Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al.

Redstone Logics LLC, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion vehicle, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm Incorporated and its subsidiary, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.. Redstone Logics was formed in Texas in November 2022, acquiring the asserted patent from Empire Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Allied Inventors Management, LLC, a spin-off from Intellectual Ventures LLC. Conversely, Qualcomm is a multinational technology corporation specializing in the development and design of technologies for global communications and computing, including mobile processors and artificial intelligence chips, and holds a vast portfolio of essential patents for wireless communication standards.

The litigation targets Qualcomm products that implement DynamIQ Shared Unit or big.LITTLE architectures, specifically naming products such as the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 and Snapdragon 835 Mobile Platform. The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339. This patent generally describes a multicore processor system featuring two distinct sets of processor cores, each with its own supply voltage and an independent phase-locked loop (PLL) clock signal, focusing on power management and multi-core processor operational logic. The '339 patent is currently undergoing reexamination at the USPTO.

The case is proceeding in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco), before District Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is notably popular for patent litigation, particularly among NPEs, due to Judge Albright's active efforts to attract patent cases, including fast-moving schedules and a restrictive approach to transfer motions. The case's notability stems from Redstone Logics' broader patent assertion campaign against multiple major technology companies in the multicore processing space (including previous suits against Samsung, MediaTek, NXP, AMD, Apple, and NVIDIA), indicating a strategic pattern of IP monetization. Qualcomm also filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-00485) against the '339 patent, stipulating it would not pursue overlapping invalidity grounds in the district court if the IPR were instituted. However, the PTAB denied institution of this IPR in July 2025 on discretionary grounds, partly after co-petitioner NXP settled its separate dispute with Redstone Logics.

This patent infringement litigation, Redstone Logics LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., Case No. 7:24-cv-00231, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, remains active with a trial scheduled for June 2026. The case targets Qualcomm products implementing DynamIQ Shared Unit or big.LITTLE architectures.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

• 2024 - Complaint Filing: Redstone Logics LLC filed its complaint against Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. in 2024. The exact filing date is not specified in the available records, but the case number indicates it was filed that year.
• 2024-10-22 - Parallel PTAB IPR (MediaTek): MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR2025-00085) against U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339, with an effective date of October 22, 2024.
• 2024-12-13 - Case Readiness Status Report: Redstone Logics LLC and Qualcomm Inc. jointly filed a Case Readiness Status Report.
• 2024-12-20 - Preliminary Infringement Contentions: Plaintiff Redstone Logics LLC served its preliminary infringement contentions.
• 2024-12-27 - Case Management Conference: A Case Management Conference was deemed to occur.
• 2025-01-10 - Deadline for Motion to Enter Agreed Scheduling Order: The parties' deadline to file a motion to enter an agreed scheduling order.
• 2025-01-17 - Deadline for Motion to Transfer: The deadline for filing a motion to transfer the case.
• 2025-01-22 - Parallel PTAB IPR (Qualcomm/NXP): NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated, along with other entities, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00485) against U.S. Patent No. 8,549,339.
• 2025-01-27 - Scheduling Order Entered: A Scheduling Order (Document 24) was filed, establishing deadlines leading up to trial.
• 2025-05-30 - NXP Dismissed from IPR: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) authorized NXP USA, Inc. to dismiss itself as a co-petitioner in IPR2025-00485, following an agreement in principle with Redstone Logics LLC. Qualcomm Incorporated remains a petitioner in this IPR.
• 2025-06-10 - Fact Discovery Opens & Initial Disclosures: Fact discovery commenced, and the deadline to serve initial disclosures was set.
• 2025-07-14 - Discovery Dispute (Protective Order): The Court addressed a discovery dispute regarding Qualcomm's proposals for a "Development Bar" and "Acquisition Bar" within the protective order.
• 2025-07-21 - Deadline to Add Parties: The deadline for adding new parties to the litigation.
• 2025-08-04 - Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions: The deadline for serving final infringement and invalidity contentions.
• 2025-08-28 - Order on Discovery Dispute: An order was entered, memorializing the Court's rejection of Qualcomm's proposals for a "Development Bar" and "Acquisition Bar" in the protective order.
• 2025-10-15 - Claim Construction (Markman) Order: The Court issued a Claim Construction Order and Memorandum in Support Thereof in the Qualcomm Case (7:24-cv-00231-ADA). This order's reasoning and constructions were subsequently adopted in a related case. The Court notably construed "the first clock signal is independent from the second clock signal" as having its plain and ordinary meaning, found "located in a common region that is substantially central to the first set of processor cores and the second set of processor cores" to be indefinite, and agreed to construe "a first/second set of processor cores" as "a first/second group of two or more processor cores."
• 2025-11-20 - Prior Claim Construction Adopted in Related Case: In Redstone Logics LLC v. Apple, Inc. (7:25-cv-00183), the parties' joint motion for entry of the prior claim construction from the Qualcomm Case was granted, formally incorporating the October 15, 2025, claim construction order and memorandum into that separate case.
• 2026-03-16 - Close of Expert Discovery: The deadline for completing expert discovery.
• 2026-06-22 - Scheduled Trial Date: A jury trial, including jury selection, is currently set to begin on June 22, 2026. This date has been postponed at least twice from earlier scheduled dates (e.g., February 2026 and May 2026).

The case remains active and is proceeding towards its scheduled jury trial.

Redstone Logics LLC is represented by attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. The firm's attorneys listed as counsel for Redstone Logics LLC in this case and related proceedings include:

• Marc A. Fenster
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Mr. Fenster is a well-known patent litigator, frequently recognized for his work in intellectual property law. He has represented clients in numerous high-stakes patent cases.
• Reza Mirzaie
  • Role: Lead Counsel for Patent Owner (in IPR proceeding); Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Mr. Mirzaie serves as lead counsel for Redstone Logics LLC in patent matters, including inter partes review proceedings related to the asserted patent.
• Neil A. Rubin
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation.
• Christian W. Conkle
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Involved in complex intellectual property disputes.
• Jonathan Ma
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Practicing in the area of intellectual property litigation.
• Joshua Scheufler
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Engaged in patent litigation.
• Qi (Peter) Tong
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: Serves as local counsel for Redstone Logics in the Western District of Texas.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Qualcomm in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket appearances and any additional defense counsel.

Let me get the fuller docket and check for additional appearances.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Qualcomm Inc. & Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: Qualcomm's defense is being handled by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, out of the firm's Houston and Austin offices. The same firm/team also represented NXP in Redstone's earlier-filed parallel case (7:24-cv-00028-ADA), a fact Redstone itself flagged to the PTAB — "Qualcomm is likewise represented by the same counsel as NXP was in the earlier-filed action." (Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial, IPR2025-00485, Paper 7.)

---

Counsel appearing in the district court case (7:24-cv-00231-ADA)

---

IPR-side Qualcomm counsel (IPR2025-00485 — NXP USA, Inc. and Qualcomm Inc. v. Redstone Logics LLC)

The Board's institution-denial decision and the petition's mandatory notices list Qualcomm's PTAB counsel as:

• Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361) — Norton Rose Fulbright, Austin, TX (lead in several Qualcomm IPRs)
• Daniel Leventhal, Eric Green, Richard Zembek — Norton Rose Fulbright
• Gareth Waldrop — listed with a non-firm email (gduncanwaldrop@gmail.com) on the service list in the denial decision

Whether these PTAB attorneys also entered a district-court appearance varies; Robinson's and Waldrop's names did not surface in the district-court filings I retrieved.

---

Sourcing caveats (important)

1. Incomplete docket snapshot. The full-text docket I could retrieve (Justia, Docket Alarm) is current only through November 1, 2024 for the entry-level listing; later documents (e.g., the Dkt. 32 Joint Claim Construction Statement, Dkt. 24 Scheduling Order, discovery orders) are known only through PTAB exhibits and secondary sources. Additional Notices of Appearance filed after Nov. 1, 2024 may exist and are not captured here.
2. No PACER document numbers verified for Leventhal, McKean, or Culver. Those three appear on signed district-court filings (invalidity contentions, JCCS) and/or Law360's attorney tracker, but I could not confirm a discrete Dkt. ECF Notice of Attorney Appearance for each. Treat their "of record in the district court" status as probable but not document-verified.
3. No in-house Qualcomm counsel identified. Nothing in the retrieved filings or docket shows a Qualcomm legal-department attorney entering an appearance. If any has appeared post-November 2024, it is not reflected in available sources.
4. No sealed/appearance gap flagged. Qualcomm answered and has actively litigated (invalidity contentions, discovery disputes, claim construction), so there is no indication of missing or sealed defense counsel designations — but see caveat 1.
5. Timing note / potential contradiction to flag. The case metadata summary states trial is set for June 22, 2026, while today's date is October 13, 2026. If the June 2026 trial date held, the case would no longer be "active" pretrial litigation, and/or the docket would show post-trial motions, judgment, or a continuance. My retrieved sources do not resolve this; the docket data I could reach is stale relative to the stated present date, so please verify current case status and any substituted/withdrawn counsel against live PACER. (One Law360 firm-page hit shows a June 5, 2026 docket event for Redstone Logics v. Qualcomm attributed to Norton Rose attorney Gabriel Culver, consistent with the case still generating filings in mid-2026.)

---

Quick cross-reference to the existing sections

This complements the previously generated Plaintiff representatives section (Russ August & Kabat: Fenster, Mirzaie, Rubin, Conkle, Ma, Scheufler, Tong). Notably, the same Norton Rose Fulbright team arrayed against Redstone in the NXP and Qualcomm matters is the connective tissue Redstone used to argue Fintiv Factor 3/4 against institution in IPR2025-00485 — i.e., defense counsel overlap is itself a litigated fact in this case.