Litigation

Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Active

7:25-cv-00183

Patents at issue (1)

8549339PTAB: discretionary denial

Defendants (1)

Summary

In this active case, the court granted a joint motion on November 20, 2025, to adopt prior claim constructions from the Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. case.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Redstone Logics LLC, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Inc., a multinational technology company known for its consumer electronics, software, and online services, including iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers. Redstone Logics was formed in Texas in November 2022 and has been involved in other patent litigation against chipmakers such as MediaTek and NXP Semiconductors, asserting patents related to multicore processors. The accused products, services, or technology in this case are Apple's offerings that allegedly infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339. While the specific accused products are not detailed in the provided snippets for this particular case, similar lawsuits by Redstone Logics have targeted products comprising two or more sets of processors supporting architectures like ARMv8.2, ARMv9, and ARM big.LITTLE.

The single patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339, titled "Processor core communication in multi-core processor". This patent generally relates to techniques for handling communication between processor cores in a multi-core processor, specifically involving a first set of processor cores configured to dynamically receive a first supply voltage and a first clock signal, and an interface block facilitating communication between different sets of processor cores. The technology also covers power management and multi-core processor operational logic, including systems where each set of processor cores has its own supply voltage and an independent phase-locked loop (PLL) clock signal.

The case was filed on April 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), Midland/Odessa Division, and is presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is notable due to Judge Albright's historical tendency to attract a significant number of patent cases and his management of patent litigation, which has included establishing rules designed to streamline and speed up proceedings and a restrictive posture toward certain defensive motions. While the Western District of Texas was a top venue for patent litigation, particularly for NPEs, in previous years, there have been some recent shifts in filing patterns. A key development in this specific case occurred on November 20, 2025, when the court granted a joint motion to adopt prior claim constructions from a related case, Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al. (7:24-cv-00231-ADA), which involved the same patent. This adopted construction clarified terms such as "the first clock signal is independent from the second clock signal" and "a first/second set of processor cores".

This case is notable for several reasons, including Redstone Logics LLC's pattern of asserting patents in the semiconductor processing domain related to power management and multi-core processor operational logic against major technology companies. Furthermore, the reliance on prior claim constructions from a separate case against Qualcomm highlights a strategy to streamline the litigation process and leverage previous legal battles involving the same intellectual property. Indeed, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against patent 8,549,339 (IPR2025-00485) was filed by NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated against Redstone Logics LLC, which was subject to a discretionary denial of institution on July 10, 2025. This IPR targeted power management patents, citing obviousness over prior art related to multi-core processors. The case also reflects the ongoing trend of NPEs filing patent infringement suits in specific districts known for their patent litigation dockets..

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Redstone Logics LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on April 17, 2025. The case was initially assigned to Judge David Counts and then reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings on April 23, 2025. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-04-17: Redstone Logics LLC filed its complaint against Apple, Inc., alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2025-08-05: Judge Albright issued an order granting a motion for entry of a scheduling order. This order set important dates, including a Markman hearing for January 26, 2026, amended pleadings due by May 4, 2026, discovery due by August 10, 2026, joinder of parties due by February 23, 2026, and dispositive and Daubert motions due by November 20, 2026. A pretrial conference was set for February 4, 2027, and a jury selection/trial for February 22, 2027.
  • 2025-08-11: Redstone Logics LLC filed a response in opposition to Apple's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Apple's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed earlier.
  • 2025-08-18: A reply to the response to the motion was filed.
  • 2026-02-23: An order was issued regarding a motion for protective order.
  • 2026-02-23: An order was issued regarding a motion to withdraw as attorney.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2025-11-20: The court granted a joint motion from both parties to adopt prior claim constructions from a related case, Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al. (Case No. 7:24-cv-00231-ADA). This order incorporated portions of the claim construction record from the Qualcomm Case into the Apple case, including briefing, declarations, exhibits, preliminary constructions, hearing transcripts, and the court's October 15, 2025, claim construction order and memorandum. As a result, the previously scheduled Markman hearing for January 26, 2026, was vacated.
  • In the Qualcomm Case (which involved the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339), a claim construction order was issued on February 21, 2025, in Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. (Case No. 7:24-cv-00029-DC-DTG). In that order, several terms were construed, including "set of processor cores" as "a group of two or more processor cores." The term "located in a common region that is substantially central to the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor cores" (claim 14) was found to be indefinite.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 has been subject to multiple IPR petitions.
    • IPR2025-00485: NXP USA Inc. filed a petition on January 22, 2025, which was discretionarily denied on July 10, 2025.
    • IPR2025-01532: Apple Inc. filed a petition on September 16, 2025. The current status and outcome of this IPR are not yet publicly available in the provided search results.
    • IPR2025-00085: MediaTek Inc. filed a petition on October 22, 2024.

Current Posture:

  • The case is active, with a pretrial conference scheduled for February 4, 2027, and a jury trial set for February 22, 2027.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search specifically for trade press and mainstream coverage.

Press coverage of Redstone Logics v. Apple specifically is thin, and I was unable to locate any article about this docket from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or other mainstream/legal-trade outlets. The most direct reporting I found is a Korean-language trade piece from IP Daily (published 2025-04-28), which reported that Redstone Logics filed three suits in the Western District of Texas on the same day — against AMD, Nvidia, and Apple — all asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 and seeking both damages and a permanent injunction. On Apple, IP Daily reported that Redstone targets products containing one or more SoCs implementing the "Firestorm and Icestorm" architecture (e.g., Apple's M-series SoCs). It also went beyond the four corners of the Apple complaint by describing Redstone's ownership chain — reporting that Redstone is a grandchild entity of Seoul-based Bedrock IP Co. (founded 2021), owned through Granite IP, LLC — and by noting that the '339 patent was acquired from Empire Technology Development, a subsidiary of an Intellectual Ventures spinoff, and that Redstone's earlier suit against Samsung over the '339 patent ended in settlement.

The most detailed corporate-background reporting comes from Mondaq ("Redstone Logics Sues Chipmakers"), which, however, covers Redstone's earlier MediaTek (7:24-cv-00029) and NXP (7:24-cv-00028) complaints rather than the Apple case. That piece reports that Redstone was formed in Texas in November 2022; identifies Jay Chung as its manager (also tied to Cobblestone Wireless, LLC and Sandstone Innovation, LLC); describes the '339 patent as covering "a multicore processor with two set[s] of processor cores where each has its own supply voltage and an independent PLL clock signal"; and states that Redstone received the '339 patent from Empire Technology via a December 2022 assignment. It adds that Russ August & Kabat represents Redstone. Notably, this article does not mention Apple or the iPad/Mac products at issue in this case.

Coverage of the closely related sibling docket offers an analyst-flavored take. A PatSnap litigation blog post on Redstone Logics v. AMD (7:25-cv-00182) — not the Apple case — characterizes the dispute as signaling "continued assertion activity around multi-processor SoC architectures in W.D. Texas, with US8549339B2 remaining a live enforcement asset against other potential defendants," and notes an asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff's claims with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims without) with no fee shift. That framing is analysis derived from the docket rather than independent reporting, and it concerns AMD, so it should be treated as context for the campaign, not as coverage of Apple.

Two cautions on sourcing. First, I found no press reporting on the outcome of the parallel post-grant proceedings, though PTAB filings themselves show Apple's petition IPR2025-01532 (filed 2025-09-16) was denied institution on 2026-01-27 — that is a court/agency record, not press. Second, accounts conflict on case status: one aggregator (Ex Parte) lists the Apple case as "Closed," which contradicts the case metadata ("Active") and the PacerMonitor docket, which shows activity into mid-2026 (e.g., an order denying Apple's motion to stay entered 2026-06-10). I could not verify a termination or settlement from any press source, and the aggregator's "Closed" label appears unreliable.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Redstone Logics LLC is represented by the following counsel from Russ August & Kabat:

  • Marc A. Fenster

    • Role: Likely Lead Counsel (Co-chair of the Litigation Department and chair of the Patent Litigation department at Russ August & Kabat).
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: A first-chair trial lawyer specializing in high-technology patent litigation, he founded the firm's patent litigation group in 2003. He has secured significant verdicts against major tech companies, including a $62.7 million willful infringement verdict against Samsung in a prior OLED patent case and a jury verdict against Apple in the Northern District of California.

  • Reza Mirzaie

    • Role: Likely Lead Counsel (Co-Chair of the plaintiff's patent infringement litigation department at Russ August & Kabat).
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: Focuses on patent litigation and licensing, having obtained over $600 million for clients in the past five years and never lost a jury trial. He has secured multi-million dollar verdicts against companies like Verizon, Samsung, Western Digital, and Amazon in patent infringement cases.

  • Joshua M. Scheufler

    • Role: Associate Counsel.
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and has experience in all stages of district court litigation, inter partes review, and ex parte review across various technological fields. He previously clerked for Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

  • Qi (Peter) Tong

    • Role: Partner, likely Local Counsel (He heads the firm's Dallas office with an emphasis on matters in the Western District of Texas and aims to build a local counsel practice).
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Dallas, TX.
    • Note: Previously served as a law clerk to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas. He has represented companies in numerous patent lawsuits, secured a jury verdict for hundreds of millions of dollars, and won inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

  • Jonathan Ma

    • Role: Associate Counsel.
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, with experience in technologies including mobile devices, networking hardware/software, wireless communications, and targeted online advertising. He was involved in a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon for targeted online advertising patents.

  • Neil A. Rubin

    • Role: Partner, Patent Litigation Department.
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: Focuses on patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property litigation for clients in various industries, and has helped clients recover over $1.7 billion in judgments and settlements. He holds physics degrees and was previously at Latham & Watkins.

  • Christian W. Conkle

    • Role: Associate Counsel.
    • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Note: Member of the intellectual property and litigation & trial groups, he has contributed to cases resulting in significant jury verdicts, including a $122 million verdict against Amazon and a $20 million verdict against Google in the Western District of Texas.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on available web search capabilities, the specific counsel of record representing Apple, Inc. in Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple, Inc. (7:25-cv-00183) cannot be definitively identified at this time. Publicly accessible summaries of the case, such as those from RPX Insight, provide basic case information but do not list the specific attorneys who have entered appearances for the defendant.

While Apple employs a robust in-house IP litigation team, including roles such as Chief IP Counsel (e.g., Jeff Myers) and various Senior/Principal Legal Counsel for IP Litigation, and often works with major law firms for patent defense, these general insights do not specify the legal team for this particular active case. Without direct access to the court's detailed docket entries or specific attorney appearance filings, it is not possible to provide a list of the counsel of record for Apple Inc. in this matter.