Untitled case

Patent Infringement Lawsuit: Malikie Innovations Targets Nintendo Switch Technology in Washington Western District Court

A patent infringement lawsuit, 2:24-cv-01490, is actively proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, with patent assertion entities Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively, "Malikie") alleging infringement against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo"). The case, presided over by Judge James L. Robart, centers on six U.S. patents that Malikie asserts are infringed by various models of Nintendo's popular Switch gaming console, its associated dock and charger, and its parental control system. The asserted patents, part of a substantial portfolio acquired from BlackBerry, cover a range of technologies, including: U.S. Patent No. 7,529,305, related to combined space-time coding and spatial multiplexing for wireless channels; U.S. Patent No. 8,115,731, concerning a method of operating a handheld device for directional input; U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247, describing a dock for a portable electronic device; U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397, pertaining to a battery charger for portable devices and related methods; U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065, directed to scattered pilot patterns and channel estimation methods for MIMO-OFDM systems; and U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571, covering a system and method of owner application control of electronic devices.

Malikie Innovations and its parent company, Key Patent Innovations, operate as non-practicing entities (NPEs), specializing in the monetization of intellectual property. Malikie acquired approximately 32,000 non-core patents and patent applications from BlackBerry Limited in May 2023 for a deal valued up to $900 million, including an initial cash payment and potential future royalties. This acquisition forms the basis of Malikie's ongoing patent assertion campaigns across various industries. The procedural posture of the case in the Western District of Washington involves an active litigation that has seen the filing of infringement claims by Malikie. While a specific strategic reason for the Western District of Washington as the chosen venue for this particular suit against Nintendo is not explicitly detailed in publicly available information, it is a federal court with established local patent rules for managing such disputes.

The case is notable as part of Malikie's broader effort to monetize the extensive BlackBerry patent portfolio. This campaign has also involved parallel litigation in other jurisdictions, including a recently settled dispute between Malikie and Nintendo in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Hamburg, Germany, which involved different patents. Furthermore, Nintendo has initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against some of the asserted U.S. patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating efforts to challenge the patents' validity. For instance, Unified Patents has filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent 9,313,065, generally directed to OFDM transmissions, which has been asserted against devices compliant with IEEE 802.11 standards. The U.S. district court proceedings in Washington were reportedly stayed due to these ongoing invalidation pressures on some of the patents. The litigation highlights the continuing trend of NPEs asserting large, acquired patent portfolios against major technology companies in the consumer electronics space.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Malikie Innovations Ltd et al v. Nintendo Co Ltd et al (2:24-cv-01490)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Washington Western District Court, involves Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. against Defendants Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc., concerning patent 8,545,247. The case is currently active and has seen significant developments, including the initiation of a reexamination proceeding at the USPTO.

Chronological Developments:

• Complaint Filing (2024-09-17): Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, case number 2:24-cv-01490. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247.
• Stipulated Protective Order (2025-06-06): A Stipulated Protective Order was signed by Judge James L. Robart, indicating the initiation of discovery and the handling of confidential information between the parties. This document was filed as Document 41.
• Order Granting Motion to Stay (2025-11-07): The court issued an order (Document 65) granting a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of a reexamination proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This stay significantly pauses the district court proceedings until the patent's validity is re-evaluated by the USPTO.

Parallel PTAB/USPTO Proceedings:

• Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247: On an unspecified date prior to November 7, 2025, an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247 was initiated at the USPTO. This reexamination led to the district court case being stayed. While the specific reexamination number is not detailed in the readily available public snippets, the court's order in Document 65 explicitly references this ongoing reexamination as the reason for the stay.

Current Posture:

The case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247 at the USPTO. The district court litigation will likely resume, or its ultimate disposition will be influenced, following the resolution of the reexamination process. No Markman hearing, trial, or final judgment has occurred due to the stay.

In the patent infringement case Malikie Innovations Ltd et al v. Nintendo Co Ltd et al, filed in the Washington Western District Court (Case No. 2:24-cv-01490), the plaintiffs, Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd., are represented by counsel from two firms: Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC and Reichman Jorgenson Lehman and Feldberg LLP. The complaint was filed on September 17, 2024.

While specific attorney names from the initial complaint were not immediately available in the provided search snippets, the following firms are identified as filing counsel:

• Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC

  • Firm Location: Seattle, Washington (commonly acts as local counsel in the Western District of Washington).
  • Relevant Experience: Breskin Johnson & Townsend, PLLC is a Seattle-based firm known for its litigation practice. While details on specific patent litigation experience for individual attorneys within this firm for this case are not readily available from the provided search results, firms in this location often serve as local counsel in federal district court cases.

• Reichman Jorgenson Lehman and Feldberg LLP

  • Firm Location: The firm has offices in various locations, including Redwood Shores, California; New York, New York; and Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: This firm is recognized for its work in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases. Although specific attorneys for Malikie v. Nintendo were not named in the provided snippets, the firm generally fields experienced patent litigators.

To obtain the precise names, roles, and office locations of the attorneys of record, a direct review of the PACER docket for document #1 (the complaint) and subsequent appearance filings would be necessary.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) Nintendo Co Ltd and Nintendo of America Inc.

The defendants, Nintendo Co Ltd and Nintendo of America Inc., are represented by counsel from Cooley LLP. The following attorneys have been admitted to practice in the case 2:24-cv-01490:

• Dena Chen

  • Role: Partner (likely Lead Counsel, admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, California
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Chen is a seasoned trial and appellate attorney specializing in intellectual property litigation. Her experience includes successfully overturning a jury verdict in a patent case, securing non-infringement, and invalidating patent claims. She has litigated in various venues across the country, including Washington, and has experience with technologies such as video game hardware, computer software, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. She also handles "bet-the-company" patent cases and has a significant Federal Circuit appellate practice.

• Matthew Brigham

  • Role: Of Counsel (likely Lead Counsel, admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, California
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Brigham litigates complex intellectual property disputes in high-tech sectors, including video game hardware and software, wireless communications, and integrated circuits. He has experience litigating before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). He was part of the Cooley team that achieved summary judgment for Qualcomm in a patent infringement lawsuit.

While Dena Chen and Matthew Brigham have been explicitly admitted pro hac vice to represent the defendants, no specific local counsel for the Western District of Washington has been separately identified in the readily available public information. The court's note regarding pro hac vice applications indicates that local counsel typically agrees to sign filings and be prepared to handle matters, suggesting that a local attorney from Cooley LLP or another firm would be involved, even if not explicitly named as "local counsel" in the search results.