Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00555, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on May 19, 2025. The plaintiffs are Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd., which appear to be Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), actively asserting patents formerly owned by BlackBerry Ltd.. The primary defendant is Vivint, LLC (also referred to as Vivint Smart Home, Inc.), an operating company known as a major U.S. provider of smart home security systems, including integrated cameras, sensors, and automation platforms. NRG Energy, Inc. was also initially named as a defendant, but a motion to substitute parties was filed. The case was presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne as the referring judge.

The core of the dispute revolved around allegations that Vivint's Doorbell Camera Pro infringed U.S. Patent 11119756, among others. U.S. Patent 11119756, titled "System and method for controlling updates to internet-of-things devices," generally describes a computer system designed to manage and facilitate updates to IoT devices by receiving update indications, requesting device state information, determining readiness, and then initiating the update. The litigation highlighted a broader trend of "legacy mobile technology patents being asserted against modern IoT device functionality," especially in smart home devices incorporating touchscreen user interfaces or communication logic. The case was consolidated for pretrial issues with a lead case, 2:25-cv-00554, on June 26, 2025.

While the provided metadata indicated an "Active" status, court records show that the case concluded with a joint dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2026, after 231 days. This outcome typically signifies a negotiated resolution, such as a private settlement or licensing agreement, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Eastern District of Texas remains a notable venue for patent litigation, historically favored by patentees for its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated dockets. Despite the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision aiming to restrict venue, plaintiffs like Malikie and Key Patent Innovations have employed strategies, such as suing foreign affiliates, to maintain a presence in this district.

The patent infringement litigation, Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Vivint Smart Home Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00555, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has reached a final disposition. The case involved US Patent 11,119,756 B2, among other patents from Malikie's portfolio.

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome in chronological order:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • On May 19, 2025, Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Plaintiffs) filed a patent infringement complaint against Vivint Smart Home Inc. and NRG Energy Inc. (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
  • On June 26, 2025, the case was formally consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, 2:25-cv-00554, also in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • An unopposed application for an extension of time to answer the complaint was granted, making the answers from NRG Energy, Inc. and Vivint Smart Home, Inc. due by July 21, 2025.
  • A "MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint" by NRG Energy, Inc. and Vivint Smart Home, Inc. was filed on July 21, 2025, but was subsequently noted as "FILED IN ERROR PER ATTORNEY MOTION" and should be disregarded.
  • On November 7, 2025, an order was signed granting a joint motion to substitute a party.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No substantive motions to dismiss (that were not filed in error), transfer, or stay pending IPR were reported as having been decided.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case did not proceed to the claim construction (Markman) stage, given its ultimate early dismissal.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones were publicly detailed before the case's resolution.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The litigation concluded with a joint dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2026. This dismissal means Malikie Innovations cannot refile the same claims against Vivint Smart Home Inc. (and presumably NRG Energy Inc. as a co-defendant) for the same patents on the accused products. The resolution was likely a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement, with no damages or injunctive relief awarded by the court, and each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00120, was filed by NRG Energy Inc. against Malikie Innovations Ltd. concerning US Patent 11,119,756 B2 on November 14, 2025.
  • The last docket activity for this IPR was recorded on March 25, 2026. The district court case's dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2026, occurred after the IPR was filed but before a final decision or institution in the IPR proceeding, likely rendering the IPR moot for the parties involved in the settlement.

In the patent infringement case Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. et al, case number 2:25-cv-00555, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys represented the plaintiff(s), Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.:

From Miller Fair Henry PLLC:

• Claire A. Henry
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC. (Office location not explicitly found in search results, but generally, local counsel for EDTX cases are often Texas-based).
  • Experience: While specific experience for Ms. Henry beyond her appearance in this case was not immediately available in the provided snippets, Miller Fair Henry PLLC is noted as a firm appearing for the plaintiff.
• Andrea L. Fair
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC. (Office location not explicitly found in search results).
  • Experience: No specific experience beyond her appearance in this case was immediately available in the provided snippets.

From Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP:

• Matthew G. Berkowitz
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets, but the firm has offices in various locations).
  • Experience: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP is a prominent firm in patent litigation, and Mr. Berkowitz is listed as counsel for the plaintiff.
• Yue Wang
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Experience: Ms. Wang is listed as counsel for the plaintiff.
• Adam Adler
  • Role: Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Experience: Adam Adler filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Key Patent Innovations Ltd. and Malikie Innovations Ltd. on June 9, 2025.
• Naveed Hasan
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Experience: Mr. Hasan is listed as counsel for the plaintiff.
• Caroline Walters
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Experience: Ms. Walters is listed as counsel for the plaintiff.

The case was filed on May 19, 2025, and subsequently consolidated for pretrial issues with Case No. 2:25-cv-00554 on June 26, 2025. The case concluded with a joint dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2026, suggesting a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement. The asserted patent 11119756, along with others, originated from BlackBerry's mobile computing portfolio.

Defendant's Counsel in Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Vivint, LLC et al (2:25-cv-00555)

While the provided case metadata lists the status as "Active," the patent infringement case Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al v. Vivint, LLC et al, filed in the Eastern District of Texas under case number 2:25-cv-00555, was concluded with a joint dismissal with prejudice on January 5, 2026. This means the plaintiffs, Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd., cannot re-file the same claims against the defendants, Vivint, LLC (initially Vivint Smart Home, Inc.) and NRG Energy, Inc., for the same patents on the accused product. Each party bore its own costs and attorney's fees.

During the pendency of the litigation, the following counsel appeared for the defendants:

• Gilbert, Greene (Role and full name require further specific docket entry to confirm, likely Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in current search results, but associated with the defendants.
  • Office Location: Unspecified.
  • Experience: Appears to have represented NRG Energy, Inc., and Vivint Smart Home, Inc., in filing motions related to the complaint in this patent case.