Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01490, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs are Malikie Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI), both identified as non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs). Malikie Innovations is a successor-in-interest to a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by BlackBerry, while KPI is an Irish-based company that manages and invests in patent assets, including those held in trust by Malikie. The defendants are Nintendo Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Nintendo of America Inc., a major operating company known for its video game consoles and related products. The lawsuit alleges that various models of the Nintendo Switch gaming console, its dock and charger, and its parental control system infringe the asserted patents.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,529,305; 8,115,731; 8,545,247; 8,610,397; 9,313,065; and 9,542,571. U.S. Patent No. 7,529,305 relates to systems and methods for layered space-time coding and spatial multiplexing in wireless channels, enhancing data transmission with multiple antennas. U.S. Patent No. 8,115,731 generally describes a method of operating a handheld device for directional input. U.S. Patent No. 8,545,247 covers a dock for a portable electronic device. U.S. Patent No. 8,610,397 details a battery charger for portable devices and related methods. U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065 pertains to a scattered pilot pattern and channel estimation method for MIMO-OFDM wireless communication systems, aiming to reduce pilot symbols and improve channel estimation. Finally, U.S. Patent No. 9,542,571 describes a system and method for owner application control of electronic devices, particularly for remote application management.

Filed on September 16 or 17, 2024, the case is currently before District Judge James L. Robart. The procedural posture includes a minute order setting a 9-day trial, issued on March 4, 2025, and a Stipulated Protective Order signed on June 6, 2025. However, the U.S. district court proceedings were stayed in November 2025 due to pending invalidation challenges against the patents. This case is notable due to the plaintiff's nature as an NPE asserting a substantial portfolio derived from BlackBerry. Furthermore, Nintendo has filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against several of the asserted patents, including 9,542,571, 7,529,305, 8,115,731, 8,545,247, and 8,610,397, which are currently pending. Unified Patents has also initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065, leading to the institution of reexamination due to substantial new questions of patentability. The presence of Nintendo of America in the Western District of Washington makes it a logical venue, which also has established Local Patent Rules to govern such disputes.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigation, Malikie Innovations Limited et al. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01490, in chronological order:

District Court Proceedings (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington)

• September 16, 2024: Malikie Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited (Plaintiffs) filed a patent infringement complaint against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case was assigned to District Judge James L. Robart.
• March 4, 2025: A minute order was issued setting a 9-day trial.
• June 6, 2025: A Stipulated Protective Order was signed.
• November 7, 2025: The district court issued an order staying the litigation pending the outcome of inter partes reviews (IPRs) and ex parte reexaminations of the asserted patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Judge Robart found that the reviews "could narrow the asserted claims and simplify the litigation." At the same time, Nintendo's motion to dismiss one of the claims related to its parental control technology was denied without prejudice, allowing for its renewal after the stay is lifted. The court mandated that both parties report back on the progress of the USPTO and PTAB reviews every six months, and within two weeks of any final decision.

The case is currently stayed, and as such, claim construction, discovery, trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions have not yet occurred.

Parallel USPTO Proceedings (PTAB IPRs and Ex Parte Reexaminations)

The district court's stay was specifically granted due to pending invalidation challenges against the asserted patents at the USPTO.

• Prior to November 7, 2025: Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc. filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against several of the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,529,305; 8,115,731; 8,545,247; 8,610,397; and 9,542,571. These IPRs are currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Prior to November 7, 2025: Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 9,313,065. This reexamination was instituted by the USPTO, indicating that substantial new questions of patentability were raised. Ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence as a tool for challenging patent validity, particularly after 2025 USPTO policy changes that made IPRs harder to pursue.

The status of these parallel USPTO proceedings, specifically the institution decisions and outcomes for the IPRs and the reexamination for the patents asserted in this case, will determine the future course of the district court litigation. The district court has ordered updates on these proceedings, indicating their direct impact on the ongoing patent infringement lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, Malikie Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited (KPI), are represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.

Here is the counsel of record for the plaintiffs:

• Patrick Colsher (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in available search results, but the firm has offices in Houston, Redwood Shores, Atlanta, and New York.
  • Relevant experience: Colsher is named as counsel for Key Patent Innovations (and its subsidiaries Malikie and Valtrus Innovations Limited) in multiple patent infringement campaigns across various U.S. District Courts.

• Connor S. Houghton (Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in available search results.
  • Relevant experience: Houghton is also identified as counsel for Key Patent Innovations and its subsidiaries in various patent litigation matters.

• Sean M. McCarthy (Counsel)

  • Firm: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in available search results.
  • Relevant experience: McCarthy is listed as counsel for Key Patent Innovations and its subsidiaries in patent infringement cases.

It's worth noting that Malikie Innovations and KPI have been active in numerous patent assertion campaigns, often represented by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, as well as by Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC in some earlier cases. The information available primarily points to the Reichman Jorgensen firm representing Malikie and KPI in their recent litigation efforts.

The defendants, Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc., are represented by attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP and Fennemore Law.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the defendants:

Perkins Coie LLP

Perkins Coie has a substantial intellectual property practice, frequently representing technology sector clients in patent infringement disputes across various venues, including district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. More than 175 of their attorneys have degrees in STEM fields. They have been recognized as one of the most active law firms for patent litigation defense and post-grant proceedings.

• Firm Office Locations: Perkins Coie has offices in major legal and technology hubs, including Seattle, Washington, which is the location of the Western District of Washington court.

Fennemore Law

Fennemore Law also has an intellectual property and litigation practice group, assisting clients with patent litigation, prosecution, and IP counseling.

• Susan Stone Rosenfield (Chairperson of Intellectual Property and IP Litigation Practice Group)
  • Firm: Fennemore Law
  • Office Location: Phoenix, AZ (though she also has admissions in Arizona and Virginia U.S. District Courts, and is a registered patent attorney with the USPTO).
  • Relevant experience: Decades of experience in patent and trademark application preparation and prosecution worldwide, and has been recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Patent Law and Biotechnology and Life Sciences Practice.
• Chris Z. Liu (Director in Intellectual Property Practice Group)
  • Firm: Fennemore Law
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant experience: Specializes in patent litigation, patent prosecution, and IP counseling for technology companies, with extensive experience in district court litigation, IPRs, ITC-337 investigations, and Federal Circuit appeals across a broad range of technology areas.

The specific docket entries for attorney appearances were not directly retrieved in the search results, but the firms listed are known for representing major technology companies like Nintendo in patent litigation and IPR proceedings. Nintendo is notably proactive in defending its intellectual property and has been involved in several high-profile patent disputes.