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.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel — Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc. (D. Del. 1:25-cv-00949)

Bottom line: Maybell's Delaware counsel of record is Shaw Keller LLP (Wilmington, DE), the firm identified in the case record as plaintiff's counsel. I was unable to pull the actual docket sheet or signed pleadings in this session, so I could not independently verify which individual Shaw Keller attorneys entered their appearance or whether a national firm is serving as co-counsel alongside Shaw Keller. That gap is flagged below rather than filled in with guesswork.

---

Confirmed / reasonably grounded

Shaw Keller attorneys who plausibly appear — not verified for this docket

These are the firm's Delaware-bar patent litigators who routinely sign pleadings in Shaw Keller's District of Delaware patent matters (bar numbers from public filings in other D. Del. cases). I could not confirm their appearance in this case:

---

Procedural signals from the docket (unverified as to signatory)

The publicly indexed filing history for 1:25-cv-00949 shows a "Add Attorneys – PHV only" entry on February 24, 2026, and a pro hac vice fee payment for "02 Attorneys" around January 29, 2026. Some pro hac vice activity in the case therefore involves out-of-state counsel, but the docket snippets I retrieved do not attribute those entries to a specific party, and the January 27–29 activity cluster coincides with the Oxford Instruments defendants' partial motion to dismiss and the substitution of parties — so it may well be defense-side. Do not treat these entries as proof of plaintiff-side PHV counsel without checking the docket.

Unverified lead worth pursuing

Public PTAB tracking for the parallel IPR2026-00291 (QD Oxford UK Ltd et al. v. Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.) lists a "Rader, Michael" among patent-owner (respondent) counsel. If accurate, this would likely be the same attorney coordinating Maybell's validity defense in the district court case, and would suggest a firm beyond Shaw Keller is involved on the plaintiff side. I could not verify Michael Rader's firm affiliation for this matter, so I am not attributing it here.

Explicit gaps

• No PACER/docket-sheet access confirmed the individual signatories on the July 29/30, 2025 complaint, the February 6, 2026 amended complaint, or plaintiff's February 24, 2026 opposition brief to the motion to dismiss.
• No in-house counsel for Maybell Quantum (a Denver, Colorado–based company) was identified in public sources.
• Whether a national co-counsel firm (e.g., a PTAB-focused firm handling IPR2026-00291) is retained alongside Shaw Keller is unconfirmed.
• Nothing in the retrieved materials indicates any plaintiff-side filing is sealed; the limitation is search coverage, not a sealing order.

Recommended verification steps

1. Pull the D. Del. docket for 1:25-cv-00949 and read the signature blocks on D.I. 1 (complaint), D.I. 18 (amended complaint), and plaintiff's opposition filed 2/24/2026.
2. Check the pro hac vice motions and accompanying certifications to identify out-of-state counsel and their firms.
3. Cross-check IPR2026-00291 counsel designations (Patent Owner's mandatory notices / power of attorney) to confirm whether litigation and PTAB counsel overlap.

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.