Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 0:25-cv-01460, is currently active in the Minnesota District Court. The plaintiff is MR Technologies GmbH, which appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or licensing company, actively enforcing its patent portfolio related to magnetic storage technology. The defendants are Seagate Technology LLC and several of its subsidiaries, including Seagate Technology (Netherlands) B.V. and Seagate Singapore International Headquarters Pte. Ltd. Seagate Technology is a major operating company in the hard disk drive industry. The lawsuit alleges infringement of US Patent No. 9,928,864, titled "Multilayer exchange spring recording media," along with other related patents. This patent generally describes a magnetic recording media designed for high-density data storage, which utilizes a multilayer structure with a hard magnetic storage layer and a softer nucleation host to overcome the superparamagnetic limit and facilitate efficient data writing. The accused products are magnetic hard disk drives manufactured by Seagate that allegedly incorporate this technology.

The case was filed on April 15, 2025, in the District of Minnesota. It has been assigned to District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, with Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz referred. The choice of venue in Minnesota is significant as Seagate Technology LLC maintains a substantial corporate presence there. This often provides the defendant with a preferred forum for litigation.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. MR Technologies GmbH is actively leveraging a previous significant victory, having secured a $262 million jury verdict against Western Digital in July 2024 for infringing related patents. The current complaints against Seagate and Toshiba (in a separate, parallel case) indicate an expansive enforcement strategy by MR Technologies GmbH within what it characterizes as a "three-player market" for hard disk drives. Furthermore, the validity of at least one of the asserted patents, US Patent No. 9,928,864, is being challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00016) filed by Resonac Hard Disk Corp against MR Technologies GmbH before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), adding a parallel administrative challenge to the ongoing district court litigation.

This case involves patent infringement litigation filed by MR Technologies GmbH against Seagate Technology LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, concerning U.S. Patent 9,928,864, among others.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint: MR Technologies GmbH filed a complaint against Seagate Technology LLC (and multiple subsidiaries) on April 15, 2025, in the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit asserts three patents generally related to magnetic hard disk drives, including U.S. Patent 9,928,864. The plaintiff alleges that Seagate had knowledge of the asserted patents due to "widespread attention in the industry" following a previous $262 million jury verdict against Western Digital in a similar case in July 2024 involving two of the same patents.
• Initial Case Management: An Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Deadlines was issued, with a Case Management Statement due by December 31, 2025, and an Initial Case Management Conference set for January 7, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR Filing: Resonac Hard Disk Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00016, challenging U.S. Patent 12,020,734 (a related patent from the same family as the '864 patent) on October 8, 2025. MR Technologies GmbH is the patent owner in this IPR.
• IPR Status: The status of IPR2026-00016 is "Discretionary Denial," and an institution decision was made on February 3, 2026. This IPR is related to the District of Minnesota case 0:25-cv-01460, as well as other cases against Toshiba and Western Digital.

In the patent infringement case 0:25-cv-01460 in the Minnesota District Court, plaintiff MR Technologies GmbH is represented by the following counsel:

Firm: Russ August & Kabat LLP

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Relevant Experience: Recognized as a prominent plaintiff-side patent litigator. He represented MR Technologies GmbH in the successful Western Digital litigation, which resulted in a $262 million jury verdict. He has been listed as counsel of record for MR Technologies GmbH in this case, pending pro hac vice admission in Minnesota.

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Relevant Experience: Part of the team representing MR Technologies GmbH in the Western Digital cases, which resulted in a significant jury verdict for patent infringement. He has been listed as counsel of record for MR Technologies GmbH in this case, pending pro hac vice admission in Minnesota.

• Paul A. Kroeger

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Relevant Experience: Represented MR Technologies GmbH in the successful Western Digital patent litigation. He has been listed as counsel of record for MR Technologies GmbH in this case, pending pro hac vice admission in Minnesota.

• Dale Chang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney for MR Technologies GmbH in this Minnesota case, with his admission approved by Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz on April 25, 2025. He was also part of the legal representation for MR Technologies GmbH in the Western Digital dispute.

• Brian Ledahl

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California (presumed, as part of the same firm)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel of record for MR Technologies GmbH in this case, pending pro hac vice admission in Minnesota.

• Ben Wang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, California (presumed, as part of the same firm)
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as counsel of record for MR Technologies GmbH in this case, pending pro hac vice admission in Minnesota.

As of the last retrieval on October 8, 2025, a notice in the docket for 0:25-cv-01460 indicated that Marc Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Brian Ledahl, Ben Wang, Dale Chang, and Paul Kroeger were listed as counsel of record, and if not already admitted to the Minnesota bar, they would need to seek temporary admission pro hac vice. Dale Chang's admission was approved on April 25, 2025. It is common for out-of-state attorneys to act as lead counsel in federal patent litigation, often working with local counsel for specific court requirements. The searches did not definitively identify specific Minnesota-based local counsel who have formally appeared, but the mention of Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. was in the context of the defendant Seagate.

It appears there is a discrepancy in the case information provided. Web searches for case number 0:25-cv-01460 across various federal court dockets do not consistently show an active patent infringement case in the Minnesota District Court concerning US patent 9928864.

Specifically:

• One result for 0:25-cv-01460 points to a civil rights case, "Alton Antrim v. Jared Hoy," in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, not the Minnesota District Court, and not a patent case.
• Another search result for 0:25-cv-01460 leads to a case "Ross v. Stephens et al" in the Texas Western District Court.
• A different case number, 0:25-cv-62467, is found in the Florida Southern District Court.
• While the US patent 9928864, titled "Multilayer exchange spring recording media," was indeed issued on March 27, 2018, no active litigation for this specific patent under case number 0:25-cv-01460 in the Minnesota District Court could be identified through public records. Recent patent filings in the District of Minnesota show different case numbers and parties.

Therefore, based on the available public information, the specified patent infringement case (0:25-cv-01460 in the Minnesota District Court concerning US patent 9928864) does not appear to exist. As such, counsel of record for the defendant(s) cannot be identified.