Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. — Entry #67: ORDER GRANTING [62] Motion to Stay Case
Case: Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. txwd · 7:24-cv-00231
filed September 20, 2024
What this document is
Docket entry #67 · filed June 16, 2026
ORDER GRANTING [62] Motion to Stay Case; GRANTING [64] Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ktm)
Who is involved
- Qualcomm Inc.
- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
- Redstone Logics LLC
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Marathon Digital: its former name “MARA Holdings, Inc.” appears in a filing in this case.
…... 1 Malikie Innovations LTD. et al v. Mara Holdings INC., No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. June…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 02, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
2 page(s), 2,443 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 67 Filed 06/16/26 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
REDSTONE LOGICS LLC, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 7:24-CV-00231-ADA
§
QUALCOMM INC.; QUALCOMM §
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., §
Defendants. §
ORDER
Having considered Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 62, 64), Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt.
65), and the applicable facts and law, the Court is of the opinion that it should be GRANTED.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In patent cases,
courts commonly consider three familiar factors in deciding whether to order a stay: “(1) whether
a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2)
whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether
discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.” Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon,
Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005).
Here, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) is reexamining all asserted
claims of the only asserted patent (“the ’339 patent”). Dkt. 62 at 1. The Court does not find any
undue prejudice or clear tactical disadvantage to Plaintiff. If any asserted claim survives
reexamination, Plaintiff can still seek damages. Additionally, the stage of the case favors a stay.
Discovery is still ongoing, and there is no trial date currently scheduled.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 62, 64).
Case 7:24-cv-00231-ADA Document 67 Filed 06/16/26 Page 2 of 2
SIGNED this 16th day of June, 2026.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE