Malikie Innovations Ltd. et al. v. MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the key procedural rulings and the parallel Bitcoin-mining campaign.

Now let me verify the claim construction ruling, the ex parte reexamination outcomes, and the BlackBerry discovery fight.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiffs are two Irish entities operating a patent-monetization structure: Malikie Innovations Ltd., which holds (in trust) roughly 32,000 former BlackBerry Ltd. patents acquired in a transaction announced in 2022 and closed in 2023, and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI"), the beneficiary of that Irish-law trust and the entity that funds and drives enforcement. KPI's public self-description is "an Irish-based company that identifies and invests in high value patent-based opportunities," and its Rule 7 disclosure in the related ViaBTC case identifies New PP Licensing LLC as a corporate parent. KPI's managing director, Angela Quinlan, came to the role from Atlantic IP Services and IPValue/Longitude Licensing — the provenance that leads RPX and IAM to classify this as an NPE/PAE campaign rather than an operating-company assertion. This is KPI's first litigation campaign for Malikie and its third portfolio overall (the others are Pictiva Displays/former OSRAM and Valtrus/former HPE); the trust-ownership model survived a standing challenge in the Valtrus campaign before Judge Gilstrap. The defendant, MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.), is one of the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miners (NASDAQ: MARA); its Rule 7.1 statement discloses no parent corporation and BlackRock, Inc. holding 10% or more of its stock. The technical pedigree matters: the patents descend from Certicom Corp., the ECC pioneer acquired by BlackBerry in 2009, and Certicom's Dan Brown — a named co-inventor on the asserted patents — was a principal author of the SEC 2 specification that defines Bitcoin's secp256k1 curve.

Accused technology. Malikie did not accuse a discrete product line; it accused protocol compliance. The First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 36, filed July 25, 2025) targets MARA's "hardware and/or software that comply with the Bitcoin protocol" — ASIC-based mining rigs, mining computers, nodes, miners, mining software, and digital wallets — on the theory that Bitcoin's use of ECDSA over secp256k1, finite-field arithmetic, Montgomery-style modular reduction, and SHA-256 necessarily practices the claimed methods. The exemplary claim charts point at open-source Bitcoin Core code (e.g., src/secp256k1/src/field_5x52.h, group.h, scalar_4x64_impl.h) plus MARA's SEC filings, which is why the case drew attention well beyond the parties. Willfulness was pleaded on pre-suit notice letters dated March 28 and April 18, 2025. The six asserted patents, with the claims identified in the complaint:

Procedural posture. Filed May 12, 2025 in the W.D. Tex., Midland-Odessa Division, No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG — District Judge David Counts, referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Venue rested on MARA's Texas mining facilities, alleged to include sites in **McCamey

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key rulings.

Good docket foundation. Now let me dig into the substantive rulings and parallel proceedings.

Now let me examine the counterclaims, the stay ruling, and the parallel proceedings.

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex., Midland-Odessa Div.)

Bottom line: A six-patent assertion against the largest U.S. public Bitcoin miner that survived a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and reached claim construction, but ended in a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2026-06-15 — five days after the parties jointly moved to stay the case to finalize a settlement. No trial, no verdict, no damages award, no appeal, and no IPR or PGR was ever filed on any asserted patent; the PTO track was entirely ex parte reexamination, which outlived the litigation.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The FAC is noteworthy for two strategic additions: (i) venue allegations grounded in MARA's Bitcoin mining facilities in McCamey and Hearne, Texas, and (ii) willfulness premised on pre-suit notice letters dated 2025-03-28 and 2025-04-18. The complaint sought money damages (a reasonable royalty plus enhanced damages), not an injunction — consistent with a monetization campaign rather than an operating-company dispute.

Gap to flag: the docket confirms MARA pleaded counterclaims (Dkt. 85), and the public excerpts show a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph denial of the FAC, but the specific counterclaim counts are not visible in the materials I could review. I cannot confirm whether MARA sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement/invalidity, inequitable conduct, or anything else. Treat that as unsourced.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to dismiss (denied). Judge Counts denied MARA's renewed motion on 2026-03-10 (Dkt. 78, 6 pp.). The opinion is notable for its characterization of MARA's approach: because the motion "analyzes the plaintiffs' infringement allegations for the '286 patent in great detail" and "compares the claim language and the accused source code to the '286 patent specification," the court held it "is effectively a motion for summary judgment based on the pleadings" — and denied it, applying the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard. Malikie's opposition distinguished Micron on the ground that MARA conceded the invention was "different[]" from the admitted prior art, so the "practicing the prior art" rationale did not carry over (Dkt. 41). The first motion (Dkt. 17) was mooted 2025-10-01 in light of the FAC.

No motion to transfer was filed — MARA admitted personal jurisdiction and venue (Dkt. 85 ¶¶118–120). No summary judgment motion was ever filed; the scheduling order set a dispositive/Daubert deadline of 2026-11-25 (Dkt. 44), which was never reached.

Motion to stay pending reexamination (denied). MARA moved to stay on 2026-01-20 (Dkt. 54), after petitioning for ex parte reexamination of all six patents. The motion generated unusual briefing volume — Malikie's response was extended to 2026-02-03 (Dkt. 57), Malikie obtained leave to file a sur-reply (Dkt. 70), and MARA filed a sur-surreply (Dkt. 76, 2026-03-02) plus supplemental authority (Dkt. 93, 2026-05-21) reporting that on 2026-05-20 the PTO had denied Malikie's requests for summary termination of five of the reexaminations. Judge Gilliland nonetheless denied the stay on 2026-06-01 (entered 2026-06-02, Dkt. 94). The text of that order is not in the sources I reviewed — I cannot tell you its stated reasoning.

---

3. Claim construction (the case's only merits-adjacent ruling)

• Scheduling: Markman originally set for 2026-02-18 (Dkt. 44); reset to 2026-03-04 in Waco.

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

Good — the docket is well documented. Let me verify specific attorneys' roles and bios.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.

Bottom line: Plaintiffs were represented by a two-tier team — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (RJLF) as lead/national trial counsel, appearing pro hac vice, and Mark D. Siegmund of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC (Waco, TX) as local/of-counsel who signed essentially every plaintiff filing. All information below comes from the public docket (CourtListener RECAP / Justia), the filed signature blocks, and firm websites. No in-house counsel for either plaintiff ever entered an appearance.

---

1. Lead / national trial counsel — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

Note: Dkt. 83 (3/18/2026) is an unopposed "Withdraw As Attorney" filing. The public RECAP text does not identify which plaintiff-side attorney withdrew, and I could not confirm it from a secondary source — treat the identity of the withdrawing attorney as unverified.

2. Local counsel / of counsel — Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC

---

Observations worth carrying into the case analysis

• Lead counsel identification is inferred, not decreed. Noorder in this docket formally designated lead counsel for plaintiffs. Hoang is first-listed on filings, and Eklem carries the express "LEAD ATTORNEY" designation in the companion E.D. Tex. case (2:25-cv-00519), where plaintiffs were represented by the same RJLF team but with Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Andrea L. Fair, Claire Abernathy Henry, Longview, TX) as local counsel rather than CJSJ.
• Sourcing caveat. The docket text above is from CourtListener/RECAP and Justia; the Justia docket was last pulled 10/15/2025, so the 2026 entries (docs. 49–100) rest on CourtListener's RECAP mirror. PACER itself is paywalled and I could not open the actual image of Dkt. 83 (withdrawal) or the PHV admission certificates, so firm affiliations for Polka and Caulkins and the identity of the withdrawing attorney should be treated as provisional.
• No sealed-appearance issue. Nothing suggests sealed or ex parte counsel entry; the record is complete on its face, and no in-house counsel for Malikie/Key Patent Innovations ever appeared. This is consistent with an NPE structure in which Key Patent Innovations is the litigation funder/parent (Key Patent Innovations is a wholly owned subsidiary of New PP Licensing LLC; Malikie is a wholly owned subsidiary of Key Patent Innovations — Dkt. 3).
• Post-dismissal follow-through. Unified Patents has continued pressing ex parte reexaminations against the same portfolio (e.g., '960 patent reexam request filed 7/9/2026), so the same RJLF/CJSJ team remains the natural contact point if the portfolio is re-asserted.

I'll research the counsel of record for MARA Holdings in this case using web search.

Good foundation. Let me pull the docket details and verify individual attorneys' backgrounds.

Now let me verify the remaining attorneys' backgrounds and check the Dechert reference.

Counsel of Record for MARA Holdings, Inc. — 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex., Midland-Odessa Div.)

MARA was represented by a two-firm structure throughout: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as lead/primary counsel (admitted pro hac vice), and Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (Austin, TX) as Texas local counsel. All names below are drawn from signature blocks and pro hac vice orders on the public docket (RECAP/CourtListener docket 70243940; Justia; PacerMonitor). No MARA in-house lawyer appeared of record in any filing I could locate.

Lead counsel — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Local counsel — Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

Two caveats worth flagging

1. Dechert LLP did not appear in this case. Some litigation-analytics databases (PatSnap/Eureka) list Dechert as a firm "representing" MARA here. That appears to be an artifact of Desai's and Patel's March 2026 move to Dechert, not an ECF appearance — I found no Dechert signature block, no Dechert pro hac vice motion, and no notice of substitution on the docket. The withdrawal motion (Dkt. 83) states Desai and Patel "are no longer with Paul, Weiss" and that MARA "will continue to be represented by undersigned remaining counsel of record" (Wingard + the Paul, Weiss team).
2. No in-house counsel of record. MARA's legal department never entered an appearance; all filings run through Paul, Weiss and Scott Douglass. If MARA had in-house counsel involved behind the scenes (likely, given the parallel ex parte reexaminations), they are not on the public docket.

Timing note relevant to strategy

Desai — the team's PTAB and trial lead — was the one who drove the ex parte reexamination strategy (the PTO filings on the '960, '062, '961 and '370 patents list "Anish R. Desai" and "Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP" as the requester/representative), and he argued the motion to stay (Dkt. 54) and the claim construction reply before withdrawing in March 2026. The case was stayed (Dkt. 96–97, June 9–10, 2026) and then voluntarily dismissed with prejudice two business days later (Dkt. 98–99, June 15, 2026), with each side bearing its own costs — a sequence consistent with a reexam-driven resolution rather than a merits ruling.