Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. Foundry Digital LLC et al.

I'll start by researching the parties, patents, and procedural history of this case.

I have good initial material. Let me dig into the docket's current status, the patents, and parallel proceedings.

Let me examine the docket's most recent activity and the claim construction ruling.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI") are Irish patent-monetization entities — plaintiffs are not practicing the patents and have no products; PACER/docket aggregators classify the plaintiff side as a non-practicing patent owner. Malikie is a newly formed KPI subsidiary that acquired substantially all of BlackBerry Limited's ~32,000 "non-core" patents and applications in March 2023 for up to $900 million ($170M cash at closing, $30M by the third anniversary, plus a tiered profit share to BlackBerry capped initially at $700M), funded by an unnamed "leading US-based investment firm" with >$30B AUM. (BlackBerry 8-K, Mar. 21, 2023; BlackBerry press release). The asserted patents descend from Certicom Corp. (acquired by BlackBerry/RIM), the pioneering elliptic-curve-cryptography company; the complaint names Certicom researchers Dan Brown, Robert Gallant, Robert Lambert and Scott Vanstone as the relevant inventors. Defendants are Bitcoin miners and mining-infrastructure companies: Foundry Digital LLC (operator of the Foundry USA Pool, alleged to be the world's largest mining pool at >30% of global hashrate), Fortitude Mining, LLC (Foundry's former self-mining division, spun out), Riot Platforms, Inc. (Nevada; largest U.S. miner, operating the Rockdale, Texas facility through Whinstone US), and Cipher Mining Inc., later renamed Cipher Digital Inc. (Compl., Dkt. 1; Riot's Answer, Dkt. 45). Plaintiffs' lead counsel is Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP with Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC as Texas counsel; Riot/Foundry/Fortitude are represented by Holland & Knight and K&L Gates, and Cipher by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, with Gillam & Smith as local counsel.

Accused technology and patents. The complaint does not target a discrete product; it accuses the defendants' entire Bitcoin operations as practiced — ASIC-based mining rigs, nodes, mining software, wallets, and participation in the Foundry USA Pool — on the theory that complying with the Bitcoin protocol necessarily practices the claimed cryptography: repeated SHA-256 hashing for proof-of-work, and generation/verification of ECDSA signatures over secp256k1 to receive pool payouts and move coins (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 40–68, 160–198). The five asserted patents, all Malikie-owned, are: U.S. 8,788,827 — accelerated verification of digital signatures/public keys by computing combinations of group operations (uG + vQ) with reduced-bit-length scalars, mapped by plaintiffs to Bitcoin's public-key-recovery verification (Q = r⁻¹(sR − eG)); U.S. 8,806,197 — the sibling accelerated-verification patent, asserted to read on Bitcoin's signature "recovery ID" that identifies which candidate value is the ephemeral public key; U.S. 8,666,062 — a finite-field computation "engine" that produces an unreduced result and then applies field-specific reduction (parties agreed "unreduced result" means "result without any reduction to a specific finite field or word size reduction"); U.S. 8,532,286 — reducing the computation and storage requirements of Montgomery-style modular reduction by using a single modified reduction value instead of both μ and n; and U.S. 8,712,039 — efficient implementation of a hash algorithm (e.g., SHA-2) on register-constrained processors by splitting iterations into "even" and "odd" sets and reversing the computation sequence to cut memory loads (Defs.' Opening Claim Construction Br., Dkt. 100; [Pls.' Responsive Br., Dkt. 127](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/720

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry Digital LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00567 (W.D. Tex., Midland‑Odessa Div.)

Bottom line: This is a pre‑trial, still‑active case with no verdict, no summary‑judgment ruling, and no appeal. The case has been narrowed by party attrition (Cipher settled/stayed out; a venue ruling drove a refiling against Foundry in New York) rather than by merits adjudication. The two substantive merits wins so far are (1) defeat of a § 101 motion to dismiss, and (2) a claim construction order adopting largely plain‑meaning constructions over the defendants' indefiniteness theories. Caveat on sourcing: several key orders (Foundry's venue R&R, Fortitude's dismissal R&R, Riot's transfer order) are filed under seal, so their outcomes can only be inferred; I flag those inferences explicitly.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (Dec. 2025 – Mar. 2026)

Defense counsel of record include WilmerHale (Andrew J. Danford) with Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith) for Cipher; K&L Gates and Holland & Knight appear for the mining defendants (exact party‑by‑party mapping not verified); plaintiffs are led by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Khue V. Hoang, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Philip J. Eklem) with local counsel William D. Ellerman / Mark Siegmund.

Note on the patent count: the complaint pleaded five patents, but the June 2026 R&R and the claim construction order address only four ('827, '197, '286, '039) — indicating the '062 patent was dropped from the case at some point (not confirmed by a retrieved order).

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance (Feb. – Sep. 2026)

• 2026-02-27 — Cipher's Rule 12(b)(6) § 101 motion (Dkt. 42), arguing all asserted claims are directed to abstract math (Alice step one) with no inventive concept.
• 2026-02-27 — Fortitude's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 43) plus a sealed motion (Dkt. 64); both resolved by a single R&R on 2026-08-17 (Dkt. 140). Outcome not retrievable (R&R text not public in my sources) — likely a service/venue/alter‑ego theory given the sealing.
• 2026-02-27 — Foundry's motion to dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. 44). R&R issued sealed on 2026-08-14 (Dkt. 138).
• Riot's motion for intra‑district transfer (Dkt. 66) — denied by sealed order on 2026-08-12 (Dkt. 137), keeping Riot in the Midland‑Odessa division.
• No motion to stay pending IPR was filed in this case (see § 6 below), and no summary judgment motion appears on the docket as of mid‑October 2026.

§ 101 ruling (the one fully public merits win):

• 2026-06-18 — Magistrate Judge Gilliland's R&R (Dkt. 86) on Cipher's § 101 motion, applying Alice/Cooperative Entertainment and finding eligibility could not be resolved on the pleadings.
• 2026-07-07 — Judge Counts adopted the R&R in full (Dkt. 105), with no objections filed: Cipher's motion was "DENIED without prejudice to raising patent ineligibility at the summary judgment stage." This is a meaningful plaintiffs' win — it preserves the ECC claims past the pleading stage and shifts the § 101 fight to expert-heavy summary judgment terrain. (Dkt. 105 PDF)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Briefing: Cipher's opening CC brief (Dkt. 100), plaintiffs' responsive brief (Dkt. 127, 2026‑07‑21), defendants' reply (Dkt. 135, 2026‑08‑04), plaintiffs' sur‑reply (Dkt. 141, 2026‑08‑18), Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 142, 2026‑08‑21).
• 2026-09-01 — Court circulates preliminary constructions.
• 2026-09-02 — Markman hearing held before Judge Gilliland (Minute Entry, Dkt. 153).
• 2026-09-03 — Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 154), with a more detailed opinion to follow (and the Rule 59/72 objection clock expressly not running until then). The 2026‑09‑22 entry (Dkt. 157) appears to be that further claim construction order.

Substantive outcomes in Dkt. 154 — essentially a plaintiffs' win, since most terms received plain‑and‑ordinary meaning and the indefiniteness attacks failed:

(Dkt. 154)

Notably, the Dkt. 154 caption adds Shenzhen MicroBT Electronics Technology Co. as a party, suggesting MicroBT was joined/added by amended pleading (there is a "Order on Motion to Join," Dkt. 131, 2026‑07‑24) — I could not confirm the mechanism.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2026-06-18 — Discovery dispute chart submitted; 2026-06-22 order setting a Zoom discovery hearing (Dkt. 87).
• 2026-06-24 — Discovery hearing held before Judge Gilliland (Dkt. 90), followed by sealed‑document and transcript orders (Dkts. 92–94). The sealing pattern (and the 2026‑08‑17 sealed in camera hearing transcript, Dkt. 139) suggests the disputes implicated confidential mining‑hardware/hashrate or third‑party ASIC supply information.
• 2026-07-28 — Motion hearing (Dkt. 132) on the joinder motion (Dkt. 131).
• Infringement/contentions and damages discovery are otherwise not public. No adverse discovery sanction order is visible on the docket.

5. Trial events, verdict, post‑trial motions

• None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new‑trial, or § 285 fee motion has occurred. The case did not reach trial, and the docket through mid‑October 2026 shows only case‑management, claim construction, and counterclaim‑answer activity. The § 285 fee issue exists only as pleaded relief in Riot's counterclaims and Malikie's answer.

6. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings and their effect

This is the most under‑reported piece of the case:

• No IPR or PGR was instituted against the five asserted patents in this case, and no IPR‑based stay motion was filed. The PTAB proceedings involving Malikie that are publicly indexed (IPR2026‑00003 through ‑00007, Nintendo, Oct. 2025; IPR2026‑00120, Vivint/NRG, Nov. 2025) concern other Malikie patents (e.g., '756) and were all terminated pursuant to settlement — Nintendo's and Vivint's district court cases (including Malikie v. Vivint/NRG, E.D. Tex. No. 2:25‑cv‑00555) were dismissed with prejudice. Those terminations do not directly affect this case. ([Joint motion to terminate, IPR2026‑00120](https://ptacts

I'll research plaintiffs' counsel using the docket, firm websites, and legal press.

Good initial data. Let me pull the docket's counsel entries and pro hac vice motions.

Now let me identify the remaining appearances (Adler, Shankam) and confirm lead-counsel designations.

Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record — Malikie Innovations Ltd. & Key Patent Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry Digital LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiffs are represented by a two-tier team: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF) as national merits counsel (New York, D.C., and Redwood Shores offices) and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC as Texas local counsel (Dallas and Waco). At least ten RJLF timekeepers and two local-counsel attorneys have appeared or been identified in plaintiffs' signature blocks. No in-house counsel for Malikie or KPI has entered an appearance — consistent with the plaintiffs being non-practicing monetization entities.

This supplements, and refines, the earlier case-overview statement that plaintiffs were "led by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Khue V. Hoang, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Philip J. Eklem) with local counsel William D. Ellerman / Mark Siegmund": that list is correct but incomplete — it omits Courtland Reichman, Patrick Colsher, Christine Lehman, Michael Caulkins, Michael Polka, and (pro hac vice pending/uncertain) Adam Adler.

---

1. National merits counsel — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

RJLF is an Austin/NY/DC/Silicon Valley/Atlanta trial boutique, majority women-owned, and a Managing IP "Patent Disputes Firm of the Year" honoree. (Chambers profile; firm site)

2. Texas local counsel — Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC

The firm is plaintiffs' Local Rule AT-1 counsel and is the contact named on the summons served on all four defendants — i.e., it is the formal service address for plaintiffs. (Summons, Dkt. 6)

3. Not of record / do not attribute

• Naveed Hasan (RJLF, D.C.; Reg. No. 72,688) appears on Malikie's PTAB power of attorney for IPR2026-00120 but has not appeared in 7:25-cv-00567.
• Claire Abernathy Henry (Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX) serves as Texas counsel in the separate E.D. Tex. Malikie cases but is not of record here.
• No Malikie/KPI in-house lawyer, corporate counsel, or KPI investment-fund representative appears on this docket.

4. Role mapping caveat — who is "lead"?

There is no publicly visible formal lead-counsel designation (Local Rule CV-11 / Standing Order filing) in 7:25-cv-00567. My role characterizations are inferred from: (a) who signs the substantive briefs (Eklem on the § 101 opposition and sur-reply; Hoang on discovery/venue papers; Siegmund as filing attorney), and (b) the express lead designation used in the companion E.D. Tex. case, where plaintiffs moved on June 5, 2026 to substitute Courtland Reichman for Philip J. Eklem as designated lead (Dkt. 106, Malikie v. Core Scientific, No. 2:25-cv-519). That substitution motion addresses only the E.D. Tex. case and should not be imported into this docket; if a comparable substitution occurred here, it is not in my retrieved sources.

5. Discrepancies and verification gaps to flag

1. Hoang's office address conflicts across documents. Dkt. 68 and Dkt. 91 list RJLF at 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320, New York, NY 10019, but the November 2025 PTAB power of attorney and the June 2026 E.D. Tex. signature block list 400 Madison Avenue, Suite 14D, New York, NY 10017. The docket contains a "NOTICE of Change of Address by Khue V. [Hoang]" (~Dkt. 72, 4/22/2026), which likely explains the shift; use 400 Madison Ave. as the current address but treat it as unconfirmed.
2. Name/email typos in the filings themselves. Plaintiffs' briefs render Caulkins' email as "mcaukins@reichmanjorgensen.com" (missing a "l") and Eklem's first name as "Phillip" in some declarations — these are filing errors, not different people.
3. Adler and Shankam pro hac vice outcomes are unresolved. Adler's May 29, 2026 PHV deficiency letter suggests his admission was incomplete at that time; I found no granting order. Shankam's motion is visible only in docket summaries.
4. Firm-name / entity note. Some docket entries refer to "Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC" while the signature blocks use "PC." This appears to be a clerical variance; the firm is the same.
5. This docket is unusually opaque. Several venue-related orders and the in camera hearing transcript (Dkts. 137–140) are sealed, and the PacerMonitor/C

I'll research defense counsel of record across the docket, firm announcements, and filings.

Good initial material. Let me pin down the full attorney roster and any later changes.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — Malikie Innovations v. Foundry Digital, No. 7:25-cv-00567 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line. Two defense teams appear on the public docket. Holland & Knight LLP represents the three mining-operator defendants (Foundry Digital, Fortitude Mining, Riot Platforms) as a joint defense group; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, with Gillam & Smith LLP as Texas local counsel, represents Cipher. No in-house counsel has entered an appearance. The proposed intervenor, Shenzhen MicroBT, appears through counsel I could not identify from the sources available to me (flagged in § 5).

---

1. Roster at a glance

---

2. Holland & Knight — Foundry, Fortitude and Riot

These three defendants have litigated under one H&K team since the outset. The first filing in the case by any defendant was signed by H&K "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS" on behalf of all three (Defs.' Unopposed Mot. to Extend, Dkt. 21, filed Jan. 2, 2026), and H&K signed Foundry's venue-transfer reply (Dkt. 88, June 22, 2026). At the Martin deposition, Amy Simpson stated her appearance "representing Riot Platforms, Foundry Digital, and Fortitude" (Dkt. 135-2 at 23).

Justin S. Cohen — Counsel of record for Riot Platforms; coordinating counsel for the group. Texas Bar No. 24078356. Holland & Knight LLP, One Arts Plaza, 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75201. Signed the group's first extension motion, Riot's answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 45, Feb. 27, 2026), Foundry's venue reply (Dkt. 88), and the transcript-request form for the June 24, 2026 discovery hearing (Dkt. 93). On September 2, 2026 he filed a notice of change of law firm to Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600, Dallas, TX 75201, expressly identifying himself as "counsel of record for Defendant Riot Platforms, Inc." (Dkt. 151). Note the asymmetry: his notice names only Riot, not Foundry/Fortitude, which suggests the joint representation may have been unwound at the same time — but no substitution notice for Foundry or Fortitude appears in my sources, so treat that inference as unconfirmed. Experience note: Dallas commercial/IP litigator; the H&K docket work here (venue, discovery, counterclaims) is his, but I did not find a verified list of his prior patent trials.

Robert S. Hill — Defense-side coordinating/local counsel. Texas Bar No. 276056; H&K Dallas (same address). Entered appearance for Fortitude, Foundry and Riot on Feb. 24, 2026 and has handled the procedural machinery for the group, including the pro hac vice applications for Amy Simpson and Farris Matariyeh (Hill Notice of Appearance; PHV motion for Matariyeh filed by Hill, June 2026).

Morgan J. Delabar — Texas counsel of record. Texas Bar No. 24116625; H&K Dallas. Co-signed the group's January 2, 2026 extension motion (Dkt. 21) and appears in the H&K signature block on the venue reply.

Amy E. Simpson — Lead merits/trial counsel for the mining defendants. Admitted pro hac vice for Fortitude and Foundry by order entered Feb. 25, 2026 (motion at Dkt. 39). Holland & Knight LLP, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90067. She announced the three-defendant representation on the record at the Martin deposition and is the H&K lawyer whose name appears in the venue-reply signature block for the pro hac vice group. Experience note: Los Angeles IP litigator; her role here spans venue and technical/expert discovery.

Farris S. Matariyeh — Supporting IP litigation counsel. Admitted pro hac vice on H&K's motion in June 2026; Holland & Knight LLP, 150 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60606. Per his H&K profile he is a Chicago IP-litigation attorney (patent litigation, IP diligence/licensing; biomedical-engineering background; previously at another global firm's Chicago office) (H&K bio). Discrepancy to flag: PACER Monitor's attorney list shows Matariyeh under "K&L Gates LLP," while his current firm bio and the H&K-sponsored PHV motion place him at Holland & Knight; he appears to have lateraled (his earlier K&L Gates-era appearances include SIMO Holdings v. uCloudlink and the Estech matters, where he appeared alongside Gillam & Smith's Melissa Richards Smith). The K&L Gates label on PACER Monitor is most likely stale.

Possible additional name — unresolved. The H&K signature block on Dkt. 88 concludes with a truncated "Deron R." entry following Amy Simpson's Los Angeles address. The only Texas patent litigator matching that name is Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, Texas) — a board-certified trial lawyer with extensive E.D. Tex. patent defense experience. I could not verify that he has appeared in this case or that he is affiliated with Holland & Knight, and I am not asserting it; I flag it only because the docket text is truncated at that point.

---

3. WilmerHale — Cipher Digital Inc. f/k/a Cipher Mining Inc.

Cipher's team entered in February 2026 through a batch of pro hac vice motions filed by Hannah Santasawatkul on Feb. 20, 2026 (Dkts. 29–32), all granted Feb. 23, 2026:

• Andrew J. Danford — Lead counsel. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Washington, D.C.). Filed Cipher's Rule 7 disclosure statement and the Rule 12(b)(6) § 101 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 42, Feb. 27, 2026) that produced the June 18, 2026 R&R (Dkt. 86) and Judge Counts's July 7, 2026 order denying dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. 105). Also the WilmerHale lawyer on Cipher's unopposed motion to amend the case caption to reflect the Cipher Mining → Cipher Digital name change (Dkt. 52; order at Dkt. 54). Experience note: senior WilmerHale IP-litigation partner; the § 101 and claim-construction briefing in this case is his work product.
• Benjamin S. Fernandez — WilmerHale; PHV granted Feb. 23, 2026. IP litigation group