Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al., involves Redstone Logics LLC, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), asserting its intellectual property rights against MediaTek, Inc. and its subsidiary MediaTek USA, Inc.. MediaTek is a prominent Taiwanese fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets a wide array of semiconductor products for wireless communications, mobile devices, and consumer electronics. The core of the dispute centers on MediaTek's products incorporating the DynamIQ Shared Unit architecture, with specific allegations targeting the "MediaTek Dimensity 9000+ a.k.a. MT6983" chip, for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339. The '339 patent broadly covers technology related to a multicore processor that features two or more sets of processor cores, where each set is configured to dynamically receive its own supply voltage and an independent phase-locked loop (PLL) clock signal.

The case was filed on January 26, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue known for its patent litigation activity. Initially, the case was assigned to Judge David Counts but was later reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Judge Albright was instrumental in establishing the Western District of Texas as a popular forum for patent cases due to his perceived patentee-friendly procedures and fast-track scheduling orders; however, judicial assignment in the Waco Division has since been randomized. A claim construction order was issued on February 21, 2025, defining the terms of the patent claims. The case is notable as part of a broader pattern of patent assertions by Redstone Logics LLC, which has also filed similar lawsuits against other major semiconductor companies such as Samsung, NXP Semiconductors, Qualcomm, and Advanced Micro Devices. Furthermore, the '339 patent has been challenged in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with filings by NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-00029, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 26, 2024. Redstone Logics alleges that MediaTek's products utilizing the DynamIQ Shared Unit architecture infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Redstone Logics LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. on January 26, 2024.
• Service of Process: MediaTek USA, Inc. was served with the original complaint on January 30, 2024, and MediaTek Inc. waived service of process on February 14, 2024.
• Initial Infringement Contentions: Redstone Logics served its initial infringement contentions on August 15, 2024, asserting claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 21 of the '339 patent.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss (Report and Recommendations): A Report and Recommendations regarding a Motion to Dismiss filed by MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. was signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland on February 26, 2025.
• Case Reassignment: The case was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings from Judge David Counts on February 26, 2025.
• Joint Motion to Stay: On April 18, 2025, Redstone Logics LLC filed a Joint Motion to Stay all deadlines, notifying the court of a resolution. This motion was granted via a text order on April 21, 2025, staying the case for thirty days to allow the parties to finalize a settlement agreement. The parties were ordered to file dismissal papers or a Motion for Scheduling Order by May 19, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing: A Markman hearing was held on February 19, 2025, before Judge Derek T. Gilliland.
• Claim Construction Order: A Claim Construction Order was issued on February 21, 2025. The order provided the Court's final claim construction rulings, noting that a more detailed order explaining the analysis would be issued later.
  • For the term "set of processor cores" (Claims 1, 21), the parties agreed to the construction "a group of two or more processor cores."
  • For the disputed term "each processor core from the first/second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first/second supply voltage [from a power control block] and a first/second output clock signal" (Claims 1, 21), the Court adopted the plain and ordinary meaning, finding it not indefinite.
  • For the term "located in a periphery of the multi-core processor" (Claim 5), the Court adopted the plain and ordinary meaning, finding it not indefinite.
  • For 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), the Court found the term indefinite.

4. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• Case Stayed for Settlement: As of April 21, 2025, the case was stayed for thirty days for the parties to finalize a settlement agreement. The order required dismissal papers or a motion for a new scheduling order by May 19, 2025.
• Termination: PacerMonitor indicates the case was terminated on June 6, 2025. This suggests the settlement was finalized and dismissal occurred.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00085 (MediaTek): MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00085) of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 on October 22, 2024. The petition requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of Claims 1-6, 8-11, 14, and 21.
• IPR2025-00485 (NXP/Qualcomm): NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00485) against Redstone Logics LLC for U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339 on January 21, 2025.
  • NXP USA, Inc. moved to dismiss itself as a co-petitioner in this IPR on May 30, 2025, following an agreement in principle to settle their dispute, including the related litigation (Redstone Logics LLC v. NXP Semiconductors N.V., et al., No. 7:24-cv-00028).
  • The PTAB issued a Director Discretionary Denial for IPR2025-00485 on July 9, 2025, which also served as the institution decision and termination date.## Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al.: Litigation Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement lawsuit, Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-00029, commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 26, 2024. Redstone Logics alleged that MediaTek's products, specifically those incorporating the DynamIQ Shared Unit (DSU) architecture, infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339, which pertains to processor core communication in multi-core processors. The case ultimately concluded with a settlement and dismissal in June 2025.

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: Redstone Logics LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. on January 26, 2024.
• Service of Process: MediaTek USA, Inc. was served on January 30, 2024, and MediaTek Inc. waived service on February 14, 2024.
• Infringement Contentions: Redstone Logics served its initial infringement contentions on August 15, 2024, asserting claims 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 21 of the '339 patent.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Report and Recommendations on Motion to Dismiss: A Report and Recommendations was issued concerning a Motion to Dismiss filed by MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. on February 26, 2025.
• Case Reassignment: The case was reassigned from Judge David Counts to Judge Alan D. Albright for all further proceedings on February 26, 2025.
• Joint Motion to Stay: On April 18, 2025, Redstone Logics filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines, indicating a resolution had been reached. The court granted this motion on April 21, 2025, staying the case for 30 days to allow the parties to finalize their settlement agreement and requiring dismissal papers or a motion for a new scheduling order by May 19, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Markman Hearing: A Markman (claim construction) hearing was conducted before Judge Derek T. Gilliland on February 19, 2025.
• Claim Construction Order: A Claim Construction Order was issued on February 21, 2025.
  • The term "set of processor cores" (claims 1, 21) was agreed upon as "a group of two or more processor cores."
  • Disputed terms such as "each processor core from the first/second set of processor cores is configured to dynamically receive a first/second supply voltage [from a power control block] and a first/second output clock signal" (claims 1, 21) and "located in a periphery of the multi-core processor" (claim 5) were construed under their plain and ordinary meaning and found not indefinite.
  • However, 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.

4. Final Disposition:

• Settlement and Dismissal: Following the joint motion to stay for settlement, the case was terminated on June 6, 2025, indicating a final settlement and dismissal.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00085 (MediaTek): MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the '339 patent (IPR2025-00085) with the PTAB on October 22, 2024, seeking to cancel claims 1-6, 8-11, 14, and 21.
• IPR2025-00485 (NXP/Qualcomm): Separately, NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated also filed an IPR petition against Redstone Logics LLC for the '339 patent (IPR2025-00485) on January 21, 2025. NXP USA, Inc. later moved to dismiss itself as a co-petitioner in this IPR on May 30, 2025, after reaching a settlement in a related litigation. The PTAB issued a Director Discretionary Denial for IPR2025-00485 on July 9, 2025, which also marked its termination.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record representing Redstone Logics LLC in Redstone Logics LLC v. MediaTek, Inc. et al. (7:24-cv-00029):

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mirzaie is identified as lead counsel for Patent Owner Redstone Logics LLC in a related Inter Partes Review proceeding concerning the '339 patent. His firm, Russ August & Kabat, is listed as representing Redstone Logics LLC in the district court case.

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is listed as representing Redstone Logics LLC. (Specific patent litigation experience for Fenster was not detailed in the provided search results but is generally implied by his firm's representation in a patent case.)

• Christian W. Conkle

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is listed as representing Redstone Logics LLC. (Specific patent litigation experience for Conkle was not detailed in the provided search results but is generally implied by his firm's representation in a patent case.)

• Jonathan Ma

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is listed as representing Redstone Logics LLC. (Specific patent litigation experience for Ma was not detailed in the provided search results but is generally implied by his firm's representation in a patent case.)

• Qi (Peter) Tong

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Russ August & Kabat is listed as representing Redstone Logics LLC. (Specific patent litigation experience for Tong was not detailed in the provided search results but is generally implied by his firm's representation in a patent case.)

• Joshua Scheufler

  • Role: Pro Hac Vice
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results, but granted pro hac vice for Redstone Logics LLC.
  • Experience Note: Joshua Scheufler was granted pro hac vice to appear for Redstone Logics LLC. (Specific patent litigation experience and firm details were not immediately available in the provided search results.)

No in-house or local counsel were explicitly identified in the provided search results for the plaintiff, beyond the attorneys listed from Russ August & Kabat and the pro hac vice appearance. The case was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on February 26, 2025.

MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. are represented by several attorneys from different law firms.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Lead Counsel (tentative, based on firm reputation and past representations for similar clients):

• Rudy Y. Kim - Partner, Chair of Palo Alto office
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Experience: Mr. Kim has over 25 years of experience in high-stakes IP and technology litigation, including patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation cases in federal district and appellate courts, the ITC, and the PTO. He has represented clients such as TSMC, Freescale (now NXP Semiconductor), and Marvell, and has significant experience in semiconductor design and fabrication and wireless communication technologies.

Other Counsel of Record (roles may vary, but they are identified on the docket):

• Jonathan Sanders - Counsel

  • Firm: Simpson Thacher (likely Palo Alto or New York, given firm's IP presence)
  • Experience: Mr. Sanders focuses on patent litigations in federal district courts, appeals in the Federal Circuit, and proceedings before the PTAB. He has led patent litigations for clients including MediaTek in the past, as well as Cisco, Marvell, and Intel.

• Jeffrey T. Han - Attorney

  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP (Austin, TX)
  • Experience: Mr. Han is listed as an attorney in Austin, TX, with experience in Federal Circuit Appeals. His firm, Vinson & Elkins, has a significant intellectual property practice.

• David W. Su - Corporate Senior Vice President and General Counsel

  • Firm: MediaTek, Inc. (In-house counsel, Taiwan)
  • Experience: Mr. Su oversees MediaTek's legal and intellectual property functions. Prior to MediaTek, he led intellectual property and business transaction divisions at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (TSMC) and was a partner specializing in litigation and intellectual property laws at Lee & Li, Attorneys-at-Law, Taiwan's largest law firm.

It's important to note that the PacerMonitor docket entry from January 26, 2024, also lists several attorneys from Russ August & Kabat as representing MediaTek USA, Inc. and MediaTek, Inc., including Christian W. Conkle, Jonathan Ma, Marc A. Fenster, Qi (Peter) Tong, and Neil A. Rubin, and Reza Mirzaie. Given the firm's involvement in the initial filing and the ongoing nature of the case, it is highly probable they continue to represent the defendants. Reza Mirzaie, specifically, is noted as filing a "Joint MOTION to Stay ALL DEADLINES AND NOTICE OF RESOLUTION" on April 18, 2025.

The case also involved a Markman hearing on February 19, 2025, with a claim construction order issued on February 21, 2025. An expert declaration for claim construction was provided by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP for MediaTek, Inc. in this case.