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