om dg( Mel (ole a-1i-4ar-] ke) dale DLO Ee ON\n\n1] o) (ey DOW LOT al (ele, 71-0\n\nRT tare || BT tadis) dco)\n\nMi al-Ke (ole ce iolm loa ke)m tal-eeele- Mah tg (eae kom dar] ele Malem ey la mel e-Reelii |e) (oa\n\nfee) aren AEM nl-Kee)eoM [at e-lnecM alin loi em (emo <1h) 0) O).4 101 O1 MG Baal Ra lole acolmaels 20\n\nBB alos -10r-] ee (ole ae] | Mee) g om (ey -4(om lave Ulel[n) =m Oat 1 plo OYA er-[ola ton\n\nWi it-he (ole @ianaat-ne lejc-em ot-[e hel ole ai kee) al alce Ce cok) Rae) Nah detec \u2014-) ele Yee) nile) oe\n\n(oro) a ocel 4 , , :\nparmaa-eeelinle)(- a laielaecmalelii e-em (elm C11) )(- O)\\4| 1 m= (01Oi MGR anda [ele @ie)maeliis) (= a0n\n\nhttps://developer.arm.com/documentation/101381/0400/Clocks-and-resets/Clocks-\n\n17\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 19 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n4.1.1 Input clocks\n\nInput clocks must be provided with a source that is external to, or embedded in, the subsystem.\n\nTable 4-1: Input clocks\n\nREFCLK Main reference clock\n\nThe input clock to System Control Processor (SCP) boots coming out of reset. REFCLK also clocks other logic like SCP\ngeneric and watchdog timers.\n\nCPUxPLLCLKn |CPUxPLLCLKn is a high-frequency reference clock inputs used for application core PLL, that is, one per core, where n =\n0-7.\n\nCLUSOPLLCLKn | CLUSOPLLCLKn is a high-frequency reference clock inputs used for cluster PLL, that is, one clock per cluster, where n is\nthe number of clusters in a subsystem. As RD-TC21 reference subsystem only contain one cluster, n is fixed to 1.\n\nINTPLLCLK INTPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the Interconnect block.\nSYSPLLCLK SYSPLLCLK is a high-frequency clock input for the main block.\n\nDMCPLLCLK DMCPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the Memory block.\nGPUPLLCLK GPUPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the GPU block.\n\nArm\u00ae Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at p. 40\n\n4.1.2 Systems clocks\n\nRD-TC21 internally derives clocks that are used for parts of the subsystem. These clocks are\ngenerated only when the VSYS.SYSTOP power domain is powered. Each clock can be individually\ncontrolled.\n\nThe following table summarizes these derived internal clocks.\n\nId.\n\n18\n\fCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 20 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nTable 4-2: Systems internal derived clocks\n\nperformance.\n\nId. at 47-48\n\nCLUSxCORECLKn | CPUPLL Core clock.\n\nnis the number Each core is clocked independently to each other. Therefore, One clock per cluster, where\n\nof clusters ina\n\nsubsystem.\n\nCLUSxCLK CLUSxPLLCLKn | CPU Cluster x clock.\nThe cluster clock drives the logic in the Processor block, where x is O to 31.\n\nINTCLKOUT INTPLLCLK Coherent Interconnect Clock\nClock for the interconnect and other expansion master and slave ports. This clock is generated from\nINTPLLCLK\n\nId. at p. 41\n\n4.3 Power control\n\nGood power management is key to reduce system power consumption while maintaining a high\n\nAn RD-TC21 reference subsystem contains the following power management features:\n\ne Multiple voltage domains to allow for Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) on\napplication processors and the GPU\n\ne Multiple power-gated regions provide comprehensive leakage management\ne Multiple power modes for different system scenarios\n\ne A System Control Processor (SCP) based on a Cortex\u00ae-M3 processor controls power, clock, reset,\nand the static configuration of the system\n\ne Power Policy Units (PPUs) are used to manage power states of each voltage and power domain\nunder the control of the SCP\n\n19\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 21 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n4.3.1 Voltage domain\n\nA voltage domain is defined as a collection of design elements supplied by a single voltage. The\nvoltage supply to the domain might be scaled or switched off for power or performance reasons.\n\nTotal Compute 2021 Reference Design (RD-TC21) supports the following voltage domains:\n\nVCPUO\n\nThe first voltage domain in the processor cluster for \u201cLITTLE\u201d cores. Supports DVFS.\nVCPU1\n\nThe second voltage domain in the processor cluster for ELP and \u201cbig\u201d cores. Supports DVFS.\nVGPU\n\nThe voltage domain for GPU. Supports DVFS.\nVSYS\n\nThe voltage domain for the rest of the subsystem. Does not support DVFS.\n\nId. at p. 48\n\nSCP runtime firmware\nThe SCP runtime firmware executes after Trusted Firmware for A-profile (TF-A) BL2 has\n\nauthenticated and copied it from flash.\nThe SCP runtime firmware performs the following functions:\n\ne Responds to System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) messages through Message\nHandling Unit (MHU) version 2.0 for processor power control and Dynamic Voltage and\nFrequency Scaling (DVFS)\n\ne Power domain management\n\ne Clock management\n\nId. at p. 65\n\n20\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 22 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nOur initial testing shows that Snapdragon 835\u2019s Kryo 280 CPU is an octa-core, big.LITTLE configuration with\nfour semi-custom A73 \u201cperformance\u201d cores and four semi-custom A53 \u201cefficiency\u201d cores. Kryo 280\u2019s\nperformance cores are pretty much equivalent to Kirin 960\u2019s A73 cores in both integer and floating-point IPC,\nbut comparing them to Snapdragon 820\u2019s Kryo CPU shows mixed results: integer IPC improves but floating-\npoint regresses.\n\nhttps://www.anandtech.com/show/11201/qualcomm-snapdragon-835-performance-preview/6\n\nVoltage domains\nThe voltage supply to a domain might be scaled or removed for power or performance reasons.\n\nExcept for low complexity solutions, it is rare to use a single logic voltage supply for the whole\nSoC.\n\nThe primary reason for additional voltage domains is to support DVFS for functional areas of\nthe SoC. The second reason is to enable external supply switch-off, or reduction to\nnon-functional state retention levels, to some logic areas while maintaining an operational level\nsupply to others.\n\nHowever, the cost for additional voltage domains is significant, because additional voltage\nregulators, extra effort, and complexity are required in the SoC physical implementation.\nTherefore, you must carefully assess the value of the addition of each voltage domain against\nthe performance and power requirements for the design.\n\nIn a big.LITTLE system, each cluster must have a dedicated voltage supply. This is a critical\nsuccess factor when combined with big.LITTLE software.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n21\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 23 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nSYSTOP STANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls j i\n| Always on \\\nnFIQOUT | 1\n1 | Control signals\nnIRQOUT | ler |\n\\. >! Power control >\nInterrupt Controller 1\n|\n| | Power/Clock/Reset |\n| |\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFIQ/ PP ls |\nnVFIQ/inVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ : :\nVG \u2014 \u2014 =| | MUTTLE\n| |\n|\ni big Cluster | LITTLE Cluster\n| I\n\n| |\nEVENT:\n| =a a | Bridge ihe) ee) ee\nS888 \u00b0 \u201c2888\nS| NH | | \u2014) e He ie I\n|\n|\n\n<\u2014 Generic >\n|\n|\n\niz\n\nSCU/L2 Cache i\n|\n\nCounter ||\n\n| Domain Bridge (slave) __| | | || Dera ioe cate) ee |\n~~ Domain Bridge (master) _ T \u201c1 Domain Bridge (master) _ |\na A\nACE ACE\nVv Vv\n\nCache Coherent Interconnect\n\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n| |\n|\n| STANDBYWFVSTANDEYWFItL\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n\n[: ~~ \"7 Power domain r ~ 1 Voltage domain )\n\nFigure 2-2 Power domain hierarchy\n\nIn Figure 2-2, two processor clusters are implemented with per-core and cluster power domains.\nThe big cluster is in the VBIG voltage domain, while the LITTLE cluster is in the VLITTLE\nvoltage domain. The system controller is in an always-on power domain. All the other\ncomponents are in the system logic power domain (SYSTOP).\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n22\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 24 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nClock domains\n\nClock domains can interact with each other synchronously or asynchronously. Synchronous\nclock domains can have independent source activity. Each cluster requires an independent\nclock, and the CCI requires a clock.\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n23\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 25 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nCoreTile Express A15x2 A7x3\nDaughterboard\n\n24MHz\n\nCortex-A15_A7 MPCore Test Chip\n\n<\u2014\u2014CPU_CLK0_A15 OSCCLK\nCortex-A15 44 CPU_CLKO_A15/2 A15 PLLO CPUREFCLK0O\u2014}\nMPCore }\u00abA15_CLK\u2014glitchless OSCCLK\nCluster mux = \u00ab\u2014\u2014\u2014CPU_CLK1_A15 A15 PLL1 CPUREFCLK1\u2014}\n+\u2014 SYSCLK\n__| SYSPLL +\u2014svsrercux\u2014-| \u00b0\u00b0\")\nCortex-A7 41 <\u2014\u2014\u2014-CPU_CLK2_A7 OSCCLK\nA7 PLLO CPUREFCLK2\u2014+\nMPCore }\u00ab-A7_CLK\u2014 glitchless \u00ab\u2014\u2014\u2014-CPU_CLK2_A7/2 | 2\nCluster mux\n\u00a2_CPU_CLK3_A7 AT PLL1 CPUREFCLK3\u2014 osceLk\nr- TRACECLKA DAP\nTRACECLKB \u2014 CoreSight trace CCI-400\nanddebug }\u00ab\u2014PCLK \u2014 Interconnect\nTPIU subsystem\nt TRACECLKIN\nACLK:\n\nDMC-400 System\n\\\u00ab\u2014\u2014DDRCLK Timer\n\nSystem\nHDLCD counter\nPXLCLK SP805 NIC-301 Matrix ss\nAsync SMC LK\n4 DDR y' Async M 4\nv\nPLL\nHDLCD SMB_CLKO Mux/\nPLL REFCLK24MHZ Demux\nSMB_REFCLK SMB_CLKI 8MHz\nCLKI1:0) PXLREFCLK | ppprreciK [ \u2018\nnCLK[1:0] MMB_IDCLK Daughterboard\nConfiguration\ny HSB (M) Controller\n2GB OSCCLK OSCCLK OSCCLK\nDDR2 5 8 6 HSBM (CLK)\n\u00a2C HDRY \u00bb)) C__HDRX __)\n\nFigure 2-10 CoreTile Express A15x2 A7x3 daughterboard clocks\n\nARM\u00ae CoreTile Express A152 A7x3 Technical Reference Manual, available at\nhttps://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0503/i/\n\n24\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 26 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nQualcomm\u2019s documentation demonstrates that the accused devices are configured to contain a\nfirst and second set of processor cores according to the above referenced architectures. For\nexample, both the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core, die code Kailua, and Snapdragon 835 Mobile\nPlatform, MSM8998, are configured with a first set of \u201cGold\u201d cores and a second set of \u201cSilver\u201d\ncores, each set having its own PLL Gold or PLL Silver with its own input and output clock signal,\nand each having a separate power domain and power rails, both the power and output clock signal\nbeing variable and the clusters being configured to receive the same:\n\nMotivation\n\nCurrent implementation\n\n* Current implementation in CPUSS requires\nthat each core per cluster domain run at the cous col\nsame clock frequency.\n\n\u00a2 This requirement is due to the fact that each\ncore doesn\u2019t have its own PLL.\n\nPLL\n\n* OSM aggregates and chooses MAX\nfrequency for operation for those cores.\n\n25\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 27 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\n%\n\u2018\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nro ff\n8 { ' t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n70 OSM\nTheotte | rw\nimerrupts to } proganming \u2018to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n26\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPage 28 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\ne When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\n27\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 29 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPost Waipio Options: Big and Little RISC-V Split(Azzedine)\n\nAsynchronous\nTwo RISC-Vs : Big Risc-V i di ally with timer\n\nSW SCMI,\nOSF,\ntom\n\n1. CP-B: High Frequency (Periodic usage -\n\nNew features to generate data for CP-L of\n\nCPU)\n\nCP-L: Low Frequency mode\n\nComplex features in \u201cBig\u201d RISC-V (CP-B)\n\nwill not be propagated to VT\n\n4. Big Risc-V is to be designed in a way that\nis not be product gating\n\n5. Upgrade to SiFive solution is\nrecommended (to leverage opensource\nSW tools*.)\n\nwon\n\nye HW Aggregator\n&\nSequencer offload\n\n*Pulp is not fully compliant to the RISC-V architecture.\n\nQCREDSTONE_0098870 at -74, -83, -84, -96.\n\nGOLD cluster jueni jan\nMode POR Frequency (MHz) Source (HF PLL) VCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode | L Value | PLL wal Fit Taras (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cycjitter (ps) | src_sel\nsea doov seine 2764 APC1 PLL-early 2764.8 HE maj) 4 89 23.2 sre5\na 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.2 26.5 sre5\nTioasov se Joss 2361 APC1 PLL -early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\neesaow eeyoason 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\n\n28\n\fCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 30 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nSILVER cluster plan\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (SR PLL) VCO freq (MHz) PLL mode cpa oil ae PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nee deo say 2054 APCO PLL -early 2054.4 HE 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\nTp oaoy, cehaew 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nMioaov sy low 1843 APCO PLL -early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nodbov seo osov 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nsie gov sooo 2054 APCO PLL-early 2054.4 HF 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\ntn aoov, sajo-osov 1843 APCOPLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nTyo a00v, safo-200V 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 12.2 31.6 src\nQCREDSTONE _ 0123173 at -73, -77.\nCPUSS\n\u00ab Kryo 685 Next Gen V8\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime Fmax: 2.6+ GHz | cows || sors || GDHS | GDHS |\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Fmax: 2.3+ GHz \u2014 \u2014 - power Domains\n= Kryo Silver Fmax: 1.8 GHz a po E oe core\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime L1/L2 cache: 64 KB/1 MB Se ea eee |e ves\n\n\u00bb Kryo Gold L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/512 KB\n\u00ab Kryo Silver L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/128 KB\n\u00bb Frequency of Operation\n\n32 KB/S2 K | |32KB/32 K! |32 KB/S2 K] | |64 KBIG4 K\nsSoBes] eeepc Pecopaad |e\n\n$12 KB | | $12 KB | 512 KB] | | 1 MB\n\nGold Prime, Gold, Silver, and L3 cache can operate at different\nfrequencies (Independently controlled).\n\nWithin Silver cluster, all 4 Silver cores and L2 are synchronous.\nWithin Gold cluster, all 3 Gold cores and L2 are synchronous.\n\nWithin Gold Prime cluster, Gold Prime core and L2 are\nsynchronous\n\nPower rail\n\nGold Prime core and Gold core share VDD_APC1.\nSilver core and L3 logic share VDD_APCO.\nL1 and L2 cache memory cell powered by VDD_MX.\n\nEach Kryo Silver/Gold/Gold Prime core has a global distributed\nhead switch (GDHS) to power the core.\n\n80-PK177-36 Rev.B July 2020\n\nQCREDSTONE 0039762 at -71\n\nGold cluster\n\nGold Prime\nCluster\n\n| GDHS | GDHS | GDHS | GDHS\n\n4NB\n\nSilver Silver Silver Silver\nCPUO CPU1 CPU2 CPU3\nLipa || LDA || Lia || L1 ba\n32 KBIS2 K| |32 KB/S2 K} |32 KBIS2 K) |32 KBIS2 K\nfee 8 B.\noo re 5\n\nSilv\n\ner cluster\n\nConfidential - Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies \u2014 May Contain Trade Secrets | MAY CONTAIN U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION\n\n29\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 31 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nCPU Power\n\n\u00bb Customized 64-bit ARM v8-compliant apps processor (Kryo 2xx\nCPU)\n\n\u00ab Two Clusters in CPU subsystem \u2014 Kryo Gold and Kryo Silver\n\nKryo Gold Cluster \u2014- Quad Kryo high performance CPUs with 2.5 GHz\nto 2.7 GHz Speed\n\nKryo Silver Cluster \u2014 Quad Kryo low power CPUs with 1.5 GHz to 1.9\nGHz Speed\n\n\u00bb L1 and L2 Cache:\nL2 cache at 2 MB for Kryo Gold\nL2 cache at 1 MB for Kryo Silver\n= Power rails:\n\nKryo Gold cluster and Silver cluster have dedicated, separate power\nrails\n\nPM8998 SMPS10 powers the Kryo Silver cluster\n\nPM8998 SMPS11/12/13 are tied together as a single trace to power Silver Closter\nthe Kryo Gold cluster\n\nEach Kryo Gold core has a block head switch (BHS) and each Kryo\n\nPower Domains\n\n[SMPsi0}\n\nCPU Sub System\n\nSilver core has a global distributed head switch (GDHS) to power the\ncore\n\n\u00ab Gold and Silver cluster, along with the respective L2 cache, can\noperate on a different clock source at different frequencies.\n\nWithin a cluster, the cores and L2 are synchronous\n\nQCREDSTONE 0082868 at -878.\n\n30\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 32 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCPU Core config and Rail Split\n\n+ CPU team is proposing the 1GP+5G+2S for Lanai CPU config to maximize the performance of Benchmarks and Gaming\n* Reduction of Silver core (3->2) will negatively impact the DOU which is mostly running on Silver core\n+ APC1 rail split is proposed to mitigate the DOU impact\n+ APCO - 2x Silver cores + L3 shared cache\n+ APC1 - 3x Gold cores\n+ APC2- 1x Gold Plus core + 2x Gold cores\n+ PDN/PKG/PCB/PMIC analysis is being discussed here to mitigate any impact due to APC1 rail split\n\nPLLs\nGold+\nGold ape\n\nSiiver\n\nBoE\n\nKailua 14443 Lanai 14+5+2 Lanai 1+5+2 Split\nUnified\n\nQCREDSTONE 0091042 at -44.\n\n31\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 33 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta Croce (Kala)\n\nODSS ( GEMNoc\n\ncHIL\n\nCPU7\n\nMELELP\n\nDONT DIS\n\nQCREDSTONE _0098768 at -70.\n\nAPS trom CPUSS AHB\ndecode:\n\nf\n\n\u00a3310 Core\n{OSCP } TIM [iS\n{32KB}\n\nAPG2ANG\n\nOriM\nPMP 148)\n\nAPB Decccler\n\nThis arrangement of Gold+, Gold, and/or Silver cores arranged into clusters according to the\nabove referenced architectures is repeated throughout the accused products!:\n\n! Qualcomm has failed to produce similar diagrams for all accused products/dies or even identified all relevant dies, however the cited documentation\ndemonstrates a common infringing design across all accused products.\n\n32\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 34 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nNetrani Halliday\n\n2 SFTP SEO Seem\n\n33\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 35 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClarence\nCeee\n333333: 333333: L3 (4MB) wees\nSnoop Filters\nMees eset Asynchronous Bridge\n\nK _& :\n\u00e9 s|E sit a\na a =\nKryo-6 6xSilver Cluster (2GHz)\nCFG : CBR\nDebug Pils \u00e9\n\noOjcerss \u00abi QTIMER\n\nKryo-6 CPR QGICOR\u2019\nCPU SS GIC-Begton\n\n34\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 36 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCHLE CHILE CRLE\n_3 (2MB)\nSnoop Filters\n\nAsynchronous Bridge Asynchronous Bridge\n\nEee taaiey Tear\na he Sa\nPeis Sie Sitcian tak 2568 Shared | 25548 Shared\n> \u00a2 us ws\n\u2014-~jfot=-fef-|]af-tsa 32K1 | 32KR | SRD | S2KR\nSIsiGisivzisafoia BH2kD | S2eO | BO | 22Kd beens\n= = = 2 = 3 = a 1215 | cris | tis | uss\ni a mi i Wea Rpe a ROT Ree\nKye SG | KyoSs | Kye sG | Kye BG _SeraO | Soret | Cures | Cored |\nCaw6\u00e9 | Core\u00e9 | Cores } Core? Kryos Kryos\nREL WARE MKL MARE Compan Compie t\n\nou\u201d ah \u00b0c\u201d es\u2019 ins\u201d es\u2019 * \u2018es eis\" es\u201d ea * cel\n\n|\n|\n\nDet From CNoC\nAste \u00e9l 0S\nKry o8xx OLe \u2014> a\nCPU SS re S| ctccionen || |\n|\n\n35\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 37 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098556 at -558 to -562.\n\n36\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPage 38 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nBNET @relaiile(sie-itele\n\nryos LS\n\n256\nSeer ae eae TRUE\nFALSE\n\nBeste any Slee TRUE\n\nrit ih OF. ui watt os 1 O24 Boe Oui ea | RUE/FALSE TRUE\n\nBS 12/1024/2048/4096K\n\njer. cola se 74:\n\n4096KB\n2\n\n2\n\n: eS ed bles)\n\n3 Gold + 1 Gold+\n\n4 Silver Cores\n\nCorinth cluster to the\nGladiator interconnect\ninterface is CHI\n\n2x128bit wide CHI port to the\nGladiator interconnect\nInclude L3 Cache\n\nACP interface not included on\nthe Corinth cluster\nPeripheral port not included\non the Corinth Cluster\nProtect the L3 Cache RAMs\nand snoop filter RAMs with\nECC\n\n4M L3 cache\n\nL3 Data RAM input latency is\n1 cycle\n\nL3 Data RAM output latency\nis 2 cycle\n\nQCREDSTONE 0090058 at -71.\n\n37\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 39 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nD2 ste este\n\nPPE I OLOe\nDus oee\ns+ Sonal fx\nBIT TRB\nUE OY\nSenn fe\n\nLaRthe P1RS wt\nTH HEY SSRERR Retox [Wears\nPITA KS\n\n38\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 40 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nCPU\n\n* Dual DSU Octa core processing unit\n\n* DSUO: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercules Prime) - i\n* Boct processor\n* 32KB/32KB 11 Cache\n* 256KB L2 Cache\n* APCO rail\n\n* DSU: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercales Prime) -\n\u00ab 32KB/S2KB 11 Cache\n* 256kB 12 Cache\n* APCL rail\n\nL3 (Corinth DSU}\n\n* 4MBL3 Cache (2MB per DSU)\n+ Asyne to all CPUs within DSU\n\n* Full power down mode to reduce power\n* Natively supports dual 256b CHI\n\n- Le Mans Change\n\n* APCO rail for DSUO & APC1 rail for DSU1 ~ Le Mans Change\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\n.\n\n.\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\nB=} (e [ns WYeieel iow (terol Ulitcieatsi al toad more] (U[ ests)\n\nBus Interface\n\n2x256b CHI interfaces to GEMNoC from each DSU - Le Mans \u00a2\n1/0 Coherency support via CHT\n\nDYM broadeast to system via CHI\n\n64-bit ACES-Lite Master port interface to system NOC - Le Man\n32-bit AHE Slave post interface to system NOC\n\n32-bit AHR Master port interface to system NOC (EPSS)\n\nAPB Slave port interface to system DAP\n\nATS bus interface to CoreSight Trace component\n\nTine Stanip interface to CereSight debug component\n\nTAP port interface to [TAG interface\n\nAUTO\nPaut Monitoring for Safety Manager.\nLBEST and MBIST Capability at Cold Boot.\nTEEE1560 Interface for LBIST Infrastracture from Sal.\nError And Parity Checks.\nClock Monitoring.\n2D parity for CSRs (excluding ARM logic CSRs} - Le Mane Change\n\nPower\nO5M3.i - EPSS for Active Power Management\nLaw power modes for eggressive dynamic & leakage mitigation.\nMPMM Support by Hercules ARM Cores.\nEPSS access to DDR via ANB ( Use case\nedule assistance by providing shared data, \u00a3\nSCM based) prototype }\n\nading single image of EPSS,\nvery implementation, ARM\n\n39\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 41 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n3rd Party\n\nayige lets a aval |eaoid God cals) cae s>.< ole) aa @e)alage)i(-reh |\n\nDo you have any 3rd Party IPs to declare? (note that this is a sign-off on the accuracy of your answer, which may have financial implications):\n\nYES\nuw Changed from Previous Program Qcom\nv\nSupplier Licensed IP Description Instances (Y/N)? Owner Deita Comments\nArm Limited \u2014 Hercules Processor/Hercules Crypto/HerculesPrime 8 yes L1/L2 size changed from 64KB/512KB to\nProcessor/HerculesPrime Crypto/Dynamigq Shared 32KB/256KB\nUnit 8MB Version (DSU 8MB)\nArm Limited Hercules Processor/Hercules Crypto/HerculesPrime 2 yes 13 size changed from 8MB to 2MB (per cluster)\nProcessor/HerculesPrime Crypto/Dynamig Shared\nUnit 8MB Version (DSU 8MB)\nArm Limited \u2014 GIC-Clayton Generic Interrupt Controller 1 yes GIC Beeton is replaced with GIC Clayton\nArm Limited Coresight Components-Various 1 no\nPULP. RISCY RISC-V Core (Open Source Hardware Platform) 1 no\nPlatform https://www.pulp-platform.org/\nQCREDSTONE 0091177 at -86-87, -248.\nGOLD_PLUS pian\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (HF PLL) PAL config\nquency VCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode | | Value| PLL div) PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTurbo_LS CN 0.960V\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2956 APC1 PLL -early 2956.8 HF 154 1 8.5 22.0 sreS\nTurbo_L5 0.960V\nTT/0.960V, $S/rov 2572 APC1 PLL -early 2572.8 HE 134 1 10.0 26.0 srcS\nTurbo_L3 CW 0.890V\nT1/0.890V, $5/0.950V 2457 APC1 PLL -early 2457.6 HF 128 1 10.3 26.7 | sreS\nGOLD cluster frequency plan\nPLL config\nMode PoR Frequency (MH: Source (HF PLL|\nquency (MHz) ( VCO freq (MHz) | PLL mode L Value PLL div! PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTurbo_L5 CN 0.960V { |\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2764 APC1 PLL -early 2764.8 i HF 144 1 8.9 23.2 sreS\nTurbo_L5 0.960V\n~ APY -earh HF .\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2361 C1 PLL -early 2361.6 | 123 1 | 10.2 26.5 srcS\n\n40\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 42 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nLVER cluster plan\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (SR PLL) PLL config\nVCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode |i Vaiue| PLL div] PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc]jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTeaane cohen 2054 APCO PLL -early 2054.4 HF 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\nTurbo_15 0.960V\nTyo 960, ss/aav 1843 APCO PLL -early 1843.2 HF 9 | 1 13.6 353 sre\nTurbo_3 CW 0.890V\n1/0 s80v, $5/0 950 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 9% | 1 13.6 353 src5\nPLL |\nIAPSS_CC_SILVER_PLL fapss__cc_silver_pll 144.00 | _ PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\nJAPSS_CC_SILVER_PLL_EARLY_GRP lapss__cc_silver_pll_out_main 444.00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\n|APSS_CC_SILVER_PLL_MAIN_GRP lapss_cc_silver_pll_out_even 344.00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\n\u2018CC_SILVER_PLL_TEST_GRP Dss_cc_silver_pll_out_test 344,00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\nsCC_GOLD_PLL ~ lapss,_cc_gold_pll 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\n| CC_GOLD_PLL_EARLY_GRP fapss__cc_gold_pll_out_main 401.60 | _ PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLL_MAIN_GRP lapss,_cc_gold_pll_out_even 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLL_TEST_GRP pss_cc_gold_pll_out_test 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_L3_PLI lapss_cc_13_p 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nJAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_EARLY_GRP lapss_cc_|3_pll_out_main 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_MAIN GRP la 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_TEST_GRP ap 209,60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLUS PLL 459.20 | PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD PLUS PLL EARLY GRP 459.20 | PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD PLUS PLL_MAIN_GRP 459.20 |PLL_GOLD_PLUS NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLUS PLL_TEST_GRP 459.20 _|PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\n\n4l\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 43 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\nClock Source Data PLLF or Integer M Source Period} Duty Cycle\nRoot Clock Src PLLL PLLM PLLN Frequency (MHz) | Jitter (ns) Jitter (ns)\nTester 40.00) 0.500 0.500\nxO 79.20] 0.500 0.500\nSLEEP_CLK | 0.03} (0.500 0.500\nPLL_GOLD CW 123 0 1 2361.60) (0.0706 0.0275\nPLL_GOLD_RCW 423 0 1 2361.60) 0.0706 0.0275\nPLL_GOLD_CNOM 141 0 1 2707.20; 0.0092 0.0240\nPLL_GOLD_TURBO Li 108 0 1 2073.60! 0.0721 0.0314\nPLL_GOLD_TURBO_LO 95 0 1 1824.00| 0.0137 0.0356\nPLL_GOLD_NOM_L1 83 0 1 1593.60] 0.0755 0.0403\nPLL_GOLD NOM 73 0 1 1401.60) 0.0178 0.0464\nPLL_GOLD SVS Li 62 0 1 4190.40} 0.0210 0.0630\nPLL_GOLD_SVS 49 0 1 940.80] 0.0372 0.0798\nPLL_GOLD_SVS2 33 0 1 633.60, 0.0711 0.1343\nPLL_GOLD_SVS3 6 \u201c0 _ 115.20} 0.0883 0.1488\nPLL_SILVER_CW 96 0 1 1843.20] 0.0136 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_RCW 96 0 1 1843.20) 0.0736 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_CNOM 107 0 1 2054.40) 0.0122 0.0316\nPLL_SILVER_TURBO _L1 96 0 1 1843.20) 0.0136 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_TURBO_LO_ 89 0 1 1708.80) 0.0746 0.0381\nPLL_SILVER_NOM_Li 77 0 1 1478.40) 0.0167 0.0434\nPLL_SILVER_NOM 70 0 1 1344.00 0.0786 0.0484\nPLL_SILVER_SVS Li 58 0 1 1113.60} 0.0227 0.0587\nPLL_SILVER_SVS 47 0 1 902.40] 0.0388 0.0831\niPLL_SILVER_SVS2 un 0 1 595.20) 0.0341 0.0341\nPLL_SILVER_SVS3 . . 6 0 1 115.20] 0.0883 ~0.1488\nPLL_L3_ CW 83 0 1 1593.60) 0.0157 0.0408\nPLL_L3_ RCW 83 0 1 1593.60 0.0157 0.0408\nPLL_L3_CNOM 94 0 1 1804.80 0.0139 0.0360\nPLL_L3_TURBO_L1 83 0 1 1593.60) 0.0757 0.0408\nPLL_L3_TURBO_LO 78 0 1 1497.60] 0.0167 0.0434\nPUL_L3_NOM_L1 70 ~0 1 1344.00] 0.0186 0.0484\nPLL_L3_NOM 6. 0 1 1209.60) 0.0207 0.0538\nPLL_L3_ SVS_L1 5: 0 1 198.40} 0.0351 0.0744\nPLL_L3 SV: 4 0 1 106.40 0.0437 0.093.\nPLL_L3 SVS2 2 0 1 18.40) 0.0549 0.054:\nPLL_L3_ SVS3 6 0 1 115.20) 0.0883 0.1488\n{PLL_GOLD_TEST 54 0 1 2073.60] 0.0121 0.0314\n{PLL_SILVER_TEST 54 0 i 1843.20] 0.0136 0.0353\nQCREDSTONE 0123173 at -173 to -177, -183, -316. See also QCREDSTONE 0108055,\nQCREDSTONE 010943, QCREDSTONE 0110523, QCREDSTONE 0112461,\nQCREDSTONE 0113841, QCREDSTONE 0114427, QCREDSTONE 0115813,\nQCREDSTONE 0116536, QCREDSTONE 0117594; QCREDSTONE_ 0120263,\nQCREDSTONE 0124233, QCREDSTONE 0125186, QCREDSTONE 0131099.\n\n42\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 44 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nPower Model\n\nPEU\n* Dynamic power model:\n* Pdyn=a* IPC * V2*f\n* Alpha value is tuned per corner (LowSVS, SVS, ..., Nominal, ..., Turbo)\n* GoldPlus and Gold: 9 alpha values each\n* Silver: 6 alpha values\n\nPower Model\nPEU\n\n* Registers:\n* Voltage: APSS_SILVER_CPRh_STATUS_[0-1] / APSS_GOLD_CPRh_STATUS_[0-1]\n* DCVSh_corner_last_voltage\n\n* Frequency: EPSSSLOW_CLKDOM[0/1/2/3] DOMAIN_STATE\n* LVAL\n\n- Temperature: APSS_SILVER_LMH_LLM_TEMP_RX_STS_0_i/\nAPSS_GOLD_LMH LLM _TEMP_RX_STS_0 i\n\n* IPC: PMU registers - Instructions and cycles (PMEVCNTRO_ELO, PMCCNTR_ELO)\n\nQCREDSTONE _ 0099078 at -82 to -83.\n\n43\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 45 of 167\n\nAccused Products\n\nClaim 1\nWeYeiel eV eleseci eee s\nO\nee ee\nes i Ba cialiaite a\nGOLD+ Frequency (MHz) \u2018ixMKL-ELP@283.9\nGOLD Frequency (MHz) 2xMKL/2xMTH@2620.7\n' SILVER Frequency (MHz) | Sxklein@2197.9\nL3 Frequency (MHz) 1892.7\nLLG Frequency (MHz) | 1064.6\nDDR Frequency {MHz} 4260.2\n\u201cGold +: Cache Size [L2 WL id] KB 1024/64/64\nGold {MTH): Cache Size [L2/L1\u00a5L 1d] KB 256/32/92\n\u2018Gold (MKU/HUNTER}: Cache Size [L2/L10. 14] KB \u00a712/92/82\nSilver{complex): Cache Size {L2/L1V/L1d] KB 128\u00b0/32/32\nSilver(single): Cache Size [L2/L1iL1d] KB \u201c y2ar32a2-\nL3: Cache Size MB 8\nLLG: Gache Sze MB : 6( for CPU)\nDDRSS deh LPS\nBuild \u00a330\nPorvax version convex 2021 a\n\nyaelsaats aes.) (8c\\t ee)\n\nere\ni\n\nIxHUNTER-ELP@ 2885.1\nSxHUNTER@2589.2\n\u20182xHayes@i2148 5\n1905.3\n1062.9\n\nBS for GPU).\n4ch LPS\n\nHa E35 :\n{RUMIV1.SOC.EPSILON4 LEDDRS\nGPU)\n\nconvex 2022 06 16 ver 03.14\n\n{xHUNTER-ELP@2885.1\nSxHUNTER@2589.2\nQxHayes@2148.5\n1905.3\n1062.9\n4207.8\n\n{5 for CPU)\n4ch LPS\n\nRUMI.R2.SOC.ALPHA1_LPDDRS\n\nf2_convex_sandbox{ early stage)\n\nQCREDSTONE _0090953 at -84.\n\n44\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 46 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nNumber. Cores\n\nL1 SIZE\n{INST/DATA)\n\n12 SIZE\n\nVersion\n\nARM Core\n\nES Ca SEG Jha tear BO) SS (CLUL TNEO) boa glared\n\n4 4 1 1\n1- 64KB 1-32KB SIZE - 8 MB\nD-64KB D-32KB\n1024 KB 512 KB\nAPCL APCO APCO :\nGDHS Collapsible GDHS Collapsible No GDHS\nHERAP-MP136-r0p0-S0eacO = HERCULESP-MP138-r0p0-SOeacO \u00a9 CORINTH-MP135-r4p2-00rel0 r1p6-00relo\n\n45\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 47 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nrales) LAW Od Oh eal =) 00) 6G 8] 101.74 \\4\n\nEEO\n\neT\n\nOMA SCHL CUSTOM\n\noOze\n\nQCREDSTONE _0092294 at -96, -97.\n\n46\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 48 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n1.1 Functional block diagram\n\nMemory support Non-PoP\nQlink, RF LPDDR4X SDRAY,\n1x Kiyo Prime [ EB He H{ _+Po%\nSx Kiyo Gad | L2 cache ||| | ean HHH -roorssorav |\n4G/5G modem solution 42 Kiyo Siver\nGuacomm Hexagon\nGRFCIRFFE Tensot Processor acer\no Trust (24ane)\n; aoe\n3\n8 | Low Power Al\nQuinke { SPC\n$ \u00bb x} 2 Touch panel\n5 : 8 Penpherats/senson\n3 os f\nFaaovore a si 8\n: 4 Le can\nSenworeuGuaiconm 5 Spee sr SAZZOTSTSA NEC\nSensing Hub Om, \u00a9 86 Ft Guns\n\n1.2 SM7635 features\n\nNOTE Some of the hardware features integrated within the SM7635 must be enabled by software. See the\nlatest revision of the applicable software release notes to identify the enabled SM7635 features.\n\nTable 1-1 SM7635 features\n\nFeature | SM7635 capability\n\nProcessors\n\nApplications = Kryo CPU 7-Series built on Arm Cortex technology\nKryo Prime: One high-performance core\nKryo Gold: Three high-performance cores\n2 Kryo Silver: Four low-power cores\n\nQCREDSTONE 0013455 At -64, -65.\n\n47\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 49 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nVOD_APCI\n\n[CFR moniterec\n\nVoD _sx\n\nVDD _APCO\n[CPR maritered|\n\nVOD MX VDD Cx\n\napss_hm\n\nLegends:\nVOO_ARCI\nVOD_LAPLO\n\nU_gledistor_aox\n\nseeengisr ig isneeeneenaee\n\nPMc | RPK | $ 4 ty\n\nQCREDSTONE 0096091 at -104.\n\nBAFFLE\n\n[1b] a second set of processor\ncores of the multi-core\nprocessor, wherein each\n\nset of processor cores is\nconfigured to dynamically\nreceive a second supply\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor,\nwherein each processor core from the second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically\nreceive a second supply voltage and a second output clock signal of a second PLL having a second\nprocessor core from the second | clock signal as input, wherein the first supply voltage is independent from the second supply\nvoltage, and the first clock signal is independent from the second clock signal.\n\nFor example, in addition to the first set of processor cores, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core has\na second set of high-performance processor cores (two or more ARM Cortex-A710 cores). For\n\n48\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 50 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nvoltage and a second output\nclock signal of a second PLL\nhaving a second clock signal\nas input, wherein the first\nsupply voltage is independent\nfrom the second supply\nvoltage, and the first clock\nsignal is independent from the\nsecond clock signal; and\n\nanother example, in addition to the first set of processor cores, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core\nhas a second set of high-performance processor cores (two or more ARM Cortex-A715 cores).\nThe processor cores in the second set receive a second, independent dynamic supply voltage and a\nsecond clock signal of a second PLL receiving an independent second clock signal.\n\nFor a further example, in addition to the first set of processor cores, the Snapdragon 835 Mobile\nPlatform has a second set of high-performance processor cores (two or more A73 cores). The\nprocessor cores in the second set receive a second, independent dynamic supply voltage and a\nsecond clock signal of a second PLL receiving an independent second clock signal.\n\nARM documentation for the big LITTLE and DynamIQ architectures used in the Accused\nProducts directly shows that each core cluster receives its own clock domain. At the time the\nAccused Products were designed, it was typical to produce this clock using a PLL that has a\ncorresponding clock input. Furthermore, ARM documentation for an earlier, related device (the\nCortex-A15_A7 MPCore test chip, which also has independent clock domains for different CPU\nclusters) shows each CPU cluster receiving an output clock signal from a PLL having a\ncorresponding clock signal as input (e.g. from an oscillator).\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n49\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 51 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nSnapdragon 8 Gen 2 (2023) [edit]\n\nThe Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 was announced on November 15, 2022.!292!\n\nNotable features over its predecessor (8 Gen 1):\n\ne 4nm (TSMC N4) process\ne Support up to 16 GB LPDDR5X 4200 MHz\ne Support UFS 4.0\ne CPU features\ne 1 Kryo Prime (ARM Cortex-X3), up to 3.36 GHz. Prime core\ne 1MB L2 cache\ne Only 64-bit support [253]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A715), up to 2.8 GHz. High Performance cores\ne Only 64-bit support [29\u00b0]\ne 2 Kryo Gold (ARM Cortex-A710), up to 2.8 GHz. Performance cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!?\u00b0\u00a5!\ne 3 Kryo Silver (ARM Cortex-A510), up to 2 GHz. Efficiency cores\ne 32-bit and 64-bit support!2!\ne 35% performance uplift and 40% power efficiency improvement\ne 8 MB system-level cache\n\nhttps://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm _Snapdragon_ systems _on_chips#Snapdragon_8_\n\nGen_2_(2023\n\n50\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 52 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nProduct _ .\nModel number Fab Die size CPU\nName\n4+4cores\n10 nm Kryo 280\nSnapdragon FinFET 72.3 2.45 GHz\nMsmeoge!*?e) ees 3\n835 (Samsung, mm Cortex-A73 +\n10LPE) 1.9 GHz\nCortex-A53)\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems _on_chips#Snapdragon 80\nO_series (2013%E2%80%932021)\n\n51\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 53 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nCluster features\nThe DSU-110 has the following cluster features:\n\nSupport for Arm\u00aev9.0-A architecture cores\nSupport for up to four types of core, and a maximum of 12 cores in the cluster\n\nPower Policy Units (PPUs) providing autonomous power management of the L3 cache and the\ncores\n\nSupport for cores running independently at different frequencies and voltages known as\nDynamic Voltage Frequency Scaling (DVFS). For cores in a complex, DVFS is only possible for the\nwhole complex not for individual cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual, available at\nhttps://documentation-service.arm.com/static/62bb28beb334256d9ea8cc32, at p. 19\n\nA cluster can be configured with up to four different types of cores in the same cluster. Each core\ntype targeting different power efficiency and performance levels. This arrangement allows for\n\nan intermediate core that has an intermediate performance and efficiency level. The cluster also\nsupports complexes.\n\nA cluster can be configured in many arrangements. Examples of cluster arrangements are:\n\nOne or more cores of the same type.\n\nVarious arrangements of two types of cores. For example, one or more cores targeting either a\nhigh-performance level or a higher power efficiency level.\n\nVarious arrangements of three or four types of cores. For example, one or more high-\npeformance cores, power-efficient cores, and intermediate cores.\n\nOne or more complexes and no individual cores. For information on complexes, see 2.3.1 What\n5 a complex? on page 25.\n\nOne or more complexes and individual cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 22\n\n52\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 54 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nDynamlQ cluster\n\nDynamlQ cluster shared logic\n\n[i High efficiency core\nfi High performance core\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 23\n\n53\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 55 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nDynamlQ cluster\n\n-~|- Ee\n\nDynamlQ cluster shared logic\n\n1 High performance core\ni Balanced performance core\n[J High efficiency core\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 24\n\n54\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 56 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nDynamiQ cluster\nComplex 0 Complex 1\nCore 0 Core 1 Core 2 Core 3\nShared logic Shared logic\nComplex 2 Complex 3\nCore 4 Core 5 Core 6 Core 7\nShared logic Shared logic\nDynamiQ cluster shared logic\n\n[ij Supported core in complex\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 24\nThe DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster supports blocks that are called complexes which contain up to\ntwo cores of the same type and some shared logic. Sharing some logic between the two cores of a\n\ndual core complex can make the dual core complex area efficient. However, this area efficiency is at\nthe cost of reduced performance compared with using two single-core complexes.\n\nArm\u00ae DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 25\n\n55\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 57 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nThe Dynam!Q\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) has multiple clock domains. Each core or complex can\nbe implemented in a separate clock domain.\n\nThe following figure shows the clock domains for an example cluster with four standalone cores.\n\nFigure 4-1: DSU-110 clock domains\n\nDynamlQ Shared Unit\n\nDynamlQ Cluster\n\nCPU 0 bridge CPU 1 bridge CPU 2 bridge CPU 3 bridge\n\nL3 memory system\nSCU and L3 cache\neee L3 RAM arrays m=APB:\nPye Power Trace RAM arrays\ncontrol funnel APB:\nHi PPUCLK [) ATCLK J COREOCLK to CORE3CLK\n[Mj PERIPHCLK = [_] SCLK [_] Includes COREXCLK, PERIPHCLK, ATCLK, and SCLK domains\n\n1 GICCLK fi PCLK\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 46\n\n56\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 58 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n6.1 The Power Policy Unit\n\nPower mode control for the DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) is provided by the Power Policy\nUnits (PPUs) that are integrated into the cluster. These PPUs control all the PPU modes for all\ncomponents in the cluster.\n\nA PPU is a standard component for abstracting software-controlled power domain policy to\nlow-level hardware control signaling. There is one PPU for controlling the DSU-110 Dynam!IQ\u201d\u2122\ncluster power domain (PDCLUSTER). Also, each core has its own individual PPU for controlling its\nrespective core power domain (for example, a PPU for PDCOREO and a PPU for PDCORE1). This\nincludes any cores included as part of a complex.\n\nA component in the system such as a System Control! Processor (SCP) can program the PPUs through\nthe utility bus to set the required power policy. The PPUs control the low-level details of powering\nup, powering down, and resetting domains as necessary to implement the requested policy. The\nhardware performs any actions to reach the requested power mode, such as gating clocks, cleaning\nand invalidating caches, or disabling coherency.\n\ne Although the cluster and each core in the cluster has their own PPU, the shared\nlogic of a complex does not have a dedicated PPU. Instead, power management\nof the complex is controlled as a combination of the PPUs for the cores it\ncontains. See Table 5-8: PPU mode and power domain states for a dual-core\ncomplex on page 74.\n\ne The cluster and all the core PPUs are provided as part of the DSU-110.\ne The implementation process automatically creates the PPU for the cluster and\neach core PPU, and connects these into the DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster. Each\n\nPPU has a set of memory-mapped control registers which is accessed using the\nutility bus.\n\nId. at p. 78\n\n57\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 59 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nThe DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) Power Policy Units (PPUs) control power management\nfor the Cortex\u00ae-A510 core. A Cortex\u00ae-A510 complex supports separate gated power domains\nfor the complex, for each core inside the complex, and for the Vector Processing Unit (VPU). It also\nsupports a dedicated voltage domain for each complex, and a voltage domain for the DSU-110\nDynamlQ\u2122 cluster.\n\nArm Cortex-A510 Core Technical Reference Manual at p. 39\n\nThe cluster contains several clock domains for functionality that is likely to be connected to\ndifferent clocks in the system. Within each core, the CPU bridge contains asynchronous bridges fo\nall crossings between the core and cluster clock domains. Each CPU bridge is split, with one half\nof each bridge in the core clock domain and the other half in the relevant cluster domain. At the\ncluster level, there is the Snoop Control Unit (SCU) bridge which contains crossings between the\ncluster clock domains as required.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 46\n\nmM at-m Darlin ORs )ar-le eR Ola) ] om mt ROR (DLO LW LO) Nar-\\-e-01~oy-1\u00a2-1<-kal (ole @t-441-1 Bo) ma) ela ler- l(a -eeel eee) meee) (> em Male oe- lee] ons) oy-1e-) eka (ole \u00aboe folm aa lal imal) 8 (oem ln Rolin elm tata\nTage laocn\n\nMM aTBice)i (oly Tiny =M tle) ome (-xeg | ol -om dg( Mel (ole a-1i-4ar-] ke) dale DLO Ee ON\n\n1] o) (ey DOW LOT al (ele, 71-0\n\nRT tare || BT tadis) dco)\n\nMi al-Ke (ole ce iolm loa ke)m tal-eeele- Mah tg (eae kom dar] ele Malem ey la mel e-Reelii |e) (oa\n\nfee) aren AEM nl-Kee)eoM [at e-lnecM alin loi em (emo <1h) 0) O).4 101 O1 MG Baal Ra lole acolmaels 20\n\nBB alos -10r-] ee (ole ae] | Mee) g om (ey -4(om lave Ulel[n) =m Oat 1 plo OYA er-[ola ton\n\nWi it-he (ole @ianaat-ne lejc-em ot-[e hel ole ai kee) al alce Ce cok) Rae) Nah detec \u2014-) ele Yee) nile) oe\n\n(oro) a ocel 4 , , :\nparmaa-eeelinle)(- a laielaecmalelii e-em (elm C11) )(- O)\\4| 1 m= (01Oi MGR anda [ele @ie)maeliis) (= a0n\n\nhttps://developer.arm.com/documentation/101381/0400/Clocks-and-resets/Clocks-\n\n58\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 60 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n4.1.1 Input clocks\n\nInput clocks must be provided with a source that is external to, or embedded in, the subsystem.\n\nTable 4-1: Input clocks\n\nREFCLK Main reference clock\n\nThe input clock to System Control Processor (SCP) boots coming out of reset. REFCLK also clocks other logic like SCP\ngeneric and watchdog timers.\n\nCPUxPLLCLKn |CPUxPLLCLKn is a high-frequency reference clock inputs used for application core PLL, that is, one per core, where n =\n0-7.\n\nCLUSOPLLCLKn | CLUSOPLLCLKn is a high-frequency reference clock inputs used for cluster PLL, that is, one clock per cluster, where n is\nthe number of clusters in a subsystem. As RD-TC21 reference subsystem only contain one cluster, n is fixed to 1.\n\nINTPLLCLK INTPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the Interconnect block.\nSYSPLLCLK SYSPLLCLK is a high-frequency clock input for the main block.\n\nDMCPLLCLK DMCPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the Memory block.\nGPUPLLCLK GPUPLLCLK is a high-frequency reference clock input used for the GPU block.\n\nArm\u00ae Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at p. 40\n\n4.1.2 Systems clocks\n\nRD-TC21 internally derives clocks that are used for parts of the subsystem. These clocks are\ngenerated only when the VSYS.SYSTOP power domain is powered. Each clock can be individually\ncontrolled.\n\nThe following table summarizes these derived internal clocks.\n\nId.\n\n59\n\fCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 61 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nTable 4-2: Systems internal derived clocks\n\nperformance.\n\nId. at 47-48\n\nCLUSxCORECLKn | CPUPLL Core clock.\n\nnis the number Each core is clocked independently to each other. Therefore, One clock per cluster, where\n\nof clusters ina\n\nsubsystem.\n\nCLUSxCLK CLUSxPLLCLKn | CPU Cluster x clock.\nThe cluster clock drives the logic in the Processor block, where x is O to 31.\n\nINTCLKOUT INTPLLCLK Coherent Interconnect Clock\nClock for the interconnect and other expansion master and slave ports. This clock is generated from\nINTPLLCLK\n\nId. at p. 41\n\n4.3 Power control\n\nGood power management is key to reduce system power consumption while maintaining a high\n\nAn RD-TC21 reference subsystem contains the following power management features:\n\ne Multiple voltage domains to allow for Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) on\napplication processors and the GPU\n\ne Multiple power-gated regions provide comprehensive leakage management\ne Multiple power modes for different system scenarios\n\ne A System Control Processor (SCP) based on a Cortex\u00ae-M3 processor controls power, clock, reset,\nand the static configuration of the system\n\ne Power Policy Units (PPUs) are used to manage power states of each voltage and power domain\nunder the control of the SCP\n\n60\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 62 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n4.3.1 Voltage domain\n\nA voltage domain is defined as a collection of design elements supplied by a single voltage. The\nvoltage supply to the domain might be scaled or switched off for power or performance reasons.\n\nTotal Compute 2021 Reference Design (RD-TC21) supports the following voltage domains:\n\nVCPUO\n\nThe first voltage domain in the processor cluster for \u201cLITTLE\u201d cores. Supports DVFS.\nVCPU1\n\nThe second voltage domain in the processor cluster for ELP and \u201cbig\u201d cores. Supports DVFS.\nVGPU\n\nThe voltage domain for GPU. Supports DVFS.\nVSYS\n\nThe voltage domain for the rest of the subsystem. Does not support DVFS.\n\nId. at p. 48\n\nSCP runtime firmware\nThe SCP runtime firmware executes after Trusted Firmware for A-profile (TF-A) BL2 has\n\nauthenticated and copied it from flash.\nThe SCP runtime firmware performs the following functions:\n\ne Responds to System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) messages through Message\nHandling Unit (MHU) version 2.0 for processor power control and Dynamic Voltage and\nFrequency Scaling (DVFS)\n\ne Power domain management\n\ne Clock management\n\nId. at p. 65\n\n61\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 63 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nOur initial testing shows that Snapdragon 835\u2019s Kryo 280 CPU is an octa-core, big.LITTLE configuration with\nfour semi-custom A73 \u201cperformance\u201d cores and four semi-custom A53 \u201cefficiency\u201d cores. Kryo 280\u2019s\nperformance cores are pretty much equivalent to Kirin 960\u2019s A73 cores in both integer and floating-point IPC,\nbut comparing them to Snapdragon 820\u2019s Kryo CPU shows mixed results: integer IPC improves but floating-\npoint regresses.\n\nhttps://www.anandtech.com/show/11201/qualcomm-snapdragon-835-performance-preview/6\n\nVoltage domains\nThe voltage supply to a domain might be scaled or removed for power or performance reasons.\n\nExcept for low complexity solutions, it is rare to use a single logic voltage supply for the whole\nSoC.\n\nThe primary reason for additional voltage domains is to support DVFS for functional areas of\nthe SoC. The second reason is to enable external supply switch-off, or reduction to\nnon-functional state retention levels, to some logic areas while maintaining an operational level\nsupply to others.\n\nHowever, the cost for additional voltage domains is significant, because additional voltage\nregulators, extra effort, and complexity are required in the SoC physical implementation.\nTherefore, you must carefully assess the value of the addition of each voltage domain against\nthe performance and power requirements for the design.\n\nIn a big.LITTLE system, each cluster must have a dedicated voltage supply. This is a critical\nsuccess factor when combined with big.LITTLE software.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n62\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 64 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nSYSTOP STANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls j i\n| Always on \\\nnFIQOUT | 1\n1 | Control signals\nnIRQOUT | ler |\n\\. >! Power control >\nInterrupt Controller 1\n|\n| | Power/Clock/Reset |\n| |\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFIQ/ PP ls |\nnVFIQ/inVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ : :\nVG \u2014 \u2014 =| | MUTTLE\n| |\n|\ni big Cluster | LITTLE Cluster\n| I\n\n| |\nEVENT:\n| =a a | Bridge ihe) ee) ee\nS888 \u00b0 \u201c2888\nS| NH | | \u2014) e He ie I\n|\n|\n\n<\u2014 Generic >\n|\n|\n\niz\n\nSCU/L2 Cache i\n|\n\nCounter ||\n\n| Domain Bridge (slave) __| | | || Dera ioe cate) ee |\n~~ Domain Bridge (master) _ T \u201c1 Domain Bridge (master) _ |\na A\nACE ACE\nVv Vv\n\nCache Coherent Interconnect\n\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n| |\n|\n| STANDBYWFVSTANDEYWFItL\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n|\n\n[: ~~ \"7 Power domain r ~ 1 Voltage domain )\n\nFigure 2-2 Power domain hierarchy\n\nIn Figure 2-2, two processor clusters are implemented with per-core and cluster power domains.\nThe big cluster is in the VBIG voltage domain, while the LITTLE cluster is in the VLITTLE\nvoltage domain. The system controller is in an always-on power domain. All the other\ncomponents are in the system logic power domain (SYSTOP).\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n63\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 65 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nClock domains\n\nClock domains can interact with each other synchronously or asynchronously. Synchronous\nclock domains can have independent source activity. Each cluster requires an independent\nclock, and the CCI requires a clock.\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n64\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 66 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nCoreTile Express A15x2 A7x3\nDaughterboard\n\n24MHz\n\nCortex-A15_A7 MPCore Test Chip\n\n<\u2014\u2014CPU_CLK0_A15 OSCCLK\nCortex-A15 44 CPU_CLKO_A15/2 A15 PLLO CPUREFCLK0O\u2014}\nMPCore }\u00abA15_CLK\u2014glitchless OSCCLK\nCluster mux = \u00ab\u2014\u2014\u2014CPU_CLK1_A15 A15 PLL1 CPUREFCLK1\u2014}\n+\u2014 SYSCLK\n__| SYSPLL +\u2014svsrercux\u2014-| \u00b0\u00b0\")\nCortex-A7 41 <\u2014\u2014\u2014-CPU_CLK2_A7 OSCCLK\nA7 PLLO CPUREFCLK2\u2014+\nMPCore }\u00ab-A7_CLK\u2014 glitchless \u00ab\u2014\u2014\u2014-CPU_CLK2_A7/2 | 2\nCluster mux\n\u00a2_CPU_CLK3_A7 AT PLL1 CPUREFCLK3\u2014 osceLk\nr- TRACECLKA DAP\nTRACECLKB \u2014 CoreSight trace CCI-400\nanddebug }\u00ab\u2014PCLK \u2014 Interconnect\nTPIU subsystem\nt TRACECLKIN\nACLK:\n\nDMC-400 System\n\\\u00ab\u2014\u2014DDRCLK Timer\n\nSystem\nHDLCD counter\nPXLCLK SP805 NIC-301 Matrix ss\nAsync SMC LK\n4 DDR y' Async M 4\nv\nPLL\nHDLCD SMB_CLKO Mux/\nPLL REFCLK24MHZ Demux\nSMB_REFCLK SMB_CLKI 8MHz\nCLKI1:0) PXLREFCLK | ppprreciK [ \u2018\nnCLK[1:0] MMB_IDCLK Daughterboard\nConfiguration\ny HSB (M) Controller\n2GB OSCCLK OSCCLK OSCCLK\nDDR2 5 8 6 HSBM (CLK)\n\u00a2C HDRY \u00bb)) C__HDRX __)\n\nFigure 2-10 CoreTile Express A15x2 A7x3 daughterboard clocks\n\nARM\u00ae CoreTile Express A152 A7x3 Technical Reference Manual, available at\nhttps://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0503/i/\n\n65\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 67 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nQualcomm\u2019s documentation demonstrates that the accused devices are configured to contain a\nfirst and second set of processor cores according to the above referenced architectures. For\nexample, both the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core, die code Kailua, and Snapdragon 835 Mobile\nPlatform, MSM8998, are configured with a first set of \u201cGold\u201d cores and a second set of \u201cSilver\u201d\ncores, each set having its own PLL Gold or PLL Silver with its own input and output clock signal,\nand each having a separate power domain and power rails, both the power and output clock signal\nbeing variable and the clusters being configured to receive the same:\n\nMotivation\n\nCurrent implementation\n\n* Current implementation in CPUSS requires\nthat each core per cluster domain run at the cous col\nsame clock frequency.\n\n\u00a2 This requirement is due to the fact that each\ncore doesn\u2019t have its own PLL.\n\nPLL\n\n* OSM aggregates and chooses MAX\nfrequency for operation for those cores.\n\n66\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 68 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\n%\n\u2018\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nro ff\n8 { ' t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n70 OSM\nTheotte | rw\nimerrupts to } proganming \u2018to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n67\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPage 69 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\ne When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\n68\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 70 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPost Waipio Options: Big and Little RISC-V Split(Azzedine)\n\nAsynchronous\nTwo RISC-Vs : Big Risc-V i di ally with timer\n\nSW SCMI,\nOSF,\ntom\n\n1. CP-B: High Frequency (Periodic usage -\n\nNew features to generate data for CP-L of\n\nCPU)\n\nCP-L: Low Frequency mode\n\nComplex features in \u201cBig\u201d RISC-V (CP-B)\n\nwill not be propagated to VT\n\n4. Big Risc-V is to be designed in a way that\nis not be product gating\n\n5. Upgrade to SiFive solution is\nrecommended (to leverage opensource\nSW tools*.)\n\nwon\n\nye HW Aggregator\n&\nSequencer offload\n\n*Pulp is not fully compliant to the RISC-V architecture.\n\nQCREDSTONE_0098870 at -74, -83, -84, -96.\n\nGOLD cluster jueni jan\nMode POR Frequency (MHz) Source (HF PLL) VCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode | L Value | PLL wal Fit Taras (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cycjitter (ps) | src_sel\nsea doov seine 2764 APC1 PLL-early 2764.8 HE maj) 4 89 23.2 sre5\na 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.2 26.5 sre5\nTioasov se Joss 2361 APC1 PLL -early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\neesaow eeyoason 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\n\n69\n\fCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 71 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nSILVER cluster plan\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (SR PLL) VCO freq (MHz) PLL mode cpa oil ae PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nee deo say 2054 APCO PLL -early 2054.4 HE 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\nTp oaoy, cehaew 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nMioaov sy low 1843 APCO PLL -early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nodbov seo osov 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nsie gov sooo 2054 APCO PLL-early 2054.4 HF 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\ntn aoov, sajo-osov 1843 APCOPLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nTyo a00v, safo-200V 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 12.2 31.6 src\nQCREDSTONE _ 0123173 at -73, -77.\nCPUSS\n\u00ab Kryo 685 Next Gen V8\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime Fmax: 2.6+ GHz | cows || sors || GDHS | GDHS |\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Fmax: 2.3+ GHz \u2014 \u2014 - power Domains\n= Kryo Silver Fmax: 1.8 GHz a po E oe core\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime L1/L2 cache: 64 KB/1 MB Se ea eee |e ves\n\n\u00bb Kryo Gold L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/512 KB\n\u00ab Kryo Silver L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/128 KB\n\u00bb Frequency of Operation\n\n32 KB/S2 K | |32KB/32 K! |32 KB/S2 K] | |64 KBIG4 K\nsSoBes] eeepc Pecopaad |e\n\n$12 KB | | $12 KB | 512 KB] | | 1 MB\n\nGold Prime, Gold, Silver, and L3 cache can operate at different\nfrequencies (Independently controlled).\n\nWithin Silver cluster, all 4 Silver cores and L2 are synchronous.\nWithin Gold cluster, all 3 Gold cores and L2 are synchronous.\n\nWithin Gold Prime cluster, Gold Prime core and L2 are\nsynchronous\n\nPower rail\n\nGold Prime core and Gold core share VDD_APC1.\nSilver core and L3 logic share VDD_APCO.\nL1 and L2 cache memory cell powered by VDD_MX.\n\nEach Kryo Silver/Gold/Gold Prime core has a global distributed\nhead switch (GDHS) to power the core.\n\n80-PK177-36 Rev.B July 2020\n\nQCREDSTONE 0039762 at -71\n\nGold cluster\n\nGold Prime\nCluster\n\n| GDHS | GDHS | GDHS | GDHS\n\n4NB\n\nSilver Silver Silver Silver\nCPUO CPU1 CPU2 CPU3\nLipa || LDA || Lia || L1 ba\n32 KBIS2 K| |32 KB/S2 K} |32 KBIS2 K) |32 KBIS2 K\nfee 8 B.\noo re 5\n\nSilv\n\ner cluster\n\nConfidential - Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies \u2014 May Contain Trade Secrets | MAY CONTAIN U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION\n\n70\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 72 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nCPU Power\n\n\u00bb Customized 64-bit ARM v8-compliant apps processor (Kryo 2xx\nCPU)\n\n\u00ab Two Clusters in CPU subsystem \u2014 Kryo Gold and Kryo Silver\n\nKryo Gold Cluster \u2014- Quad Kryo high performance CPUs with 2.5 GHz\nto 2.7 GHz Speed\n\nKryo Silver Cluster \u2014 Quad Kryo low power CPUs with 1.5 GHz to 1.9\nGHz Speed\n\n\u00bb L1 and L2 Cache:\nL2 cache at 2 MB for Kryo Gold Goid cluster\nL2 cache at 1 MB for Kryo Silver\n= Power rails: ee\nKryo Gold cluster and Silver cluster have dedicated, separate power Ces] [os] [os] :\n\nrails =\nPM8998 SMPS10 powers the Kryo Silver cluster 1 Fae] f\n\nPM8998 SMPS11/12/13 are tied together as a single trace to power Silver Closter\nthe Kryo Gold cluster\n\nEach Kryo Gold core has a block head switch (BHS) and each Kryo\n\nPower Domains\n\n[SMPs30}\n\nie\ni\n\n&\n\nCPU Sub System\n\nSilver core has a global distributed head switch (GDHS) to power the\ncore\n\n\u00ab Gold and Silver cluster, along with the respective L2 cache, can\noperate on a different clock source at different frequencies.\n\nWithin a cluster, the cores and L2 are synchronous\n\nQCREDSTONE 0082868 at -878.\n\n71\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 73 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCPU Core config and Rail Split\n\n+ CPU team is proposing the 1GP+5G+2S for Lanai CPU config to maximize the performance of Benchmarks and Gaming\n* Reduction of Silver core (3->2) will negatively impact the DOU which is mostly running on Silver core\n+ APC1 rail split is proposed to mitigate the DOU impact\n+ APCO - 2x Silver cores + L3 shared cache\n+ APC1 - 3x Gold cores\n+ APC2- 1x Gold Plus core + 2x Gold cores\n+ PDN/PKG/PCB/PMIC analysis is being discussed here to mitigate any impact due to APC1 rail split\n\nPLLs\nGold+\nGold ape\n\nSiiver\n\nBoE\n\nKailua 14443 Lanai 14+5+2 Lanai 1+5+2 Split\nUnified\n\nQCREDSTONE 0091042 at -44.\n\n72\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 74 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta (Cruce (kaise)\no\u00ab wwnne awe aw ~ ~ \u00bb = a sae as = : Update J\n\nAPS trom CPUSS AHB\n\n\u20ac310 Core\n\nAPOZANG. {OSCP } mM /iS\n{32KB}\n\n'\n\nOriM '\n\nKB) Be #3 1\n\n1\n\n(ose ars) AEM !\n\n'\n\n'\n\n'\n\nLa Ss 7 >) ba '\n\n'\n\nEQ :\n\ni\n+\nNOREECURT_SCCTSS_ eT ARETE SECLIRE_ACCESS_OVERRICE: - t\nif BKP/WPT) -!\n\ni '\nAHB Dxader t 1\nAPB Decealer pr ETM. J - \u00ab\nT \u2018 \u2014\nJj ' \u2018ph IMR. eOT.\n\nCURD OHIO 3 Aggregate IRI wanna nner n nen\nPVA\nSlusDOVS (LLCMC} Aggregator IRQs L,\n>\n\n| PLIC \u2014\n\nCPU7 mn }\nPL js <4\n\nMEL-ELP es\n' \u2014 aTimer\n' S/S a \\ J\n\nQCREDSTONE _0098768 at -70.\n\nAdditionally, Qualcomm documentation shows that each cluster of cores, e.g. gold and silver, is in\na different power domain and clock domain, configured to provide independent voltages and clock\nsignals to each cluster:\n\n73\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 75 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\n%\n\u2018\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nro ff\n8 { ' t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n70 OSM\nTheotte | rw\nimerrupts to } proganming \u2018to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n74\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPage 76 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\ne When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\n75\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 77 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPost Waipio Options: Big and Little RISC-V Split(Azzedine)\n\nAsynchronous\nTwo RISC-Vs : Big Risc-V i di ally with timer\n\nSW SCMI,\nOSF,\ntom\n\n1. CP-B: High Frequency (Periodic usage -\n\nNew features to generate data for CP-L of\n\nCPU)\n\nCP-L: Low Frequency mode\n\nComplex features in \u201cBig\u201d RISC-V (CP-B)\n\nwill not be propagated to VT\n\n4. Big Risc-V is to be designed in a way that\nis not be product gating\n\n5. Upgrade to SiFive solution is\nrecommended (to leverage opensource\nSW tools*.)\n\nwon\n\nye HW Aggregator\n&\nSequencer offload\n\n*Pulp is not fully compliant to the RISC-V architecture.\n\nQCREDSTONE_0098870 at -74, -83, -84, -96.\n\nGOLD cluster jueni jan\nMode POR Frequency (MHz) Source (HF PLL) VCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode | L Value | PLL wal Fit Taras (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cycjitter (ps) | src_sel\nsea doov seine 2764 APC1 PLL-early 2764.8 HE maj) 4 89 23.2 sre5\na 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.2 26.5 sre5\nTioasov se Joss 2361 APC1 PLL -early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\neesaow eeyoason 2361 APC1PLL-early 2361.6 HE 23) 1 10.6 275 sre5\n\n76\n\fCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 78 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nSILVER cluster plan\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (SR PLL) VCO freq (MHz) PLL mode cpa oil ae PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nee deo say 2054 APCO PLL -early 2054.4 HE 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\nTp oaoy, cehaew 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nMioaov sy low 1843 APCO PLL -early 1843.2 HE 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nodbov seo osov 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nsie gov sooo 2054 APCO PLL-early 2054.4 HF 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\ntn aoov, sajo-osov 1843 APCOPLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 13.6 35.3 sre5\nTyo a00v, safo-200V 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 96 1 12.2 31.6 src\nQCREDSTONE _ 0123173 at -73, -77.\nCPUSS\n\u00ab Kryo 685 Next Gen V8\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime Fmax: 2.6+ GHz | cows || sors || GDHS | GDHS |\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Fmax: 2.3+ GHz \u2014 \u2014 - power Domains\n= Kryo Silver Fmax: 1.8 GHz a po E oe core\n\u00ab Kryo Gold Prime L1/L2 cache: 64 KB/1 MB Se ea eee |e ves\n\n\u00bb Kryo Gold L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/512 KB\n\u00ab Kryo Silver L1/L2 cache: 32 KB/128 KB\n\u00bb Frequency of Operation\n\n32 KB/S2 K | |32KB/32 K! |32 KB/S2 K] | |64 KBIG4 K\nsSoBes] eeepc Pecopaad |e\n\n$12 KB | | $12 KB | 512 KB] | | 1 MB\n\nGold Prime, Gold, Silver, and L3 cache can operate at different\nfrequencies (Independently controlled).\n\nWithin Silver cluster, all 4 Silver cores and L2 are synchronous.\nWithin Gold cluster, all 3 Gold cores and L2 are synchronous.\n\nWithin Gold Prime cluster, Gold Prime core and L2 are\nsynchronous\n\nPower rail\n\nGold Prime core and Gold core share VDD_APC1.\nSilver core and L3 logic share VDD_APCO.\nL1 and L2 cache memory cell powered by VDD_MX.\n\nEach Kryo Silver/Gold/Gold Prime core has a global distributed\nhead switch (GDHS) to power the core.\n\n80-PK177-36 Rev.B July 2020\n\nQCREDSTONE 0039762 at -71\n\nGold cluster\n\nGold Prime\nCluster\n\n| GDHS | GDHS | GDHS | GDHS\n\n4NB\n\nSilver Silver Silver Silver\nCPUO CPU1 CPU2 CPU3\nLipa || LDA || Lia || L1 ba\n32 KBIS2 K| |32 KB/S2 K} |32 KBIS2 K) |32 KBIS2 K\nfee 8 B.\noo re 5\n\nSilv\n\ner cluster\n\nConfidential - Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies \u2014 May Contain Trade Secrets | MAY CONTAIN U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL EXPORT CONTROLLED INFORMATION\n\n77\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 79 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nThis arrangement of Gold+, Gold, and/or Silver cores arranged into clusters according to the\nabove referenced architectures is repeated throughout the accused products:\n\nNetrani Halliday\n\n|\n\nao a aa a\n\nKryo-6 Gold Cluster\n\nod Lee Se\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 oo\n\n4xGold_ @ 2.4 GHz\nDebug Pils | pe\nKryo-6 SS Ce oe\nCPU Ss eS OF cose,\n\u2014 ae ee ee ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee \u2014_\n\n78\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 80 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClarence\nCeee\n333333: 333333: L3 (4MB) wees\nSnoop Filters\nMees eset Asynchronous Bridge\n\nK _& :\n\u00e9 s|E sit a\na a =\nKryo-6 6xSilver Cluster (2GHz)\nCFG : CBR\nDebug Pils \u00e9\n\noOjcerss \u00abi QTIMER\n\nKryo-6 CPR QGICOR\u2019\nCPU SS GIC-Begton\n\n79\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 81 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCHLE CHILE CRLE\n_3 (2MB)\nSnoop Filters\n\nAsynchronous Bridge Asynchronous Bridge\n\nEee taaiey Tear\na he Sa\nPeis Sie Sitcian tak 2568 Shared | 25548 Shared\n> \u00a2 us ws\n\u2014-~jfot=-fef-|]af-tsa 32K1 | 32KR | SRD | S2KR\nSIsiGisivzisafoia BH2kD | S2eO | BO | 22Kd beens\n= = = 2 = 3 = a 1215 | cris | tis | uss\ni a mi i Wea Rpe a ROT Ree\nKye SG | KyoSs | Kye sG | Kye BG _SeraO | Soret | Cures | Cored |\nCaw6\u00e9 | Core\u00e9 | Cores } Core? Kryos Kryos\nREL WARE MKL MARE Compan Compie t\n\nou\u201d ah \u00b0c\u201d es\u2019 ins\u201d es\u2019 * \u2018es eis\" es\u201d ea * cel\n\n|\n|\n\nDet From CNoC\nAste \u00e9l 0S\nKry o8xx OLe \u2014> a\nCPU SS re S| ctccionen || |\n|\n\n80\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 82 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098556 at -558 to -562.\n\n81\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nPage 83 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nBNET @relaiile(sie-itele\n\nryos LS\n\n256\nSeer ae eae TRUE\nFALSE\n\nBeste any Slee TRUE\n\nrit ih OF. ui watt os 1 O24 Boe Oui ea | RUE/FALSE TRUE\n\nBS 12/1024/2048/4096K\n\njer. cola se 74:\n\n4096KB\n2\n\n2\n\n: eS ed bles)\n\n3 Gold + 1 Gold+\n\n4 Silver Cores\n\nCorinth cluster to the\nGladiator interconnect\ninterface is CHI\n\n2x128bit wide CHI port to the\nGladiator interconnect\nInclude L3 Cache\n\nACP interface not included on\nthe Corinth cluster\nPeripheral port not included\non the Corinth Cluster\nProtect the L3 Cache RAMs\nand snoop filter RAMs with\nECC\n\n4M L3 cache\n\nL3 Data RAM input latency is\n1 cycle\n\nL3 Data RAM output latency\nis 2 cycle\n\nQCREDSTONE 0090058 at -71.\n\n82\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 84 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nD2 ste este\n\nPPE I OLOe\nDus oee\ns+ Sonal fx\nBIT TRB\nUE OY\nSenn fe\n\nLaRthe P1RS wt\nTH HEY SSRERR Retox [Wears\nPITA KS\n\n83\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 85 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nCPU\n\n* Dual DSU Octa core processing unit\n\n* DSUO: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercules Prime) - i\n* Boct processor\n* 32KB/32KB 11 Cache\n* 256KB L2 Cache\n* APCO rail\n\n* DSU: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercales Prime) -\n\u00ab 32KB/S2KB 11 Cache\n* 256kB 12 Cache\n* APCL rail\n\nL3 (Corinth DSU}\n\n* 4MBL3 Cache (2MB per DSU)\n+ Asyne to all CPUs within DSU\n\n* Full power down mode to reduce power\n* Natively supports dual 256b CHI\n\n- Le Mans Change\n\n* APCO rail for DSUO & APC1 rail for DSU1 ~ Le Mans Change\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\n.\n\n.\n\n.\n\n.\n\n*\n\nB=} (e [ns WYeieel iow (terol Ulitcieatsi al toad more] (U[ ests)\n\nBus Interface\n\n2x256b CHI interfaces to GEMNoC from each DSU - Le Mans \u00a2\n1/0 Coherency support via CHT\n\nDYM broadeast to system via CHI\n\n64-bit ACES-Lite Master port interface to system NOC - Le Man\n32-bit AHE Slave post interface to system NOC\n\n32-bit AHR Master port interface to system NOC (EPSS)\n\nAPB Slave port interface to system DAP\n\nATS bus interface to CoreSight Trace component\n\nTine Stanip interface to CereSight debug component\n\nTAP port interface to [TAG interface\n\nAUTO\nPaut Monitoring for Safety Manager.\nLBEST and MBIST Capability at Cold Boot.\nTEEE1560 Interface for LBIST Infrastracture from Sal.\nError And Parity Checks.\nClock Monitoring.\n2D parity for CSRs (excluding ARM logic CSRs} - Le Mane Change\n\nPower\nO5M3.i - EPSS for Active Power Management\nLaw power modes for eggressive dynamic & leakage mitigation.\nMPMM Support by Hercules ARM Cores.\nEPSS access to DDR via ANB ( Use case\nedule assistance by providing shared data, \u00a3\nSCM based) prototype }\n\nading single image of EPSS,\nvery implementation, ARM\n\n84\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 86 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\n3rd Party\n\nayige lets a aval |eaoid God cals) cae s>.< ole) aa @e)alage)i(-reh |\n\nDo you have any 3rd Party IPs to declare? (note that this is a sign-off on the accuracy of your answer, which may have financial implications):\n\nYES\nuw Changed from Previous Program Qcom\nv\nSupplier Licensed IP Description Instances (Y/N)? Owner Deita Comments\nArm Limited \u2014 Hercules Processor/Hercules Crypto/HerculesPrime 8 yes L1/L2 size changed from 64KB/512KB to\nProcessor/HerculesPrime Crypto/Dynamigq Shared 32KB/256KB\nUnit 8MB Version (DSU 8MB)\nArm Limited Hercules Processor/Hercules Crypto/HerculesPrime 2 yes 13 size changed from 8MB to 2MB (per cluster)\nProcessor/HerculesPrime Crypto/Dynamig Shared\nUnit 8MB Version (DSU 8MB)\nArm Limited \u2014 GIC-Clayton Generic Interrupt Controller 1 yes GIC Beeton is replaced with GIC Clayton\nArm Limited Coresight Components-Various 1 no\nPULP. RISCY RISC-V Core (Open Source Hardware Platform) 1 no\nPlatform https://www.pulp-platform.org/\nQCREDSTONE 0091177 at -86-87, -248.\nGOLD_PLUS pian\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (HF PLL) PAL config\nquency VCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode | | Value| PLL div) PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTurbo_LS CN 0.960V\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2956 APC1 PLL -early 2956.8 HF 154 1 8.5 22.0 sreS\nTurbo_L5 0.960V\nTT/0.960V, $S/rov 2572 APC1 PLL -early 2572.8 HE 134 1 10.0 26.0 srcS\nTurbo_L3 CW 0.890V\nT1/0.890V, $5/0.950V 2457 APC1 PLL -early 2457.6 HF 128 1 10.3 26.7 | sreS\nGOLD cluster frequency plan\nPLL config\nMode PoR Frequency (MH: Source (HF PLL|\nquency (MHz) ( VCO freq (MHz) | PLL mode L Value PLL div! PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTurbo_L5 CN 0.960V { |\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2764 APC1 PLL -early 2764.8 i HF 144 1 8.9 23.2 sreS\nTurbo_L5 0.960V\n~ APY -earh HF .\nTT/0.960V, SS/xxV 2361 C1 PLL -early 2361.6 | 123 1 | 10.2 26.5 srcS\n\n85\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 87 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nLVER cluster plan\nMode PoR Frequency (MHz) Source (SR PLL) PLL config\nVCO freq (MHz) | PLLmode |i Vaiue| PLL div] PLL Power (mW) | Period Jitter (ps) | Half-Cyc]jitter (ps) | src_sel\nTeaane cohen 2054 APCO PLL -early 2054.4 HF 107 | 1 12.2 31.6 sre5\nTurbo_15 0.960V\nTyo 960, ss/aav 1843 APCO PLL -early 1843.2 HF 9 | 1 13.6 353 sre\nTurbo_3 CW 0.890V\n1/0 s80v, $5/0 950 1843 APCO PLL-early 1843.2 HF 9% | 1 13.6 353 src5\nPLL |\nIAPSS_CC_SILVER_PLL fapss__cc_silver_pll 144.00 | _ PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\nJAPSS_CC_SILVER_PLL_EARLY_GRP lapss__cc_silver_pll_out_main 444.00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\n|APSS_CC_SILVER_PLL_MAIN_GRP lapss_cc_silver_pll_out_even 344.00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\n\u2018CC_SILVER_PLL_TEST_GRP Dss_cc_silver_pll_out_test 344,00 | PLL_SILVER_NOM 478.40\nsCC_GOLD_PLL ~ lapss,_cc_gold_pll 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\n| CC_GOLD_PLL_EARLY_GRP fapss__cc_gold_pll_out_main 401.60 | _ PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLL_MAIN_GRP lapss,_cc_gold_pll_out_even 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLL_TEST_GRP pss_cc_gold_pll_out_test 401.60 | PLL_GOLD_NOM 593.60\nJAPSS_CC_L3_PLI lapss_cc_13_p 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nJAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_EARLY_GRP lapss_cc_|3_pll_out_main 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_MAIN GRP la 209.60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_L3_PLL_TEST_GRP ap 209,60 PLL_L3_NOM 344.00\nAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLUS PLL 459.20 | PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD PLUS PLL EARLY GRP 459.20 | PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD PLUS PLL_MAIN_GRP 459.20 |PLL_GOLD_PLUS NOM 1651.20\nJAPSS_CC_GOLD_PLUS PLL_TEST_GRP 459.20 _|PLL_GOLD_PLUS_NOM 1651.20\n\n86\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 88 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\nClock Source Data PLLF or Integer M Source Period} Duty Cycle\nRoot Clock Src PLLL PLLM PLLN Frequency (MHz) | Jitter (ns) Jitter (ns)\nTester 40.00) 0.500 0.500\nxO 79.20] 0.500 0.500\nSLEEP_CLK | 0.03} (0.500 0.500\nPLL_GOLD CW 123 0 1 2361.60) (0.0706 0.0275\nPLL_GOLD_RCW 423 0 1 2361.60) 0.0706 0.0275\nPLL_GOLD_CNOM 141 0 1 2707.20; 0.0092 0.0240\nPLL_GOLD_TURBO Li 108 0 1 2073.60! 0.0721 0.0314\nPLL_GOLD_TURBO_LO 95 0 1 1824.00| 0.0137 0.0356\nPLL_GOLD_NOM_L1 83 0 1 1593.60] 0.0755 0.0403\nPLL_GOLD NOM 73 0 1 1401.60) 0.0178 0.0464\nPLL_GOLD SVS Li 62 0 1 4190.40} 0.0210 0.0630\nPLL_GOLD_SVS 49 0 1 940.80] 0.0372 0.0798\nPLL_GOLD_SVS2 33 0 1 633.60, 0.0711 0.1343\nPLL_GOLD_SVS3 6 \u201c0 _ 115.20} 0.0883 0.1488\nPLL_SILVER_CW 96 0 1 1843.20] 0.0136 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_RCW 96 0 1 1843.20) 0.0736 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_CNOM 107 0 1 2054.40) 0.0122 0.0316\nPLL_SILVER_TURBO _L1 96 0 1 1843.20) 0.0136 0.0353\nPLL_SILVER_TURBO_LO_ 89 0 1 1708.80) 0.0746 0.0381\nPLL_SILVER_NOM_Li 77 0 1 1478.40) 0.0167 0.0434\nPLL_SILVER_NOM 70 0 1 1344.00 0.0786 0.0484\nPLL_SILVER_SVS Li 58 0 1 1113.60} 0.0227 0.0587\nPLL_SILVER_SVS 47 0 1 902.40] 0.0388 0.0831\niPLL_SILVER_SVS2 un 0 1 595.20) 0.0341 0.0341\nPLL_SILVER_SVS3 . . 6 0 1 115.20] 0.0883 ~0.1488\nPLL_L3_ CW 83 0 1 1593.60) 0.0157 0.0408\nPLL_L3_ RCW 83 0 1 1593.60 0.0157 0.0408\nPLL_L3_CNOM 94 0 1 1804.80 0.0139 0.0360\nPLL_L3_TURBO_L1 83 0 1 1593.60) 0.0757 0.0408\nPLL_L3_TURBO_LO 78 0 1 1497.60] 0.0167 0.0434\nPUL_L3_NOM_L1 70 ~0 1 1344.00] 0.0186 0.0484\nPLL_L3_NOM 6. 0 1 1209.60) 0.0207 0.0538\nPLL_L3_ SVS_L1 5: 0 1 198.40} 0.0351 0.0744\nPLL_L3 SV: 4 0 1 106.40 0.0437 0.093.\nPLL_L3 SVS2 2 0 1 18.40) 0.0549 0.054:\nPLL_L3_ SVS3 6 0 1 115.20) 0.0883 0.1488\n{PLL_GOLD_TEST 54 0 1 2073.60] 0.0121 0.0314\n{PLL_SILVER_TEST 54 0 i 1843.20] 0.0136 0.0353\nQCREDSTONE 0123173 at -173 to -177, -183, -316. See also QCREDSTONE 0108055,\nQCREDSTONE 010943, QCREDSTONE 0110523, QCREDSTONE 0112461,\nQCREDSTONE 0113841, QCREDSTONE 0114427, QCREDSTONE 0115813,\nQCREDSTONE 0116536, QCREDSTONE 0117594; QCREDSTONE_ 0120263,\nQCREDSTONE 0124233, QCREDSTONE 0125186, QCREDSTONE 0131099.\n\n87\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 89 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nPower Model\n\nPEU\n* Dynamic power model:\n* Pdyn=a* IPC * V2*f\n* Alpha value is tuned per corner (LowSVS, SVS, ..., Nominal, ..., Turbo)\n* GoldPlus and Gold: 9 alpha values each\n* Silver: 6 alpha values\n\nPower Model\nPEU\n\n* Registers:\n* Voltage: APSS_SILVER_CPRh_STATUS_[0-1] / APSS_GOLD_CPRh_STATUS_[0-1]\n* DCVSh_corner_last_voltage\n\n* Frequency: EPSSSLOW_CLKDOM[0/1/2/3] DOMAIN_STATE\n* LVAL\n\n- Temperature: APSS_SILVER_LMH_LLM_TEMP_RX_STS_0_i/\nAPSS_GOLD_LMH LLM _TEMP_RX_STS_0 i\n\n* IPC: PMU registers - Instructions and cycles (PMEVCNTRO_ELO, PMCCNTR_ELO)\n\nQCREDSTONE _ 0099078 at -82 to -83.\n\n88\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 90 of 167\n\nAccused Products\n\nClaim 1\nWeYeiel eV eleseci eee s\nO\nee ee\nes i Ba cialiaite a\nGOLD+ Frequency (MHz) \u2018ixMKL-ELP@283.9\nGOLD Frequency (MHz) 2xMKL/2xMTH@2620.7\n' SILVER Frequency (MHz) | Sxklein@2197.9\nL3 Frequency (MHz) 1892.7\nLLG Frequency (MHz) | 1064.6\nDDR Frequency {MHz} 4260.2\n\u201cGold +: Cache Size [L2 WL id] KB 1024/64/64\nGold {MTH): Cache Size [L2/L1\u00a5L 1d] KB 256/32/92\n\u2018Gold (MKU/HUNTER}: Cache Size [L2/L10. 14] KB \u00a712/92/82\nSilver{complex): Cache Size {L2/L1V/L1d] KB 128\u00b0/32/32\nSilver(single): Cache Size [L2/L1iL1d] KB \u201c y2ar32a2-\nL3: Cache Size MB 8\nLLG: Gache Sze MB : 6( for CPU)\nDDRSS deh LPS\nBuild \u00a330\nPorvax version convex 2021 a\n\nyaelsaats aes.) (8c\\t ee)\n\nere\ni\n\nIxHUNTER-ELP@ 2885.1\nSxHUNTER@2589.2\n\u20182xHayes@i2148 5\n1905.3\n1062.9\n\nBS for GPU).\n4ch LPS\n\nHa E35 :\n{RUMIV1.SOC.EPSILON4 LEDDRS\nGPU)\n\nconvex 2022 06 16 ver 03.14\n\n{xHUNTER-ELP@2885.1\nSxHUNTER@2589.2\nQxHayes@2148.5\n1905.3\n1062.9\n4207.8\n\n{5 for CPU)\n4ch LPS\n\nRUMI.R2.SOC.ALPHA1_LPDDRS\n\nf2_convex_sandbox{ early stage)\n\nQCREDSTONE _0090953 at -84.\n\n89\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 91 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nNumber. Cores\n\nL1 SIZE\n{INST/DATA)\n\n12 SIZE\n\nVersion\n\nARM Core\n\nES Ca SEG Jha tear BO) SS (CLUL TNEO) boa glared\n\n4 4 1 1\n1- 64KB 1-32KB SIZE - 8 MB\nD-64KB D-32KB\n1024 KB 512 KB\nAPCL APCO APCO :\nGDHS Collapsible GDHS Collapsible No GDHS\nHERAP-MP136-r0p0-S0eacO = HERCULESP-MP138-r0p0-SOeacO \u00a9 CORINTH-MP135-r4p2-00rel0 r1p6-00relo\n\n90\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 92 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nrales) LAW Od Oh eal =) 00) 6G 8] 101.74 \\4\n\nEEO\n\neT\n\nOMA SCHL CUSTOM\n\noOze\n\nQCREDSTONE _0092294 at -96, -97.\n\n91\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 93 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n1.1 Functional block diagram\n\nMemory support Non-PoP\nQlink, RF LPDDR4X SDRAY,\n1x Kiyo Prime [ EB He H{ _+Po%\nSx Kiyo Gad | L2 cache ||| | ean HHH -roorssorav |\n4G/5G modem solution 42 Kiyo Siver\nGuacomm Hexagon\nGRFCIRFFE Tensot Processor acer\no Trust (24ane)\n; aoe\n3\n8 | Low Power Al\nQuinke { SPC\n$ \u00bb x} 2 Touch panel\n5 : 8 Penpherats/senson\n3 os f\nFaaovore a si 8\n: 4 Le can\nSenworeuGuaiconm 5 Spee sr SAZZOTSTSA NEC\nSensing Hub Om, \u00a9 86 Ft Guns\n\n1.2 SM7635 features\n\nNOTE Some of the hardware features integrated within the SM7635 must be enabled by software. See the\nlatest revision of the applicable software release notes to identify the enabled SM7635 features.\n\nTable 1-1 SM7635 features\n\nFeature | SM7635 capability\n\nProcessors\n\nApplications = Kryo CPU 7-Series built on Arm Cortex technology\nKryo Prime: One high-performance core\nKryo Gold: Three high-performance cores\n2 Kryo Silver: Four low-power cores\n\nQCREDSTONE 0013455 At -64, -65.\n\n92\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 94 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nYOD_APCI VDE_APCO\n\n[CFR roniterec [CPR mowritered]\n\n+\n\nee \u00a5\n. apss_hm\n\nAPM py\n\nVDD _s4x VOO_MX VDD Cx\n\nLegends:\n\nVOO_ARCI\n\nyoo _Aace\n\nPINE.\n\nBAIT CLIT\n\nye F \u00a7 \u00a7 8 27 Foam 1%\nSTAG pec | nPNe | + + t ty ;\n\nsaneed \u2018 i \u201cBIMC SY$-NOC ==\n\nQCREDSTONE 0096091 at -104.\n\n[1c] an interface block coupled\nto the first set of processor\ncores and also coupled to the\nsecond set of processor cores,\nwherein the interface block is\nconfigured to facilitate\ncommunication between the\n\nEach Accused Product comprises an interface block coupled to the first set of processor cores and\nalso coupled to the second set of processor cores, wherein the interface block is configured to\nfacilitate communication between the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor\ncores.\n\nFor example, the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 Octa-Core includes a DynamIQ Shared Unit (DSU),\nincluding a Snoop Control Unit (SCU), that is coupled to each core or to each set of processor\ncores and is configured to communicate between the sets of processor cores, including by\n\n93\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 95 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nfirst set of processor cores and\nthe second set of processor\n\ncores.\n\nbuffering and resynchronizing signals across clock domains and by maintaining coherency\nbetween caches in the cores or complexes and/or with the L3 shared memory implemented by the\nDSU.\n\nFor another example, the Snapdragon 835 Mobile Platform includes a cache coherent\ninterconnect, such as a CCI-400 or CCI-550, that is coupled to each core or to each set of\nprocessor cores and is configured to communicate between the sets of processor cores, for\nexample by maintaining coherency between caches in the cores or complexes.\n\nAs shown in the relevant documentation, described above and reiterated here for the avoidance of\nall possible doubt, the Accused Products implement either the big LITTLE or DynamIQ\narchitecture, which are the heterogeneous processing architectures for the ARM Cortex-A53/A72\nand ARM Cortex-A510/A710/A715 respectively.\n\nThe big.LITTLE architecture is also the heterogenous processing architecture for the ARM\nCortex-A7 and Cortex-A15 processors. For example, ARM documentation for the big. LITTLE\narchitecture expressly includes all four of these processors in its stated scope. ARM\u2019s public\ndocumentation of the big. LITTLE architecture describes the infringing cache coherent\ninterconnect in general, and also in the context of a \u2019typical big. LITTLE system\u201d featuring\nCortex-A7 and Cortex-A15 processors. There is a reasonable inference that ARM\u2019s document also\napplies to the Accused Products with big. LITTLE architectures including Cortex-A53 and Cortex-\nA72 cores.\n\nAnd the ARM documentation for the ARM Cortex-A510 processor core expressly states that it\nincludes and supports the DynamIQ Shared Unit (DSU), creating a reasonable inference that\nARM\u2019s DSU documentation also applies to the Accused Products with DynamIQ architectures\nincluding Cortex-A510, Cortex-A710, and/or Cortex-A715 cores.\n\nQualcomm documentation likewise confirms the use of DSU and cache coherency interconnects,\nsuch as with a \u201cGladiator NOC,\u201d in the manner described above to facilitate communication\nbetween the clusters.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n94\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 96 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nThe DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) Power Policy Units (PPUs) control power management\nfor the Cortex\u00ae-A510 core. A Cortex\u00ae-A510 complex supports separate gated power domains\nfor the complex, for each core inside the complex, and for the Vector Processing Unit (VPU). It also\nsupports a dedicated voltage domain for each complex, and a voltage domain for the DSU-110\nDynamlQ\u201d\u2122 cluster.\n\nArm Cortex-A510 Core Technical Reference Manual at p. 39\n\nWhen you implement a DSU-110 DynamIQ\u2122 cluster, all interfacing between the cores, complexes,\nand the Dynam!Q\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) is implemented automatically. All the external signal\ninputs and outputs pass through the DSU-110. The DSU-110 buffers and resynchronizes many of\nthese signals to allow cores and complexes to be clocked at different speeds.\n\nThe memory interfacing of each core is internally connected to the DSU-110 L3 memory system.\nWhere necessary, the DSU-110 implements additional buffering to compensate for different clock\nrates of the core and DSU-110 L3 memory system.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 34\n\nAll cores in the DSU-110 DynamlQ\u201d\u2122 cluster, including those in complexes, are coherently\nconnected to an L8 memory system that includes an L3 cache and a Snoop Control Unit (SCU).\n\nThe SCU maintains coherency between caches in the cores and the L3 cache, and includes a\nsnoop filter to optimize coherency maintenance operations. The shared L3 cache simplifies process\nmigration between the cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 18\n\n95\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 97 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nSnoop Control Unit\nThe Snoop Control Unit (SCU) maintains coherency between all the data caches in the cluster.\n\nThe SCU contains buffers that can handle direct cache-to-cache transfers between cores without\nhaving to read or write data to the L3 cache. Cache line migration enables dirty lines to be moved\nbetween cores. Also, there is no requirement to write back transferred cache line data to the L3\ncache.\n\nThe SCU contains a set of snoop filters that track the addresses for locations cached in the core\ncaches. Including the snoop filters means that the SCU does not need to request a look up in the\ncore caches when it receives a coherent memory request. These snoop filters are accessed by\ncoherent requests from the other cores or from the system. If there is a simultaneous hit in the L3\ntags and the SCU snoop filters, then the L3 cache normally provides the data in preference to a\ncore. The size of the snoop filter is automatically determined from the configured number of cores\nand the cache sizes in those cores.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 35\n\n96\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 98 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\npo -- 5\n\n| DynamiQ {\n! Shared Unit-110 | DynamlQ cluster\n| Complex 0 |\nCore 0 Core 1 |\n| |\nCPU bridge CPU bridge Core 4 Core 5\n|\n\n| |\n| : |\n! Core 2 Core 3 Shared logic |\n| : |\n\nCPU bridge\n\nCPU bridge CPU bridge ig |\nI |\n| DynamlQ cluster shared logic\n| Snoop Control Unit (SCU)| and L3 cache Accelerator |\n- Coherency Port |\n| Power Policy (ACP) DebugBlock | |\nUnits (PPUs) L3 cache Snoop filters |\n| DebugBlock |\n| interface |\n| |\n| Memory interface | Peripheral Port\n| |\n! [utility bus | | DSU-110 bridges |\n| |\n| |\n| \\\nbee EEE EE EEE EE EE EE EEE EEE EE EEE EEE EEE EEE EE EEE EE EE EE EE EE 4\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 17\n\n1.2 Document scope\nThis application note focuses on the following processors and highlights important issues when\npowering up or powering down processor cores and clusters on an SoC.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A7.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A15.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A17.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A53.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A57.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A72.\n\u00b0 Cortex\"-A73.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n97\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 99 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\n2.1 ARM? big.LITTLE\u2122 system example\n\nA big.LITTLE system uses two different types of cores that are combined in a coherent system.\nbig cores are designed for high performance while LITTLE cores are designed for high energy\nefficiency. The big cores are used for resource-intensive software threads, and energy-efficient\nLITTLE cores handle low-intensity software threads that use fewer compute resources. The\nresult is high energy efficiency and high performance.\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n98\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 100 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\n\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\n\nniIRQOUT\n\nControl signals\n\nInterrupt Controller\nPPls nlRQ/nFIQ/ nlRQ/nFIQ/ PPIs\nnVFIQ/nVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\n\nACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/\n\n99\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 101 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nGIC-400\n\nT Interrupts T T Interrupts\n\nMemory Controller System Port\nPorts\n\nFig 1: Typical big.LITTLE system\nAs an example,\n\nFigure 2 describes the pipeline designs for the Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 cores. The Cortex-A15 core is\ndesigned to achieve high performance by running more instructions in parallel on a bigger and more\ncomplex pipeline. On the other hand, the Cortex-A7 core\u2019s pipeline is relatively simple and is designed to\nbe extremely power efficient. The Cortex-A7 core\u2019s performance is lower than the Cortex-A15 core\u2019s but it\nis sufficient for most common usage scenarios executed by modern mobile devices. In fact, the Cortex-A7\ncore\u2019s performance is close to Cortex-A9 core, which powers most smartphones today.\n\nARM White Paper \u201cbig LITTLE Technology: The Future of Mobile Making very high\nperformance available in a mobile envelope without sacrificing energy efficiency,\u201d available at\nhttps://armkeil.blob.core.windows.net/developer/Files/pdf/white-paper/big-little-technology-the-\nfuture-of-mobile.pdf\n\n100\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 102 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nCache Coherency Interface and big. LITTLE Technology\n\nThe key ingredient that makes big.LITTLE technology possible is coherency. big.LITTLE software models\nrequire transparent and performant transfer of data between big and LITTLE processors. Hardware\ncoherency enables this, transparently to the software. Without hardware coherency, the transfer of data\nbetween big and LITTLE cores would always occur through main memory - this would be slow and not\npower efficient. In addition, it would require complex cache management software, to enable data\nconherency between big and LITTLE processors\n\nFigure 4 is an example of CPU subsystem consisting of a Cortex-A7 cluster, a Cortex-A15 cluster and a\nset of system fabric components which enable the seamless data transfer between clusters. This fabric is\ncollectively referred to as a \"Cache Coherent Interconnect\u201d \u2014 in this case the ARM CoreLink\u2122 CCI-400\ninterconnect IP. The system is completed by the CoreLink GIC-400, which provides dynamically\nconfigurable interrupt distribution to all the cores.\n\nARM White Paper \u201cbig LITTLE Technology: The Future of Mobile Making very high\nperformance available in a mobile envelope without sacrificing energy efficiency,\u201d available at\nhttps://armkeil.blob.core.windows.net/developer/Files/pdf/white-paper/big-little-technology-the-\nfuture-of-mobile.pdf\n\n101\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 103 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nInterrupts\n\nbELLLLY = LLL Lt\n\nas\n\nCCI-400 Cache Coherent Interconnect\nFigure 3: Cache coherency in a big.LITTLE system\n\nARM White Paper \u201cbig LITTLE Technology: The Future of Mobile Making very high\nperformance available in a mobile envelope without sacrificing energy efficiency,\u201d available at\nhttps://armkeil.blob.core.windows.net/developer/Files/pdf/white-paper/big-little-technology-the-\nfuture-of-mobile.pdf\n\n102\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 104 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nAs shown in Figure 3, the bus interfaces of Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 processors make use of the\nAMBA\u00ae AXI Coherency Extensions (ACE) to the widely-used AMBA AX\\I protocol. This protocol provides\nfor coherent data transfer at the bus level. In the AMBA ACE protocol, three coherency channels are\nadded in addition to the normal five channels of AMBA AXI. As an example, the lower part of Figure\nshows the steps in a coherent data read from the Cortex-A7 cluster to the Cortex-A15 cluster. This starts\nwith the Cortex-A7 cluster issuing a Coherent Read Request through the RADDR channel. The CCI-400\nhands over the request to the Cortex-A15 processor's ACADDR channel to snoop into Cortex-A15\nprocessor's cache. On receiving the request from CCI-400, the Cortex-A15 processor checks the data\navailability and reports this information back through the CRRESP channel. If the requested data is in the\ncache, the Cortex-A15 processor places it on the CDATA channel. Then the CCI-400 moves the data\nfrom the Cortex-A15 processor's CDATA channel to the Cortex-A7 processor\u2019s RDATA channel, resulting\nin a cache linefill in the Cortex-A7 processor. The CCI-400 and the ACE protocol enable full coherency\nbetween the Cortex-A15 and Cortex-A7 clusters, allowing data sharing to take place without external\n\nmemory transactions.\nARM White Paper \u201cbig LITTLE Technology: The Future of Mobile Making very high\nperformance available in a mobile envelope without sacrificing energy efficiency,\u201d available at\n\nhttps://armkeil .blob.core.windows.net/developer/Files/pdt/white-paper/big-little-technology-the-\nfuture-of-mobile.pdf\n\nGladiator NOC\n\n\u00ab Gladiator NOC provides interconnect \u2014 Cache Coherency Interconnect (CCI) between:\n* Kryo clusters\n* DDR\n* System Network Operations Center (NOC)\n* Gladiator clock control handled in RPM\n* In MSM8996, kernel manages the CCI clocks\n* Provides hang detection and error reporting\n\nQCREDSTONE _0082759 at -72.\n\n103\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 105 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nCPU Subsystem (cont.)\n\nsus | | sys | | sys | | BHs\n\nPower Domains\n\n| ~ VDD_APCO\u2122 a\neee (SMPS18)\n\nGold Cluster\n\nsous | [ coxs | [ cous | [ cons | ee 3 Hees\n\nSilver Cluster\n\nQCREDSTONE 0036560 at -71\n\n104\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 106 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nCPU Power\n\n\u00bb Customized 64-bit ARM v8-compliant apps processor (Kryo 2xx\nCPU)\n\n\u00ab Two Clusters in CPU subsystem \u2014 Kryo Gold and Kryo Silver\n\nKryo Gold Cluster \u2014 Quad Kryo high performance CPUs with 2.5 GHz\nto 2.7 GHz Speed\n\nKryo Silver Cluster \u2014- Quad Kryo low power CPUs with 1.5 GHz to 1.9\nGHz Speed\n\n\u00bb L1 and L2 Cache: et\nL2 cache at 2 MB for Kryo Gold Gold cluster\n\u00bb L2 cache at 1 MB for Kryo Silver\n\n\u00ab= Power rails:\n\nPower Domains\n\n[SMPsi0)\n\nKryo Gold cluster and Silver cluster have dedicated, separate power [os] \u2014 [os]\n\nrails oe] Ea | | fae\nPM8998 SMPS10 powers the Kryo Silver cluster Pou] Fae i ce\nPM8998 SMPS11/12/13 are tied together as a single trace to power Silver Closter\n\nthe Kryo Gold cluster\nEach Kryo Gold core has a block head switch (BHS) and each Kryo\n\nCPU Sub System\n\nSilver core has a global distributed head switch (GDHS) to power the\ncore\n\n\u00ab Gold and Silver cluster, along with the respective L2 cache, can\noperate on a different clock source at different frequencies.\n\nWithin a cluster, the cores and L2 are synchronous\n\nQCREDSTONE _ 0082868 at-78.\n\n105\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 107 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nUALCOMWA\n\nDigttal Desian\n\nees ee Hot\n\nhth eae hig 3a\n\na8 ci otitoa aN OHH ytd cos\n\nMonaslamioins|aeta\n\nBe cay ems 2\n\nche Oe ae ae exer Td\n\nSoe Sant Sent IOSSOCE SOOO SOO OOSEOSEOES OOOO OCOSOOOT CSCOSISESSOSOCEDSSS\n\nuated rLe\n\nPOR Conngurations\n\nTRUE\n\n128\nTRUE\n\nFALSE\n\nTRUE\n\n2048KB\n4\n2\n\nFALSE**\n{Optimistic Targets\n\n2\nFALSE\n\nTRUE/FALSE\n{Sti open)\n\nFALSE\n\nFALSE\n\n4 Prometheus Cores\n\n4 Ananke Cores\n\nCorinth cluster to the Gladiator interconnect\nInterface is ACE\n\n1x128bit wile ACE port to the Gladiator\ninterconnect\n\nInclude L3 Cache\n\nACP interface not included on the Corinth\ncluster\n\nPeripheral port not included on the Corinth\nCluster\n\nProtect the L3 Cache RAMs and snoop filter\nRAMs with ECC\n\n2M L3 cache\n\nL3 Data RAM Input latency is 1 cycle\n\nL3 Data RAM output latency is 2 cycle\n\nL3 Data RAM output register slice. Depending\non placement and wire delay, we may or may\nnot need the register slice.\n\nThe number of synchronizer stages in all\nasynchronous inputs fo the SCU and cluster\nlogic\n\nThe number of synchronizer stages in all\nasynchronous inputs to the CPU core logic\nInclude the asynchronous bridge for the main\nbus between 2 and L3\n\nInclude a register slice between the core and the\nSCU. Depending on placement and floorplan,\nsome CPU cores may need register slice\nbetween core and the SCU.\n\nDo not use a v7 memory map for the debug\ncomponents.\n\nDo no include support for the CHI Porter\ninterconnect SAM Poe address ee oe\n\nACK nert jie ah\n\nQCREDSTONE _ 0087481 at -93.\n\n106\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 108 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n1.2 Features\nThis section provides a summary of features of the CPU SS subsystem.\n= Hard macro consisting of quad core CMewAS3 CPU performance cluster and quad core\n\nCAS3 CPU power cluster (These cores are ARM\u2019s implementation of the ARMv8\narchitecture).\n\na CAS3 CPU Power Cluster 0 eptiasnedtor-cower-with 32 kB I/D LI cache, 512 kB L2 cache.\nECC/Parity cache protection supported for both LI and L2.\n\nPerformance and Arca}.\n\na Cache Coherent Interconnect (Gladiator) connecting two CPU clusters using ACE interfaces\nand interfacing with memory sub System with two interleaved AXI3 compliant interfaces.\nGladiator $:4 port connects to the power cluster and S24 port connects to the performance\ncluster. Gladiator S\u00ae.) port is for the Gladiator register accesses from APSS AHB. Gladiator\n\nQCREDSTONE_0087836 at -39.\n\n107\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 109 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n8 Kryo Clocks and Resets\n\n8.1 Clocks:\nThe DSU requires clock signals for each of the cores, i I logic, and | interfi\nThe following table describes the clocks.\nSignal Description\nCORECLKICN:0} The per-core clocks for all core logic including L1 caches\nand L2 caches.\nSCLK The clock for the SCU and L3 memory system, including the\nACE or CHI master interface. SCLK is also used\nfor any cores that are configured to run synchronously to the\nDSU.\nPCLK The clock for the DebugBlock and DSU debug APB\ninterfaces.\nNote: The DebugBlock and cluster both have PCLK inputs.\nYou might choose to connect these to the same clock.\nAlternatively, you might choose to place an asynchronous\nbridge between the two clock inputs, in which case\nthey might be different clocks.\nATCLK The clock for the ATB trace buses output from the DSU.\nAll ATB buses output from the DSU share the same clock.\nGICCLK The clock for the GIC AXI-stream interface between the\nDSU and an external GIC\nPERIPHCLK The clock for penpheral logic inside the DSU such as timers,\nand clock and power management logic.\nAll clocks can be driven fully asynchronously to each other. The DSU contains all the necessary\nhronizi ic for ing b clock domains. There are no clock dividers and no latches in\n\ny ng logic\nthe design. The entire design is rising edge triggered.\n\nNote:\n\u00a9 \u2014 Itis possible to configure some or all the cores to run synchronously with the L3 memory system. If\nthis option is chosen, the corresponding CORECLK signals are not present and the synchronous\ncores run with SCLK.\n\u00a9 The DebugBlock can be clocked by a different clock from the DSU PCLK. To allow this, the\nmacrocell implementer can choose to add h bridges b the DSU and the\nDebugBlock.\n\nSome external interfaces, such as the main ACE or CHI master interface, support a clock enable input to\n\nQCREDSTONE _ 0088972 at -91.\n\n108\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 110 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nDirt Owego\n\nDesign Details (Features)\n\n\u00bb CPUs \u00bb Bus Interface\n1 KryoSG+ @3.0 GHz/Turbo L3 Cnom (Deimos 2x256b CHI interfaces to MemNoC\nBased) VO Coherency support via CHI\n3KryoSG @2.65 GHz/Turbo L3 Cnom (Deimos OVM broadcast to system via CHUOSB\nBased) So oar ae ae\n- \u2014_e*e-'C 32-bk AHS out \u00bb noc\n\nAPB Slave port interface to system DAP\n\n512kB L2$ (Gold+)/256kB L2$(Gold) ATB bus interface to CoreSight Trace component\n\n~ APC rail\n\n4 Kryo5S @1.8 GHz/Nom (A ke B ) Time Siar intertace to CoreSight Gebug\nARM v8.2 compliant + v8.4 Dot Insir TAP port i to JTAG\nBoot processor\n32W/32k L1S \u00bb Power\n1268 L2$ ~ OSM3.0\n\n- APCOrall Hardware cache flushing at all levels of cache\n\n\u00ab L3 (Corinth DSU) without any software intervention\n- 4MB L3$ @1.6 GHz/Turbo LO ~ Low power modes for aggressive dynamic &\n\nhome toch chu leakage mitigation\n\n~ APCO rail\n\nFull power down mode lo reduce power\n\nQCREDSTONE_0089100 at -04.\n\n109\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 111 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\n\nAPB from CPUSS AHB\n\n1 Ns=1 Acces\n' sae Ic Memory\n| QDSsS | $ [ GEMNoC GIC800\ntm, cHIO CHIL SY\u00a5S-CHI\n\nTABU\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta (Pace (kathy [\n\n}\n\nITM /i$\n(32K8)\n\nOTIM\n(64KB)\n\n>\n3S\n3\n\n~\"|Becoder|\u201d PDMEM\n64KB)\nee a\npeo and RS\nout MMU Protected tf we\n\nBU\n\n: Stilo. Si SYS-CHt\n( fa\nOSU (8MB)\n= \u201ches Any \u2014_ ~\nL3 Shoe 1\n| cS ve 1B Slice 3 [APB Decoder a\ni 13 Sliced\n\n:... Slice Control Lagi:\niin SR\nTag Vicem 2. SF u\n\na RA\n\na\nPp +\n5 BusDCVS (LLCMC) Aggregator IRs\np {\n= ep\nACC Data FIFO (Tey j\nMEM. ) j\nSeavencer\nGrmux. | 7 i\nLET ACD ADDR FIFO.\nAcoe ACD Data FIFO BE\nie | ve\nAPM I\n$L1IS| L1-0S [hares US 71-05, PLL Data FIFO \u2014\u2014\u2014\ni 12. TL Nay\n\nPLE\nController\n\nQCREDSTONE_ 0098768 at -70.\n\n110\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 112 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n6 Kryo Clocks and Resets\n\n6.1 Clocks:\n\nThe DSU requires clock signals for each of the cores, internal logic, and external interfaces.\nThe following table describes the clocks.\n\nSignal Description\nCORECLKICN:0} The per-core clocks for all core logic including L1 caches\nand L2 caches.\nSCLK The clock for the SCU and L3 memory system, including the\n\nACE or CHI master interface. SCLK is also used\nfor any cores that are configured to run synchronously to the\nDSU\n\nPCLK The clock for the DebugBlock and DSU debug APB\ninterfaces.\n\nNote: The DebugBlock and cluster both have PCLK inputs.\nYou might choose to connect these to the same clock.\nAlternatively, you might choose to place an asynchronous\nbridge between the two clock inputs, in which case\n\nthey might be different clocks.\n\n-ATCLK The clock for the ATB trace buses output from the DSU.\nAll ATB buses output from the DSU share the same clock.\nGICCLK The clock for the GIC AXI-stream interface between the\nDSU and an external GIC\nPERIPHCLK The clock for penpheral logic inside the DSU such as timers,\n\nand clock and power management logic.\n\nAll clocks can be driven fully asynchronously to each other. The DSU contains all the necessary\nsynchronizing logic for crossing between clock domains. There are no clock dividers and no latches in\nthe design. The entire design is rising edge triggered.\n\nQCREDSTONE_ 0090274 at -91, -92.\n\n111\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nFiled 06/04/26\n\nPage 113 of 167\n\nClaim 1\n\nAccused Products\n\nDI-Sfelam BI-irelicm(atcre Siecle iors] Oo) ad\n\nCPU\n\n* AKryo6GP (Hera) \u2018 t\n* 64KB/64KBL1 Cache\n* IMBI2 Cache\nAPCI rail\n\n* 4Kryo66 (Hercules\nBoot projessc\n* 32KB/S2KB 11 Cache\nS12kR L2 Cache\n\u00a2 APCD ra\n\nL3 (Corinth DSU)\n\n* OMB L3 Cache\n\u00a2 = Asynec to all CPUs\nAPCO ru\nFall povweur down mode to reduce powe\n* Partial Power Down Capability\n\n\u00a2 Natively supports dual 2566 CHI\n\nQCREDSTONE 0091858 at -66.\n\nBus Interface\n\n* 2x250b OF intertices to MemNet\n\n1/0 Cobervacy suppart via OMT\n\n* DVM beoadenst to system vie OFF\n\n* 32-bet AHB Slave pe\n\n64-bet ACE-Lite Master port interface to system NOC\n\nTt interface to system NOX\n\n* AP\u00ae Slave port interface te system DAP\n\n+ ATB bus interface to CoreSeeht Trace component\n\nTime Stausap interface to CoreSight debeg component\n\nTAP port imtertace to [TAG interface\n\nAUTO\n\n\u00a2 Fuelt Moostortng tor Safety Manager\n* LENST and MBIST Capabdity at Cold Root\n\n* HEEL S00 Interface Sor LAIST Iatrastructure from Set\n\nError And Parvty Checks\n\n* Cleck Monitoring\n\nPower\n\n* OSMI EPSS for Actrve Power Management\n\n* Low power modes for aggressive dynamic & leakage mitigat\n\n* Partial Power Down Seppert for L3\n\n.\n\nMPMM Support by HERA/Hercules ARM Corus\n\n112\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 114 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 1 Accused Products\nPUSS System Software and Architecture Team Ou qo ic OWA\nARMv9 CPU and DSU AMU Requirements\n- Klein, Matterhorn and Theodul\nQCREDSTONE _0098363.\nClaim 5\nClaim 5 Accused Products\n\n5. The multi-core processor of\nclaim 1, wherein the first set of\nprocessor cores and the second\nset of processor cores are\nconfigured to receive one or\nmore control signals from one\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor of claim 1, wherein the first set of\nprocessor cores and the second set of processor cores are configured to receive one or more\ncontrol signals from one or more control blocks located in a periphery of the multi-core processor.\n\nFor example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, the multi-core processor\nshould contain a system control processor (SCP) to control voltage, power, and clocks, and power\npolicy units (PPUs) to manage power states on each voltage domain. On information and belief,\n\n113\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 115 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5\n\nAccused Products\n\nor more control blocks located | each DynamIQ Accused Product contains an SCP and one or more PPUs as described.\nin a periphery of the multi-core | Identification of the physical location of the control blocks is proprietary information of\n\nprocessor.\n\nQualcomm that is the proper subject of fact discovery and to date no production detailing the\nphysical location of any blocks has been made.\n\nFor another example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, a big. LITTLE multi-\ncore processor should contain a power controller and other controllers for supplying control\nsignals as claimed. Identification of the physical location of the control blocks is proprietary\ninformation of Qualcomm that is the proper subject of fact discovery and to date no production\ndetailing the physical location of any such blocks has been made.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n114\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 116 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5 Accused Products\n\n6.1 The Power Policy Unit\n\nPower mode control for the DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) is provided by the Power Policy\nUnits (PPUs) that are integrated into the cluster. These PPUs control all the PPU modes for all\ncomponents in the cluster.\n\nA PPU is a standard component for abstracting software-controlled power domain policy to\nlow-level hardware control signaling. There is one PPU for controlling the DSU-110 Dynam!IQ\u201d\u2122\ncluster power domain (PDCLUSTER). Also, each core has its own individual PPU for controlling its\nrespective core power domain (for example, a PPU for PDCOREO and a PPU for PDCORE1). This\nincludes any cores included as part of a complex.\n\nA component in the system such as a System Control! Processor (SCP) can program the PPUs through\nthe utility bus to set the required power policy. The PPUs control the low-level details of powering\nup, powering down, and resetting domains as necessary to implement the requested policy. The\nhardware performs any actions to reach the requested power mode, such as gating clocks, cleaning\nand invalidating caches, or disabling coherency.\n\ne Although the cluster and each core in the cluster has their own PPU, the shared\nlogic of a complex does not have a dedicated PPU. Instead, power management\nof the complex is controlled as a combination of the PPUs for the cores it\ncontains. See Table 5-8: PPU mode and power domain states for a dual-core\ncomplex on page 74.\n\ne The cluster and all the core PPUs are provided as part of the DSU-110.\n\ne The implementation process automatically creates the PPU for the cluster and\neach core PPU, and connects these into the DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster. Each\n\nPPU has a set of memory-mapped control registers which is accessed using the\nutility bus.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 78\n\n115\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 117 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5\n\nAccused Products\n\n4.3 Power control\n\nGood power management is key to reduce system power consumption while maintaining a high\nperformance.\n\nAn RD-TC21 reference subsystem contains the following power management features:\n\nMultiple voltage domains to allow for Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) on\napplication processors and the GPU\n\nMultiple power-gated regions provide comprehensive leakage management\nMultiple power modes for different system scenarios\n\nA System Control Processor (SCP) based on a Cortex\u00ae-M3 processor controls power, clock, reset,\nand the static configuration of the system\n\nPower Policy Units (PPUs) are used to manage power states of each voltage and power domain\nunder the control of the SCP\n\nArm\u00ae) Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at 47-48\n\n116\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 118 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5 Accused Products\n\nSCP runtime firmware\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware executes after Trusted Firmware for A-profile (TF-A) BL2 has\nauthenticated and copied it from flash.\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware performs the following functions:\n\ne Responds to System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) messages through Message\nHandling Unit (MHU) version 2.0 for processor power control and Dynamic Voltage and\nFrequency Scaling (DVFS)\n\ne Power domain management\n\ne Clock management\n\nId. at p. 65\n\n117\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 119 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\nnIRQOUT Control signals\nInterrupt Controller\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFlQ/ PPls\nnVFIQ/nVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nSCU/L2 Cache\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\nACE ACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/, at 15 (2-3)\n\n118\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 120 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5\n\nAccused Products\n\n2.1.1 big cluster and LITTLE cluster\n\nThis example system uses a big cluster and a LITTLE cluster, and each cluster consists of four\ncores.\n\nThere are five power domains for each cluster. Each core is in its own power domain to enable\nindividual powerdown. The rest of the logic within a cluster is in a different power domain.\nIsolation cells exist between power domains for isolation.\n\nEach cluster is implemented in an independent voltage domain with an independent clock\nsource. Each of the clusters has a unique Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS)\ncurve. Therefore, cores in the same cluster must traverse an Operating Performance Point\n(OPP) together. You can change the OPP of cores in a cluster, without affecting the cores in the\nother cluster.\n\nId.\n\n2.1.2 Power controller\n\nThe power controller contains the hardware power control functions of the SoC. The operations\nof the power controller are both directed by the Operating System Power Management (OSPM)\nsoftware and hardware events in the system. The power controller works closely with relevant\nsignals of ARM IPs and other system components for power saving.\n\nId.\n\nQualcomm\u2019s documentation confirms the accused products include the same or similar SCP, PPU,\nand Power Controller blocks.\n\n119\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 121 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5 Accused Products\n\nMotivation\n\nCurrent implementation\n\n* Current implementation in CPUSS requires\nthat each core per cluster domain run at the cols cols\nsame clock frequency.\n\n* This requirement is due to the fact that each\ncore doesn\u2019t have its own PLL.\n\nPLL Pu\nGold Silver\n\n* OSM aggregates and chooses MAX\nfrequency for operation for those cores. |\n\n120\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 122 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\nt\nt\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nt\n: { \u2019 t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n10 OSM \u2018\nThrottle } rar\ninterrupts to } prog amming to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n121\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 123 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL \u00a9\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\n33\n\n* When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\n\n|\nDy fz); 8\n\nWwW\n\nDit\n\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098870 at -74, -83, -84.\n\n122\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 124 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta (ruc (kala)\n\nJ\nt\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098768 at -70.\n\nHalliday\n\n123\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 125 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClarence\n\n124\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 126 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n_\u2014 A A A A ArT\n\nGold Cluster Silver Cluster\nPower peripherals <\u2014\n\nController |\u201c\n<\u2014: From CNoC\naster\n\nKry o8xx OLS S\u2014\u2014 cine\n\nCPU Ss re IS) OP cece\n\n1 Ae SSS SSS |\n\n125\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 127 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\na | a |e |S | oS eae ee t\nae mo) |.\n\nTifa |!\nsey\n\nOetws 4\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098556 at -558 to -562.\n\n126\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 128 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nD2 ste este\n\nPPE I OLOe\nDus oee\ns+ Sonal fx\nBIT TRB\nUE OY\nSenn fe\n\nLaRthe P1RS wt\nTH HEY SSRERR Retox [Wears\nPITA KS\n\n127\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 129 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 5 Accused Products\neee am OL} CIS Un kz2 WSLS SIAmm see OLkers))\nBus Interface\nCPU\n>\u00a2 to GEMNoC from each DSU - Le Mens Chang\u00ab\ni\n* Dual DSU Octa core processing unit e Mans Chang 1 CHI\nort interface to system NOC - Le Mans Change\n* DSUO: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercules Prime) ~ Le Mans Change ace of ROC\nto system NOC (EPSS}\n1 DAP\n256KB L2 Cache component\nAPCO rail\n* DSU: 4 Kryo66_prime (Hercules Prime) - Le Mans Change AUTO\nKB L1 Cache opr\nCache at Co | Boot\nLBIST Infrastracture from SoC\nL3 (Corinth DSU}\n* 4MBL3 Cache (2MB per DSU)\nIS \u00a9 IATL\nQCREDSTONE 0091177 at -86-87.\nClaim 8\nClaim 8 Accused Products\n\n8. The multi-core processor of\nclaim 1, wherein the first set of\nprocessor cores are located in a\nfirst region of the multi-core\nprocessor, and the second set\nof processor cores are located\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor of claim 1, wherein the first set of\nprocessor cores are located in a first region of the multi-core processor, and the second set of\nprocessor cores are located in a second region of the multi-core processor.\n\nFor example, on information and belief each core is located a region of the multi-core processor.\nIdentification of the physical arrangement of the cores is proprietary information of Qualcomm\n\n128\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 130 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nin a second region of the\nmulti-core processor.\n\nthat is the proper subject of fact discovery and to date no production detailing the physical\nlocation of any blocks has been made.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\nArm\u00ae Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at 15\n\n129\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 131 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 8\n\nAccused Products\n\ni mailiiic)\n\nSe\nCAC nr.\n\nmdz) CO) Bb at= lB lee\n\nJean iter(= seven\"\n\nhttps://www.androidauthority.com/snapdragon-8-gen-2-explained-323 1826/\n\nelt lereyi ti)\n\n130\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 132 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\nnIRQOUT Control signals\nInterrupt Controller\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFlQ/ PPls\nnVFIQ/nVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nSCU/L2 Cache\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\nACE ACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/, at 15 (2-3)\n\n131\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 133 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 8 Accused Products\n\nOn information and belief, Qualcomm physically groups components, including groups of\nprocessor cores based on common voltages/power such groups of processor cores such as the first\nand second processor cores are each physically grouped together as they use voltage APCO and\nAPCI1 respectively, see e.g. QCREDSTONE 0091177 at -87, -87, QCREDSTONE 0096091 at -\n104:\n\n132\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 134 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n3.5 SDM670 Pinmap Interface Locations\n\nSet Taam fii ae\n\nve\nAPC1\n\nFigure 3-4 SDM670 Pinmap interface signal and 1O assignment diagram\nQCREDSTONE _0031600 at -21.\n\n133\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 135 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 9\n\nClaim 9\n\nAccused Products\n\n9. The multi-core processor of\nclaim 8, wherein the first\nregion and the second region\nare overlapping regions of the\nmulti-core processor.\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor of claim 8, wherein the first region and\nthe second region are overlapping regions of the multi-core processor.\n\nFor example, on information and belief there is either some overlap or no overlap of the first and\nsecond regions. Identification of the physical arrangement of the cores is proprietary information\nof Qualcomm that is the proper subject of fact discovery and to date no production detailing the\nphysical location of any blocks has been made.\n\nClaim 10\n\nClaim 10\n\nAccused Products\n\n10. The multi-core processor\nof claim 8, wherein the first\nregion and the second region\nare non-overlapping regions of\nthe multi-core processor.\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor of claim 8, wherein the first region and\nthe second region are non-overlapping regions of the multi-core processor.\n\nFor example, on information and belief there is either some overlap or no overlap of the first and\nsecond regions. Identification of the physical arrangement of the cores is proprietary information\nof Qualcomm that is the proper subject of fact discovery and to date no production detailing the\nphysical location of any blocks has been made.\n\nOn information and belief, Qualcomm physically groups components, including groups of\nprocessor cores based on common voltages/power such groups of processor cores such as the first\nand second processor cores are each physically grouped together as they are in power domain\nAPCO and APC 1 respectively, see e.g. QCREDSTONE 0091177 at -87, -87,\n\nQCREDSTONE 0096091 at -104:\n\n134\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 136 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n3.5 SDM670 Pinmap Interface Locations\n\nSet Taam fii ae\n\nve\nAPC1\n\nFigure 3-4 SDM670 Pinmap interface signal and 1O assignment diagram\nQCREDSTONE _0031600 at -21.\n\n135\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 137 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\n[21pre]. A multi-core\nprocessor, comprising:\n\nTo the extent the preamble is limiting, each Accused Product comprises a multi-core processor.\n\nSee analysis and evidence of claim 1 preamble above.\n\n[21a] a first set of processor\ncores of the multi-core\nprocessor, wherein each\nprocessor core from the first\nset of processor cores is\nconfigured to dynamically\nreceive a first supply voltage\nfrom a power control block\nand a first output clock signal\nfrom a first phase lock loop\n(PLL) having a first clock\nsignal as input in a clock\ncontrol block;\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a first set of processor cores of the multi-core processor,\nwherein each processor core from the first set of processor cores is configured to dynamically\nreceive a first supply voltage from a power control block and a first output clock signal from a\nfirst phase lock loop (PLL) having a first clock signal as input in a clock control block.\n\nSee analysis and evidence of claim element [1a] above.\n\nFurthermore, each DynamIQ Accused Product includes a power control block and a clock control\nblock. For example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, the multi-core\nprocessor should contain a system control processor (SCP) to control voltage, power, and clocks,\nand power policy units (PPUs) to manage power states on each voltage domain. On information\nand belief, the processor in each DynamIQ Accused Product contains an SCP and one or more\nPPUs as described.\n\nFor another example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, a big. LITTLE multi-\ncore processor should contain a power controller and other controllers for supplying the voltage\nand clock signals as claimed.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n136\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 138 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\n6.1 The Power Policy Unit\n\nPower mode control for the DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) is provided by the Power Policy\nUnits (PPUs) that are integrated into the cluster. These PPUs control all the PPU modes for all\ncomponents in the cluster.\n\nA PPU is a standard component for abstracting software-controlled power domain policy to\nlow-level hardware control signaling. There is one PPU for controlling the DSU-110 Dynam!IQ\u201d\u2122\ncluster power domain (PDCLUSTER). Also, each core has its own individual PPU for controlling its\nrespective core power domain (for example, a PPU for PDCOREO and a PPU for PDCORE1). This\nincludes any cores included as part of a complex.\n\nA component in the system such as a System Control! Processor (SCP) can program the PPUs through\nthe utility bus to set the required power policy. The PPUs control the low-level details of powering\nup, powering down, and resetting domains as necessary to implement the requested policy. The\nhardware performs any actions to reach the requested power mode, such as gating clocks, cleaning\nand invalidating caches, or disabling coherency.\n\ne Although the cluster and each core in the cluster has their own PPU, the shared\nlogic of a complex does not have a dedicated PPU. Instead, power management\nof the complex is controlled as a combination of the PPUs for the cores it\ncontains. See Table 5-8: PPU mode and power domain states for a dual-core\ncomplex on page 74.\n\ne The cluster and all the core PPUs are provided as part of the DSU-110.\n\ne The implementation process automatically creates the PPU for the cluster and\neach core PPU, and connects these into the DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster. Each\n\nPPU has a set of memory-mapped control registers which is accessed using the\nutility bus.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 78\n\n137\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 139 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\n4.3 Power control\n\nGood power management is key to reduce system power consumption while maintaining a high\nperformance.\n\nAn RD-TC21 reference subsystem contains the following power management features:\n\nMultiple voltage domains to allow for Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) on\napplication processors and the GPU\n\nMultiple power-gated regions provide comprehensive leakage management\nMultiple power modes for different system scenarios\n\nA System Control Processor (SCP) based on a Cortex\u00ae-M3 processor controls power, clock, reset,\nand the static configuration of the system\n\nPower Policy Units (PPUs) are used to manage power states of each voltage and power domain\nunder the control of the SCP\n\nArm\u00ae) Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at 47-48\n\n138\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 140 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\nSCP runtime firmware\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware executes after Trusted Firmware for A-profile (TF-A) BL2 has\nauthenticated and copied it from flash.\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware performs the following functions:\n\ne Responds to System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) messages through Message\nHandling Unit (MHU) version 2.0 for processor power control and Dynamic Voltage and\nFrequency Scaling (DVFS)\n\ne Power domain management\n\ne Clock management\n\nId. at p. 65\n\n139\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 141 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\nnIRQOUT Control signals\nInterrupt Controller\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFlQ/ PPls\nnVFIQ/nVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nSCU/L2 Cache\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\nACE ACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/, at 15 (2-3)\n\n140\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 142 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\n2.1.1 big cluster and LITTLE cluster\n\nThis example system uses a big cluster and a LITTLE cluster, and each cluster consists of four\ncores.\n\nThere are five power domains for each cluster. Each core is in its own power domain to enable\nindividual powerdown. The rest of the logic within a cluster is in a different power domain.\nIsolation cells exist between power domains for isolation.\n\nEach cluster is implemented in an independent voltage domain with an independent clock\nsource. Each of the clusters has a unique Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS)\ncurve. Therefore, cores in the same cluster must traverse an Operating Performance Point\n(OPP) together. You can change the OPP of cores in a cluster, without affecting the cores in the\nother cluster.\n\nId.\n\n2.1.2 Power controller\n\nThe power controller contains the hardware power control functions of the SoC. The operations\nof the power controller are both directed by the Operating System Power Management (OSPM)\nsoftware and hardware events in the system. The power controller works closely with relevant\nsignals of ARM IPs and other system components for power saving.\n\nId.\n\nQualcomm\u2019s documentation confirms the accused products include the same or similar SCP, PPU,\nand Power Controller blocks.\n\n141\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 143 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\nMotivation\n\nCurrent implementation\n\n* Current implementation in CPUSS requires\nthat each core per cluster domain run at the cols cols\nsame clock frequency.\n\n* This requirement is due to the fact that each\ncore doesn\u2019t have its own PLL.\n\nPLL Pu\nGold Silver\n\n* OSM aggregates and chooses MAX\nfrequency for operation for those cores. |\n\n142\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 144 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\nt\nt\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nt\n: { \u2019 t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n10 OSM \u2018\nThrottle } rar\ninterrupts to } prog amming to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n143\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 145 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL \u00a9\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\n33\n\n* When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\n\n|\nDy fz); 8\n\nWwW\n\nDit\n\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098870 at -74, -83, -84.\n\n144\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 146 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta (ruc (kala)\n\nJ\nt\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098768 at -70.\n\nHalliday\n\n145\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 147 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClarence\n\n146\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 148 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n_\u2014 A A A A ArT\n\nGold Cluster Silver Cluster\nPower peripherals <\u2014\n\nController |\u201c\n<\u2014: From CNoC\naster\n\nKry o8xx OLS S\u2014\u2014 cine\n\nCPU Ss re IS) OP cece\n\n1 Ae SSS SSS |\n\n147\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 149 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\na | a |e |S | oS eae ee t\nae mo) |.\n\nTifa |!\nsey\n\nOetws 4\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098556 at -558 to -562.\n\n148\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 150 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nD2 ste este\n\nPPE I OLOe\nDus oee\ns+ Sonal fx\nBIT TRB\nUE OY\nSenn fe\n\nLaRthe P1RS wt\nTH HEY SSRERR Retox [Wears\nPITA KS\n\n149\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 151 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\nPPT Syre [als BT=s TIM (ater LOL Kei tnteial yam ors Lie css)\n\nBus Interface\n\nCPU\nHi\nmn via CHI\n\n* Dual DSU Octa core processing unit 2 Maus Chang\n\n.\n\n256KB L2 Cache\nAPCO rail\n\n* DSU1: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercules Prime) - Le Mans Change\n\nAUTO\nKB L1 Cache se\n\nger\n\n900 Int\n\ntracture from Sot\nAnd Parity\n: -\u00a2 onitarin\n13 (Corinth DSU} * 2D parity for CSRs (excluding ARM logic CSRs} - Le Mane Change\n\nPower\n\nB L3 Cache (2MB per DSU)\n\nQCREDSTONE 0091177 at -86-87.\n\n[21b] a second set of processor\ncores of the multi-core\nprocessor, wherein each\nprocessor core from the second\nset of processor cores is\nconfigured to dynamically\nreceive a second supply\nvoltage from the power control\nblock and a second output\nclock signal from a second\nPLL having a second clock\n\nEach Accused Product comprises a second set of processor cores of the multi-core processor,\nwherein each processor core from the second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically\nreceive a second supply voltage from the power control block and a second output clock signal\nfrom a second PLL having a second clock signal as input in the clock control block, wherein the\nfirst supply voltage is independent from the second supply voltage, and the first clock signal is\nindependent from the second clock signal\n\nSee analysis and evidence of claim element [1b] above.\n\nFurthermore, each DynamIQ Accused Product includes a power control block and a clock control\nblock. For example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, the multi-core\nprocessor should contain a system control processor (SCP) to control voltage, power, and clocks,\n\n150\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 152 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\nsignal as input in the clock\ncontrol block, wherein the first\nsupply voltage is independent\nfrom the second supply\nvoltage, and the first clock\nsignal is independent from the\nsecond clock signal; and\n\nand power policy units (PPUs) to manage power states on each voltage domain. On information\nand belief, each DynamIQ Accused Product contains an SCP and one or more PPUs as described.\n\nFor another example, according to ARM\u2019s documents and reference design, a big. LITTLE multi-\ncore processor should contain a power controller and other controllers for supplying the voltage\nand clock signals as claimed. On information and belief, each big LITTLE Accused Product\ncontains a power controller and other controllers as described.\n\nSee, e.g.:\n\n151\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 153 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\n6.1 The Power Policy Unit\n\nPower mode control for the DynamlQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 (DSU-110) is provided by the Power Policy\nUnits (PPUs) that are integrated into the cluster. These PPUs control all the PPU modes for all\ncomponents in the cluster.\n\nA PPU is a standard component for abstracting software-controlled power domain policy to\nlow-level hardware control signaling. There is one PPU for controlling the DSU-110 Dynam!IQ\u201d\u2122\ncluster power domain (PDCLUSTER). Also, each core has its own individual PPU for controlling its\nrespective core power domain (for example, a PPU for PDCOREO and a PPU for PDCORE1). This\nincludes any cores included as part of a complex.\n\nA component in the system such as a System Control! Processor (SCP) can program the PPUs through\nthe utility bus to set the required power policy. The PPUs control the low-level details of powering\nup, powering down, and resetting domains as necessary to implement the requested policy. The\nhardware performs any actions to reach the requested power mode, such as gating clocks, cleaning\nand invalidating caches, or disabling coherency.\n\ne Although the cluster and each core in the cluster has their own PPU, the shared\nlogic of a complex does not have a dedicated PPU. Instead, power management\nof the complex is controlled as a combination of the PPUs for the cores it\ncontains. See Table 5-8: PPU mode and power domain states for a dual-core\ncomplex on page 74.\n\ne The cluster and all the core PPUs are provided as part of the DSU-110.\n\ne The implementation process automatically creates the PPU for the cluster and\neach core PPU, and connects these into the DSU-110 DynamlQ\u2122 cluster. Each\n\nPPU has a set of memory-mapped control registers which is accessed using the\nutility bus.\n\nArm DynamIQ\u2122 Shared Unit-110 Technical Reference Manual at p. 78\n\n152\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 154 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\n4.3 Power control\n\nGood power management is key to reduce system power consumption while maintaining a high\nperformance.\n\nAn RD-TC21 reference subsystem contains the following power management features:\n\nMultiple voltage domains to allow for Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) on\napplication processors and the GPU\n\nMultiple power-gated regions provide comprehensive leakage management\nMultiple power modes for different system scenarios\n\nA System Control Processor (SCP) based on a Cortex\u00ae-M3 processor controls power, clock, reset,\nand the static configuration of the system\n\nPower Policy Units (PPUs) are used to manage power states of each voltage and power domain\nunder the control of the SCP\n\nArm\u00ae) Total Compute 2021 Reference Design Software Developer Guide at 47-48\n\n153\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 155 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\nSCP runtime firmware\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware executes after Trusted Firmware for A-profile (TF-A) BL2 has\nauthenticated and copied it from flash.\n\nThe SCP runtime firmware performs the following functions:\n\ne Responds to System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) messages through Message\nHandling Unit (MHU) version 2.0 for processor power control and Dynamic Voltage and\nFrequency Scaling (DVFS)\n\ne Power domain management\n\ne Clock management\n\nId. at p. 65\n\n154\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 156 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL2\nSPls\nnFIQOUT\nnIRQOUT Control signals\nInterrupt Controller\nPPIs nIRQ/nFIQ/ nIRQ/nFlQ/ PPls\nnVFIQ/nVIQ nVFIQ/nVIQ\n\nSTANDBYWFI/STANDBYWFIL\n\nSCU/L2 Cache\n\nDomain Bridge (slave) Domain Bridge (slave)\nDomain Bridge (master) Domain Bridge (master)\nACE ACE\n\nACE-LITE\n\nFigure 2-1 A typical big.LITTLE system\n\u201cHigh-level Considerations for Power Management of a big LITTLE\u2122 System Application Note\n424,\u201d available at https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0424/a/, at 15 (2-3)\n\n155\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 157 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\n2.1.1 big cluster and LITTLE cluster\n\nThis example system uses a big cluster and a LITTLE cluster, and each cluster consists of four\ncores.\n\nThere are five power domains for each cluster. Each core is in its own power domain to enable\nindividual powerdown. The rest of the logic within a cluster is in a different power domain.\nIsolation cells exist between power domains for isolation.\n\nEach cluster is implemented in an independent voltage domain with an independent clock\nsource. Each of the clusters has a unique Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS)\ncurve. Therefore, cores in the same cluster must traverse an Operating Performance Point\n(OPP) together. You can change the OPP of cores in a cluster, without affecting the cores in the\nother cluster.\n\nId.\n\n2.1.2 Power controller\n\nThe power controller contains the hardware power control functions of the SoC. The operations\nof the power controller are both directed by the Operating System Power Management (OSPM)\nsoftware and hardware events in the system. The power controller works closely with relevant\nsignals of ARM IPs and other system components for power saving.\n\nId.\n\nQualcomm\u2019s documentation confirms the accused products include the same or similar SCP, PPU,\nand Power Controller blocks.\n\n156\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 158 of 167\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\nMotivation\n\nCurrent implementation\n\n* Current implementation in CPUSS requires\nthat each core per cluster domain run at the cols cols\nsame clock frequency.\n\n* This requirement is due to the fact that each\ncore doesn\u2019t have its own PLL.\n\nPLL Pu\nGold Silver\n\n* OSM aggregates and chooses MAX\nfrequency for operation for those cores. |\n\n157\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 159 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21 Accused Products\n\n{PLL Control\n\nluy\nt\nt\n3\n3\n3\ntor\nt\n: { \u2019 t\nThrotte data |p me mp ee et 4\n10 OSM \u2018\nThrottle } rar\ninterrupts to } prog amming to\nRiscy MNDAC\n\n158\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 160 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\nLLM & FW Interaction\n\n\u00a2 For Kailua implementation the MNDRC\u2019s can either be\ncontrolled by FW or by LLM directly but not by both.\n\n\u00bb When testing for LLM thermal mitigation data the MUX\ncontrol is switched to LLM that will drive per core MVAL \u00a9\nbased on it\u2019s LUT table.\n\n33\n\n* When gathering power profile data for SW the MUX control\nis switched to FW.\n\n\u00ab Note that if there is a need to capture data from SW and\nLLM driven MVAL\u2019s to MNDRC then Interrupt driven control\n\n|\nDy fz); 8\n\nWwW\n\nDit\n\nis to be used to ensure we have single master that drives\nMVAL.\n\n\u00ab Note that POR implementation for inner and outer loop and\n\nper core MPMM/PPM control remains the same.\n\n* The Design has been introduced such that it does not affect\nPOR requirements of LLM and FW\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098870 at -74, -83, -84.\n\n159\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 161 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nKailua CPUCP Hardware Bus DCVS HW Delta (ruc (kala)\n\nJ\nt\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098768 at -70.\n\nHalliday\n\n160\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 162 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClarence\n\n161\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 163 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n_\u2014 A A A A ArT\n\nGold Cluster Silver Cluster\nPower peripherals <\u2014\n\nController |\u201c\n<\u2014: From CNoC\naster\n\nKry o8xx OLS S\u2014\u2014 cine\n\nCPU Ss re IS) OP cece\n\n1 Ae SSS SSS |\n\n162\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 164 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\na | a |e |S | oS eae ee t\nae mo) |.\n\nTifa |!\nsey\n\nOetws 4\n\nQCREDSTONE 0098556 at -558 to -562.\n\n163\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 165 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nD2 ste este\n\nPPE I OLOe\nDus oee\ns+ Sonal fx\nBIT TRB\nUE OY\nSenn fe\n\nLaRthe P1RS wt\nTH HEY SSRERR Retox [Wears\nPITA KS\n\n164\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4\n\nFiled 06/04/26 Page 166 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\nClaim 21\n\nAccused Products\n\nBY=rsj(e] gy Di=ie=l ow (a tore Bl e=lealeinicy) mors || cots|\n\nCPU\n\nBus Interface\n\n-\u00a2 to GEMNoC from each DSU - Le Mans Change\n\n* Dual DSU Octa core processing unit Le Mans Chang:\nsystem NOC - Le Mg\nNOC\n\nne Change\n\n* DSUO: 4 Kryo6G_prime (Hercules Prime) ~ Le Mans Change\n* Boot pr sor to system NOC (EPSS)\n32KB/32KB 11 Cache 1 DAE\n256KB L2 Cache component\nAPCO rail ght debug component\nterface\n. 4 Kryo66_prime (Hercules Prime) - Le Mans Change\nB/S2KB 11 Cache\n2! Cache\nAPCL rail 500 Inter\nAnd Parity\nL3 (Corinth DSU)\n* 4MBL3 Cache (2MB per DSU\n@ Mans Change\n\nQCREDSTONE 0091177 at -86-87.\n\n[21c] an interface block\ncoupled to the first set of\nprocessor cores and also\ncoupled to the second set of\nprocessor cores, wherein the\ninterface block is configured to\nfacilitate communication\nbetween the first set of\nprocessor cores and the second\nset of processor cores.\n\nEach Accused Product comprises an interface block coupled to the first set of processor cores and\nalso coupled to the second set of processor cores, wherein the interface block is configured to\nfacilitate communication between the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor\ncores.\n\nSee analysis and evidence of claim element [1c] above.\n\n165\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-4 Filed 06/04/26 Page 167 of 167\n\nCONFIDENTIAL \u2014 OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\n166\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:38:47.575482-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699209","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622090/","id":481622090,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/5/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.161245-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:12.729550-07:00","sha1":"2654761e10a4b2ecebd10c728f85f78892a2dedc","page_count":19,"file_size":526160,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 19\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2025\n\n1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 16022\n a. By patent owner 4039 25.2%\n b. by other member of the public 11808 73.7%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.1%\n\n2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 4101 25.6%\n b. Electrical Operation 6220 38.8%\n c. Mechanical Operation 5175 32.3%\n d. Design Patents 526 3.3%\n\n3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 337\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 288\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355 2024 417\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244 2025 491\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 6495 40.5%\n\n5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 15998\n a. No. granted 14833 92.7%\n (1) By examiner 14644\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1294 8.1%\n (1) By examiner 1165\n (2) Reexam vacated 129\n\n6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1138\n a. Patent owner requester 531 46.7%\n b. Third party requester 607 53.3%\n\n\n\n\n 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 19\n\n\n\n\n7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.2 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.9 (mos.)\n\n8. Reexam certificate claim analysis 3: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\na. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 16% 0% 22.2% 2919\nb. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 11% 0% 14.5% 1898\nc. Certificates with claims changes 21% 41% 1% 63.3% 8309\n\n9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 13126\n\n10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 4025\n a. All claims confirmed 859 21.3%\n b. All claims canceled 413 10.3%\n c. Claims changed 2753 68.4%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8927\n a. All claims confirmed 2043 22.9%\n b. All claims canceled 1439 16.1%\n c. Claims changed 5445 61.0%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that did not receive a filing date or have been vacated or are pending\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515.\n3 Claims analysis is only of requested claims and certificates of merged reexams are only counted once. Reexaminations\nmerged with reissues are not include in analysis\n\n\n\n\n 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2024\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 15541\n a. By patent owner 4066 26.2%\n b. by other member of the public 11300 72.7%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 4032 25.9%\n b. Electrical Operation 5978 38.5%\n c. Mechanical Operation 5095 32.8%\n d. Design Patents 436 2.8%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 337\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 290\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355 2024 425\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 6099 39.2%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 15536\n a. No. granted 14386 92.6%\n (1) By examiner 14197\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1244 8.0%\n (1) By examiner 1150\n (2) Reexam vacated 94\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1138\n a. Patent owner requester 533 46.8%\n b. Third party requester 605 53.2%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 5 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.1 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.7 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 13% 9% 0% 21.9% 2809\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 6% 8% 0% 14.1% 1807\n c. Certificates with claims changes 35% 28% 1% 64.0% 8205\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12821\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 6853\n a. All claims confirmed 1620 23.6%\n b. All claims canceled 781 11.4%\n c. Claims changed 4452 65.0%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 5794\n a. All claims confirmed 1172 20.2%\n b. All claims canceled 980 16.9%\n c. Claims changed 3642 62.9%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2023\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 15114\n a. By patent owner 4027 26.6%\n b. by other member of the public 10912 72.2%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3977 26.3%\n b. Electrical Operation 5796 38.3%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4989 33.0%\n d. Design Patents 352 2.3%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 338\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305 2023 287\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5593 37.0%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14485\n a. No. granted 13376 92.3%\n (1) By examiner 13187\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1198 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1109\n (2) Reexam vacated 89\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1110\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.4%\n b. Third party requester 584 52.6%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 7 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.2 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 18.9 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 15% 0% 21.6% 2675\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.7% 1696\n c. Certificates with claims changes 22% 42% 1% 64.7% 8012\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12383\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3983\n a. All claims confirmed 854 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 400 10.0%\n c. Claims changed 2729 68.5%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8226\n a. All claims confirmed 1804 21.9%\n b. All claims canceled 1250 15.2%\n c. Claims changed 5172 62.9%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 8 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2022\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14827\n a. By patent owner 4001 27.0%\n b. by other member of the public 10651 71.8%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3937 26.6%\n b. Electrical Operation 5644 38.1%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4917 33.2%\n d. Design Patents 329 2.2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780 2022 338\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5592 37.7%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14485\n a. No. granted 13376 92.3%\n (1) By examiner 13187\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1198 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1109\n (2) Reexam vacated 89\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1110\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.4%\n b. Third party requester 584 52.6%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 9 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.0 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.1 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 14% 0% 21.3% 2592\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.3% 1623\n c. Certificates with claims changes 22% 42% 1% 65.3% 7947\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12162\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3980\n a. All claims confirmed 851 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 395 9.9%\n c. Claims changed 2734 68.7%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8008\n a. All claims confirmed 1724 21.5%\n b. All claims canceled 1182 14.8%\n c. Claims changed 5102 63.7%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 10 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data - September 30, 2021\n\n 1\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 .\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14489\n a. By patent owner 3979 27.5%\n b. by other member of the public 10335 71.3%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3889 26.8%\n b. Electrical Operation 5452 37.6%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4844 33.4%\n d. Design Patents 304 2.1%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1991 309 2001 295 2011 734 2021 304\n 1982 187 1992 390 2002 272 2012 780\n 1983 186 1993 359 2003 394 2013 305\n 1984 189 1994 379 2004 436 2014 355\n 1985 230 1995 395 2005 520 2015 244\n 1986 232 1996 413 2006 473 2016 222\n 1987 240 1997 380 2007 600 2017 191\n 1988 269 1998 348 2008 690 2018 187\n 1989 242 1999 391 2009 603 2019 163\n 1990 297 2000 312 2010 697 2020 198\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5593 38.6%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14491\n a. No. granted 13386 92.4%\n (1) By examiner 13197\n (2) By Director (on petition) 189\n b. No. denied 1185 8.2%\n (1) By examiner 1105\n (2) Reexam vacated 80\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1105\n a. Patent owner requester 526 47.6%\n b. Third party requester 579 52.4%\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 11 of 19\n\n\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 26.0 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.9 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 7% 14% 0% 21.2% 2530\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 9% 0% 13.1% 1559\n c. Certificates with claims changes 23% 42% 1% 65.8% 7854\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11943\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3957\n a. All claims confirmed 846 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 386 9.8%\n c. Claims changed 2725 68.9%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 7812\n a. All claims confirmed 1667 21.3%\n b. All claims canceled 1127 14.4%\n c. Claims changed 5018 64.2%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n NEEDS FOOTNOTE!\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 12 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2020\n\n1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 14185\n a. By patent owner 3954 27.9%\n b. by other member of the public 10056 70.9%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1.2%\n\n2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3843 27.1%\n b. Electrical Operation 5279 37.2%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4790 33.8%\n d. Design Patents 273 1.9%\n\n3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734 2019 163\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780 2020 198\n\n4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 5428 38.3%\n\n 2\n5. Decisions on requests \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................................................. 14185\n a. No. granted 13082 92.2%\n (1) By examiner 12888\n (2) By Director (on petition) 194\n b. No. denied 1183 8.3%\n (1) By examiner 1103\n (2) Reexam vacated 80\n\n6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1103\n a. Patent owner requester 525 47.6%\n b. Third party requester 578 52.4%\n\n\n\n\n 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 13 of 19\n\n\n\n7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.7 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.3 (mos.)\n\n8. Reexam certificate claim analysis:3 Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\na. Certificates with all claims confirmed 6% 14% 0% 20.9% 2672\nb. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13.1% 1668\nc. Certificates with claims changes 22% 44% 1% 66.0% 8424\n\n9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 12764\n\n10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3960\n a. All claims confirmed 809 20.4%\n b. All claims canceled 396 10.0%\n c. Claims changed 2755 69.6%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8630\n a. All claims confirmed 1846 21.4%\n b. All claims canceled 1226 14.2%\n c. Claims changed 5558 64.4%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 17 9.8%\n b. All claims canceled 46 26.4%\n c. Claims changed 111 63.8%\n\n\n\n\n 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 14 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2019\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81 1.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13987\n a. By patent owner 3919 28%\n b. by other member of the public 9893 71%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3791 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5214 37%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4732 34%\n d. Design Patents 250 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734 2019 163\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 1938 14%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 14130\n a. No. granted 12905 91%\n (1) By examiner 12718\n (2) By Director (on petition) 187\n b. No. denied 1277 9%\n (1) By examiner 1225\n (2) Reexam vacated 52\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1226\n a. Patent owner requester 524 43%\n b. Third party requester 702 57%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 15 of 19\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.8 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 20.7% 2480\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 12.7% 1517\n c. Certificates with claims changes 19% 46% 1% 66.6% 7983\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11980\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3325\n a. All claims confirmed 693 21%\n b. All claims canceled 300 9%\n c. Claims changed 2332 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8481\n a. All claims confirmed 1769 21%\n b. All claims canceled 1170 14%\n c. Claims changed 5542 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 18 10%\n b. All claims canceled 47 27%\n c. Claims changed 109 63%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 16 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2018\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81. 1 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13824\n a. By patent owner 3910 28%\n b. by other member of the public 9739 70%\n c. By order of Commissioner 175 1%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by discipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3741 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5160 37%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4681 34%\n d. Design Patents 242 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 600 2015 244\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 690 2016 222\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 603 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 697 2018 187\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 734\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 780\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 1854 13%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests 2 \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 13966\n a. No. granted 12745 91%\n (1) By examiner 12561\n (2) By Director (on petition) 184\n b. No. denied 1272 9%\n (1) By examiner 1221\n (2) Reexam vacated 51\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1222\n a. Patent owner requester 524 43%\n b. Third party requester 698 57%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 1/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 17 of 19\n\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 25.8 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall Numbers\n\n a. All claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 21% 2473\n b. All claims canceled 3% 10% 0% 13% 1504\n c. Claims changed 20% 46% 1% 67% 7962\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11939\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3323\n a. All claims confirmed 693 21%\n b. All claims canceled 299 9%\n c. Claims changed 2331 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 8442\n a. All claims confirmed 1762 21%\n b. All claims canceled 1158 14%\n c. Claims changed 5522 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 174\n a. All claims confirmed 18 10%\n b. All claims canceled 47 27%\n c. Claims changed 109 63%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\n2 The Director granted requests are only granted petitions on denial under 37 CFR 1.515. 2/2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 18 of 19\n\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n Commissioner for Patents\n United States Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450\n Alexandria, VA 22313\u20101450\n www.uspto.gov\n Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data \u2010 September 30, 2017\n\n 1. Total requests filed since start of Ex Parte reexam on 07/01/81.\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026................................................ 13641\n a. By patent owner 3912 29%\n b. by other member of the public 9686 71%\n c. By order of Commissioner 43 0%\n\n 2. Number of Filings by dicipline\n a. Chemical Operation 3670 27%\n b. Electrical Operation 5148 38%\n c. Mechanical Operation 4596 34%\n d. Design Patents 227 2%\n\n 3. Annual Ex Parte Reexam Filings\n Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No Fiscal Yr. No\n 1981 78 (3 mos.) 1989 242 1997 380 2005 520 2013 305\n 1982 187 1990 297 1998 348 2006 473 2014 355\n 1983 186 1991 309 1999 391 2007 601 2015 243\n 1984 189 1992 390 2000 312 2008 691 2016 219\n 1985 230 1993 359 2001 295 2009 605 2017 191\n 1986 232 1994 379 2002 272 2010 698\n 1987 240 1995 395 2003 394 2011 736\n 1988 269 1996 413 2004 436 2012 781\n\n 4. Number known to be in litigation\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................................................................ 4648 34%\n\n 5. Decisions on requests\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026..................................................................................... 13147\n a. No. granted 12047 92%\n (1) By examiner 11913\n (2) By Director (on petition) 134\n b. No. denied 1100 8%\n (1) By examiner 1054\n (2) Reexam vacated 46\n\n 6. Total examiner denials (includes denials reversed by Director)\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026........................ 1056\n a. Patent owner requester 494 47%\n b. Third party requester 562 53%\n\n 7. Overall reexamination pendency (Filing date to certificate issue date)........................\n a. Average pendency 26.4 (mos.)\n b. Median pendency 19.4 (mos.)\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\ndata as of 9/30/2016\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-5 Filed 06/04/26 Page 19 of 19\n\n\n\n 8. Reexam certificate claim analysis: Owner 3rd Party Comm'r\n Requester Requester Initiate Overall\n\n a. All claims confirmed 6% 15% 0% 21%\n b. All calims cancled 3% 9% 0% 12%\n c. Claims changed 21% 46% 0% 67%\n\n 9. Total ex parte reexamination certificates issued (1981 \u2013 present) \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026 11403\n a. Certificates with all claims confirmed 2391 21%\n b. Certificates with all claims canceled 1404 12%\n c. Certificates with claims changes 7608 67%\n\n 10. Reexam claim analysis \u2013 requester is patent owner or 3rd party or Commissioner initiated.\n a. Certificates \u2013 PATENT OWNER REQUESTER 3296\n a. All claims confirmed 690 21%\n b. All calims cancled 293 9%\n c. Claims changed 2313 70%\n b. Certificates \u2013 3rd PARTY REQUESTER 7917\n a. All claims confirmed 1681 21%\n b. All calims cancled 1062 13%\n c. Claims changed 5174 65%\n c. Certificates \u2013 COMMISSIONER INITIATED REEXAM 41\n a. All claims confirmed 2 5%\n b. All calims cancled 23 56%\n c. Claims changed 16 39%\n\n\n\n\n1 Total decisions on requests does not include requests that have been vacated or are pending.\ndata as of 9/30/2017 2/2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:38:59.678566-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699210","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622091/","id":481622091,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/6/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.176012-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:13.746394-07:00","sha1":"6f1c5ea363d9b393c759df095393736b3dacea14","page_count":5,"file_size":183701,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-6 Filed 06/04/26 Pagelof5\n\nEXHIBIT 4\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-6 Filed 06/04/26 Page2of5\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nIn re patent of Wolfe, et al. Attorney Docket No.:\n\n500712.000038\nUSS. Patent 8,549,339\n\nCustomer No.: 47604\nIssue Date: October 1, 2013\n\nFiling Date: February 26, 2010\n\nFor: PROCESSOR CORE\nCOMMUNICATION IN MULTI-\nCORE PROCESSOR\n\nCH LO? LOR LOR LOR WOR WOR WOR? WOR WOR KOR KOR LOR\n\nREQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF\nU.S. PATENT 8,549,339\n\nMail stop \u201cEx Parte Reexam\u201d\nAttn: Central Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nDear Commissioner:\n\nPursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 301-307, Advanced Micro Devices,\nInc. (\u201cRequester\u201d) hereby requests an ex parte reexamination of claims 1-5, 8-11,\n14, and 21 (the \u201cChallenged Claims\u201d) of U.S. Patent 8,549,339 (the \u201c\u2019339 Patent,\nEx. 1001\u201d), which issued on October 1, 2013 to Wolfe et al. from U.S. Patent\n\nApplication 12/713,220 (the \u201c\u2019220 Application\u201d) filed on February 26, 2010.\u2019 The\n\n' At this time, Requester assumes this priority date is correct.\ni\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-6 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3of5\n\n\u00b0339 Patent is currently assigned Redstone Logics LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d or \u201cPatent\nOwner\u201d). The assignment is recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n(\u201cUSPTO\u201d) at reel/frame 062120/0206, 064575/0934, 048373/0217, and\n024009/0530.\n\nRequester submits that this Request presents substantial new questions of\npatentability based on prior art references that are non-cumulative of the\nconsiderations that were before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the\n\u00b0339 Patent. Requester also submits that this Request shows that the Challenged\nClaims are invalid over these references. Requester therefore requests that an order\nfor reexamination and an Office Action rejecting claims 1-5, 8-11, 14, and 21 be\nissued.\n\nEx Parte Patent Reexamination Filing Requirements\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.510(b)(1), statements pointing out at least one\nsubstantial new question of patentability based on material, non-cumulative reference\npatents and printed publications for the Challenged Claims of the \u2019339 Patent are\nprovided in Sections I and II of this Request.\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.510(b)(2), reexamination of the Challenged Claims\nof the *339 Patent is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinence and\nmanner of applying the cited references to the Challenged Claims is provided in\n\nSection II of this Request.\n\nil\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-6 Filed 06/04/26\n\nPage 4 of 5\n\nRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 8,549,339\n\nelectronics Co.\n\nName Number District Status\nRedstone Logics LLC v. NXP 7-24-cv-00028 | W.D. Tex. Terminated\nSemiconductors NV\nRedsione Logies LLC v. Mediale& | 5 54 \u00a2v.00029 | W.D. Tex.| Terminated\nRedstone Logics LLC. Samsung) 453, \u00a2y.90485 | B.D. Tex. | Terminated\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n\nThe Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge Deposit Account Number\n\n503266 under Docket No. 500712.000038 the Ex Parte Reexamination fee of\n\n$13,545 under 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.20(c)(1). Requester believes no other fee is due with\n\nthis submission, however the Commissioner 1s hereby authorized to charge any fee\n\ndeficiency or credit any over-payment to Deposit Account Number 503266.\n\nPlease direct all correspondence in this matter to the undersigned.\n\n120\n\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-6 Filed 06/04/26 Page5of5\n\nRequest for x Parte Reexamination, U.S. Patent 8,549,339\n\nDated: December 9, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n(Jennifer Librach Nall/\n\nJennifer Librach Nall\n\nReg. No. 57,053\n\nMichael Saulnier\n\nReg. No. 78,432\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n303 Colorado St., Suite 3000\nAustin, TX 78701\n\nTelephone: (512) 457-7000\nFacsimile: (512) 457-7001\nJonmfor Nall pisb@fus dlanmmer cor\nNocbael sauinisri@us diapiper com\n\nDaniel Valencia\n\nReg. No. 56,463\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n500 Eighth Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20004\nTelephone: (202) 799-4000\nFacsimile: (202) 799-5000\nDaniel valenciagons dlariper cont\n\nChris M. Katsantonis\n\nReg. No. 78,388\n\nDLA PIPER LLP (US)\n\n444 West Lake Street, Suite 900\nChicago, IL 60606\n\nTelephone: (312) 368-4000\nFacsimile: (312) 236-7516\n\nAttorneys for Advanced Micro Devices,\nInc.\n\n121\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:39:11.191706-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699211","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622092/","id":481622092,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/7/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.201666-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:13.695234-07:00","sha1":"613cb636bd9b89638469c130342a07724cc23267","page_count":12,"file_size":292255,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 5\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 2 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nQUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND\nQUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)\n\n Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Redstone,\n\nLLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cRedstone\u201d) submits the following Second Supplemental Objections and\n\nResponses to Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.\n\n(\u201cQualcomm\u201d or \u201cDefendants\u201d) First Set of Interrogatories (the \u201cInterrogatories\u201d) as follows:\n\n Redstone\u2019s responses are based on information known and available to it at the time of\n\nthese responses. Redstone\u2019s investigation in this matter is ongoing. Further, because all\n\ninformation and documents that are possibly within the scope of the Interrogatories may have yet\n\nto be located and/or identified, the development of Redstone\u2019s contentions with respect to its\n\nclaims and defenses is ongoing. Redstone reserves the right to assert additional objections to the\n\nInterrogatories and to modify and supplement its responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedure.\n\n Redstone\u2019s responses to these Interrogatories are not to be construed as admissions that\n\nany of the requested information exists or that any contention or assumption contained in the\n\nInterrogatories, whether implicit or explicit, is correct.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 3 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nin the market before copying ARM\u2019s implementation of the invention. For example, as of 2013,\n\nQualcomm dismissed \u201cARM\u2019s Big.little approach\u201d claiming to have \u201ca different idea.\u201d6 Prior to\n\nthe adoption of big.LITTLE, Qualcomm\u2019s chips used a dedicated voltage plane and clock\n\nfrequency for each core, rather than for a set of cores.7 But not even five years later, Qualcomm\n\ncaved to market pressures to adopt the far more effective ARM big.LITTLE architecture.8\n\nQualcomm concedes \u201c[t]raditional frequency, voltage regulation and scaling of cores have gone a\n\nlong way to improve power efficiency[, b]ut now having different types of cores at your disposal\n\nopens new possibilities for tuning power efficiency as demands change.\u201d9 Qualcomm continued\n\nthis copying by going on to use ARM\u2019s DynamIQ architecture.10\n\n As showing in Redstone\u2019s infringement contentions and any supplement thereto, both\n\nARM big.LITTLE and DynamIQ, as well as Qulacomm\u2019s gold and silver implementation,\n\ninfringe. Redstone contends that Qualcomm\u2019s failure to develop a competitive architecture of its\n\nown and then copied an infringing one, further supports the non-obviousness of the asserted\n\ninvention through at least copying and/or long-felt but unmet needs and the failure of others.\n\nDiscovery in this case is ongoing, and Redstone reserves the right to amend or supplement this\n\nresponse as discovery in this case proceeds.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 10\n For the Asserted Patent, state all facts\u2014including the identification of witnesses and any\nDocuments\u2014that support or refute Your damages claims against Defendants including, but not\nlimited to all facts relevant to determining a reasonable royalty, the specific inputs relevant to\ndetermining any such royalty, facts Concerning whether and to what quantitative extent your\nproposed royalty base consists of revenues attributable to the Asserted Claims, facts Concerning\n\n6\n https://www.eetimes.com/qualcomm-not-big-on-big-little/\n7\n https://www.extremetech.com/computing/99721-how-snapdragon-s4-and-tegra-3-manage-arm-cores-differently\n8\n https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2018/02/impact-big-core-and-little-core-architecture-application-\ndevelopment\n9\n Id.\n10\n https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-\nassets/documents/day2_perform_pillar_travis_lanier.pdf\n\n\n 26\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 4 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nthe apportionment of the value of the Asserted Claims to the products You accuse of Infringing,\nand all facts relevant to each of the fifteen factors set out in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States\nPlywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) or relevant to any purported enhancement of\ndamages.\nRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:\n\n Incorporating the General Objections, above, Redstone additionally objects to this\n\ninterrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not proportional to the needs of\n\nthe case. Redstone further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information in\n\nDefendants\u2019 possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to Defendants from public\n\nsources or from third parties. Redstone further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks\n\ninformation protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,\n\ncommon interest doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege. Redstone further objects to this\n\nInterrogatory seeks to require Redstone to marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on\n\nat any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. Redstone objects to this\n\nInterrogatory as having numerous parts, which amounts to multiple Interrogatories. For example,\n\nthis Interrogatory seeks identification of 1) all facts relevant to determining a reasonable royalty,\n\n2) the specific inputs relevant to determining any such royalty, 3) facts Concerning whether and\n\nto what quantitative extent your proposed royalty base consists of revenues attributable to the\n\nAsserted Claims, 4) facts Concerning the apportionment of the value of the Asserted Claims to the\n\nproducts You accuse of Infringing, and 5) all facts relevant to each of the fifteen factors set out in\n\nGeorgia-Pacific. Redstone further objects to this interrogatory as calling for legal conclusions and\n\npremature expert analysis. Redstone will respond to this interrogatory with an appropriate level of\n\ndetail on its general damages theory. Redstone objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it\n\nseeks information that is outside of Redstone\u2019s possession, custody, and control. Redstone objects\n\nto this interrogatory on the grounds that it prematurely seeks expert opinion.\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 5 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\n Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Redstone responds as follows:\n\n Discovery is at its early stages and Defendants have not yet produced damages-related\n\ndiscovery, including documents, licenses, witnesses, financials, or benefits documents. Redstone\n\nhas not yet completed its investigation, collection of information, discovery, and analysis relating\n\nto these actions. Accordingly, Redstone expressly reserves the right to supplement, modify or alter\n\nits response hereto. Redstone reserves all of its rights and does not waive any proposed damages\n\nposition by the submission of this disclosure. In addition, Redstone reserves the right to rely on\n\nany evidence produced by Defendants, including testimony and/or declarations of one or more fact\n\nor expert witnesses.\n\n Redstone is willing to meet and confer regarding an agreed timeline for serving responses\n\nto certain contention interrogatories.\n\n Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Redstone reserves the right to amend or supplement\n\nthis response as discovery in this case proceeds.\n\n1st SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 (02/02/26)\n\n Redstone incorporates its previous objections and responses to this Interrogatory. Subject\n\nto and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff further supplements its responses to this\n\nInterrogatory as follows:\n\n Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Redstone responds as follows:\n\nRedstone has not yet completed its investigation, collection of information, discovery, and analysis\n\nrelating to this action. Accordingly, Redstone expressly reserves the right to supplement, modify\n\nor alter its response hereto. Redstone reserves all of its rights and does not waive any proposed\n\ndamages position by the submission of this disclosure. In addition, Redstone reserves the right to\n\nrely on any evidence produced by Defendant, including testimony and/or declarations of one or\n\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 6 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nmore fact or expert witnesses.\n\n Based on the evidence of which Redstone is currently aware, Redstone is seeking monetary\n\ndamages at least in the form of a reasonable royalty.\n\n In the absence of expert opinion (which is premature at this time), Redstone has not\n\ndetermined which methodology or methodologies (including the hypothetical negotiation method\n\ndescribed in Georgia Pacific v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970),\n\nthe analytic method, the income method, the market method, etc., or some combination thereof)\n\nshould be used in determining a reasonable royalty in this case, but as the Georgia Pacific factors\n\nencompass in some respects all of these methods, this response will reference the Georgia Pacific\n\nfactors in discussing the determination of a reasonable royalty. At this time, Redstone expects the\n\nroyalty base will include revenue generated from the accused products that results from United\n\nStates infringement. This will include revenue of products sold in the United States. This also\n\nincludes \u201cdesign wins\u201d of products Qualcomm, in the United States, works with customers to\n\ndesign and capture the sale in the United States. Worldwide sales from such design wins in the\n\nUnited States may be part of the royalty base. Redstone also seeks worldwide sales of products\n\nthat are manufactured in the United States by Qualcomm and/or its contract manufacturers in the\n\nUnited States. Redstone also seeks sales of accused products sold abroad with knowledge and\n\nexpectation that a portion of that product will be later be imported and/sold in the United States by\n\nits customers. Such worldwide sales of accused products include all products Qualcomm sells with\n\nthe accused instrumentalities, e.g., big.LITTLE and/or DynamicIQ shared unit architecture (e.g.,\n\nits mobile CPUs including those with Qualcomm\u2019s implementation- Gold and Silver cores)\n\nworldwide, not just those imported to the United States. Qualcomm is a U.S.-company that makes,\n\nuses, offers to sell, and/or sells the accused products from the United States. The royalty base\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 7 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nalternatively may consist of units of the foregoing.\n\n Redstone expects the date and parties to the hypothetical negotiation in this case will be\n\ndetermined by the date of Defendant\u2019s first infringement, which is the subject of discovery not yet\n\nreceived from Defendant. Redstone will seek damages for the full extent of the damages period,\n\nfrom the date of first infringement (and no later than the date of first notice of the Asserted Patents\n\nor the filing of the Complaint, whichever is earlier) through patent expiration. Defendants first\n\nbegan to infringe with the first manufacture and offering for sale of the accused products, and\n\nDefendants\u2019 infringement is ongoing. At this time, based on currently available information,\n\nRedstone expects the damages period to date back to September 20, 2018. The conclusion of the\n\ndamages period would be the date of the Asserted Patent\u2019s expiration. Redstone expects that\n\nevidence to be produced by Defendant will show the date for Defendant\u2019s first offer for sale of an\n\nAccused Product that includes Redstone\u2019s patented technology (and this evidence is still\n\nforthcoming). The evidence, including testimony by fact and expert witnesses, will be relevant to\n\nthe determination of a fair royalty structure (e.g., lump sum, running royalty, etc.) to account for\n\nroyalties for the entire damages period through patent expiration. Redstone expects a per-unit\n\naccounting and future royalties for all infringing sales through the expiration of the Asserted\n\nPatents. Redstone may be willing to accept an upfront, fully paid-up lump sum license fee in\n\naccordance to an agreed calculation of past and current sales together with estimated sales of\n\ninfringing units through the end of the damages period, such as structuring a royalty payment as a\n\nlump sum calculated based on past sales together with projected sales through patent expiration,\n\nor, alternatively, with a lump sum calculated based on past sales, together with a running royalty\n\non sales through patent expiration. Redstone may compute damages based, at least in part, on\n\ncomparable agreements, but such agreements should take into account circumstances surrounding\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 8 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nthe agreements, such as differences in importance and benefits of technology, whether or not an\n\nagreement is a litigation settlement, and possible group or bulk licensing discounts. Particularly\n\nbecause the patent-in-suit provides technology at the core of the Accused Products\u2019 functionality\n\nand suitability as mobile processors, Redstone may rely on technology license agreements, such\n\nas those with ARM. But Redstone may also consider that the patents-in-suit give broad freedom\n\nto operate compared to potentially more limited technology licenses. Redstone may rely on the\n\nincremental revenue, benefits, and/or profits attributable to functionality enabled by the patents-\n\nin-suit. Redstone expects to rely upon one or more expert analyses, including technical analyses\n\nof benefits, costs and non-infringing alternatives, if any. Redstone also expects to rely upon\n\nDefendant\u2019s financial costs, marketing/sales, and licensing discovery.\n\n At this time, it is too early to determine whether Redstone will seek damages as to\n\nconvoyed or collateral sales. Redstone requires additional discovery from Defendant in order to\n\nprovide a fulsome response as to a precise computation of damages on convoyed and collateral\n\nsales in this case. The determination of the relevance of convoyed or collateral sales will depend\n\non evidence produced by Defendant indicating the extent of additional features and services\n\nprovided to customers together with the Accused Products. Redstone expects that the testimony of\n\nDefendant\u2019s fact or expert witnesses, and evidence relating to customer billing and purchasing\n\nactivity, may establish the extent of convoyed or collateral sales. In general, convoyed and\n\ncollateral sales may be relevant in a number of ways to a determination of a reasonable royalty,\n\nincluding by leading to a determination that a royalty rate needs to be higher to represent a\n\nreasonable royalty that accounts for the value of the convoyed and collateral sales. Fact and expert\n\ntestimony will be relevant to the weight and relevance to be accorded to each convoyed or\n\ncollateral sale. At this time, it appears that convoyed and collateral sales may include SoC\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS Page 9 of 12\n ONLY\n INFORMATION\n\n\nfunctionality included on Accused Product dies, such as communications, Wi-Fi, cellular, co-\n\nprocessor, and other functionalities that Qualcomm packages with the accused CPUs.\n\n Any contentions regarding a reasonable royalty at this stage of the litigation must\n\nnecessarily be preliminary, both because the valuation of patent damages is an issue subject to\n\nexpert analysis, and because conclusions regarding a reasonable royalty requires consideration of\n\nall, or at least a substantial portion, of the relevant evidence, and Redstone does not yet have access\n\nto all relevant evidence. The importance of expert analysis to the determination of a reasonable\n\nroyalty is expressed, for example, in the fact that \u201c[t]he opinion testimony of qualified experts\u201d is\n\nexpressly included in Georgia Pacific as Factor 14. 318 F. Supp. at 1120. An expert opinion on\n\ndamages would be premature at this point because Defendants has to date produced very limited\n\ndiscovery of the evidence necessary to form such an opinion. As an example, Redstone has not yet\n\nconducted any depositions of witnesses with information relevant to the determination of damages.\n\nRedstone will also need to depose an individual knowledgeable about any sales documents or\n\nspreadsheets Defendants produces in this case, and any future sales data that Defendants produces,\n\nin order to ascertain the completeness of the documents and ensure that Redstone understands the\n\ninformation contained within them.\n\n The importance of considering the relevant evidence as a whole in determining a\n\nreasonable royalty is reflected in the comprehensive nature of the Georgia Pacific Factors, which\n\nrequire a hypothetical negotiation in which the parties are privy to all relevant information extant\n\nat the time of the negotiation, and much information occurring thereafter. Moreover, the absence\n\nof evidence may be key to a damages analysis, and it is difficult to establish absence before the\n\nend of fact discovery. See, e.g., ResQNet.com Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 870-72 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2010) (evaluating reasonableness of reliance on settlement agreement based on the absence of\n\n\n\n 32\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26 EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS PageONLY\n 10 of 12\n INFORMATION\n\n\nbetter evidence of a reasonable rate). Precise, final damages calculations will be subject to expert\n\ntestimony and must await the complete disclosure and review of documents and other discovery\n\nfrom Defendant.\n\n Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Redstone reserves the right to supplement or amend\n\nthis response as discovery in this case proceeds.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 11\n Separately for each Asserted Claim, state whether that Asserted Claim provides a value\nor incremental improvement or benefit over the Prior Art, including the Prior Art cited in\nDefendants\u2019 operative invalidity contentions, Describing in detail any problem in the Prior Art\nsolved by the invention embodied in that Asserted Claim, how that Asserted Claim solved that\npurported problem, and the benefits, if any, of practicing the Asserted Claim over the Prior Art,\nand identify the production number(s) of each document that You contend evidences, and the\nPerson You contend is most knowledgeable about, the foregoing.\nRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:\n\n Incorporating the General Objections, above, Redstone additionally objects to this\n\ninterrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and not proportional to the needs of\n\nthe case. Redstone further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information protected from\n\ndisclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest doctrine and/or\n\nany other applicable privilege. Redstone further objects to this Interrogatory as calling for a legal\n\nconclusion. Redstone further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking premature expert opinions\n\nand to the extent that it seeks to require Redstone to prematurely marshal all of its proof or any\n\nproof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter.\n\nRedstone further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside\n\nof Redstone\u2019s possession, custody, and control. Redstone further objects to this Interrogatory to\n\nthe extent that it seeks information in Defendants\u2019 possession, custody or control, or that is equally\n\naccessible to Defendants from public sources or from third parties.\n\n Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Redstone responds as follows:\n\n 33\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26 EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS PageONLY\n 11 of 12\n INFORMATION\n\n\napc0 and apc1 feed into apss_cc_silver_pll and apss_cc_gold_pll respectively. Id. at 200.\n\nRedstone\u2019s infringement contentions cite to similar documents showing frequency plans and PLL\n\narrangements for the various accused products. See Redstone\u2019s Infringement Contentions at 42.\n\n Qualcomm\u2019s citation to QCREDSTONE_0039745 and QCREDSTONE_0121455 are\n\ninapposite. QCREDSTONE_0039745 does not provide that all PLL are directly supplied the same\n\nclock signal and to the extent it suggests such, it is contradicted by QCREDSTONE_0123173 as\n\nexplained above. QCREDSTONE_0121455 likewise does not indicate that the Gold and Silver\n\nPLLs are provided with the same clock signal. Indeed, it merely provides a \u201csupported\n\nconfiguration\u201d that appears to suggest each are provided a different signal, apss_cc_gold_pll\n\nreceiving 1382.40 and apss_cc_silver_pll receiving 1363.20. To the extent Qualcomm contends\n\nthis demonstrates the Gold and Silver PLLs receive the same clock signal, this is contradicted by\n\nQCREDSTONE_0123173 as explained above.\n\n Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Redstone reserves the right to amend or supplement\n\nthis response as discovery in this case proceeds.\n\n\n\n\n Dated: February 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Reza Mirzaie\n RUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n Reza Mirzaie, SBN 246953\n Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com\n Marc A. Fenster, SBN 181067\n Email: mfenster@raklaw.com\n Neil A. Rubin, SBN 250761\n Email: nrubin@raklaw.com\n Christian W. Conkle, SBN 306374\n Email: cconkle@raklaw.com\n Jonathan Ma, SBN 312773\n\n\n 44\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n CONTAINS Document 62-7 Filed 06/04/26 EYES\n HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\u2014ATTORNEYS PageONLY\n 12 of 12\n INFORMATION\n\n\n Email: jma@raklaw.com\n Joshua Scheufler, SBN 330462\n Email: jma@raklaw.com\n\n 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor\n Los Angeles, California 90025\n Telephone: (310) 826-7474\n Facsimile: (310) 826-6991\n\n Qi (Peter) Tong\n TX SBN 24119042\n Email: ptong@raklaw.com\n 8080 N. Central Expy., Suite 1503\n Dallas, TX 75206\n Telephone: (310) 826-7474\n Facsimile: (310) 826-6991\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:39:22.441326-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699212","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481622093/","id":481622093,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/62/8/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:46.216731-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:28:15.009527-07:00","sha1":"71c3420588d4a5f38bab8ff7b92fe8ccbe3701a6","page_count":14,"file_size":366384,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.8.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.62.8.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 14\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 6\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 14\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7 Case No. 7:24-CV-00231-ADA\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n \u00a7\n QUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND \u00a7\n QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC\u2019S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1-15\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\u201cFederal Rules\u201d) 26 and 33, the Local Rules\n\nof the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (\u201cLocal Rules\u201d), and the\n\nCourt\u2019s Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.4\u2014Patent Cases (\u201cOGP\u201d), Defendants\n\nQualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (\u201cCollectively Qualcomm\u201d) hereby\n\nsubmit the following Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Redstone Logics\n\nLLC\u2019s (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cRedstone\u201d) First Set of Interrogatories, dated June 10, 2025\n\n(\u201cInterrogatories\u201d). Qualcomm has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this\n\nlitigation, has not completed its discovery in this action, and has not completed its preparation for\n\ntrial. Accordingly, these Objections and Responses are preliminary and based only upon the\n\ninformation presently available and known to Qualcomm.\n\n Qualcomm reserves the right to further supplement and amend its Objections and\n\nResponses to the Interrogatories as the litigation develops and if and when it discovers any\n\nadditional relevant and responsive information. Qualcomm further reserves the right to object to\n\nthe admissibility of any of its Interrogatory Responses or any of the documents produced to\n\n\n 1 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 14\n\n\n\n\nQCREDSTONE_0117887, QCREDSTONE_0141773.\n\n Qualcomm\u2019s investigation remains ongoing, and Qualcomm reserves the right to amend or\n\nsupplement the foregoing.\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 3:\n\n For each Accused Product, Relevant Component, and each product You identified in\n\nresponse to Interrogatory No. 1, identify and describe in detail the dates and circumstances it was\n\nfirst: (a) publicly announced, (b) put into active service, (c) offered for sale, and (d) sold, and\n\nidentify the person(s) responsible for each activity.\n\nMARCH 6, 2026 AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:\n\n Qualcomm hereby incorporates by reference General Objections, its Objections to\n\nDefinitions, and its Objections to Instructions above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n Qualcomm objects to the phrases \u201cfor each,\u201d \u201cAccused Product,\u201d \u201cRelevant Component,\u201d\n\n\u201ceach product,\u201d \u201ccircumstances,\u201d \u201cpublicly announced,\u201d \u201cput into active service,\u201d \u201coffered for\n\nsale,\u201d and \u201cresponsible for each activity\u201d as unfairly vague and ambiguous, and causing this\n\nInterrogatory to seek discovery that is overly broad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any claim\n\nor defense in the litigation, not proportional to the needs of the litigation, not reasonably calculated\n\nto lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and for which the burden or expense outweighs its\n\nlikely benefit to the extent the phrases are not defined and require Qualcomm to provide\n\ninformation not ascertainable through a diligent search of reasonable scope and/or not reasonably\n\nrelated to any allegation in this case.\n\n Qualcomm also objects that the phrases \u201ceach Accused Product, Relevant Component, and\n\neach product You identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1\u201d are overly broad and unduly\n\nburdensome to the extent they seek to impose a burden on Qualcomm to identify information not\n\n\n\n 33 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 14\n\n\n\n\ndiscovered through a diligent search of reasonable scope. Qualcomm incorporates by reference\n\nits objections to Interrogatory No. 1 as if set forth fully herein.\n\n Qualcomm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome,\n\nand not proportional to the needs of the litigation for its use of the vague phrases \u201cAccused\n\nProduct\u201d and \u201cRelevant Component\u201d to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information about\n\nproducts not specifically accused of infringement in Redstone\u2019s operative infringement\n\ncontentions.\n\n Qualcomm further objects to this Interrogatory as uncertain, overly broad, unduly\n\nburdensome, and oppressive as it fails to specify any responsive time period, and accordingly is\n\nnot limited to events relevant to this litigation.\n\n Qualcomm further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require\n\nQualcomm to furnish information that is not kept in the ordinary course of its business or to furnish\n\ninformation that is equally available and/or publicly accessible to Redstone.\n\n Qualcomm further objects to this Interrogatory as compound to the extent it improperly\n\nrequires Qualcomm to respond regarding multiple, discrete subjects couched as a single\n\nInterrogatory. This Interrogatory requires Qualcomm provide multiple discrete pieces of\n\ninformation and separate responses for multiple products. Qualcomm also objects to this\n\nInterrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome for the same reasons.\n\n Qualcomm further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and unduly burdensome to the\n\nextent that it relies upon defined terms that themselves are objectionable. Qualcomm incorporates\n\nby reference its above objections to the definitions of these terms as if set forth fully herein.\n\n Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections and based on Qualcomm\u2019s\n\nunderstanding of this Interrogatory, Qualcomm states:\n\n\n\n 34 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 5 of 14\n\n\n\n\n For products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, the earliest corresponding order\n\ndate is as follows:\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\n Designation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\n APQ8056 9/1/2015 2/1/2017\n APQ8096 8/13/2015 12/8/2015\n APQ8096A 12/14/2018 5/3/2019\n APQ8096AU 9/23/2016 9/23/2016\n APQ8098 7/26/2016 9/19/2016\n CQ7790M 9/18/2025 2/4/2026\n CQ7790S 8/28/2025 8/28/2025\n MSM8956 8/7/2015 6/16/2017\n MSM8996 6/24/2015 8/28/2015\n MSM8996AU 6/14/2017 9/26/2017\n MSM8998 6/24/2016 10/26/2016\n QAM8155P 8/23/2020 10/26/2021\n QAM8195P 9/28/2020 1/27/2021\n QAM8255P 5/20/2022 8/8/2022\n QAM8295P 1/11/2021 9/23/2021\n QAM8295PS 10/21/2022 1/4/2023\n QAM8540P 2/10/2021 10/6/2021\n QAM8650P 6/15/2022 10/12/2022\n QAM8770P 1/24/2025 #N/A\n QAM8775P 11/7/2022 1/23/2023\n QAMSRV1M 7/19/2022 2/18/2025\n QCM4290 7/28/2020 7/28/2020\n QCM4325 1/13/2023 #N/A\n QCM4490 1/16/2023 4/5/2023\n QCM5430 7/31/2022 #N/A\n QCM6125 7/12/2020 4/5/2022\n\n\n 35 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 6 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\nDesignation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\nQCM6490 3/7/2021 4/25/2022\nQCM6690 9/11/2024 2/4/2025\nQCM8538 12/18/2024 #N/A\nQCM8550 7/13/2023 11/3/2023\n QCR100 11/2/2023 11/9/2023\n QCS410 1/21/2020 10/19/2020\n QCS4290 7/28/2020 7/28/2020\n QCS4490 2/13/2023 7/20/2023\n QCS5430 7/28/2022 2/16/2023\n QCS603 2/13/2018 6/6/2019\n QCS605 10/1/2017 11/16/2017\n QCS610 11/27/2018 3/1/2019\n QCS6125 7/12/2020 7/6/2022\n QCS615 1/23/2025 #N/A\n QCS6490 3/7/2021 4/25/2022\n QCS6690 9/11/2024 2/4/2025\n QCS7230 4/7/2022 4/5/2023\nQCS8155M 11/14/2021 10/21/2025\n QCS8245 3/8/2021 8/2/2022\n QCS8250 10/15/2020 12/7/2020\n QCS8275 1/14/2025 #N/A\n QCS8300 6/23/2025 #N/A\nQCS8535N 12/15/2025 #N/A\n QCS8550 1/10/2023 3/27/2023\nQCS8550N 12/11/2024 2/27/2025\n QCS8625 1/16/2025 #N/A\n QCS9075 11/26/2024 11/26/2024\nQCS9075M 1/16/2025 6/27/2025\n\n\n\n 36 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 7 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\nDesignation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\nQCS9100M 9/1/2024 #N/A\n QMB415 12/22/2025 #N/A\n QMB715 1/4/2026 #N/A\n QRB3165 2/26/2024 #N/A\nQRB3165N 2/26/2024 #N/A\n QRB4210 8/2/2021 #N/A\n QRB5165 5/25/2020 1/20/2021\nQRB5165M 6/3/2021 8/28/2021\nQRB5165N 4/29/2021 4/29/2021\nQSIP7180 1/8/2020 2/25/2020\nQSIP7180P 4/2/2020 #N/A\nQSM8250 8/8/2019 1/19/2020\n SA4150P 3/8/2021 11/30/2021\n SA6145P 5/1/2019 9/30/2019\n SA6150P 5/1/2019 9/30/2019\n SA6155P 10/15/2018 10/15/2018\n SA7255P 7/17/2023 10/15/2025\n SA7775P 1/23/2025 #N/A\n SA8150P 5/21/2019 7/31/2020\n SA8155P 10/4/2018 10/4/2018\n SA8195P 4/15/2019 5/15/2020\n SA8255P 10/13/2022 #N/A\n SA8295P 11/17/2020 12/1/2020\nSA8295PS 9/23/2022 #N/A\n SA8530P 9/29/2020 4/23/2021\n SA8540P 9/28/2020 12/1/2020\n SA8620P 10/17/2023 #N/A\n SA8650P 7/25/2022 6/26/2025\n\n\n\n 37 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\nDesignation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\n SA8775P 8/25/2024 #N/A\n SC7180 1/28/2020 #N/A\n SC7180P 1/19/2021 #N/A\n SC7280 5/4/2021 5/4/2021\n SC8180X 10/25/2018 1/11/2019\nSC8180XP 7/18/2019 9/10/2019\nSC8280XP 10/15/2020 12/15/2020\n SDA660 5/2/2017 7/11/2017\n SDA670 4/18/2018 #N/A\n SDA845 8/22/2017 8/22/2017\n SDM630 1/12/2017 5/11/2017\n SDM632 3/16/2018 4/6/2018\n SDM660 1/3/2017 4/11/2017\n SDM670 12/13/2017 2/4/2018\n SDM710 2/11/2018 4/4/2018\n SDM712 11/1/2018 9/27/2020\n SDM845 3/7/2017 5/11/2017\n SDM850 11/28/2017 12/14/2017\n SG4150P 8/31/2022 #N/A\n SG4250P 8/14/2024 #N/A\n SG6150 1/5/2024 #N/A\n SG6150P 6/12/2024 6/12/2024\n SG6275P 3/2/2025 #N/A\n SG8175P 8/24/2021 #N/A\n SG8275P 9/27/2023 #N/A\n SG8350P 10/29/2024 #N/A\n SM4250 1/9/2020 4/29/2020\n SM4350 7/15/2020 3/4/2021\n\n\n\n 38 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 9 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\nDesignation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\n SM4375 6/30/2022 #N/A\n SM4450 11/28/2022 7/20/2023\n SM4450P 9/30/2024 #N/A\n SM4635 3/7/2024 #N/A\n SM6115 1/9/2020 4/22/2020\n SM6115P 8/24/2022 #N/A\n SM6125 1/28/2019 6/6/2019\n SM6150 7/12/2018 8/30/2018\n SM6225 2/28/2021 #N/A\n SM6350 3/19/2020 3/27/2023\n SM6370 2/7/2024 #N/A\n SM6375 3/15/2021 9/21/2021\n SM6435 6/4/2025 #N/A\n SM6450 3/31/2022 4/10/2023\n SM6450P 8/17/2023 #N/A\n SM6475 4/25/2024 #N/A\nSM6475Q 6/18/2025 #N/A\n SM6650 6/12/2024 2/3/2025\n SM6650P 7/28/2025 #N/A\n SM7125 9/19/2019 4/13/2020\n SM7150 10/18/2018 #N/A\n SM7150P 11/19/2019 #N/A\n SM7225 3/4/2020 2/1/2021\n SM7250 5/28/2019 10/10/2019\n SM7315 4/5/2021 #N/A\n SM7325 1/3/2021 4/30/2021\n SM7425 11/17/2022 #N/A\n SM7435 3/13/2023 #N/A\n\n\n\n 39 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 10 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\nDesignation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\n SM7435P 11/27/2023 #N/A\n SM7450 11/1/2021 2/23/2022\n SM7475 8/15/2022 #N/A\n SM7550 5/15/2023 #N/A\n SM7550P 11/12/2024 #N/A\n SM7635 4/11/2024 2/3/2025\n SM7635P 5/13/2025 #N/A\n SM7675 8/21/2023 #N/A\n SM7675P 2/18/2024 #N/A\n SM7750 11/3/2024 5/30/2025\n SM7750P 4/22/2025 #N/A\n SM7775 11/27/2025 #N/A\n SM8150 4/23/2018 11/12/2018\n SM8150P 11/22/2018 5/29/2019\n SM8250 3/20/2019 6/14/2019\n SM8325 1/25/2021 2/24/2022\n SM8325P 1/8/2021 #N/A\n SM8350 1/20/2020 7/16/2020\n SM8350P 6/2/2020 2/17/2021\n SM8415 1/24/2022 #N/A\n SM8425 1/24/2022 #N/A\n SM8450 3/2/2021 8/5/2021\n SM8450P 3/16/2021 6/22/2021\n SM8475 8/25/2021 5/29/2022\n SM8475P 11/22/2022 #N/A\n SM8550 2/23/2022 4/26/2022\n SM8550P 7/25/2022 10/28/2022\n SM8635 9/27/2023 #N/A\n\n\n\n 40 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 11 of 14\n\n\n\n\n Family Earliest Worldwide order identified Earliest U.S. order identified in\n Designation in Qualcomm\u2019s financial records Qualcomm\u2019s financial records\n SM8635P 12/20/2023 #N/A\n SM8650 2/13/2023 6/22/2023\n SM8650P 6/20/2023 11/1/2023\n SM8650Q 12/23/2024 #N/A\n SM8735 9/24/2024 11/17/2025\n SM8735P 3/25/2025 #N/A\n SRV1L 5/16/2023 #N/A\n SRV1M 8/25/2024 #N/A\n SXR1010P 11/13/2023 11/13/2023\n SXR2130P 7/25/2019 8/2/2019\n SXR2150P 4/20/2021 4/20/2021\n SXR2155P 6/30/2021 #N/A\n SXR2230P 7/29/2022 12/8/2022\n SXR2250P 3/26/2024 4/17/2024\n SXR2330P 7/11/2024 #N/A\n SXR2350P 7/26/2024 9/10/2025\n TPMPSP1393 3/8/2020 #N/A\n TPMPSP1518 4/20/2021 10/28/2021\n TPNSP1593 10/19/2020 #N/A\n\n Further, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), an answer to non-\n\nobjectionable portions of this Interrogatory may be derived and/or ascertained from Qualcomm\u2019s\n\nmarketing materials, including some that are publicly accessible, for certain Accused Products\n\navailable at QCREDSTONE_0138281 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138282, QCREDSTONE_0138283 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138284, QCREDSTONE_0138285 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138286,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138287 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138288, QCREDSTONE_0138289 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138290, QCREDSTONE_0138291 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138292,\n\n\n 41 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 12 of 14\n\n\n\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138293 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138294, QCREDSTONE_0138295 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138296, QCREDSTONE_0138297 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138298,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138299 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138300, QCREDSTONE_0138301 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138303, QCREDSTONE_0138304 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138306,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138307 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138308, QCREDSTONE_0138309 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138310, QCREDSTONE_0138311 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138409,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138410 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138411, QCREDSTONE_0138412 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138413, QCREDSTONE_0138414 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138415,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138416 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138418, QCREDSTONE_0138419 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0138420, QCREDSTONE_0145770 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0145785,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0145786 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0145804, QCREDSTONE_0145805 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0145823, QCREDSTONE_0145824 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0145842,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0145843 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0145861, QCREDSTONE_0145862 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0145880, QCREDSTONE_0145881 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0145907,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0145908 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146026, QCREDSTONE_0146027 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146043, QCREDSTONE_0146044 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146115,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146116 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146129, QCREDSTONE_0146130 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146247, QCREDSTONE_0146248 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146365,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146366 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146476, QCREDSTONE_0146477 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146587, QCREDSTONE_0146588 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146703,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146704 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146814, QCREDSTONE_0146815 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146896, QCREDSTONE_0146897 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146898,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0146899 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0146900, QCREDSTONE_0146901 \u2013\n\n\n\n 42 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 13 of 14\n\n\n\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147011, QCREDSTONE_0147012 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147013,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147014 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147015, QCREDSTONE_0147016 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147024, QCREDSTONE_0147025 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147039,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147040 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147046, QCREDSTONE_0147047 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147053, QCREDSTONE_0147054 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147094,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147095 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147096, QCREDSTONE_0147097 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147098, QCREDSTONE_0147099 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147120,\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147121 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0147142, QCREDSTONE_0147143 \u2013\n\nQCREDSTONE_0147175, QCREDSTONE_0138430 \u2013 QCREDSTONE_0138433; the burden of\n\nderiving or ascertaining an answer from these materials is substantially the same for either party.\n\nTo the extent Redstone contends that non-objectionable portions of this Interrogatory seek\n\nanything additional, Qualcomm is willing to discuss Redstone\u2019s contention.\n\n Qualcomm\u2019s investigation remains ongoing, and Qualcomm reserves the right to amend or\n\nsupplement the foregoing.\n\n\n\nINTERROGATORY NO. 4:\n\n Describe in detail your awareness of the Asserted Patent, including when you first became\n\naware of the Asserted Patent and the actions you have taken as a result of your awareness of the\n\nAsserted Patent.\n\nSEPTEMBER 22, 2025 AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:\n\n Qualcomm hereby incorporates by reference its General Objections, its Objections to\n\nDefinitions, and its Objections to Instructions above as if fully set forth herein.\n\n Qualcomm objects to the phrases \u201cawareness,\u201d \u201caware,\u201d and \u201cactions you have taken as a\n\n\n\n 43 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 62-8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 14 of 14\n\n\n\n\n March 6, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n By: /s/ Richard S. Zembek\n\n Richard S. Zembek\n Texas State Bar No. 00797726\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\n Houston, Texas 77010-4106\n richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Tel: (713) 651-5151\n Fax: (713) 651-5246\n\n Eric C. Green\n Texas State Bar No. 24069824\n Brett A. McKean\n Texas State Bar No. 24057994\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\n Austin, Texas 78701-4255\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Tel: (512) 536-3094\n Fax: (512) 536-4598\n\n COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS\n QUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND\n QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on counsel of\n\nrecord on March 6, 2026 by e-mail.\n\n\n /s/ Eric C. Green\n Eric C. Green\n\n\n\n\n 136 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T16:39:33.651390-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"181036699213","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 6","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-04T16:37:44.344407-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T17:07:20.976384-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-04","time_filed":"18:36:07","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":204,"description":"Opposed MOTION to Stay Case Pending the Ex Parte Reexamination by Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order, (2) Declaration of E. Green, (3) Exhibit 1, (4) Exhibit 2, (5) Exhibit 3, (6) Exhibit 4, (7) Exhibit 5, (8) Exhibit 6)(Leventhal, Daniel)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465391544/","id":465391544,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480594548/","id":480594548,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/61/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-27T14:21:47.502164-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T04:06:27.028431-07:00","sha1":"a99c539b962bcda8309ee7e96d00c159ae83c128","page_count":1,"file_size":64124,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.61.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.61.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 61 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 1\nAO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n for the\n Western District of Texas\n ____\n District of _____ _____\n\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, )\n Plaintiff )\n v. ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC. ET AL. )\n Defendant )\n\n APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL\n\nTo: The clerk of court and all parties of record\n\n I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC .\n\n\nDate: 05/27/2026 /s/ Brian D. Ledahl\n Attorney\u2019s signature\n\n\n Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)\n Printed name and bar number\n Russ August & Kabat\n 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor\n Los Angeles, CA 90025\n\n Address\n\n bledahl@raklaw.com\n E-mail address\n\n (310) 826-7474\n Telephone number\n\n (310) 826-6991\n FAX number\n\n\n Print Save As... Reset\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-27T14:21:47.744263-07:00","document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036630509","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-27T14:21:47.471525-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-27T15:09:00.354165-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-27","time_filed":"16:20:19","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":201,"description":"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Brian D. Ledahl on behalf of Redstone Logics LLC. Attorney Brian D. Ledahl added to party Redstone Logics LLC(pty:pla) (Ledahl, Brian)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465369580/","id":465369580,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480572195/","id":480572195,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/60/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-27T12:56:46.610633-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-28T03:08:26.721405-07:00","sha1":"6f68e2bea3f90c57097f9a4e95901a9709686f68","page_count":1,"file_size":267213,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.60.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.60.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 60 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 1\nAO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n for the\n Western District\n __________ District of\n of __________\n Texas\n\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, )\n Plaintiff )\n v. ) Case No. 7:24-CV-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC. ET AL. )\n Defendant )\n\n APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL\n\nTo: The clerk of court and all parties of record\n\n I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC .\n\n\nDate: 05/27/2026 /s/ Benjamin T. Wang\n Attorney\u2019s signature\n\n\n Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712)\n Printed name and bar number\n Russ August & Kabat\n 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor\n Los Angeles, CA 90025\n\n Address\n\n bwang@raklaw.com\n E-mail address\n\n (310) 826-7474\n Telephone number\n\n (310) 826-6991\n FAX number\n\n\n Print Save As... Reset\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-27T12:56:46.917915-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036627970","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-27T12:56:46.587175-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-27T13:07:21.346167-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-27","time_filed":"14:55:46","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":198,"description":"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Benjamin T. Wang on behalf of Redstone Logics LLC. Attorney Benjamin T. Wang added to party Redstone Logics LLC(pty:pla) (Wang, Benjamin)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464168492/","id":464168492,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479334449/","id":479334449,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/59/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-15T05:53:16.685964-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T05:49:06.509766-07:00","sha1":"590e551869b31309554a56d7ac07be29a9e5ea01","page_count":3,"file_size":218407,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.59.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.59.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/479334449.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 59 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n Defendants.\n\n\n AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER\n\n Pursuant to a joint motion by the parties and pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil\n\nProcedure, the Court ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines up to and\n\nincluding the trial of this matter:\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 59 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Amended Dates Deadline\n\n 7/10/26 Close of Fact Discovery1\n 7/31/26 Opening Expert Reports. Parties with burden of proof to\n designate Expert Witnesses and provide their expert witness\n reports, to include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).\n 8/28/26 Rebuttal Expert Reports. Parties shall designate Rebuttal Expert\n Witnesses on issues for which the parties do not bear the\n burden of proof, and provide their expert witness reports, to\n include all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).\n 9/18/26 Close of Expert Discovery. Expert Discovery Deadline.\n Expert discovery must be completed by this date.\n 9/25/26 Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss\n narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art\n references at issue to triable limits. To the extent it helps the\n parties determine these limits, the parties are encouraged to\n contact the Court for an estimate of the amount of trial time\n anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint Report\n within 5 business days regarding the results of the meet and\n confer.\n 10/2/26 Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.\n\n Deadline to file the joint report regarding results of meet and\n confer. Deadline for parties desiring to consent to trial\n before the magistrate judge to submit Form AO 85, \u201cNotice,\n Consent, And Reference Of A Civil Action To A Magistrate\n Judge,\u201d available at https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-\n forms/notice-consent-and-reference-civil-action-magistrate-\n judge.\n 10/16/26 Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibits lists,\n witness lists, deposition designations).\n\n 10/30/26 Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures.\n 11/6/26 Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures; file Motions in-limine.\n 11/13/26 File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury\n instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, discovery and\n deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in limine.\n From this date onwards, the parties are obligated to notify the\n Court of any changes to the asserted patents or claims. Such\n notification shall be filed on the docket within seven (7) days\n of the change and shall include a complete listing of all\n asserted patents and claims. If a change to the asserted patents\n\n1\n Per the current schedule, no further written discovery may be served after December 18, 2025.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 59 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Amended Dates Deadline\n\n or claims requires leave of court (for example, if a party is\n moving for leave to assert additional claims), notification shall\n not be required until the Court grants leave, at which point the\n notification must be filed within seven (7) days.\n 11/20/26 File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time\n Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court\n proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making\n said request shall file a notice with the Court and email the\n Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com\n 11/20/26 Deadline to file replies to motions in limine.\n\n 11/30/26 Parties to contact Court to seek pretrial conference and trial\n dates.\n 12/4/26 Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections\n and disputes on motions in limine.\nTBD* File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial\n disclosures and disputes on motions in limine.\nTBD* Final Pretrial Conference. Held in person at 9:00 am.\n\nTBD* Jury Selection/Trial at 9:00 am in Midland.\n\n*Dates relating to Pretrial and Trial to be set at the Court\u2019s convenience\n\n\n SIGNED this 14th day of May, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-15T05:53:17.172344-07:00","document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036547737","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T05:53:16.619137-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-15T06:05:30.193305-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"07:52:42","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":196,"description":"AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 7/10/2026, Dispositive and Daubert Motions due by 10/2/2026. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ktm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/450185050/","id":450185050,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/464996801/","id":464996801,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/58/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-13T12:31:02.941201-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-14T04:53:05.836043-08:00","sha1":"0d509d3b98c3d3afe7145a4ecc182955a4209e04","page_count":2,"file_size":68189,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.58.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.58.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" AO 435 Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 58 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 2\n(Rev. 04/18)\n ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR COURT USE ONLY\n\n DUE DATE:\n Instructions TRANSCRIPT ORDER\nPlease Read Instructions:\n1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE\n Reza Mirzaie (310) 826-7474 1/13/2026\n4. DELIVERY ADDRESS OR EMAIL 5. CITY 6. STATE 7. ZIP CODE\nrak_redstone@raklaw.com Los Angeles CA 90025\n8. CASE NUMBER 9. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS\n7:24-cv-00231-ADA Alan D Albright 10. FROM 11/6/2025 11. TO 11/6/2025\n12. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS\nRedstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al 13. CITY Midland / via Zoom 14. STATE Texas\n15. ORDER FOR\n\u2019 APPEAL \u2019 CRIMINAL \u2019 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT \u2019 BANKRUPTCY\n\u2019 NON-APPEAL \u2019 CIVIL \u2019 IN FORMA PAUPERIS \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n16. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)\n\n PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)\n\u2019 VOIR DIRE \u2019 TESTIMONY (Specify Witness)\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff) \u2019 PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING (Spcy)\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 OPINION OF COURT\n\u2019 JURY INSTRUCTIONS \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n\u2019 SENTENCING Motions Hearing 11/6/2025\n\u2019 BAIL HEARING\n 17. ORDER\n ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL\n CATEGORY (Includes Certified Copy to FIRST COPY NO. OF PAGES ESTIMATE COSTS\n Clerk for Records of the Court)\n COPIES\n NO. OF COPIES\n ORDINARY \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 14-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n EXPEDITED \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 3-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n DAILY \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n HOURLY \u2019 \u2019\n REALTIME \u2019 \u2019\n CERTIFICATION (18. & 19.)\n By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges ESTIMATE TOTAL\n (deposit plus additional). $ 0.00 0.00\n18. SIGNATURE PROCESSED BY\n/s/ Reza Mirzaie\n19. DATE PHONE NUMBER\n1/13/2026\nTRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY COURT ADDRESS\n\n\n\n\n DATE BY\nORDER RECEIVED\n\nDEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID\n\nTRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES $ 0.00 0.00\n\nTRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT $ 0.00 0.00\nORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED\nTO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT TOTAL REFUNDED\n\nPARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE $ 0.00 0.00\n DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY\n Print Save As... Reset\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 58 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 2\n AO 435\n(Rev. 04/18) INSTRUCTIONS\n Return\n GENERAL\n\nUse. Use this form to order the transcription of proceedings. Complete a separate order form for each case number for which\ntranscripts are ordered.\n\nCompletion. Complete Items 1-19. Do not complete shaded areas which are reserved for the court\u2019s use.\n\nOrder Copy. Keep a copy for your records.\n\nSubmitting to the Court. Submit the form in the format required by the court.\n\nDeposit Fee. The court will notify you of the amount of the required deposit fee which may be mailed or delivered to the court.\nUpon receipt of the deposit, the court will process the order.\n\nDelivery Time. Delivery time is computed from the date of receipt of the deposit fee or for transcripts ordered by the federal\ngovernment from the date of receipt of the signed order form.\n\nCompletion of Order. The court will notify you when the transcript is completed.\n\nBalance Due. If the deposit fee was insufficient to cover all charges, the court will notify you of the balance due which must be\npaid prior to receiving the completed order.\n\n SPECIFIC\n\nItems 1-19. These items should always be completed.\nItem 8. Only one case number may be listed per order.\nItem 15. Place an \u201cX\u201d in each box that applies.\nItem 16. Place an \u201cX\u201d in the box for each portion requested. List specific date(s) of the proceedings for which transcript is\n requested. Be sure that the description is clearly written to facilitate processing. Orders may be placed for as few\n pages of transcript as are needed.\nItem 17. Categories. There are six (6) categories of transcripts which may be ordered. These are:\n Ordinary. A transcript to be delivered within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of an order. (Order\n is considered received upon receipt of the deposit.)\n 14-Day. A transcript to be delivered within fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n Expedited. A transcript to be delivered within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n 3-Day. A transcript to be delivered within three (3) calendar days after receipt of an order.\n Daily. A transcript to be delivered following adjournment and prior to the normal opening hour of the\n court on the following morning whether or not it actually is a court day.\n Hourly. A transcript of proceedings ordered under unusual circumstances to be delivered within two (2)\n hours.\n Realtime. A draft unedited transcript produced by a certified realtime reporter as a byproduct of realtime\n to be delivered electronically during proceedings or immediately following adjournment.\n\nNOTE: Full price may be charged only if the transcript is delivered within the required time frame. For example, if an order for\nexpedited transcript is not completed and delivered within seven (7) calendar days, payment would be at the 14-day delivery rate,\nand if not completed and delivered within 14 calendar days, payment would be at the ordinary delivery rate.\n\n Ordering. Place an \u201cX\u201d in each box that applies. Indicate the number of additional copies ordered.\n Original. Original typing of the transcript. An original must be ordered and prepared prior to the\n availability of copies. The original fee is charged only once. The fee for the original includes the copy\n for the records of the court.\n First Copy. First copy of the transcript after the original has been prepared. All parties ordering copies\n must pay this rate for the first copy ordered.\n Additional Copies. All other copies of the transcript ordered by the same party.\nItem 18. Sign in this space to certify that you will pay all charges. (This includes the deposit plus any additional\n charges.)\nItem 19. Enter the date of signing.\n\nShaded Area. Reserved for the court\u2019s use.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-01-13T12:31:03.209604-08:00","document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035679182","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Request (Miscellaneous)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-01-13T12:31:02.909711-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-13T13:07:18.441945-08:00","date_filed":"2026-01-13","time_filed":"14:30:03","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-01-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":194,"description":"TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Redstone Logics LLC for proceedings held on 11/6/2025. Proceedings Transcribed: Motions Hearing. Court Reporter: Kristie Davis. (Mirzaie, Reza)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/448189601/","id":448189601,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462958344/","id":462958344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/57/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-23T11:38:30.614126-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-24T10:57:50.384988-08:00","sha1":"98c666d38a33b47f15783222cbd57169eb4ad9a8","page_count":4,"file_size":198790,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.57.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.57.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 57 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Amended Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request\n\nto Change Deadlines, Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC and Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and\n\nQualcomm Technologies, Inc. hereby stipulate that the below deadlines for fact discovery and\n\nexpert discovery are extended as provided below and in the attached amended scheduling order.\n\n This extension meets the requirements of the Amended Standing Order Regarding Joint or\n\nUnopposed Request to Change Deadline because (1) it is joint, (2) does not change the date of any\n\nhearing, trial, or other Court date, and (3) does not affect the Court\u2019s ability to hold a scheduled\n\nhearing, trial, or Court event.\n\n Current Amended Item\n Deadline Deadline\n 12/18/25 No further written discovery may be served after this date\n\n 1/12/26 2/12/26 Close of Fact Discovery\n\n\n 1/26/26 2/13/26 Opening Expert Reports.\n Parties with burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses and\n provide their expert witness reports, to include all information\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 57 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nCurrent Amended Item\nDeadline Deadline\n required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B).\n\n\n2/23/26 3/13/26 Rebuttal Expert Reports.\n Parties shall designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses on issues for which\n the parties do not bear the burden of proof, and provide their expert\n witness reports, to include all information required by Rule\n 26(a)(2)(B).\n3/16/26 3/27/26 Close of Expert Discovery.\n Expert Discovery Deadline. Expert discovery must be completed by\n this date.\n\n3/23/26 4/3/26 Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss\n narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at\n issue to triable limits. To the extent it helps the parties determine\n these limits, the parties are encouraged to contact the Court for an\n estimate of the amount of trial time anticipated per side. The parties\n shall file a Joint Report within 5 business days regarding the\n results of the meet and confer.\n3/30/26 4/10/26 Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.\n\n Deadline to file the joint report regarding results of meet and confer.\n\n Deadline for parties desiring to consent to trial before the\n magistrate judge to submit Form AO 85, \u201cNotice, Consent, And\n Reference Of A Civil Action To A Magistrate Judge,\u201d available at\n https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/civil-forms/notice-consent-and-\n reference-civil-action-magistrate-judge.\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 57 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nDated: December 23, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Reza Mirzaie /s/ Richard S. Zembek\nReza Mirzaie Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)\nCA State Bar No. 246953 richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\nMarc A. Fenster Daniel S. Leventhal (SBN 24050923)\nCA State Bar No. 181067 daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\nNeil A. Rubin NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\nCA State Bar No. 250761 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\nChristian W. Conkle Houston, TX 77010\nCA State Bar No. 306374 Telephone: (713) 651-5151\nJonathan Ma Fax: (713) 651-5246\nCA State Bar No. 312773\n Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)\nJoshua Scheufler\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\nTX State Bar No. 24123406\n Brett A. McKean (SBN 24057994)\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\nLos Angeles, CA 90025 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\nTelephone: 310-826-7474 Austin, Texas 78701\nEmail: rmirzaie@raklaw.com Telephone: (512) 474-5201\nEmail: mfenster@raklaw.com Fax: (512) 536-4598\nEmail: nrubin@raklaw.com\nEmail: cconkle@raklaw.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS\nEmail: jma@raklaw.com QUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND\nEmail : jscheufler@raklaw.com QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .\n\nQi (Peter) Tong\nTX Bar No. 24119042\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n8080 N. Central Expy., Suite 1503\nDallas, TX 75206\nTelephone: 310-826-7474\nEmail: ptong@raklaw.com\n\nATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 57 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on December 23, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the\n\nClerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing via electronic\n\nmail to all counsel of record.\n\n\n\n /s/ Reza Mirzaie\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-23T11:38:30.875330-08:00","document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035591171","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-23T11:38:30.583893-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-23T12:03:30.839832-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-23","time_filed":"13:37:23","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":192,"description":"STIPULATION Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadlines by Redstone Logics LLC. (Mirzaie, Reza)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447783266/","id":447783266,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462543835/","id":462543835,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-12-19T09:17:45.808079-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-19T10:04:57.947814-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Discovery","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-19T09:17:45.796930-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-19T10:04:57.916546-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-19","time_filed":"11:16:11","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Text Order GRANTING 56 Motion for Discovery entered by Judge Alan D Albright. Before this Court is Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC's and Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated's and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.'s Joint Motion for Entry Of Order Adopting Stipulation Governing Electronic and Hard Copy Discovery, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit 1 to the parties' joint filing. After considering the motion, the motion is GRANTED. Electronic and hard copy discovery in this case will be governed by the terms of the Stipulation Governing Electronic and Hard Copy Discovery attached to the parties' motion as Exhibit 1. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (BBlc)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/447612383/","id":447612383,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462369589/","id":462369589,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/56/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-18T06:57:36.698289-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-20T07:01:04.182569-08:00","sha1":"6bc3fa340718dfa859451075bc39c6f8ee8d4d40","page_count":3,"file_size":154215,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER ADOPTING\n STIPULATION GOVERNING ELECTRONIC AND HARD COPY DISCOVERY\n\n Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC and Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm\n\nTechnologies, Inc. jointly file this motion seeking the entry of the proposed Stipulation Governing\n\nElectronic and Hard Copy Discovery that is attached to this motion as Exhibit 1. As described in\n\nthe parties\u2019 stipulation, the requested \u201cOrder shall apply to all discovery of electronically stored\n\ninformation (\u2018ESI\u2019) and hard copy documents in this action.\u201d Ex. 1 at 1. \u201cThe procedures and\n\nprotocols set forth in this Order are intended to streamline the exchange of ESI and hard copy\n\ndocuments to promote a \u2018just, speedy, and inexpensive determination\u2019 of this action as required by\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.\u201d Id.\n\n A proposed order is attached.\n\n\n\n\n -1-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDecember 18, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n\nBy: /s/ Joshua Scheufler By: /s/ Richard S. Zembek\n\nReza Mirzaie Richard S. Zembek\nCA State Bar No. 246953 Texas State Bar No. 00797726\nMarc A. Fenster richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\nCA State Bar No. 181067 Daniel S. Leventhal\nNeil A. Rubin Texas State Bar No. 24050923\nCA State Bar No. 250761 Daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\nChristian W. Conkle 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\nCA State Bar No. 306374 Houston, Texas 77010-4106\nJonathan Ma Tel: (713) 651-5151\nCA State Bar No. 312773 Fax: (713) 651-5246\nJoshua Scheufler\nTX State Bar No. 24123406 Eric C. Green\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT Texas State Bar No. 24069824\n12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\nLos Angeles, CA 90025 Brett A. McKean\nTelephone: 310-826-7474 Texas State Bar No. 24057994\nEmail: rmirzaie@raklaw.com Brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\nEmail: mfenster@raklaw.com 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\nEmail: nrubin@raklaw.com Austin, Texas 78701-4255\nEmail: cconkle@raklaw.com Tel: (512) 536-3094\nEmail: jma@raklaw.com Fax: (512) 536-4598\nEmail : jscheufler@raklaw.com\n Attorneys for Defendants Qualcomm\nQi (Peter) Tong Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies,\nTX Bar No. 24119042 Inc.\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n8080 N. Central Expy., Suite 1503\nDallas, TX 75206\nTelephone: 310-826-7474\nEmail: ptong@raklaw.com\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I certify that counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and counsel for\n\nPlaintiff agreed to the content of this filing.\n\n /s/ Eric C. Green\n Eric C. Green\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has\n\nbeen served on December 18, 2025 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to\n\nelectronic service via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n /s/ Eric C. Green\n Eric C. Green\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-18T06:57:36.981333-08:00","document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035553240","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462369590/","id":462369590,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/56/1/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-18T06:57:37.774852-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-20T07:00:59.391630-08:00","sha1":"4b28cc7247b7495795c0a99ea508f0e373460674","page_count":17,"file_size":351024,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n STIPULATION GOVERNING ELECTRONIC AND HARD COPY DISCOVERY\n\nThe Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC and Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm\nTechnologies, Inc., subject to the Court\u2019s approval, hereby agree as follows:\n\nI. PURPOSE\n\n 1. Purpose and Scope. This Order shall apply to all discovery of electronically stored\n information (\u201cESI\u201d) and hard copy documents in this action. Nothing in this protocol shall\n limit a Party\u2019s right to seek or object to discovery as set out in applicable rules, to rely on\n any protective order entered in this action concerning the protection of confidential or\n otherwise sensitive information, or to object to the authenticity or admissibility of any ESI\n or hard copy document produced in accordance with this protocol. The procedures and\n protocols set forth in this Order are intended to streamline the exchange of ESI and hard\n copy documents to promote a \u201cjust, speedy, and inexpensive determination\u201d of this action\n as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.\n\nII. COOPERATION\n\n 2. Disputes. The Parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and\n they commit to cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with any court\n guidelines for the discovery of ESI and hard copy documents. The Parties shall meet and\n confer in good faith on any issue regarding the production of ESI or hard copy documents,\n as necessary, that arise under this Order or otherwise. In the event the Parties cannot reach\n an agreement on a disputed matter, the Parties shall submit the matter to the Court.\n\nIII. PROPORTIONALITY AND COST CONTAINMENT\n\n 3. Reasonable Discovery Limits. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1),\n the Parties shall cooperate to achieve proportionality in discovery and are expected to use\n reasonable, good faith and proportional efforts to preserve, identify, and produce relevant\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n\n information (both electronic and hard copy). This includes identifying appropriate limits\n to discovery, including phased discovery, limits on the number of custodians, on\n discoverable data sources, on time periods for discovery, and other parameters to limit and\n guide preservation and discovery. Requests for production and corresponding responses\n shall be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as practicable in compliance with\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(1)(A).\n\n 4. Types of ESI That Need Not Be Preserved or Searched. The Parties have discussed\n their preservation obligations and needs and agree that preservation of potentially relevant\n ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. To reduce the costs and burdens of preservation\n and to ensure proper ESI is preserved, the Parties agree that:\n\n (a) Except on a showing of good cause, there is no need to preserve, collect, or\n produce ESI from the sources listed in Attachment A, which are hereby deemed\n to not likely contain relevant information and to be not reasonably accessible.\n\n 5. No Designation of Discovery Requests. Productions of ESI and hardcopy documents\n in the reasonably usable form set out in this protocol need not be organized and labeled to\n correspond to the categories in document requests.\n\nIV. PRODUCTION\n\n 6. De-Duplication of Production\n\n (a) General. The Parties shall use reasonable, good faith efforts to avoid the\n production of \u201cDuplicate ESI.\u201d \u201cDuplicate ESI\u201d means files that are exact\n duplicates based on the files\u2019 MD5 or SHA-1 hash values.\n\n (b) Global Deduplication. The Producing Party shall take reasonable steps to\n de-duplicate ESI on a family level globally (i.e., both within a particular custodian\u2019s\n files and across all custodians, to the extent a Party seeks and obtains leave of Court\n to propound custodial production requests). 1\n\n (c) Identical MD5Hash. To permit deduplication, hash values (MD5Hash)\n must be identical. Deduplication shall not break apart families and shall be\n performed at a family level.\n\n (d) Email Threading. To the extent a Party seeks and obtains leave of Court to\n propound custodial production requests, the Producing Party may use email\n threading tools to identify and exclude lesser-included components of longer e-mail\n threads. This stipulation does not alter the Court\u2019s restrictions on email discovery\n as provided in the Court\u2019s OGP 4.4 \u00a7III.\n\n (e) Single Production Copy. When exact duplicate standalone documents or\n families exist, the Producing Party need only produce a single copy of a responsive\n\n1\n There may be non-custodial data sources that cannot be globally deduped or for which global\ndeduplication is not appropriate.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\n document or family (\u201cSingle Production Copy\u201d). The Single Production Copy shall\n be produced with the metadata set forth in Attachment B.\n\n (f) No Manual Review. No Party shall be required to identify and/or eliminate\n electronic duplicates by manual review or some method other than by use of the\n technical comparison using MD5 or SHA-1 hash values outlined above.\n\n 7. Production Format for Hard Copy Documents\n\n (a) Production. Hard Copy Documents shall be produced as static images in\n the following format: black-and-white, single page, 300 DPI, Group IV* .TIFF\n images. The production should include standard load files, which can be used with\n commercially available litigation software packages, and which contain the Default\n Production Fields described in Attachment B. Hard copy color paper documents\n will be produced in grayscale in TIFF format. The Parties will accommodate\n reasonable requests for production of specific images in color to the extent\n available. Producing Paper Documents in such form does not change their\n character from Paper Documents into ESI.\n\n (b) OCR. For scanned images of hard copy documents, OCR should be\n performed on a document level and provided in document-level *.txt files named\n to match the production number of the first page of the document to which the OCR\n text corresponds. OCR text should not be delivered in the data load file or any other\n delimited text file.\n\n (c) Unitization. In scanning hard copy documents, multiple distinct documents\n should not be merged into a single record, and single documents should not be split\n into multiple records. If a document is more than one page, to the extent possible,\n the unitization of the document and any attachments or affixed notes should be\n maintained as it existed when collected by the Producing Party and should be\n reflected in proper coding of the family fields set out in Attachment B. Parties may\n unitize their documents using either physical unitization (i.e., based on physical\n binding or organizational elements present with the original paper documents like\n staples, clips and binder inserts) or logical unitization (i.e., a manual review of the\n paper to determine what logically constitutes a document like page numbers or\n headers). If unitization cannot be reasonably maintained, the original unitization\n should be documented in the data load file or otherwise electronically tracked if\n reasonably possible. The Producing Party should scan and produce folders,\n redwelds, binder-covers and other organizational structure. Such materials should\n be produced as independent documents and be produced before the documents that\n were contained in these elements to the extent reasonably accomplishable by the\n above-addressed unitization, (e.g., the file folder should have a Production number\n immediately before the documents contained in the file folder). The Producing\n Party will provide the name of the custodian who had possession of the document\n when it was collected. A custodian can consist of the name of an employee or other\n person, a department, or an archive storage location.\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\n\n 8. ESI Production Format\n\n (a) General. The Parties shall produce ESI in reasonably usable form as set\n forth herein. The following provisions shall generally govern the production format\n and procedure for ESI and are subject to the other provisions contained herein.\n\n (b) Production of ESI. All responsive ESI except that which is produced in\n Native Format pursuant to Paragraph 18 should be produced as black-and-white,\n single page, 300 DPI, Group IV* .TIFF images with corresponding extracted full\n text or OCR and affiliated metadata as identified in Attachment B. All productions\n will include these additional specifications:\n\n (1) a load file for images and delimited load files (.dat, .dii, .lfp and .opt)\n containing a field with the full path and filename to native files produced\n and the metadata fields identified in Attachment B;\n\n (2) document-level .txt files. The .txt file shall contain the extracted full\n text of the original document if available. OCR text shall be provided\n instead if extracted text is not available or if the document has been\n redacted;\n\n (3) production number branding and Confidentiality designation (if\n any) on the face of the image;\n\n (4) all hidden text (e.g., track changes, hidden columns, comments,\n notes, markups, etc.) will be expanded, extracted, and rendered in the TIFF\n file; this specifically includes, but is not limited to, the inclusion of: any\n notes or comments contained within any PowerPoint slides/presentations;\n any tracked changes, comments, and hidden text contained within Word\n Processing files; and hidden rows, columns, and worksheets contained\n within Spreadsheet or Worksheet Files; and\n\n (5) each of the Metadata and coding fields set forth in Attachment B\n that are contained in or associated with a Document shall be produced.\n\n (6) the Parties are not obligated to populate manually any of the fields\n in Attachment B if such fields cannot be reasonably extracted from a\n Document, with the exception of Default Production Fields that are\n generated in the course of collection, review, and production.\n\n 9. Production of Native Format ESI.\n\n (a) Responsive spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, Lotus, Google Sheets, etc.) and any\n responsive audio/video multimedia files shall be produced in Native Format. A\n TIFF placeholder endorsed with the corresponding confidentiality designation and\n Production number shall be produced for all ESI produced in Native Format. To\n the extent feasible, spreadsheets that require redaction shall be redacted natively\n and produced in Native Format along with the original file metadata as set forth in\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Paragraph 17 and text re-extracted after redaction. Native files requiring redaction\n may also be produced as TIFF images with OCR Text Files in lieu of a native file.\n Nothing in this protocol shall limit a Party\u2019s ability to elect to produce other forms\n of responsive ESI in Native Format.\n\n (b) Extracted Text taken from native files will be provided at a document level.\n There will be one text file per document, using the same name as the beginning\n Production number (Document ID) of the document. The extracted text file for a\n document will reside in a separate folder from the images for that document. The\n text file associated with any redacted document will exclude redacted text (i.e., the\n Producing Party can OCR the redacted image of the unstructured ESI and replace\n the original extracted text).\n\n (c) A Party seeking to use a document produced in Native Format in this\n proceeding (e.g. as an attachment to a pleading, deposition exhibit, etc.) shall:\n\n (1) image the native file to TIFF image or PDF file in accordance with\n the specifications in Paragraph 17;\n\n (2) include in the margin or footer of each page of the TIFF image or\n PDF file (a) the original production number of the native file, (b) the full\n confidentiality designation required by the Protective Order, and (c) the\n text, \u201cfile produced natively;\u201d\n\n (3) prepend to the TIFF image or PDF file the associated slipsheet\n included with the initial production of the native file; and\n\n (4) print the required hardcopy from the resulting TIFF image or PDF\n file.\n\n 10. Request for Documents in Native Format. If a Party reasonably concludes that\n production in Native Format of any document(s) initially produced in TIFF format is\n necessary (e.g., to decipher the complete meaning, context, or content, to determine if there\n is any relevant \u201chidden text\u201d in the document, to determine if there is any important use of\n color in the document, etc.), such Party may request production of the original document\n in Native Format. The Parties will accommodate reasonable and proportional requests\n made in good faith with respect to any such request.\n\n 11. Embedded Objects. The Parties will not review or produce embedded documents\n outside the document in which the file is embedded (e.g., .vcf files embedded in emails,\n .xlsx files embedded in PowerPoint presentations). The Parties will accommodate\n reasonable and proportional requests made in good faith for the production of embedded\n objects on a case by case basis.\n\n 12. Corrupt or Inaccessible Files. Certain files may be inaccessible due to password\n protection, corruption, or unreadable document formats. If reasonable efforts to obtain\n useful TIFF images or accessible native versions of these files are unsuccessful, such\n documents may be withheld.\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\n 13. Appearance and Content. Each Document\u2019s TIFF image file shall contain the same\n information and the same physical representation as the original, except as necessary to\n redact privileged or otherwise protected information or otherwise comply with this Order\n (e.g., necessary to expand and render hidden text as provided in Paragraph 17). If a\n produced document presents imaging or formatting problems that the Producing Party was\n not able to resolve at the time of production, the Receiving Party, upon discovery, may\n request a replacement copy from the Producing Party of the problematic document. The\n Parties will accommodate reasonable and proportional requests made in good faith with\n respect to any such request.\n\n 14. Color. The Parties will accommodate reasonable and proportional requests made in\n good faith for the production of specific color images originally produced in greyscale\n TIFF format to the extent available and where reasonably necessary to decipher the\n complete meaning, context, or content of the documents on a case by case basis.\n\n 15. Load File. Unless otherwise agreed, each production shall include a data load file in\n Concordance (*.dat) format and an image load file in Opticon (*.opt) format.\n\n 16. Document Numbering for TIFF Images. Each page of a document produced as a TIFF\n image shall have a legible, unique Document Production Number (sometimes referred to\n as a Bates Number) electronically \u201cburned\u201d onto the image on the lower right corner in a\n manner that does not obliterate, conceal or interfere with any information from the source\n document.\n\n (a) The Production number shall be a unique, consistently formatted identifier\n and:\n\n (1) be consistent across the production;\n\n (2) contain no special characters;\n\n (3) be numerically sequential within a given file;\n\n (4) be a combination of an alpha prefix that identities the Producing\n Party along with an 8 digit number (e.g. ABC00000001);\n\n (5) the unused digits of the unique number shall be filled with\n placeholder zeros (0);\n\n (6) the number of digits in the numeric portion of the Production\n number format should not change in subsequent productions; and\n\n (7) if a production number or set of Production numbers is skipped, the\n skipped number or set of numbers will be noted.\n\n (b) Each file produced in Native Format shall be associated with a unique\n Document Number included on the TIFF placeholder provided with the native file.\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\n 17. Organization of Production. Production of custodian and original file path information,\n where available, constitutes production in the usual course of business for electronic files.\n\n 18. Family Relationships of Electronic Files. All document family relationships shall be\n produced together and children files should follow parent files in sequential Bates number\n order. This does not impose any requirement on parties to associate and produce together\n hyperlinked documents.\n\n 19. Dynamic Fields. Files containing dynamic fields such as file names, dates, and times\n will be produced showing the field type (e.g., \u201c[FILENAME]\u201d or \u201c[AUTODATE]\u201d), rather\n than the values for such fields existing at the time the file is processed.\n\n 20. Compressed Files. Compressed file types (i.e., .CAB, .GZ, .TAR. .Z, .ZIP) shall be\n decompressed in a reiterative manner to ensure that a zip within a zip is decompressed into\n the lowest possible compression resulting in individual files.\n\n 21. Production Media. Documents shall be produced on CD-ROM, DVD, external hard\n drive (with standard PC compatible interface), via secure FTP site, or such other readily\n accessible computer or electronic media as the Parties may hereafter agree upon (the\n \u201cProduction Media\u201d). Productions are understood to be delivered when made available for\n download or when physically delivered on physical media. Each production will be labeled\n with the Production number range contained therein and a volume number, if appropriate.\n Each piece of Production Media shall include a unique identifying label and cover letter\n including the following information:\n\n (a) name of the Litigation and its case number;\n\n (b) name of the Producing Party;\n\n (c) date of the production (mm/dd/yyyy);\n\n (d) volume number (in alphanumeric format \u2013 i.e. ABC001);\n\n (e) Production number range;\n\n (f) confidentiality designation; and\n\n (g) notes regarding any irregularities in the production (e.g., whether it is\n replacement Production Media).\n\n (h) If a hard drive contains multiple volumes, each volume should be contained\n in an appropriately named folder at the root of the drive. Volumes should be\n numbered consecutively (ABC001, ABC002, etc.).\n\n 22. Replacement Production Media. Any replacement Production Media shall cross-\n reference the original Production Media, clearly identify that it is a replacement, and cross-\n reference the Production number range(s) being replaced.\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\n 23. Production via FTP Sites. Producing Parties may elect to produce initially via an FTP\n site for production volumes equal to or less than 20 GB on the due date of the production.\n Production volumes of a larger size than 20 GB may be produced by FTP in the process\n described above only upon prior agreement of the Requesting Parties.\n\n 24. Encryption of Production Media. To maximize the security of information in transit,\n any media on which documents or electronic files are produced shall be encrypted by the\n Producing Party. In such cases, the Producing Party shall transmit the encryption key or\n password to the Requesting Party, under separate cover, contemporaneously with sending\n the encrypted media.\n\n 25. Time. When processing ESI, GMT should be selected as the time zone unless another\n time zone is agreed by the Parties. When a metadata field includes a date and/or time, it\n shall be provided in the following format: mm/dd/yyyy HH:mm AM/PM.\n\n 26. Redactions. The Producing Party may redact, from any TIFF image, metadata field,\n and/or native file, information that is protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege\n or immunity law or regulation, including but not limited to information protected by\n attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense work product doctrine,\n individually identifiable health information, personal identifying information, or\n confidential information (as defined in the Protective Order) that is otherwise non-\n responsive to a discovery request. Each redaction shall be clearly labeled and include the\n reason for the redaction, such as \u201cRedacted-Privileged,\u201d \u201cRedacted-Private,\u201d or \u201cRedacted-\n Non-Responsive\u201d as appropriate. The Producing Party shall preserve an unredacted\n version of the document. Where a document contains both protected and non-protected\n responsive content, the Producing Party shall redact the protected material and produce the\n remainder of the document as redacted. Confidential information, as defined in the\n Protective Order, may be redacted from a document only if the document can be redacted\n without obscuring otherwise responsive information. The Parties agree to meet and confer\n in good faith to attempt to resolve any dispute arising under this paragraph. No Party shall\n be required to produce a redaction log provided that the reason for the redaction appears\n on the redaction label (e.g. \u201cPrivilege,\u201d \u201cPrivate\u201d).\n\n 27. Non-Responsive Attachments. The Parties agree that fully non-responsive attachments\n to responsive parent documents need not be produced. For such fully non-responsive\n attachments, a placeholder slip-sheet endorsed \u201cWithheld Non-Responsive\u201d will be\n produced to capture the family relationship. If any document in a document family is\n responsive, the parent document in the family shall be produced without regard to whether\n it is independently responsive. The Parties will make relevancy and production\n determinations for hard copy documents at the document level.\n\n 28. Structured Data Format. To the extent a response to discovery requires production of\n discoverable ESI contained in a database, the Producing Party may elect to produce the\n data in a report format if that format is reasonably usable or in a native format compatible\n with Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Access.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\n 29. Source Code. Source code discovery shall be governed by the Protective Order\n submitted concurrently herewith.\n\n 30. Confidentiality of Produced ESI. Responsive ESI, whether produced as TIFF images\n or in Native Format, shall be produced pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. Any\n objections to production shall otherwise be made pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil\n Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence.\n\n 31. TIFF Format Subject to a Claim of Protection. If the Producing Party is producing ESI\n in TIFF Format and seeks to designate such ESI as confidential under the Protective Order,\n or any agreement entered into or Order issued in this matter, corresponding designations\n such as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n ONLY\u201d shall be burned electronically on the lower left corner of each page of such\n document. The confidentiality designation shall not obscure, conceal or interfere with any\n information originally appearing on the document. The Producing Party should also\n include in the DAT file a designation that the document is protected and the level of\n protection, as required by the Protective Order or any agreement.\n\n 32. Native Format Subject to a Claim of Protection. If the Producing Party is producing\n ESI in Native Format and seeks to designate such ESI as confidential under the Protective\n Order, or any agreement entered into or Order issued in this matter, then the designation\n shall be included in the filename as well as the TIFF placeholder or where not produced\n with a TIFF placeholder, the storage device (e.g., CD, USB, or hard drive) containing such\n native ESI data shall be labeled with the corresponding designations such as\n \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - AEO\u201d. The Producing Party\n should also include in the flat file (.txt or .dat) a designation that the document is protected\n and the level of protection, as required by the Protective Order.\n\nV. PRIVILEGE\n\n 33. Protective Order. The terms of the Protective Order governing the production of\n privileged information govern this Order as well. Nothing in this Order, including any\n production of documents under the ESI protocol set forth herein, shall constitute a waiver\n by any Party for any purpose.\n\n 34. Waiver of Privilege Log Requirements. The parties agree to waive the requirements of\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) regarding the provision of a privilege log (or\n other information) regarding discoverable information withheld by the Producing Party\n based on a claim of privilege or protection as trial-preparation material except as ordered\n during the Court\u2019s October 21, 2025 discovery hearing.\n\n 35. Preservation of Privileged Materials. All privileged material should be preserved in\n the event of a later dispute with respect to the propriety of any privilege claim.\n\nVI. OBJECTIONS\n\n 36. Objections, Generally. The Parties do not waive any objections including but not\n limited to the relevance, responsiveness, production, discoverability, possession, custody,\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\n control, or confidentiality of ESI and hard copy documents, including (without limitation)\n objections regarding the burden, over-breadth, or relevance of document requests. Nothing\n in this Stipulated Order shall be interpreted to require the disclosure of irrelevant\n information, relevant information that is overly burdensome, or relevant information\n protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other applicable\n privilege or immunity or is otherwise not discoverable.\n\n 37. Variance. Any practice or procedure set forth herein may be varied by agreement of\n the Parties without order of the Court. Failure of the Parties to agree on any modifications\n may be raised with the Court as necessary and in accordance with the Federal Rules of\n Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules.\n\n 38. No Waiver of Rights Regarding Review. By entering this Order, a Party is not giving\n up its right to review its documents for privilege or any other reason (including to identify\n non-responsive documents) and the existence of this Order cannot be used to compel a\n Party to produce documents without review. Moreover, this Order does not mean that the\n cost of review should not be considered in whether any particular discovery is\n disproportionate (i.e., that the marginal benefit of the discovery does not warrant the cost\n of said discovery, including review).\n\n 39. Disputes. The Parties will meet and confer in an attempt to resolve any objections if\n necessary.\n\n\n\nDecember 18, 2025\n\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n\nBy: /s/ Joshua Scheufler By: /s/ Richard S. Zembek\n\n Richard S. Zembek\nReza Mirzaie Texas State Bar No. 00797726\nCA State Bar No. 246953 richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\nMarc A. Fenster Daniel S. Leventhal\nCA State Bar No. 181067 Texas State Bar No. 24050923\nNeil A. Rubin Daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\nCA State Bar No. 250761 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\nChristian W. Conkle Houston, Texas 77010-4106\nCA State Bar No. 306374 Tel: (713) 651-5151\nJonathan Ma Fax: (713) 651-5246\nCA State Bar No. 312773\nJoshua Scheufler Eric C. Green\nTX State Bar No. 24123406 Texas State Bar No. 24069824\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Brett A. McKean\nLos Angeles, CA 90025 Texas State Bar No. 24057994\nTelephone: 310-826-7474\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\nEmail: rmirzaie@raklaw.com Brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\nEmail: mfenster@raklaw.com 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\nEmail: nrubin@raklaw.com Austin, Texas 78701-4255\nEmail: cconkle@raklaw.com Tel: (512) 536-3094\nEmail: jma@raklaw.com Fax: (512) 536-4598\nEmail : jscheufler@raklaw.com\nQi (Peter) Tong Attorneys for Defendants Qualcomm\nTX Bar No. 24119042 Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies,\nRUSS AUGUST & KABAT Inc.\n8080 N. Central Expy., Suite 1503\nDallas, TX 75206\nTelephone: 310-826-7474\nEmail: ptong@raklaw.com\nAttorneys for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\n\nAttorneys for Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\n ATTACHMENT A\n\n\n\nI. NON-DISCOVERABLE ESI\n\n 1) deleted, slack, fragmented, unallocated, or other data accessible only by forensics;\n\n 2) random access memory (RAM), temporary files, or other ephemeral data;\n\n 3) on-line access data such as temporary internet files, histories, caches, cookies, etc.;\n\n 4) data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as last-opened\n dates, except as specified in this Order (the metadata fields identified in Attachment\n B);\n\n 5) dynamic fields of databases or log files that are not retained in the usual course of\n business;\n\n 6) server, system, network, or software application logs;\n\n 7) electronic data temporarily stored by laboratory equipment or attached electronic\n equipment, provided that such data is not ordinarily preserved as part of a laboratory\n report;\n\n 8) text messages, instant messages, and chat application data stored in company\n systems;\n\n 9) text messages, instant messages, chat application data, and other data stored on\n mobile devices;\n\n 10) voice mails, including telephone or VOIP voice messages;\n\n 11) automatically saved versions of documents and emails as temporary files;\n\n 12) data stored on photocopiers, scanners and fax machines;\n\n 13) logs of calls made from mobile devices;\n\n 14) personal computers and personal e-mail not regularly used for business activities;\n\n 15) social media sites;\n\n 16) data that is substantially duplicative of data that is more accessible elsewhere, such as\n backup data.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\n ATTACHMENT B\n\n\n\nI. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION FORMAT SPECIFICATIONS\n\n1) Format. Produced documents will be provided as black and white, Group IV single page\nTIFF images, 300 DPI, named the same as the Production number (without an embedded spaces\nor special characters). Where produced pursuant to Paragraph \u201cColor,\u201d color images will be\nprovided in jpg/jpeg format.\n\n2) Load File Specifications. In order to facilitate loading the images into document review\nsoftware, a standard image load file indicating document boundaries and location of images will\naccompany the images. The load file will be in a format that can be used as is or that can easily\nbe modified to accommodate loading into any industry standard litigation support software system.\n\na) The Opticon file format is recommended. See example below:\n\n Document ID 2 CD Name 3 Path\\Tiff Name 4 DocBreak 5 Document\n ZTL00000001,ZTLCD001,D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000001\\ZTL00000001.TIF,Y pg 1 of 1 pg\n ZTL00000002,ZTLCD001,D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000002\\ZTL00000002.TIF,Y pg 1 of 4 pg\n ZTL00000003,ZTLCD001,D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000002\\ZTL00000003.TIF, pg 2 of 4 pg\n ZTL00000004,ZTLCD001,D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000002\\ZTL00000004.TIF, pg 3 of 4 pg\n ZTL00000005,ZTLCD001,D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000002\\ZTL00000005.TIF, pg 4 of 4 pg\n ZTL00000006,ZTLCD001.D:\\ZTLCD001\\ZTL00000003\\ZTL00000006.TIF,Y pg 1 of 1 pg\n\n\n\n\n3) OCR. Machine generated OCR created from scanned images or redacted documents will\nbe provided at a document level. There will be one OCR text (.txt) file per document, named the\nsame as the beginning Production number (Document ID) of the document. The OCR text file for\na document will reside in a separate folder from the images for that document. The OCR text file\nassociated with any redacted document will exclude redacted text.\n\n4) Extracted Text. The extracted text taken from the native file will be provided at a\ndocument level. There will be one extracted text file per document, named the same as the\nbeginning Production number (Document ID) of the document. The text file for a document will\nreside in a separate folder. The extracted text file associated with any redacted document will be\nreplaced with an OCR text file that excludes redacted text.\n\n\n\n2\n Production number\n3\n CD name\n4\n Path and file name\n5\n \u201cY\u201d indicates first page\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\n5) Default Production Fields. The following default fields will be provided for all\ndocuments in the production. In multi-value fields, multiple values in a single field should be\nseparated by semi-colons (;).\n\n FIELD NAME DESCRIPTION\n BegProd Beginning Production number of the file\n EndProd Ending Production number of the file\n BegAttach Beginning of the family group (i.e. the first page of the parent\n document.\n EndAttach End of the documents included in a family (i.e. the last page of the last\n attachment in the family)\n Pages Number of Tiff pages In a file\n ProdVol Name of the production volume\n All Custodian(s) Multi-value field for all custodians of a document. This includes both\n employee custodians and non-custodial data sources. All documents\n should have a custodian value present. If multiple documents dedupe\n during processing, this field should be populated with all custodian\n values available.\n\n6) Metadata Fields. The following metadata fields will be exchanged to the extent such\nmetadata is readily available. Specific metadata associated with redacted documents may be\nwithheld from the production if the metadata field is likely to contain privileged or protected\ninformation, subject to the Requesting Party\u2019s right to seek production.\n\n FIELD NAME EMAIL OR DESCRIPTION\n NON-EMAIL\n\n Subject Email Subject Line of the Email\n File Name Non-Email Name of the Application File\n File Extension Non-Email File extension\n Sent Date Email Email sent date. (MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss\n format).\n Sent Time Email Email sent time\n Received Date Email Email received date (MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss\n format).\n Received Time Email Email received time\n Created Date Non-Email Date Application File was created. Note that Date\n Created may be subject to change during collection\n or processing as a result of auto date function or\n other processes. (MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss\n format).\n Created Time Non-Email Time Application File was created\n Modified Date Non-Email Date Application File was last modified\n (MM/DD/YYYY hh:mm:ss format).\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\n FIELD NAME EMAIL OR DESCRIPTION\n NON-EMAIL\n\n Modified Time Non-Email Time Application File was last modified\n Author Both Author of the Application File or Sender of the Email\n To Email Recipients of the Email in the TO field\n CC Email Recipients of the Email in the CC field\n BCC Email Recipients of the Email in the BCC field\n File Type Both Email, Spreadsheet, Word Processing Document, etc.\n File Path Both Location of the file within the system\n Document Type Both Type of file \u2013 Email, attachment, stand-alone\n Confidentiality Both Text of confidentiality designation, if any\n Email Message ID Email Unique identifier for email\n Redacted Both Identified whether a document or email is redacted\n (Yes/No)\n Redaction Reason Both Identifies the reason for a redaction\n Native Link Both Native Link for File\n Native File Name Non-Email Native files named after the Production number, e.g.,\n E00001.xls (in contrast to File Name which is the\n original name of the file)\n MD5 Hash Non-Email Value commonly used to de-duplicate files or\n identify duplicates\n\na) Metadata will be provided in a flat file (.txt or .dat). Each line will begin with the fields\nBeg Bates and End Bates. Default Concordance delimiters should be used, as follows:\n\ni) Field delimiter \u2013 ASCII character 20 (\u00b6)\n\nii) Text delimiter \u2013 ASCII character 254 (\u00fe)\n\niii) Newline indicator \u2013 ASCII character 174 (\u00ae)\n\n7) Native Production Format. Native files will be produced only to the extent described in\nParagraph 1 above, as the Parties may agree, or as the Court may order. If native files are produced,\ntheir formatting will be as follows:\n\na) Native files will be produced with a Bates stamped image indicating that the file was\nproduced natively.\n\nb) Native files will be named the same as the beginning Production number (Document ID)\nas the Bates stamped image.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 12/18/25 Page 17 of 17\n\n\n\n\nc) Where documents are produced in native form, a full path to the native document must be\nincluded in a doclink field in the metadata.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2025-12-18T06:57:42.367713-08:00","document_number":"56","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181035553241","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/462369591/","id":462369591,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/56/2/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-18T06:57:37.784904-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-20T07:00:57.750827-08:00","sha1":"3eeda07e3208a3db0275a3abab255ce029119b7f","page_count":1,"file_size":126530,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.56.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n ORDER\n\n Before this Court is Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\u2019s and Defendants Qualcomm\n\nIncorporated\u2019s and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.\u2019s Joint Motion for Entry Of Order Adopting\n\nStipulation Governing Electronic and Hard Copy Discovery, a copy of which was attached as\n\nExhibit 1 to the parties\u2019 joint filing.\n\n After considering the motion, the motion is GRANTED. Electronic and hard copy\n\ndiscovery in this case will be governed by the terms of the Stipulation Governing Electronic and\n\nHard Copy Discovery attached to the parties\u2019 motion as Exhibit 1\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n\nDated:\n United States District Court Judge\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-18T06:57:46.685255-08:00","document_number":"56","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181035553242","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-18T06:57:36.673775-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-18T07:01:55.797508-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-18","time_filed":"08:56:01","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":188,"description":"Joint MOTION for Discovery For Entry of Order Adopting Stipulation Governing Electronic and Hard Copy Discovery by Qualcomm Inc., Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit 1, (2) Proposed Order)(Zembek, Richard)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/446959379/","id":446959379,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/461696981/","id":461696981,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/55/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-12-11T15:22:31.874744-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-12T08:45:48.664878-08:00","sha1":"261cb6afab1248c7264fb3425178cd848b7373ee","page_count":4,"file_size":184407,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.55.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.55.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA\n\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS\u2019 COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n Plaintiff Redstone Logics, LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d) hereby answers Defendants Qualcomm Inc.\n\nand Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (collectively \u201cQualcomm\u201d) counterclaims as follow:\n\n ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n 1. Admit.\n\n 2. Admit.\n\n 3. Admit\n\n 4. Admit\n\n 5. Admit\n\n 6. Admit\n\n 7. Admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Declaratory judgment\n\nclaims and patent infringement and validity. Deny any other allegations in this paragraph.\n\n 8. Admit\n\n 9. Admit\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nFIRST COUNTERCLAIM: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT\n\n 10. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1-9 as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff denies\n\nDefendants affirmative defenses.\n\n 11. Deny.\n\n SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY\n\n 12. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1-11 as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiff denies\n\nDefendants affirmative defenses.\n\n 13. Deny.\n\n RELIEF REQUESTED\n\n In response to Qualcomm\u2019s prayer for relieve, Plaintiff denies that Qualcomm is entitled\n\nto any relief, including any of the relief requested in paragraphs A-F of Qualcomm\u2019s prayer for\n\nrelief. Further, Plaintiff requests the following relief:\n\n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter:\n\n A. A judgment in favor of Plaintiff on all counterclaims asserted by Defendant;\n\n B. An adjudication that Defendant are not entitled to any relief on its counterclaims,\n\n including, without limitation, any fine or damages;\n\n C. A dismissal with prejudice of Defendant\u2019s counterclaims;\n\n D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning\n\n of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and awarding to Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees against\n\n Defendant;\n\n E. Plaintiff\u2019s costs of suit against Defendant; and\n\n F. Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the\n\n circumstances.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n\n Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.\n\n\n\n\nDated: December 11, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Reza Mirzaie\n Reza Mirzaie\n CA State Bar No. 246953\n Marc A. Fenster\n CA State Bar No. 181067\n Neil A. Rubin\n CA State Bar No. 250761\n Christian W. Conkle\n CA State Bar No. 306374\n Jonathan Ma\n CA State Bar No. 312773\n RUSS AUGUST & KABAT\n 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor\n Los Angeles, CA 90025\n Telephone: 310-826-7474\n Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com\n Email: mfenster@raklaw.com\n Email: nrubin@raklaw.com\n Email: cconkle@raklaw.com\n Email: jma@raklaw.com\n\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 55 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on December 11, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing document\n\nwith the Clerk of the Court for the Western District of Texas using the ECF System which will\n\nsend notification to the registered participants of the ECF System as listed on the Court\u2019s Notice\n\nof Electronic Filing.\n\n /s/ Reza Mirzaie\n Reza Mirzaie\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-11T15:22:32.106413-08:00","document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035515898","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-12-11T15:22:31.850689-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-11T16:06:49.398101-08:00","date_filed":"2025-12-11","time_filed":"17:21:43","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-12-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":184,"description":"RESPONSE to [54] Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim by Redstone Logics LLC. (Mirzaie, Reza)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/444847132/","id":444847132,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/459526142/","id":459526142,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/54/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-20T13:36:15.945079-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-23T04:52:25.806824-08:00","sha1":"9eea8cac3756594a1b1974d74c89ac0c2c161937","page_count":13,"file_size":260545,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.54.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.54.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 Case. No. 7:24-CV-00231-ADA\n QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM \u00a7\n TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n\n DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND QUALCOMM\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC.\u2019S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF\n REDSTONE LOGICS LLC\u2019S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\n Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (\u201cQualcomm\u201d)\n\nrespond to Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC\u2019s (\u201cRedstone\u201d) Third Amended Complaint for Patent\n\nInfringement (\u201cTAC\u201d) as follows:\n\n Qualcomm denies infringement of any asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 (the\n\n\u201c\u2019339 patent\u201d or the \u201cAsserted Patent\u201d). Qualcomm also denies that Redstone is entitled to its\n\nrequested relief, or any other relief related to its allegations in the TAC. Qualcomm further denies\n\neach and every allegation contained in the TAC unless expressly admitted in the following\n\nparagraphs. Any admitted factual allegation in the TAC is admitted only as to the specific admitted\n\nfact(s), and not as to any purported conclusion, characterization, implication, or speculation that\n\nmay follow from the fact(s) as admitted.\n\n The Parties\n\n 1. Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of\nthe State of Texas, with an address at 2150 S. Central Expressway, Suite 200, McKinney, TX\n75070.\n\n\n\n -1-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as\n\n to the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 1.\n\n 2. Qualcomm Inc. is a company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with a\nprincipal place of business at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121. Qualcomm Inc. may\nbe served with process through its registered agent, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc.,\nat 251 Little Falls Dr., Wilmington, Delaware, 19808.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm Incorporated admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its\n\n principal place of business located at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121. Solely\n\n for the purposes of this action, Qualcomm Incorporated does not contest that it can be\n\n served through The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., at 251 Little Falls Dr.,\n\n Wilmington, Delaware, 19808. Qualcomm denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n 2 of the TAC.\n\n 3. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a company organized under the laws of the state of\nDelaware with a principal place of business at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121.\nQualcomm Technologies, Inc. may be served with process through its registered agent,\nCorporation Service Company, at 251 Little Falls Dr., Wilmington, Delaware 19808. Qualcomm\nTechnologies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Qualcomm Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. operates, along\nwith its subsidiaries, substantially all of Qualcomm\u2019s engineering, research and development\nfunctions, and substantially all of its products and services businesses.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its\n\n principal place of business located at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121 and that\n\n it is a subsidiary of Qualcomm Inc. Solely for the purposes of this action, Qualcomm\n\n Technologies, Inc. does not contest that it can be served through Corporation Service\n\n Company, at 251 Little Falls Dr., Wilmington, Delaware 19808. The remaining allegations\n\n in Paragraph 3 of the TAC are vague and ambiguous, and are therefore denied.\n\n Jurisdiction and Venue\n\n 4. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States\nCode. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and\n1338(a).\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm admits that the TAC purports to set forth a cause of action arising\n\n under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Qualcomm\n\n admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331 and 1338(a).\n\n Qualcomm denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 of the TAC.\n\n 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action because Defendants\nhave established minimum contacts with the United States as a whole, such that the exercise of\njurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendants\nhave purposefully directed activities at the United States, in particular, directing Accused Products\nfor sale to customers and distributors within the United States (including within this District) and\nengaging in sales and marketing efforts to generate and support such sales. Defendants have\ncommitted and continue to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things,\nimporting, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the Asserted Patent. Defendants,\ndirectly and through subsidiaries, intermediaries, and third parties, have committed and continue\nto commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things, making, using, offering to\nsell, selling, and importing products that infringe the Asserted Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Solely for the purpose of this action, and without admitting that personal\n\n jurisdiction is proper here, Qualcomm does not contest this Court\u2019s personal jurisdiction\n\n over Qualcomm in this action. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the TAC are\n\n unfairly vague and ambiguous, and are therefore denied, including any allegation that\n\n Qualcomm has committed or continues to commit acts of infringement in this District or\n\n elsewhere.\n\n 6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1391 and 1400(b). Upon information\nand belief, Defendants have transacted business in this District and have committed acts of direct\nand indirect infringement in this District by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell,\nselling, and importing products that infringe the Asserted Patents. Defendants have regular and\nestablished place of business in this District at least 9600 N. Mopac Expressway, Ste 900,\nStonebridge Plaza II, Austin, Texas 78759 and 13929 Center Lake Drive, Parmer, Building 1,\nAustin, Texas 78753.\n\n ANSWER: Solely for the purpose of this action, and without admitting that venue is proper,\n\n Qualcomm does not contest venue in the Western District of Texas in this action, but denies\n\n that it is convenient, particularly in this division, and reserves its right to move for transfer\n\n under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1404. Qualcomm admits that it has offices in the Western District of\n\n\n -3-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Texas. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the TAC are unfairly vague and\n\n ambiguous, and are therefore denied, including any allegation that Qualcomm has\n\n committed acts of infringement in the Western District of Texas.\n\n Count 1: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339\n\n 7. Redstone incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs and\nfurther alleges as follows:\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the\n\n allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the TAC, as if fully set forth herein. To\n\n the extent a further response to this paragraph is required, denied.\n\n 8. Redstone is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 entitled \u201cProcessor core\ncommunication in multi-core processor,\u201d which issued on October 1, 2013. A copy of the \u2019339\nPatent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm admits that the \u2019339 patent states on its face that it is titled\n\n \u201cProcessor Core Communication In Multi-Core Processor\u201d and that it issued on October\n\n 1, 2013. Qualcomm admits that the TAC purports to attach a copy of the \u2019339 patent as\n\n Exhibit 1. Qualcomm is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as\n\n to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the TAC and therefore denies\n\n the allegations.\n\n 9. On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import certain\nproducts (\u201cAccused Instrumentalities\u201d), including comprising one or more SoC each comprising\ntwo or more sets of processors implementing or based on the DynamIQ Shared Unit architecture\n(e.g., ARMv8.2, ARMv9 ARMv9.2, and successors) or big.LITTLE architecture, including\nwithout limitation the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 and the Snapdragon 835 Mobile Platform, that directly\ninfringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the \u2019339 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm admits that Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 and the Snapdragon 835 Mobile\n\n Platform are Qualcomm system-on-chip (SoC) products. Qualcomm denies that any of its\n\n products infringe any claim of the \u2019339 patent and/or that it has committed any acts of\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\n infringement. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the TAC are vague, ambiguous,\n\n and uncertain, and therefore Qualcomm denies the allegations.\n\n 10. Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of one or more claims of\nthe \u2019339 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(b). Through at least the filing and service of this\nComplaint, and on information and belief also in connection with Redstone Logics LLC v. Samsung\nElectronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00485 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 17, 2023) in which\nRedstone contended that Samsung infringed the \u2019339 Patent in connection with products\ncontaining Qualcomm\u2019s Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, Defendants have had knowledge of the \u2019339 Patent\nand the infringing nature of the Accused Instrumentalities. Samsung and Qualcomm have a\nlongstanding and ongoing business relationship under which Qualcomm supplies the Snapdragon\n8 Gen 2 and other products to Samsung. On information and belief, Qualcomm specifically\nlearned about the Samsung case, prior to the initial filing of this Qualcomm case, as part of the\nrelationship between Samsung and Qualcomm relationship, including though [sic] Samsung\nidentifying to Qualcomm the \u2019339 Patent, identifying specific Accused Instrumentalities such as\nthe Snapdragon 8 Gen 2, and identifying Redstone\u2019s contention that those instrumentalities\ninfringe the \u2019339 Patent. As a result, Qualcomm had pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the\ninfringing nature of its products. Thus, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Qualcomm knew of the\n\u2019339 Patent, knew Redstone contended that the Accused Instrumentalities infringed the \u2019339\nPatent, and despite such knowledge, continued to sell the Accused Instrumentalities with\nknowledge that the sales amounted to infringement.\n\n ANSWER: The allegations of Paragraph 10 of the TAC are unfairly vague and\n\n ambiguous and are therefore denied, including any allegation that Qualcomm induces\n\n infringement.\n\n 11. Despite this knowledge of the \u2019339 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage and\ninstruct their customers and end users (for example, through engineering documents for customers\nthat integrate the Accused Products into consumer devices, and through user manuals and online\ninstruction materials on their website) to use the Accused Instrumentalities in ways that directly\ninfringe the \u2019339 Patent. Furthermore, Defendants offer the Accused Instrumentalities in a form\nand configuration such that customers and end users will perform the claimed method\nautomatically by using the Accused Instrumentalities \u201cout of the box\u201d in their ordinary way.\nDefendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will commit these\ninfringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the\nAccused Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the \u2019339 Patent, thereby specifically\nintending for and inducing their customers to infringe the \u2019339 Patent through the customers\u2019\nnormal and customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the TAC.\n\n 12. The Accused Instrumentalities satisfy all claim limitations of one or more claims of the\n\u2019339 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the \u2019339 Patent to representative\nAccused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein.\n\n\n -5-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies that any of its products infringe any claim of the \u2019339 patent.\n\n Qualcomm admits that the TAC purports to attach a claim chart as Exhibit 2. Any\n\n remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 of the TAC are denied.\n\n 13. By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the\nAccused Instrumentalities, Defendants have injured Plaintiff and are liable for infringement of the\n\u2019339 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the TAC.\n\n 14. Redstone has also complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7287 at least as of October\n17, 2023 or shortly thereafter. On October 17, 2023, Redstone filed a patent infringement action\nagainst Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. asserting\ninfringement of the \u2019339 Patent by the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in certain Samsung phones. See\nRedstone Logics LLC. V. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, et al, Case No. 2: 23-cv-00485, Dkt. 1\n(E.D. Tex.). Defendants make and sell the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 to Samsung. The Snapdragon 8\nGen 2 is accused of infringing in the same manner in this case and in the Samsung case. On\ninformation and belief, Defendants knew or should have known of Redstone\u2019s complaint and/or\nsubsequent case-related materials. For instance, based on common industry practice, it would be\nexpected for Defendants to indemnify Samsung. It would be expected for Samsung to provide\nDefendants with notice of any claim for infringement for which Samsung is indemnified pursuant\nto the indemnification arrangement. As such, and on information and belief, Samsung provided\nDefendants with Redstone\u2019s complaint asserting infringement by Qualcomm\u2019s Snapdragon 8 Gen\n2. Additionally, the complaints and/or subsequent case-related materials are matters of public\nrecord, which are readily accessible to Qualcomm. As such, Defendants were notified of the\ninfringement by Redstone and has thereafter continued to infringe.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies that Redstone has complied with the requirements of 35\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7287 and denies \u201c[a]s such, Defendants were notified of the infringement by\n\n Redstone and has thereafter continued to infringe.\u201d Qualcomm admits that Redstone\n\n Logics LLC. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al, Case No. 2: 23-cv-00485 (E.D. Tex.)\n\n was filed on October 17, 2023. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 of the TAC are\n\n unfairly vague and ambiguous and are therefore denied.\n\n 15. Defendants\u2019 infringement has been and is willful. Through at least notice of the Samsung\ncase, Defendants have had knowledge of the \u2019339 Patent and that the Accused Instrumentalities\ninfringe. Despite Defendants\u2019 knowledge of the \u2019339 Patent, and indemnification of Samsung\u2019s\ninfringement of the \u2019339 patent, Defendants continued and still continue to infringe the \u2019339 patent.\nIn doing so, Defendants knew or should have known, that their conduct amounted to infringement\nof the \u2019339 patent. Accordingly, Defendants are liable for willful infringement.\n\n\n -6-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies that it infringes and that any alleged infringement has been\n\n and is willful. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 of the TAC are unfairly vague\n\n and ambiguous and are therefore denied.\n\n 16. As a result of Defendants\u2019 infringement of the \u2019339 Patent, Plaintiff is entitled to monetary\ndamages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants\u2019 infringement, but in no event less\nthan a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with interest\nand costs as fixed by the Court at least dating to October 17, 2023 or shortly thereafter.\n\n ANSWER: Qualcomm denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the TAC.\n\n Jury Trial Demanded\n\n 17. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Redstone requests a trial\nby jury of any issues so triable by right.\n\n ANSWER: Redstone\u2019s demand for a trial by jury does not require a response by\n\n Qualcomm. To the extent that a response is required, Qualcomm admits that Redstone\n\n has requested a trial by jury.\n\n RESPONSE TO REDSTONE\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n Qualcomm denies that Redstone is entitled to any relief from Qualcomm, including but\n\nnot limited to the relief sought in Paragraphs A through F in Redstone\u2019s Prayer for Relief.\n\n AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n\n Qualcomm incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its responses to Paragraphs\n\n1\u201317 of the TAC. Without assuming any burden other than that imposed by operation of law and\n\nwithout reducing or removing Redstone\u2019s burden of proof on its affirmative claims, Qualcomm\n\nalleges and asserts the following defenses in response to the TAC and Redstone\u2019s allegation that\n\nQualcomm infringes the Asserted Patent. In addition, Qualcomm specifically reserves the right to\n\nfurther amend its Answer to Redstone\u2019s TAC to add separate defenses and counterclaims that\n\nbecome known through the course of discovery.\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\n First Affirmative Defense: (Non-Infringement)\n\n 1. Qualcomm has not infringed and does not infringe, either literally or under the\n\ndoctrine of equivalents, any valid, enforceable, properly construed claim of the Asserted Patent;\n\ntherefore, Qualcomm is not liable for any infringement thereof.\n\n Second Affirmative Defense: (Invalidity)\n\n 2. The claims of the Asserted Patent are invalid because they fail to satisfy one or\n\nmore requirements of patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without\n\nlimitation 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining\n\nthereto. Qualcomm incorporates by reference its preliminary and final invalidity contentions and\n\nits IPR petition in NXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics\n\nLLC, IPR2025-00485 (PTAB) as if set forth fully herein.\n\n Third Affirmative Defense: (Failure to State a Claim)\n\n 3. The TAC fails to plead a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted and/or\n\nfails to plead factual allegations with sufficiency and particularity required to state a plausible\n\nclaim, including as to Redstone\u2019s compliance with 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 287.\n\n Fourth Affirmative Defense: (Prosecution History Estoppel/Disclaimer)\n\n 4. Redstone is estopped from construing any valid claim of the Asserted Patent in a\n\nmanner inconsistent with statements made by Redstone or its predecessors in prior litigation and/or\n\nto the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including (a) during prosecution of the Asserted Patent,\n\n(b) in the specification and claims of the Asserted Patent, (c) during prosecution of patent\n\napplications related to the Asserted Patent, and (d) during prior or ongoing proceedings related to\n\nthe Asserted Patent.\n\n\n\n\n -8-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Fifth Affirmative Defense: (Marking and No Pre-Suit Damages)\n\n 5. Redstone\u2019s TAC does not plausibly or sufficiently allege that Redstone, its\n\npredecessors-in-interest, or parties to whom Redstone has granted a license or covenant not sue\n\ncomplied with 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 287. This failure precludes any recovery by Redstone for damages\n\nalleged to have accrued prior to the initiation of this suit.\n\n Sixth Affirmative Defense: (Express or Implied License)\n\n 6. Redstone\u2019s claims of infringement of the Asserted Patent are barred, in whole or in\n\npart, based on express or implied license, including licenses to the Asserted Patent granted by\n\nRedstone and by Redstone\u2019s predecessor(s) in interest.\n\n Seventh Affirmative Defense: (No Costs)\n\n 7. Redstone failed to disclaim the claims of the Asserted Patent that are invalid before\n\ncommencement of suit and therefore may recover no costs under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 288.\n\n Eight Affirmative Defense: (28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498(a))\n\n 8. To the extent that Redstone may accuse products or services that are provided by\n\nor for the government of the United States of America, there is no jurisdiction over such claims,\n\npursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498(a), outside of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.\n\n Ninth Affirmative Defense: (Equitable Defenses)\n\n 9. Redstone\u2019s claims for relief are barred, in part or in whole, in equity, including by\n\nthe doctrine of equitable estoppel.\n\n Tenth Affirmative Defense: (No Injunctive Relief)\n\n 10. Redstone is not entitled to injunctive relief for the Asserted Patent under eBay v\n\nMercExchange, LLC, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) because, inter alia, any alleged injury\n\n\n\n\n -9-\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\nto Redstone is not immediate or irreparable, Redstone has an adequate remedy at law, and the\n\nbalance of hardships does not warrant injunctive relief.\n\n Eleventh Affirmative Defense: (Extraterritoriality)\n\n 11. To the extent Redstone\u2019s claims are directed to acts occurring outside the United\n\nStates, Redstone\u2019s claims for relief are barred or limited by the territoriality restrictions of 35\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 271 et seq.\n\n ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n 1. Qualcomm Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of\n\nbusiness located at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121.\n\n 2. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of\n\nbusiness located at 5775 Morehouse Dr., San Diego, CA 92121 (Qualcomm Incorporated and\n\nQualcomm Technologies, Inc. are herein collectively referred to as \u201cQualcomm\u201d).\n\n 3. Upon information and belief, and as alleged in its Third Amended Complaint,\n\nRedstone Logics LLC (\u201cRedstone\u201d) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the\n\nState of Texas, with an address at 2150 S. Central Expressway, Suite 200, McKinney, TX 75070.\n\n 4. Redstone has filed a Third Amended Complaint in this Court against Qualcomm.\n\n 5. Redstone has alleged in its Third Amended Complaint that it is the owner of U.S.\n\nPatent No. 8,549,339 (the \u201c\u2019339 Patent\u201d) entitled \u201cProcessor core communication in multi-core\n\nprocessor.\u201d\n\n 6. Redstone alleges in its Third Amended Complaint that Qualcomm has infringed the\n\n\u2019339 Patent.\n\n 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this counterclaim under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n1338(a), the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 100, et seq., and the Declaratory\n\n\n\n\n - 10 -\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\nJudgment Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201 and 2202, and this action is based upon an actual controversy\n\nbetween Redstone and Qualcomm regarding the invalidity and non-infringement of the claims of\n\nthe \u2019339 Patent.\n\n 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1391(b), 1391(c)\n\nand 1400.\n\n 9. Redstone has previously appeared in this lawsuit, is represented by counsel, and\n\nhas submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\n FIRST COUNTERCLAIM: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement\n\n 10. To the extent not inconsistent, Qualcomm incorporates by reference the allegations\n\nof its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 11. Qualcomm\u2019s products do not directly or indirectly infringe, literally or under the\n\ndoctrine of equivalents, any claim of the \u2019339 Patent, including, without limitation, because\n\nQualcomm\u2019s Accused Instrumentalities do not contain a \u201cfirst clock signal [that] is independent\n\nfrom the second clock signal,\u201d as required by all asserted claims, and Qualcomm seeks a\n\ndeclaration to that effect.\n\n SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity\n\n 12. To the extent not inconsistent, Qualcomm incorporates by reference the allegations\n\nof its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 13. The claims of the \u2019339 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of\n\nthe requirements of the patent laws, including, but not, limited to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103,\n\nand/or one or more paragraphs of \u00a7 112, and the rules and laws pertaining to those provisions, and\n\nQualcomm seeks a declaration to that effect. Prior art references that anticipate and/or render\n\nobvious one or more claims of the \u2019339 Patent include, but are not limited to, references identified\n\n\n\n\n - 11 -\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\nand/or relied upon in Qualcomm\u2019s preliminary and final invalidity contentions and its IPR petition\n\nin NXP USA, Inc. f/k/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. et al. v. Redstone Logics LLC, IPR2025-\n\n00485 (PTAB), which are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.\n\n QUALCOMM\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n Qualcomm, reserving its right to amend its pleadings to add additional defenses,\n\naffirmative defenses, and counterclaims if warranted by discovery, prays for the following relief:\n\n a. A judgment that Qualcomm has not infringed any claim of the \u2019339 patent.\n\n b. A judgment that the \u2019339 patent is invalid.\n\n c. A judgment that Redstone\u2019s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed with\n\nprejudice, and that Redstone take nothing by its Complaint.\n\n d. A judgment in favor of Qualcomm on each of its Counterclaims.\n\n e. A judgment that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and an\n\naward to Qualcomm of its reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs of suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 284,\n\n285, and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law.\n\n f. An award to Qualcomm of such other and further relief as the Court may deem just\n\nand proper.\n\n JURY DEMAND\n\n Qualcomm requests a jury trial for all triable issues in the Plaintiff\u2019s Third Amended\n\nComplaint and Qualcomm\u2019s Counterclaims to the extent allowed by the United States Constitution\n\nand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n\n\n\n - 12 -\n\f Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/20/25 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Dated: November 20, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n By: /s/ Richard S. Zembek\n\n Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)\n richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Daniel S. Leventhal (SBN 24050923)\n daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000\n Houston, Texas 77010\n Tel: (713) 651-5151\n Fax: (713) 651-5246\n\n Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)\n eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com\n Brett A. McKean (SBN 24057994)\n brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com\n NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP\n 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100\n Austin, Texas 78701\n Tel: (512) 474-5201\n Fax: (512) 536-4598\n\n COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS\n QUALCOMM INCORPORATED AND\n QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 20, 2025, all counsel of record who are\n\ndeemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via\n\nthe Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n /s/ Richard S. Zembek\n\n\n\n\n - 13 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-20T13:36:16.293393-08:00","document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035394741","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint AND Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-20T13:36:15.911528-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-20T14:07:39.011439-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-20","time_filed":"15:35:47","entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":162,"description":"ANSWER to [41] Amended Complaint with Jury Demand , Affirmative Defenses, and, COUNTERCLAIM against Redstone Logics LLC by Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Inc..(Green, Eric)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443472404/","id":443472404,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458109407/","id":458109407,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/53/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-07T09:20:25.609126-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-07T10:03:40.288763-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035313499","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":true,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Filed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-07T09:20:25.579024-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-07T10:03:40.266629-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-07","time_filed":"11:19:55","entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":160,"description":"Transcript filed of Proceedings held on 11-6-25, Proceedings Transcribed: Motions Hearing. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristie Davis, Telephone number: 2546660904. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 11/28/2025, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/8/2025, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/5/2026, (kd)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443385949/","id":443385949,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/458020991/","id":458020991,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/52/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-06T13:39:12.835467-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-06T14:05:21.955171-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035309287","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":true,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-06T13:39:12.775380-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-06T14:05:21.894054-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-06","time_filed":"15:38:28","entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":158,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan D Albright: Miscellaneous Hearing held on 11/6/2025 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter Kristie Davis.)(slt)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/443324458/","id":443324458,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/69183589/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/457958582/","id":457958582,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/69183589/51/redstone-logics-llc-v-qualcomm-inc/","date_created":"2025-11-06T08:48:00.707801-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-07T03:43:30.514193-08:00","sha1":"854bf2bf78067f44165ce901903105f6f73c6a89","page_count":1,"file_size":141018,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.51.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172805520.51.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nREDSTONE LOGICS LLC, \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7 7:24-CV-00231-ADA\nv. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nQUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM \u00a7\nTECHNOLOGIES, INC., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is Defendants Qualcomm Inc.\u2019s and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.\u2019s\n\nPartial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (\u201cMotion\u201d) (Dkt. 42). Having considered\n\nthe Motion, the Response (Dkt. 48), the Reply (Dkt. 50), and the parties\u2019 oral argument on\n\nNovember 6, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT\n\nPREJUDICE. As stated on the record, Defendants can reraise their arguments at the motion for\n\nsummary judgment stage.\n\n\n\nSIGNED this 6th day of November, 2025.\n\n\n\n\n ALAN D ALBRIGHT\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-11-06T08:48:01.147881-08:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181035302073","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-11-06T08:48:00.616543-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-06T09:06:52.686248-08:00","date_filed":"2025-11-06","time_filed":"10:47:06","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-11-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":156,"description":"ORDER DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE [42] Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (kg)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=69183589&page_size=40"}