Malikie Innovations Limited v. Core Scientific, Inc.

Case Background: NPE Asserts Ex-BlackBerry Patents Against Crypto Miner in Texas

This patent infringement lawsuit pits Malikie Innovations Limited, an Irish non-practicing entity (NPE), against Core Scientific, Inc., a major US-based operator of data centers for Bitcoin mining and high-performance computing. Malikie, along with its trust beneficiary Key Patent Innovations Limited, is asserting a portfolio of patents originally developed by Certicom and later acquired from BlackBerry. These entities are part of a broader patent assertion strategy funded by Key Patent Innovations, targeting a wide range of technology companies. Core Scientific, which recently emerged from bankruptcy, operates one of the largest digital asset mining and colocation infrastructures in North America. The lawsuit, filed in May 2025, alleges that Core Scientific's Bitcoin mining operations, which are fundamental to its business, infringe on these acquired patents.

The core of the dispute revolves around the use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) in standard Bitcoin operations. Malikie alleges that Core Scientific's process of verifying transactions using ECC-based digital signatures directly infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,020,281. This patent, originally from Certicom's portfolio, generally covers techniques for accelerating digital signature verification, a crucial step in the Bitcoin mining process. The case is procedurally situated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00519), a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, for its expertise in patent matters and favorable procedural rules, despite recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at limiting forum shopping.

This litigation is notable for its potential to significantly impact the cryptocurrency industry. If Malikie's infringement claims are successful, it could establish a precedent allowing patent holders to demand royalties on fundamental blockchain operations, potentially increasing costs and legal risks for miners, node operators, and other participants in the ecosystem. The case is part of a wider assertion campaign by Malikie, which has also targeted other major players in the crypto space, like Marathon Digital, with similar allegations. The litigation also reflects a growing trend of NPEs acquiring patent portfolios from operating companies like BlackBerry to monetize them against industries that have grown around foundational technologies, raising critical questions about innovation and intellectual property in the decentralized economy.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments and the current posture of the Malikie Innovations Limited v. Core Scientific, Inc. case.

Case Status: Ongoing

Key Legal Developments (Chronological):

• 2025-05-12: Complaint Filed
  Malikie Innovations Limited, along with Key Patent Innovations Ltd., filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Core Scientific, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00519). The complaint alleges that Core Scientific's Bitcoin mining operations, which use Elliptical Curve Cryptography (ECC) for transaction verification, infringe on several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,020,281, originally developed by Certicom and later acquired from BlackBerry. The plaintiffs allege the infringement was willful, citing notice letters sent to Core Scientific in March and April 2025.

• Initial Pleadings and Motion to Dismiss
  Following the complaint, Core Scientific engaged in initial legal maneuvers. While the precise date of Core Scientific's answer to the complaint is not readily available in the public record, the company did file a motion to dismiss the case (DE-20). Core Scientific had previously responded to Malikie's notice letters by stating that the communications violated a Bankruptcy Court order related to its Chapter 11 restructuring, from which it emerged in January 2024. This likely formed a basis for their early defensive motions.

• 2026-03-18: Motion to Dismiss Denied
  Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne denied Core Scientific's motion to dismiss (DE-82), allowing the case to proceed. This was a significant early victory for Malikie, ensuring the litigation would move forward into more substantive phases.

• 2026-03-27: Core Scientific Files Third-Party Complaint Against CoreWeave
  In a strategic move to shift potential liability, Core Scientific filed a third-party complaint against AI-cloud computing company CoreWeave Inc. Core Scientific alleges that the equipment and activities of CoreWeave, which uses space in Core Scientific's data centers for high-performance computing, are responsible for any infringement of at least two of the patents asserted by Malikie. This action seeks to have CoreWeave cover any damages if Core Scientific is found liable.

• Present Posture (as of 2026-05-05):
  The case remains active and is in the pre-trial stages. Following the denial of the motion to dismiss and the addition of CoreWeave as a third-party defendant, the parties are likely engaged in discovery. There is no publicly available information indicating that the case has reached a Markman hearing for claim construction or that a trial date has been set. There have been no announcements of a settlement.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

There is no public record of Core Scientific, Inc. having filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,020,281. However, the broader context of patent litigation strategy makes an IPR filing a potential future development.

Notably, in a move to encourage challenges to Malikie's patent portfolio, Unified Patents sponsored a crowdsourced prior art search for patent 7,020,281. On April 28, 2026, a winner was announced for identifying prior art relevant to the patent's validity. This effort by a third party to uncover prior art could aid defendants in this and other lawsuits brought by Malikie.

Summary of Outcome:

The litigation is ongoing, with no final outcome such as a judgment, settlement, or dismissal. The case is proceeding through the standard phases of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The key developments to date have been the survival of the initial motion to dismiss and Core Scientific's strategic decision to involve CoreWeave as a third-party defendant. The lack of a parallel IPR proceeding by Core Scientific is a noteworthy aspect of their defense strategy so far.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

The plaintiff, Malikie Innovations Limited, is represented by attorneys from the national trial boutique Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF), a firm known for handling high-stakes intellectual property litigation. Docket entries confirm appearances by partners from the firm.

Below are the attorneys of record identified from docket information and other litigation filings.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: Courtland L. Reichman

  • Role: Lead Counsel (confirmed by notice of appearance).
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Note: As the firm's managing partner, Reichman is a nationally recognized trial lawyer with over 100 patent cases handled and recently secured a $525 million patent infringement verdict against Amazon Web Services.

• Name: Khue V. Hoang

  • Role: Lead Counsel (confirmed by notice of change of address on docket).
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: An experienced patent trial lawyer, Hoang has secured major verdicts, including a $236 million win against VMware and an $84 million verdict for Densify.

---

Additional Counsel

While their specific roles in this case are not yet detailed on the docket, the following attorneys from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg are consistently named in connection with Malikie's broader litigation campaign and are likely part of the litigation team.

• Name: Matthew G. Berkowitz

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Note: A Chambers-ranked patent litigator who has acted as lead counsel in over 20 district court and post-grant proceedings and previously spearheaded the IP litigation practice at Shearman & Sterling.

• Name: Patrick Colsher

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, New York | Silicon Valley.
  • Note: A registered patent attorney with significant trial experience, having handled nearly 100 post-grant and inter partes review trials before the USPTO.

• Name: Connor S. Houghton

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: An experienced IP attorney who litigates in federal courts, the ITC, and the USPTO, and was part of the team that secured an $84 million willful patent infringement verdict for Cirba.

• Name: Sean M. McCarthy

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: A technology-focused patent litigator with extensive experience in all phases of litigation in U.S. district courts, the ITC, and at the Federal Circuit.

• Name: Naveed S. Hasan

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: An IP attorney with a focus on complex patent disputes, leveraging prior experience at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

• Name: Michael Caulkins

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP.
  • Note: Patent attorney listed on court dockets for related Malikie litigation, indicating involvement in the broader cryptocurrency patent assertion campaign.

An analysis of the court docket in Malikie Innovations Limited v. Core Scientific, Inc., 2:25-cv-00519 (E.D. Tex.), has identified the following attorneys as counsel of record for defendant Core Scientific, Inc. The team is primarily from the law firm Winston & Strawn LLP.

Winston & Strawn LLP

• Name: Brian E. Ferguson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note on Experience: Ferguson's practice focuses on patent litigation before district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), with experience across various technology sectors.

• Name: Yuchen Han

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago
  • Note on Experience: Han concentrates on patent litigation and has represented clients in disputes involving computer hardware, software, and telecommunications technologies.

• Name: Rex Andrew Mann

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago
  • Note on Experience: Mann's practice centers on intellectual property litigation, where he represents clients in complex patent cases.

• Name: Olivia A. Wogon

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas
  • Note on Experience: Wogon is a patent litigator with experience representing clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.