Untitled case

Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:25-cv-00949). Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. is identified as an operating company and the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The defendants, QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc., appear to be operating companies as well, having been substituted for initial defendants Oxford Instruments PLC and Oxford Instruments Nanotechnology Tools Ltd. The litigation centers on U.S. Patent No. 12,313,320, titled "Integrated dilution refrigerators." This patent covers cryogenic devices capable of cooling down to extremely low temperatures, between approximately 2 mK and 1 K, which are vital for applications such as quantum computing and low-temperature condensed matter physics research. The patent also describes innovations for a faster and more efficient cooldown process without the need for an auxiliary mechanical pump.

The case was filed on July 30, 2025, with an amended complaint following on February 6, 2026. It is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. The District of Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation, particularly for cases involving corporations, as many U.S. companies are incorporated there, a trend amplified by the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision. The court is recognized for its judicial expertise, predictability, and a mature body of patent-specific precedent, making it an attractive forum for both patentees and accused infringers.

This case is notable due to its focus on cutting-edge cryogenic technology, which is fundamental to the burgeoning field of quantum computing. Furthermore, a parallel inter partes review (IPR2026-00291) was instituted against the asserted patent, US 12,313,320 B2, by defendant Quantum Design International Inc. on March 16, 2026. This IPR proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) could significantly influence the district court litigation, as it challenges the validity of the patent claims. The involvement of operating companies on both sides, rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE), suggests a dispute between direct competitors in the advanced refrigeration and quantum technology sectors.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation, Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. v. QD Oxford UK Limited et al., case number 1:25-cv-00949, in the Delaware District Court, concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,313,320 B2, has seen several key legal developments since its inception.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• The initial complaint was filed by Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. on July 29, 2025, against Oxford Instruments PLC and Oxford Instruments Nanotechnology Tools Ltd..
• On January 27, 2026, the court ordered the substitution of parties, with QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc. replacing the original defendants.
• An amended complaint for patent infringement was filed by Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. on February 6, 2026, against the substituted defendants.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• On January 27, 2026, the initial defendants, Oxford Instruments Nanotechnology Tools Ltd. and Oxford Instruments PLC, filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, specifically targeting willful, induced, and contributory infringement claims.
• Following the substitution of parties, QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on February 20, 2026. An opening brief in support of this motion was also filed on the same day, with an answering brief due by March 6, 2026.
• Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. filed an answering brief in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on February 24, 2026.
• A reply brief regarding the motion to dismiss was filed by QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc. on March 13, 2026, alongside a request for oral argument on the motion. The current status of these motions to dismiss is pending a ruling from Judge Noreika.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00291, was filed by Quantum Design International Inc. against Maybell Quantum Industries Inc. on March 16, 2026, challenging the validity of US Patent No. 12,313,320 B2. The last docket activity for this IPR was on March 30, 2026. This IPR proceeding has the potential to impact the district court litigation, as a stay of the district court case could be requested pending the outcome of the IPR. As of the current date, no motion to stay pending IPR has been identified in the available public information for case 1:25-cv-00949.

Current Posture:
The litigation is ongoing in the District of Delaware. The court is currently considering the defendants' motions to dismiss. No trial events, claim construction outcomes, or significant discovery milestones have been publicly reported beyond the initial filings and motions to dismiss. The outcome of the IPR proceeding also remains pending.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["1:25-cv-00949 Delaware District Court Maybell Quantum Industries counsel", "Maybell Quantum Industries Inc patent litigation counsel", "Richards, Layton & Finger patent litigation experience", "Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP patent litigation experience", "Fish & Richardson patent litigation experience"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc., in the case 1:25-cv-00949 in the Delaware District Court. I need to identify the attorneys, their roles, firms, and relevant experience. I will use web search to find this information, specifically looking for docket entries or news articles that mention plaintiff's counsel.

Given the previous sections, it's common for there to be both lead counsel (often from a larger IP firm) and local counsel (from a Delaware firm).

I will search for "1:25-cv-00949 Delaware District Court Maybell Quantum Industries counsel" to find specific attorney appearances.
I will also look at the firms identified for the plaintiff and search for their patent litigation experience.The Plaintiff, Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc., is represented by a combination of lead counsel and local Delaware counsel in this patent infringement case.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Andrew Russell - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Andrew Russell is listed as the attorney who filed the First Amended Complaint for Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. in February 2026. Shaw Keller LLP is a Delaware firm that handles complex litigation, including intellectual property matters.
• Karen E. Keller - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Karen E. Keller is also listed as an attorney for Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. She is a founding partner of Shaw Keller LLP and has extensive experience in federal and state courts in Delaware, including significant patent litigation.
• Virginia Lynch - Local Counsel
  • Firm: Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Virginia Lynch is listed as an attorney for Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
• Michael A. Albert - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA
  • Michael A. Albert is listed as an attorney for Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks is a large intellectual property law firm with a focus on patent litigation and prosecution.
• Mark J. Consilvio - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA
  • Mark J. Consilvio is also listed as an attorney for Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. He practices in patent litigation.

The defendants, QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc., are represented by attorneys from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Fish & Richardson PC.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

From Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP:

• Amy M. Dudash
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
  • Office Location: Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience Note: Amy Dudash is listed as counsel for QD Oxford UK Limited and Quantum Design International Inc. and was involved in filing a partial motion to dismiss for the original defendants.
• Andrew J. Gray, IV
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in search results, but Morgan Lewis has an office in Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience Note: Andrew Gray, IV, is also listed as counsel for the defendants.

From Fish & Richardson PC:

• Ryan J. Agen
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson PC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with a strong patent litigation practice, particularly in Delaware.
• Michael J. Rue
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson PC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Fish & Richardson is known for handling complex IP matters and patent litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants.
• Katharine Wolcott
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson PC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: The firm has a deep bench of technically knowledgeable patent attorneys and a strong track record in patent prosecution and litigation.