IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

 Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA 

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”) moved to stay all case activity until the Federal Circuit rules on 

venue. Dkt. No. 163.1 After considering the parties’ briefs (Dkt. Nos. 163, 167, 170) and the 

February 14, 2022 hearing regarding case consolidation (Dkt. No. 174), the Court DENIES ZTE’s 

motion to stay. 

BACKGROUND 

This Court denied ZTE’s motion to transfer venue. Dkt. No. 156. ZTE filed a petition for 

mandamus seeking to reverse this Court’s transfer decision. In re ZTE Corporation, No. 2022-

122 (Fed. Cir. Jan 20, 2022). ZTE now seeks to stay all case activity until the Federal Circuit 

issues its decision. 

This Court heard oral arguments on Aqua Licensing LLC’s motion to consolidate this case 

with several others. Dkt. No. 174. At the hearing, this Court indicated it will grant the motion to 

1

 The Court rules on all captioned cases. Specific citations refer to the docket in Case No. 6:20-

cv-00487. 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 157 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 5
consolidate in part because WSOU has encountered or will encounter the same or similar discovery 

issues concerning third parties. These common discovery issues have arisen or will likely arise 

across cases against multiple defendants, including ZTE. 

LAW 

Stays 

In determining whether to issue a stay of proceedings, courts consider four factors: (1) 

whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the 

movant will suffer irreparable injury if the stay is not granted; (3) whether granting the stay would 

substantially harm the other parties; and (4) whether the stay would serve the public interest. U.S. 

v. McKenzie, 697 F.2d 1225, 1226 (5th Cir. 1983); Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). 

District courts possess an inherent power to manage their own docket, including the 

discretionary power to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); In re Ramu 

Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990). Stays are not awarded as a matter of right. Nken, 556 

U.S. at 427. The “standard is a demanding one” because a stay “is an intrusion into the ordinary 

processes of administration and judicial review.” Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 

No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020). The movant 

has the burden to “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., 

No. 1:19-CV-819, 2019 WL 9633629, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019). 

A party filing a petition for a writ of mandamus “seeks an extraordinary remedy from the 

Court’s exercise of discretion.” Smartflash LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-435-JRG-KNM, 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192373, at *30-31 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2015). As a result, courts normally “will 

not delay the normal litigation schedule to accommodate one party seeking this type of 

extraordinary remedy.” Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 157 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 5
Priority of Venue Decisions 

The Federal Circuit instructed district courts to prioritize deciding transfer motions before 

reaching the merits of the case. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“once a 

party files a transfer motion, disposition of that motion should take top priority in the case.”). These 

cases do not instruct district courts to stay cases after the district court issues its venue transfer 

decision, nor do these cases bear on the four-factor analysis. 

ANALYSIS 

(1) Likelihood of Success Assumed. 

The Court does not substantively reach this factor because even if ZTE’s petition for a writ 

of mandamus is likely to succeed, the other three factors weigh strongly against a stay and 

collectively outweigh this factor. For purposes of this decision, the Court assumes this factor 

favors ZTE. 

(2) ZTE fails to show an irreparable injury if the stay is not granted. 

ZTE will not suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. ZTE argues that continued discovery 

and proceeding to a Markman hearing will cause irreparable harm. These typical costs associated 

with discovery and defending a suit do not warrant a stay. “Ordinary discovery deadlines, without 

more, does not give rise to an undue burden.” Kaneka Corp. v. JBS Hair, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-1430, 

2011 WL 13167931, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2011). “The prospect of burdensome or expensive 

discovery alone is not sufficient to demonstrate ‘irreparable injury.’” M.D. v. Perry, No. C-11-84, 

2011 WL 7047039, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 21, 2011). 

ZTE complains that it has a disproportionate discovery burden. Accused infringers 

naturally produce more documents in patent cases. Nothing about this imbalance constitutes 

irreparable harm. Regardless of whether it occurs in this District or the NDTX, ZTE will have to 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 157 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 5
proceed with fact discovery related to the accused products and infringement and bear its own 

burden of production. 

ZTE also argues that claim construction should proceed in the transferee forum to minimize 

duplication of judicial and party efforts. ZTE fails to substantiate its concerns and fails to provide 

any authority compelling a court in the transferee forum to duplicate the work of this Court. 

In conclusion, this factor strongly weighs against a stay due to lack of irreparable harm. 

(3) Granting the stay would harm WSOU. 

ZTE argues that a stay would help WSOU conserve resources and otherwise benefit WSOU 

by preventing duplicative litigation. The Court disagrees. 

This case will be consolidated with several others for purposes of judicial efficiency. This 

court will consolidate the cases, in part, due to related discovery disputes involving WSOU and 

third parties. This case has or will likely encounter the same discovery issues with those same 

third parties. It makes no sense to consolidate this case for purposes of discovery only to then 

immediately stay this case. WSOU would not want to separately relitigate those same discovery 

requests against ZTE after this case is stayed. In short, a stay will harm WSOU by depriving 

WSOU of efficiency gained from consolidation. 

Additionally, a stay would harm WSOU by delaying WSOU’s ability to enforce its patent 

rights. A stay will destroy the current case schedule, thereby delaying discovery and WSOU’s 

right to timely enforce its patents. See, e.g., Uniloc, 2020 WL 1433960, at *4 (delay in prosecution 

of infringement claims is prejudicial because “a plaintiff has a right to timely enforce its patents”); 

Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 2017 WL 6559172, at *4 (denying a stay pending mandamus noting 

that “a plaintiff has a right to timely enforcement of its patent rights, even if [it] does not practice 

the asserted patents, [or] could be made whole by money damages”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 157 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 5
In conclusion, this factor strongly weighs against a stay because a stay would harm WSOU. 

(4) Granting the stay would not serve the public interest. 

A stay here would greatly disserve the public interest. This case will be consolidated with 

several others for purposes of judicial efficiency. This court will consolidate the cases, in part, 

due to related discovery disputes involving third parties who have a strong interest in not staying 

this case. This case has or will likely encounter the same discovery issues with those same third 

parties. It makes no sense to consolidate this case with others for purposes of discovery only to 

then immediately stay this case and allow consolidated discovery in the other cases to proceed. 

Those third parties would not want to separately relitigate those discovery requests in this case 

after a stay. 

In conclusion, the interests of third parties will greatly suffer if this Court grants a stay, so 

this factor strongly weighs against a stay. 

CONCLUSION 

Three of the four factors weigh so strongly against a stay that they collectively outweigh 

the first factor, regardless of how this Court decides the first factor. The Court DENIES ZTE’s 

motion to stay. 

SIGNED this 16th day of February, 2022. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 157 Filed 02/16/22 Page 5 of 5