Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Core Scientific, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Good initial grounding. Now let me dig into the patents and party background.

Now let me pin down the '039 patent specifically and the PTAB/reexam landscape.

Case Overview

Parties. Both plaintiffs are Irish entities with registered offices at the same Dun Laoghaire, Dublin address. Malikie Innovations Ltd. is the record owner of the asserted patents and describes itself as "the successor-in-interest to a substantial patent portfolio created and procured over many years by BlackBerry Ltd." (formerly Research In Motion) and its Certicom subsidiary. Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (KPI) is "the beneficiary of a trust pursuant to which Malikie owns, holds, and asserts the Asserted Patents"; Malikie is a wholly owned subsidiary of KPI, and KPI in turn is wholly owned by New PP Licensing LLC. KPI is a patent-monetization firm led by Managing Director Angela Quinlan, and it is plainly a PAE/NPE operation — not an operating company, university, or inventor-affiliated entity. Malikie acquired roughly 32,000 non-core BlackBerry patent assets in May 2023 for $170M cash at closing plus $30M after three years and a profit share (BlackBerry publicly framed the deal's potential value at up to ~$900M); the asserted patents trace to Certicom, the ECC pioneer BlackBerry acquired in 2009. The defendants are Core Scientific, Inc., an Austin-headquartered bitcoin-mining and digital-infrastructure/hosting company that filed Chapter 11 in December 2022 and emerged on January 23, 2024 (the complaint expressly limits itself to infringement "not discharged by or as a result of Core Scientific's bankruptcy proceedings," i.e., post-emergence conduct), and CoreWeave, Inc., a GPU cloud/AI-infrastructure provider that colocates NVIDIA HPC equipment in Core Scientific's data centers and was pulled in as a third-party defendant on an indemnity theory.

Accused technology. The case is, at bottom, an attack on the cryptographic plumbing of Bitcoin and on AI/HPC compute. Plaintiffs' narrative is that Bitcoin's ECDSA-over-secp256k1 signatures and SHA-256 hashing practice Certicom/BlackBerry inventions. Two waves of infringement theories are at issue: (i) Core Scientific's own bitcoin self-mining and hosting operations, and (ii) Core Scientific's HPC hosting business — chiefly the NVIDIA H100/H200/GH200/B200/GB200/GB300 GPUs and BlueField DPUs that CoreWeave owns and operates inside Core Scientific facilities, including the Denton, Texas site (a ~$1.2B expansion announced February 2025, with CoreWeave contracted for ~590 MW and Core Scientific planning ~900 MW of gross capacity). The patents and their one-line sketches:

• 8,788,827 and 10,284,370 — "Accelerated Verification of Digital Signatures and Public Keys" (the "Accelerated Verification Patents," shared specification; issued July 22, 2014 and May 7, 2019): computational shortcuts that speed up signature/public-key verification in elliptic-curve cryptosystems.
• 7,372,960 — a Certicom finite-field/accelerated-verification cryptography patent (Unified Patents characterizes it as relating to "finite field calculations in cryptography").
• 8,666,062 — a further Certicom/BlackBerry cryptography patent; I could not confirm its title from the sources reviewed and flag that as unverified.
• 8,532,286 — an ECC/cryptographic-processing patent, asserted via method claim 1 against the HPC/NVIDIA GPU activity.
• 8,712,039 — "Efficient Implementation of Hash Algorithm on a Processor" (issued April 29, 2014): categorizes and unrolls SHA-2 iterations into "even" and "odd" loops

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB, and legal news sources.

Rich docket found. Now let me pull the full docket chronology and check PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the docket's later entries, the §101 rulings, and PTAB/reexam activity.

Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Core Scientific, Inc. et al.

E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-00519-JRG-RSP (Marshall Div.) — Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne

Bottom line: As of 2026-11-13 the case is live and pretrial. There is no verdict, no judgment, no settlement, and no appeal on the merits. The only appellate activity is a denied mandamus petition on venue (Fed. Cir. 2026-140). Claim construction is the next substantive milestone (Markman set 2027-04-15), jury selection 2027-12-06. The § 101 motions to dismiss remain, so far as the public record shows, undecided.

Scope note on patents. Your metadata lists only the '039 patent. The docket shows the '039 is one of six asserted patents, added by amendment in November 2025: U.S. 8,788,827; 10,284,370; 8,666,062; 7,372,960; 8,532,286; and 8,712,039 ("Efficient Implementation of Hash Algorithm on a Processor," issued 2014-04-29, priority 2011-04-06, Certicom/BlackBerry lineage; asserted claim 1). I track the '039 specifically throughout, since that is the patent the case metadata treats as the patent-in-suit.

---

I. Filing and initial pleadings

**Answer

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiffs in this case.

Let me dig into the docket for the full list of plaintiff-side appearances and the lead counsel substitution.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Malikie Innovations Ltd. & Key Patent Innovations Ltd.

Plaintiffs are represented by a two-tier structure: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP ("RJLF") as national/lead patent trial counsel, with Miller Fair Henry PLLC of Longview, Texas acting as local E.D. Tex. counsel. Notably, lead counsel changed mid-case in June 2026.

Summary table

Detail and notes

Courtland L. Reichman — lead counsel. RJLF's founding/senior partner, based in Redwood Shores. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for substitution (Dkt. 106, filed 6/5/2026) explained that Eklem's other commitments had increased and that the addition of CoreWeave as a defendant (via the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 105, 6/3/2026) increased case scope; the Court granted the swap on June 7, 2026 (Dkt. 107, text: "Mr. Philip J. Eklem is replaced with Mr. Courtland Reichman as Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs"). Relevant experience: lead counsel in Kove IO, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. (N.D. Ill.), securing a $525M jury verdict in April 2024; RJLF's $84M willful-infringement verdict for Cirba against VMware; former global chair of King & Spalding's IP group and managing principal of McKool Smith's Silicon Valley office; Chambers USA Band 3, Law360 IP MVP 2024. (Chambers profile; Lawdragon; Bloomberg Law)

Philip J. Eklem — original attorney in charge. Named in the May 12, 2025 designation (Dkt. 5) and on the summons as plaintiffs' service contact; he signed/led plaintiffs' P.R. 3-1/3-2 disclosures (Dkt. 19), the opposition to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 38), the sur-reply (Dkt. 42), and the venue-deadline extension motion (Dkt. 43). He remains listed on the RJLF signature block in Dkt. 106, but I did not locate a withdrawal notice, so his precise current status (attorney of record acting as "of counsel" versus formally withdrawn) is not confirmed by any filing I could retrieve. Flag accordingly.

Christine E. Lehman — trial team, PHV. RJLF Washington, DC partner; co-tried Kove v. AWS with Reichman (the two were jointly named Law360 IP MVPs in 2024 and Bloomberg Law "Unrivaled" litigators in 2025) and shared the $525M verdict. Her PHV appearance in this case was docketed in spring 2026 (filing fee receipt ATXEDC-11456010).

Matthew G. Berkowitz — trial team. RJLF Silicon Valley; Benchmark Litigation notes his plaintiff-side/NPE practice, including serving as lead counsel for Valtrus enforcing Hewlett-Packard patents, including data-center cooling technology — a technology overlap worth noting given the Bitcoin-mining/ASIC focus here. (Benchmark)

Khue V. Hoang and Patrick R. Colsher — trial team (New York). Both appeared June 4, 2025 (Dkt. 12, 13). Colsher's appearance was docketed via a notice that expressly stated he was appearing "in addition to the attorneys already representing" plaintiffs. Both are recurring Malikie-campaign counsel in RJLF's later E.D. Tex. filings against Crypto.com, Fenix, and Arcadyan. No individual bios were sourced for them in this search.

Michael Polka and Michael Costello-Caulkins ("Michael Caulkins"). RJLF Silicon Valley associates; appeared January 28, 2026 and March 18, 2026 (PHV), respectively. No sourced biography information.

Andrea L. Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry — local counsel. Miller Fair Henry PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy., Longview, TX (E.D. Tex.). Both are listed as "Of Counsel" on plaintiffs' filings and Henry is the actual filer on most plaintiffs' briefs in the docket (e.g., Dkts. 42, 43, 106). Their role is the standard Marshall Division local-counsel function: Local Rule CV-11 meet-and-confer authority alongside lead counsel, and Texas-bar accountability for filings. I did not retrieve a firm bio page in this search, so I cannot source specific prior patent cases for them beyond their appearances across the Malikie campaign dossiers.

Caveats / what I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel for Malikie, Key Patent Innovations, or IPValue Management/Longitude Licensing appears on this docket. Plaintiffs' ownership/management entity counsel has not entered an appearance.
• No sealed appearance filings are implicated — all attorney appearances above are public docket entries; the sealed material in this case concerns discovery/briefing, not the identity of counsel.
• Naveed S. Hasan and Connor Houghton appear for Malikie as "All Plaintiffs" in later, related Malikie E.D. Tex. suits (e.g., 2:26-cv-00757 Fenix; 2:26-cv-00864 Crypto.com; 2:26-cv-00876 Arcadyan). I found no appearance by either in 2:25-cv-00519 — do not assume they are on this case's record.
• This docket has been volatile (amended complaints, lead-counsel substitution, a venue-transfer motion decided by Magistrate Judge Payne on 3/24/2026). Before filing anything relying on this list, re-verify against the live PACER docket sheet, particularly whether Eklem has since withdrawn and whether the case remains in Marshall Division (the -JRG-RSP suffix and any transfer order would change which local counsel designation governs).

I'll research the docket and counsel for the defendants in this case.

I have Core Scientific's counsel. Now let me identify CoreWeave's counsel and get the full docket.

Now let me pull the full docket to catch all defense-side appearances and any lead-counsel designations.

Counsel of Record — Defendants

Sourcing note: I do not have live PACER access in this session. Everything below is drawn from the RECAP/CourtListener docket for No. 2:25-cv-00519 (70244989), the Justia docket mirror, and PDFs of the actual filed papers (Dkt. 89, 106, 115) hosted on CourtListener/archive.org. Appearances entered after roughly mid-July 2026 — including any claim-construction-phase pro hac vice additions, which would be expected given the Nov. 18, 2026 Markman setting noted in Dkt. 106 — could not be verified and should be re-checked against the docket.

---

1. Core Scientific, Inc. (original defendant; third-party plaintiff)

Departed / terminated appearances (Core Scientific):

• Olivia A. Wogon — appearance filed July 30, 2025; terminated Feb. 18, 2026 by order granting withdrawal (Dkt. 67).
• Yuchen Han (King & Spalding, Los Angeles) — pro hac vice appearance July 30, 2025; terminated Feb. 18, 2026 by the same order (Dkt. 67). Their withdrawal was unopposed and no reason is stated on the docket.

⚠️ Open question on firm affiliation: CourtListener's party page for this case lists Winston & Strawn addresses for both Ferguson (1901 L St. NW, Washington, DC) and Mann (2121 N. Pearl St., Dallas) alongside their King & Spalding addresses, and there is a "Notice of Change of Address by Brian E Ferguson" at Dkt. (entered Feb. 5, 2026). Every substantive filing through at least mid-2026 still bears the King & Spalding signature block, so the operative record is King & Spalding, but this could reflect a pending firm transition that the RECAP data has partially captured. I could not confirm a move from any primary source — treat it as unverified.

---

2. CoreWeave, Inc. (added as defendant in the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 105 (June 3, 2026); also third-party defendant on Core Scientific's indemnity complaint, Dkt. 89)

No in-house counsel for either defendant has entered an appearance on the docket, and no separate local-counsel firm was retained — both defense groups use their firms' own Texas offices for the local-counsel function (K&S Dallas/Houston; Fish Dallas/Houston).

---

Strategic read for your purposes

• Two independent defense teams, formally aligned but not identical in interest. Fish represents CoreWeave in both capacities (as a § 271 defendant and as third-party defendant on Core Scientific's indemnification claim), while K&S carries Core Scientific. That posture matters for privilege and for any joint-defense coordination on the '039 patent: Core Scientific's § 101 motion pointedly does not address the '039 patent, and CoreWeave expressly reserved all '039 arguments (Dkt. 115, § IV) — i.e., the '039, the sole patent in your case summary, is the one patent neither defendant has yet moved on.
• Bench depth and role split is clearly lead/local-by-office: Kessel (Boston) and Ferguson (DC) write the dispositive motions; Bonilla and Mann are the Texas-barred relationship partners; Svetlov, Valencia and Boyce are supporting Texas associates/counsel.
• Anything filed under seal would not appear in the RECAP-derived attorney list; nothing in the public docket suggests sealed defense filings affecting appearance records.