`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. and
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO.,
`LTD., ET AL.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00134-JRG-RSP
`
`Before the Court are Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp.’s Motion for Relief from the
`
`Stay (Dkt. No. 70) and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and For an Order
`
`to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 71). On August 11, 2022, the Court stayed the case as to all defendants
`
`except Realtek Semiconductor Corp pending resolution of proceedings before the International
`
`Trade Commission (ITC) involving substantially the same patents, products, parties, and issues.
`
`Order, Dkt. No. 44. On September 11, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices,
`
`Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC’s (collectively, “AMD”) motion for discretionary stay as to
`
`remaining defendant Realtek pending resolution of the same ITC proceedings. Order, Dkt. No. 65.
`
`On March 7, 2023, Realtek notified AMD of its intent to file an action against AMD in the
`
`Northern District of California for breaching a license agreement that allegedly protects Realtek
`
`against AMD’s claims. Dkt. No. 70 at 2. Nearly six months into the stay, on March 9, 2023, AMD
`
`filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 69) addressing Realtek’s license agreement. See
`
`Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 69 at ¶¶ 87–105, 196–207. AMD’s filing of the Second
`
`Amended Complaint gives rise to Realtek’s two motions before the Court. In essence, Realtek
`
`argues that AMD violated the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 65) that “is specific in allowing precisely
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 74 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1429
`
`one subsequent joint, filing.” Realtek explains that it is now in an untenable position of not
`
`knowing when to respond and if doing so would also violate the Court’s Order. Dkt. No. 70 at 3–
`
`4. Accordingly, Realtek requests that the Court strike the Second Amended Complaint and enter
`
`an order requiring AMD to show cause. Motion to Strike.
`
`After due consideration, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Relief (Dkt. No.
`
`70) as follows: the deadline for Realtek to respond to AMD’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.
`
`No. 69) is extended to 14 days from the date the Court lifts the stay as to this action, if and when
`
`that happens. The stay remains in effect at this time. This extension will cure any prejudice from
`
`AMD’s arguably premature filing of the Second Amended Complaint.
`
`Consequently, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and For an
`
`Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 71) is hereby DENIED.
`
`____________________________________
`ROY S. PAYNE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
`
`SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2023.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
