Empire Technology Development LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited et al, No. 2:25-cv-00837 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2026)

Before the Court is Defendants Lenovo Group Ltd.’s and Lenovo PC HK Ltd.’s Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Inter Partes Review, Ex Parte Review, and Related Litigation. Dkt. No. 36. Having considered the Motion and related briefing, see Dkt. Nos. 43, 45, 48, the Motion should be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Empire asserts infringement of Claims 25 and 29 of U.S. Patent 8,798,120 and Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,565,331. Those claims have been or are the subject of both prior litigation in this Court—Empire Tech. Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 2:23-CV-00427-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)—and reexamination, at Samsung’s request, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office:

2Generally, Lenovo makes two arguments. First, a stay pending resolution of the IPR appeal and ex parte reexamination will simplify the issues. Dkt. No. 36 at 6–10. Second, a stay until resolution of the Samsung post-trial motions will simplify the issues and may give rise to issue preclusion or the Kessler doctrine, because the accused devices in both Samsung and this cause use the same or similar Qualcomm components at the heart of the alleged infringement. Id. at 10– 12.

3Accusing Lenovo of “seek[ing] to halt this lawsuit based on piecemeal litigation with an unrelated third party,” Dkt. No. 43 at 1, Empire responds with four counterpoints. First, a stay will not simplify the issues because Claim 29 has been determined “not unpatentable” by the PTAB. Id. at 5–6. Second, concerning Claim 25, any potential simplification of issues is speculative and years away. Id. at 6–7. Third, the ex parte reexamination is unlikely to invalidate the ’331 Patent claims.⁷ Id. at 7–8. Finally, issue preclusion will not apply because the issues in Samsung are not identical and the facts “necessarily decided” in Samsung are indeterminable. Id. at 8–12.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court has authority to stay cases based on its inherent power to control its own docket. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG, 2021 WL 465424, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021). When evaluating a stay request, courts consider: (1) whether the stay will likely result in simplifying the case, (2) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the nonmovant, and (3) whether the proceedings have reached an advanced stage. Lionra Techs. Ltd. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00097-JRG, 2025 WL 1239317, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2025). “Based on th[ese] factors, courts determine whether the benefits of a stay outweigh the inherent costs of postponing resolution of the litigation.” Id. (quoting NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015)). The party seeking a stay has the burden to establish it is justified. Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00390-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 3826051, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2019).

4III. DISCUSSION

Two of the three factors favor a stay. The case is at an early stage, with the claim-construction hearing scheduled for April 2027. Second, the chance that issues will simplify from at least one of the three proceedings is high.

As for whether it will be unduly prejudiced by a stay, Empire only identifies a delay in recovering monetary damages. Dkt. No. 43 at 13. But delay is “not sufficient, standing alone, to defeat a stay motion.” Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 6:15-CV-00059, 2016 WL 4394485, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2016).

Empire estimates the ex parte reexamination will not conclude until April 2027. Dkt. No. 43 at 13. Rather than proceed with claim-construction discovery and briefing as currently scheduled, and then potentially repeating that process shortly thereafter for amended or new claims, judicial efficiency warrants a stay, particularly when also considering the potential impact of the Samsung post-trial motions and IPR appeal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion, STAYS . this case, and ORDERS the Clerk to administratively CLOSE this proceeding. The Court FURTHER ORDERS the parties to notify the Court in this case whenever:

(1) the Court lifts the stay in the Samsung proceeding; (2) the Court resolves Dkt. No. 285 in the Samsung proceeding; (3) the Court resolves Dkt. No. 286 in the Samsung proceeding; (4) the Federal Circuit enters a decision on the merits of the IPR appeal, or the appeal

is otherwise terminated; or

(5) the pending ex parte reexamination concludes.

SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2026.

ROY S. PAYNE

4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE