MAGMA SCIENTIFIC, LLC. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Magma Scientific, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
Case No. 7:26-cv-00093, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

In a case highlighting the ongoing monetization of patents originating from established research institutions, Magma Scientific, LLC ("Magma") has sued Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("AWS") for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Filed on March 13, 2026, the lawsuit asserts that AWS's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) service infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,328,206. Magma Scientific is a non-practicing entity (NPE), identified as an entity of Bedrock IP Co. Ltd., and the patent-in-suit was originally assigned to SRI International, a non-profit scientific research institute. The defendant, AWS, is a subsidiary of Amazon and the dominant provider of on-demand cloud computing platforms globally.

The technology at issue, described in the '206 patent, involves using deep neural networks to monitor, predict, and optimize the operational behavior of computing devices or processors. Magma alleges that AWS EC2, a service that provides scalable and customizable virtual servers in the cloud, incorporates this patented technology. Specifically, EC2 features like Auto Scaling, which uses machine learning to predict and adjust computing capacity based on demand, appear to be central to the infringement allegations. The case is procedurally in its early stages before Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue known for its expertise and speed in handling patent cases, making it a frequent choice for patent plaintiffs.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It represents a broader trend of patents developed by research organizations like SRI International being acquired and asserted by patent monetization firms. An RPX Insight report noted a potential clerical error in the initial filing, where the complaint's attached claim chart appeared to be from a different lawsuit filed by an affiliated entity against Apple, suggesting a coordinated, multi-front assertion campaign by the same monetization team. The case has also drawn the attention of Unified Patents, an organization that works to deter NPE assertions, which has announced it is actively seeking prior art to challenge the validity of the '206 patent. This suggests the potential for a parallel validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common tactic for defendants in patent infringement suits.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of May 5, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit between Magma Scientific and Amazon Web Services (AWS) is in its initial stages, with the docket primarily reflecting preliminary filings. The case has seen a procedural correction and an extension for the defendant's response, but no substantive motions or rulings have been issued.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2026-03-13: Plaintiff Magma Scientific, LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Docket No. 1). The complaint alleges that AWS's EC2 service infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,328,206.
• 2026-03-13: On the same day, Magma Scientific filed a "Corrected Exhibit 2" to its complaint (Docket No. 4). This filing appears to be a direct response to the clerical error identified by an RPX Insight report, which noted that the original complaint's claim chart was from a different lawsuit.
• 2026-03-16: A summons was issued to the defendant, Amazon Web Services, Inc., officially notifying them of the lawsuit (Docket No. 5).
• 2026-04-08: Counsel for AWS made its first appearance in the case (Docket No. 9). On the same day, AWS filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file its answer or otherwise respond to the complaint (Docket No. 10). This is a routine procedural step, and the lack of opposition suggests a standard agreement between the parties to allow the defendant additional time to prepare its initial response. As of early May 2026, AWS's formal answer, which would include any defenses and potential counterclaims, has not yet appeared on the docket.

Current Status and Next Steps

The case is currently pending AWS's formal response to the complaint. Following the unopposed extension granted on April 8, 2026, the next key development will be the filing of AWS's answer or any preliminary motions, such as a motion to dismiss the case or transfer it to a different venue.

No pre-trial motions of substance, claim construction proceedings, or discovery milestones have occurred. The case remains in its nascent stages before Judge Alan D. Albright.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that, as of this date, no petitions for inter partes review (IPR) have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,328,206. It is still early in the litigation, and defendants often wait until after the initial pleading stage to file IPR petitions challenging the validity of the asserted patent. The potential for a future PTAB challenge remains a significant factor in the case's trajectory.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Magma Scientific, LLC is represented by attorneys from the law firm Russ August & Kabat, a firm noted for its active and successful plaintiff-side patent litigation practice. Based on court filings and the firm's website, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff.

While specific roles like "lead counsel" are not yet designated in the early docket, the roles below are based on their positions at the firm. The entire team is based out of the firm's Los Angeles office.

Firm: Russ August & Kabat
Office Location: Los Angeles, California

---

Reza Mirzaie

• Role: Lead Counsel (inferred as Co-Chair of the firm's plaintiff's patent infringement litigation department)
• Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)
• Noted Experience: Mirzaie has secured over $600 million for clients and co-led a trial team that won a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon in a separate patent case involving advertising technology.

Joshua M. Scheufler

• Role: Counsel (Associate)
• Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)
• Noted Experience: A former law clerk for Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in the Eastern District of Texas, he has experience in technologies including cloud networking, speech recognition, and video compression.

Jonathan Ma

• Role: Counsel (Associate)
• Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)
• Noted Experience: Previously with Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ma was part of the trial team in AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., which resulted in a $122 million jury verdict for the plaintiff.

Christian W. Conkle

• Role: Counsel (Associate)
• Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)
• Noted Experience: A member of the firm's intellectual property and litigation groups, he has externed for judges in the Central District of California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS) is represented by attorneys from the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. The initial notice of appearance was filed on April 8, 2026.

Name	Role	Firm Firm & Office Location	Notes on Experience
Rick L. Rambo	Lead Counsel	Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Houston)	Board Certified in Civil Trial Law, with extensive experience in patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation.
Stephen S. Mosher	Local Counsel	Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC (Fort Worth)	Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law, frequently serves as local counsel in Texas federal court patent cases.
J. David Hadden	Of Counsel	Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)	Co-chair of Fenwick's patent litigation group; has represented Amazon in numerous high-stakes patent cases.
Saina S. Shamilov	Of Counsel	Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)	Co-leader of Fenwick's patent litigation practice with a focus on technologies like AI and cloud computing.

Counsel Details

Initial filings confirm that Amazon Web Services has retained a multi-firm team, a common strategy for major patent litigation in Texas.

• Lead Counsel from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius: The first attorney to appear on behalf of AWS was Rick L. Rambo, a partner in the Houston office of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. His appearance was filed on April 8, 2026 (Docket No. 9). Mr. Rambo is a seasoned trial lawyer with a focus on intellectual property disputes in Texas courts.

• Local Counsel from Whitaker Chalk: Stephen S. Mosher of Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC in Fort Worth, Texas, has appeared as local counsel for AWS. His extensive experience in Texas federal courts, particularly in patent matters, fulfills the district's requirements for local representation. His name also appears on the unopposed motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 10).

• Of Counsel from Fenwick & West: While not the first to appear, docket entries show that nationally recognized patent litigators from Fenwick & West, including partners J. David Hadden and Saina S. Shamilov from the firm's Mountain View, California office, have been admitted pro hac vice to serve as counsel. Fenwick & West has a long-standing relationship with Amazon and has defended the company in numerous patent infringement lawsuits across the country, including in the Western District of Texas. Their involvement signals the high-stakes nature of the litigation.

This combination of a national trial firm, a prominent West Coast-based technology law firm, and experienced Texas local counsel is typical for a defendant of AWS's size in a significant patent case before Judge Albright.