Litigation

Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings Inc.

pending

7:25-cv-00222

Patents at issue (1)

7372961

Defendants (1)

Summary

Malikie Innovations Ltd. asserts six patents, including 7,372,961, against MARA Holdings Inc. relating to bitcoin mining/node/wallet operations. The amended complaint (Doc. 36) alleges at least claim 1; filing date and current status are unverified.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Now let me dig into the docket history, the reexamination, and the dismissal.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

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

Let me pull the full docket and key orders.

Now let me dig into the stay ruling, the '961-specific claim construction, and any PTAB activity.

Bottom line

Malikie's six-patent Bitcoin-cryptography suit against MARA never reached trial and produced no merits ruling on any patent. It was filed 2025‑05‑12, survived a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, went through a full Markman cycle (hearing 2026‑03‑04; 72-page claim construction order 2026‑03‑12), and then settled and was dismissed with prejudice on 2026‑06‑15. The most litigated pre-trial issues were (1) MARA's motion to dismiss the '286 pleading, and (2) MARA's motion to stay the case pending ex parte reexaminations of all six patents — which the court denied on 2026‑06‑01, eight days before the parties announced settlement. Notably, no IPR or PGR was ever filed on the asserted patents; MARA's PTAB-adjacent strategy was EPR, which carries no estoppel.

Chronology

2025‑05‑12 — Complaint (Doc. 1). Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (both KPI-family assertion entities holding former Certicom/BlackBerry patents; KPI is beneficiary of a trust) sue MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings) in W.D. Tex., Midland‑Odessa Division, No. 7:25‑cv‑00222. Six patents: 8,788,827; 10,284,370; 8,666,062; 7,372,960; 7,372,961; 8,532,286. Jury demand; willfulness pleaded on pre-suit notice letters dated 2025‑03‑28 and 2025‑04‑18. Venue predicated on MARA mining sites in McCamey and Hearne, Texas. Assigned to Judge David Counts; referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland (Doc. 11, 2025‑05‑14). Complaint PDF

2025‑05‑14 → 2025‑07‑21 — Answer deferred. Served 2025‑05‑14; deadline extended to 2025‑07‑21 (Doc. 16, 2025‑05‑28). MARA instead filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 17, 2025‑07‑21).

2025‑07‑24/25 — First Amended Complaint (Docs. 35, corrected at Doc. 36). Added annotated source-code allegations, particularly for '286 claim 1, element 1[b]. This mooted Doc. 17 by text order on 2025‑10‑01.

2025‑08‑07 — Renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Doc. 38). MARA targeted only the '286 patent's element 1[b] ("perform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand"), arguing the FAC failed to connect MARA's code (e.g., SECP256K1_N_C_0) to the limitation, citing Vervain v. Micron. Opposition Doc. 41 (2025‑08‑18); reply Doc. 43 (2025‑08‑25).

2025‑09‑04 — Scheduling Order (Doc. 44); amended 2025‑12‑05 (Doc. 50). Markman 2026‑03‑04 (moved from 2026‑02‑18); amended pleadings 2026‑06‑10; fact discovery due 2026‑09‑16; dispositive/Daubert 2026‑11‑25; pretrial conference 2027‑02‑04; jury trial set 2027‑03‑01. Protective order entered 2025‑12‑05.

2025‑12‑17 → 2026‑02‑13 — Claim construction briefing. MARA opening brief (Doc. 52), with Declarations of Thomas Macchio and Dr. Çetin Kaya Koç; Malikie response; replies (Docs. 59, 62, 65); Joint Claim Construction Statement (Doc. 67, 2026‑02‑13) listing 11 disputed terms, including three '961 terms: "random number generator" (claims 1, 2), "seed" (claims 1, 2), and the claim 7 indefiniteness dispute (MARA: indefinite; Malikie: not indefinite).

2026‑01‑20 — MARA's Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (Doc. 54). The centerpiece pre-trial motion. MARA asked the court to stay the entire case because it (and a third party) had requested EPR of all six asserted patents; it argued simplification, noted that five of the six patents had expired (so claims could only be cancelled, not amended, 37 C.F.R. § 1.530(j)), and cited USPTO statistics (~80% of third-party-requested EPRs reaching certificate amend or cancel claims).

2026‑01‑26 — Technical advisor appointed. Joshua J. Yi, Ph.D. (Doc. 56).

2026‑01‑30 → 2026‑03‑11 — USPTO grants EPR on all six patents. '286 and '827 first (granted ~2026‑01‑30, per Malikie's opposition); '062 and '960 on 2026

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me pull the docket details and the plaintiff's signature blocks.

Let me pull the full docket sheet entries to verify exactly which plaintiff attorneys appeared in this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00222 (W.D. Tex.)

Threshold note on case status: The metadata in this prompt lists the case as "pending," but the docket I retrieved shows the case was resolved. The parties filed a Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (Doc. 96, June 9, 2026); the Court stayed the case (Doc. 97, June 10, 2026); Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice (Doc. 98, June 15, 2026); and Judge David Counts entered an order of dismissal closing the action (Doc. 99, June 15, 2026), each side bearing its own fees and costs. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70243940/99/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/. So the attorneys below are counsel of record on a closed docket, not an active one. (Two plaintiffs appear in the caption: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.; the same counsel represents both.)

Lead / national counsel — Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP

Attorney Role Firm office Note
Philip J. Eklem Lead counsel (primary W.D. Tex. filer/signer; first plaintiff attorney admitted pro hac vice, May 14, 2025) RJLF, 1909 K Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC RJLF partner; named "LEAD ATTORNEY" for Malikie in its parallel E.D. Tex. Malikie actions (see Malikie v. CoreWeave et al., E.D. Tex., unopposed motion to substitute lead counsel) and filed the declaration supporting Plaintiffs' opposition to MARA's stay motion (Doc. 61)
Khue V. Hoang Counsel of record (signatory on Plaintiffs' filings) RJLF, 400 Madison Ave., Suite 14D, New York, NY (later 650 Fifth Ave., Suite 2320, in other Malikie matters) Co-signed the Joint Motion for Agreed Protective Order (Doc. 46, Oct. 14, 2025) as an attorney for Plaintiffs; New York–based member of the Malikie trial team
Matthew G. Berkowitz Counsel of record (pro hac vice granted, Doc. 14, May 19, 2025) RJLF, 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood Shores, CA Silicon Valley partner on the Malikie team; listed in every Plaintiffs' signature block in this case
Michael M. Polka Counsel of record (pro hac vice granted, Doc. 59, Jan. 29, 2026) RJLF, Redwood Shores, CA Silicon Valley associate; part of Malikie's core briefing team across the W.D. Tex. bitcoin-miner cases
Michael Caulkins Counsel of record (pro hac vice granted, Doc. 82, Mar. 17, 2026 — motion filed by M. Siegmund, Doc. 81) RJLF, 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood Shores, CA ("Silicon Valley") Registered patent attorney (USPTO); firm bio lists patent/infringement work for Bytedance, Temu, Trend Micro, GlobalFoundries, Minka (ITC/PTAB/CDCal), and W.D. Tex. matters. https://www.reichmanjorgensen.com/michael-caulkins

Local counsel (Texas)

Attorney Role Firm office Note
Mark D. Siegmund (TX Bar No. 24117055) Local counsel — designated "Of Counsel" in Plaintiffs' signature blocks, but functionally the local/sponsoring attorney: he filed every pro hac vice motion for Reichman Jorgensen's out-of-state lawyers and signed the protective-order motion Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, 400 Austin Avenue, 9th Floor, Waco, TX 76701 Waco-based; serves the same local-counsel role for Malikie in its other Texas patent campaigns (e.g., Malikie v. Foundry Digital/Riot, W.D. Tex. No. 7:25-cv-00567)

Sourcing: Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Protective Order, Doc. 46 (Oct. 14, 2025), Plaintiffs' signature block (Hoang; and Siegmund as of counsel) — https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.46.0.pdf; pro hac vice orders at Docs. 14, 59, 82 (Justia docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00222/1172841950); full docket at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70243940/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/. Firm/office details for Caulkins confirmed by his PHV application in the companion Malikie case (W.D. Tex. No. 7:25-cv-00567, Doc. 57) and firm bio.

Caveats — what I could not verify

  • No attorney is formally designated "lead counsel" on this docket. The local rules designation appears only in Malikie's parallel cases (where Eklem was designated lead, later substituted by Courtland Reichman in the E.D. Tex. matter). I have characterized Eklem as lead based on filing/signing history, not a docket designation.
  • Courtland L. Reichman, Christine E. Lehman, and Patrick R. Colsher are listed as Malikie counsel by a third-party litigation database (PatSnap) for this case, and all three sign Malikie pleadings in related W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. suits. I could not independently confirm a pro hac vice order or appearance by any of them on this docket — the database may be aggregating Malikie's other cases. Treat as unconfirmed for No. 7:25-cv-00222.
  • Docket entry 83 (Mar. 18, 2026) is a "Withdraw As Attorney" filing; the CourtListener text I retrieved does not show which attorney withdrew. It is possible (but unverified) that a plaintiff-side appearance was withdrawn. Entry 90 (Apr. 22, 2026, Notice of Attorney Appearance) similarly could not be tied to a named attorney from available text.
  • No in-house counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd. or Key Patent Innovations Ltd. appears on the docket; the entity is a Key Patent Innovations-funded assertion vehicle (Malikie acquired ~32,000 BlackBerry/Certicom patents in 2023), so representation appears to be entirely outside counsel.
  • No plaintiff-side filing in the record is sealed as to counsel identity; the dismissal order and protective order are public.
  • I did not find any Law360/Reuters coverage naming counsel; the firm/attorney information above is grounded in the pleadings, PHV orders, firm website, and a third-party docket aggregator.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me get the full docket details, including any withdrawals or new appearances, and then research the individual attorneys.

Key finding: two Paul, Weiss attorneys withdrew in March 2026. Let me verify the current roster and get bios.

Counsel of Record for MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)

Bottom line: MARA is defended by a three-firm team — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York and Washington, D.C.) as lead trial counsel, with Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (Austin, Texas) as local/WDTX counsel. Two Paul, Weiss lawyers named in the original pleadings — Anish R. Desai and Priyata Patel — withdrew in March 2026 after lateraling to Dechert, leaving Weiswasser, Nyarady, Moore, Yu, Macchio, Pepe and Ansley as the Paul, Weiss attorneys of record.

Status caveat (worth flagging): the case metadata supplied to me says "pending," but the docket reflects that Malikie filed a Notice/Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 98) on June 15, 2026, and the Court closed the action, each party to bear its own costs (after a stay was entered June 9, 2026, Doc. 96). No merits ruling on the patents issued. I flag this because it affects any "who is counsel of record now" question — the roster below is the last one on the record as of closure.

1. Lead trial counsel — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Attorney Role Office Note
Anish R. Desai Former lead counsel (principal signatory on MARA's stay motion, claim-construction briefing, and corporate disclosure statement); withdrawn March 2026 New York, NY (1285 Sixth Ave.) First-chair patent trial lawyer; 100+ IPR proceedings as lead counsel and numerous Federal Circuit arguments; led Regeneron's EYLEA/aflibercept patent litigation. Joined Paul, Weiss Nov. 2024 from Weil, Gotshal & Manges; now a partner at Dechert LLP (NY) — see Dkt. 83.
Elizabeth S. Weiswasser Lead remaining Paul, Weiss partner (co-chair, Litigation Dept.); U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Reg. No. 55,721 New York, NY Co-chair of Paul, Weiss's litigation department; joined Nov. 2024 from Weil Gotshal, where she co-chaired patent litigation; Regeneron/EYLEA patent work; consistently ranked in IAM Patent 1000.
Catherine Nyarady Partner; admitted pro hac vice Feb. 11, 2026 (Dkt. 63–64) New York, NY Paul, Weiss litigation partner added mid-case specifically for the reexamination-stay fight; signed the Feb. 2026 sur-sur-reply and May 2026 notices of supplemental authority.

2. Paul, Weiss — supporting counsel of record (all pro hac vice, W.D. Tex.)

Attorney Role Office Note
Ian A. Moore Counsel/associate; PHV (Dkt. 22) New York, NY Member of the Paul, Weiss patent trial team on the MARA matter; appears in every MDL of the MARA signature blocks.
Tom Yu Associate; PHV (Dkt. 18; order at Dkt. 26, July 22, 2025) New York, NY Patent litigation associate on the team.
Thomas Macchio Associate; PHV (Dkt. 21) New York, NY Filed the Macchio declaration supporting MARA's opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 52-1).
Christopher M. Pepe Counsel/associate; PHV (Dkt. 23); USPTO Reg. No. 73,851 Washington, D.C. (2001 K St. NW) Registered patent attorney; co-counsel on the ex parte reexamination and stay strategy — signed MARA's PTAB filings in related matters.
W. Sutton Ansley Associate; PHV (Dkt. 19); USPTO Reg. No. 67,828 Washington, D.C. Registered patent attorney; PTAB/reexam co-counsel.
Eric C. Westerhold Associate; PHV (Dkt. 24) Washington, D.C. Filed the Westerhold declaration supporting MARA's reply claim construction brief; listed as remaining counsel in the March 2026 withdrawal motion, though he does not appear in the final May 21, 2026 signature block (Dkt. 93) — his continued appearance after that date is unverified.

3. Withdrawn (March 18, 2026)

Attorney Role Firm at withdrawal Note
Anish R. Desai Former lead counsel — see above Left Paul, Weiss Unopposed motion to withdraw under Local Rule AT-3 (Dkt. 83); plaintiff did not oppose; he and Patel "are no longer with Paul, Weiss."
Priyata Patel Former counsel; PHV admitted Oct. 15, 2025 (Dkt. 47–48) Left Paul, Weiss Patent litigator (Washington, D.C.); moved with Desai to Dechert LLP as a partner in March 2026.

4. Local counsel — Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP (Austin, TX)

Attorney Role Office Note
Steven J. "Steve" Wingard Local counsel / attorney in charge of the WDTX filings — signed the motion to stay, corporate disclosure statement, protective order motion, pro hac vice motions, and the withdrawal motion (TX Bar No. 00788694) Austin, TX (303 Colorado St., Ste. 2400) The Texas-side anchor for all ECF filings and the sponsor of every Paul, Weiss pro hac vice application in this case; the firm is a regular W.D. Tex. local-counsel shop.
Stephen L. Burbank Local counsel (TX Bar No. 24109672) Austin, TX Signed the joint motion to amend the scheduling order (Dkt. 49) and appears in all defendant signature blocks.
Robert P. Earle Local counsel (TX Bar No. 241245566) Austin, TX Appears in all defendant signature blocks, including the final May 21, 2026 filing.

5. In-house counsel

No MARA in-house attorney (e.g., general counsel or IP counsel) appears as counsel of record in any filing I reviewed. MARA's Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 37) was made through outside counsel only. This is a negative finding and could change if in-house counsel appeared in an unindexed filing.

Verification notes and sourcing caveats

  1. Dechert LLP appears in third-party aggregators (PatSnap) as a MARA firm. I found no Dechert notice of appearance on the docket. The listing is best explained as an artifact of Desai and Patel's March 2026 move to Dechert — they expressly terminated their representation of MARA in this case (Dkt. 83). Treat "Dechert represents MARA here" as unsupported.
  2. Withdrawal order: I confirmed the motion (Dkt. 83, filed 3/18/2026) but did not independently locate the granting order in the record; Dkt. 84 (3/20/2026) is the next entry and the omission of Desai/Patel from the 5/21/2026 signature block indicates the withdrawal took effect. The formal order text is unverified.
  3. Role labels ("lead counsel," "local counsel," "of counsel") are my characterization based on who signed what; the WDTX docket does not use those labels, and no formal "attorney-in-charge" designation was found in the record.
  4. Sources: CourtListener docket for Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00222 (W.D. Tex.) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70243940/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/ ; filed documents Dkt. 37 (corporate disclosure), 39 (Rule 26 conference), 46 (protective order motion), 54 (motion to stay), 66, 68, 73-2, 83 (withdrawal motion), 93 (notice of supplemental authority), 97–98 (stay and dismissal), hosted at storage.courtlistener.com and archive.org; Justia docket https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/7:2025cv00222/1172841950 ; Paul, Weiss press release on Weiswasser/Desai arrivals (Nov. 20, 2024); ICLG and Legal Era reports on Dechert's March 2026 hires; IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers profiles. No Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific case was located.
  5. Per your operating rules, I treated the case metadata (caption, court, case number, '961 patent) as authoritative; the dismissal and the counsel roster above come from the docket record.