Previously-Filed Federal Actions Warrant Stay Of State Case, Not Dismissal

Posted: November 21, 2025 / Written by: Channing J. Turner, Samuel L. Butt, Thomas A. Kissane, Jeffrey M. Eilender, Joshua Wurtzel / Categories Causation, Damages, Stay, Motion to Dismiss

Previously-Filed Federal Actions Warrant Stay Of State Case, Not Dismissal

On October 4, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley denied a motion to dismiss and granted a stay in deference to two previously-filed federal actions. The case is Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLC, Index No. 655738/2023.

Plaintiffs, two Comcast Cable entities, sued Entropic Communications, alleging tortious interference with Comcast’s contractual relations with non-party MaxLinear Inc. MaxLinear had entered into a Vendor Support Agreement (“VSA”) to provide support services to Comcast, among others, with respect to certain patents, which patents MaxLinear later assigned to Entropic. Prior to Comcast filing the case, Entropic had brought two federal actions in California against Comcast alleging patent infringement, and Comcast had brought an action in the Southern District of New York against MaxLinear alleging violations of their contractual agreements.

Comcast’s case before Justice Masley alleged that Entropic had induced MaxLinear to terminate the VSA and that the California actions violated a covenant in the VSA not to sue for patent infringement unless willful. Comcast sought damages for the costs it incurred in the federal actions, including attorneys’ fees.

Justice Masley rejected Entropic’s argument that Comcast failed to allege that the damages it sought arose from MaxLinear’s alleged contractual breaches and were rather an impermissible attempt to shift litigation costs:

While it is true that the California Actions were filed three months prior to the termination of the VSA, the allegation that, just 10 days after Comcast informed Entropic of its intention of filing a motion to dismiss based on the Covenant Not to Sue, Entropic engaged with MaxLinear to procure the termination is concerning. Further, as there is no determination in the California Actions that the alleged infringement was willful, it would be premature to dismiss on this ground. If the California District Court finds that the infringement was not willful, the Covenant Not to Sue provision would have served as a basis to dismiss the California Actions shortly after their commencement. Thus, if Entropic did induce MaxLinear to terminate the VSA in order to circumvent the Covenant Not to Sue, the continuing litigation costs incurred in the California Action would be a result of the termination of the VSA.

Slip op. 6-7.

However, she granted Entropic’s motion for a stay:

First, as discussed above, whether any alleged infringement was willful has direct bearing on whether the Covenant Not to Sue provision would have served as a basis to dismiss the California Actions shortly after their commencement.

Further, one element of tortious interference is whether there was a breach of contract. In the SDNY Action, the remaining declaratory judgment claim requires a determination as to whether MaxLinear attempts to terminate the VSA are invalid and violate the terms of the VSA which also has a direct bearing on this action. In order to avoid inconsistent rulings of whether MaxLinear breached the VSA, this action is stayed for this additional reason.

Id. 8-9.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning causation, damages, stays or motions to dismiss.