MR Technologies, GmbH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Let me dig into the parallel cases, IPRs, settlement terms, and party details.

Case Overview and Background

MR Technologies, GmbH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Southern Div., Santa Ana), was a bet-the-media patent fight between a small, inventor-controlled Austrian company and one of the three companies that dominate the global hard-disk-drive market. Plaintiff MR Technologies ("MRT") is a privately held Vienna company (Nibelungengasse 11/4, 1010 Vienna, Austria) that exists to hold and license the patents of Dr. Dieter Suess, a physicist (Ph.D. in micromagnetics) who is a professor and head of the Physics of Functional Materials department at the University of Vienna — MRT is his company, and the patents name him as inventor (Blocks & Files; Toshiba complaint, No. 8:25-cv-00786, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 3, 12). MRT is therefore a non-practicing entity but not a classic PAE: it did not buy its portfolio on the secondary market, it does not make or sell patented articles in the United States (it so pleaded under 35 U.S.C. § 287), and its enforcement is inventor-originated rather than acquisition-driven. Press coverage was inconsistent on the name (some outlets wrote "MR Technologie"; Reuters issued a caption correction), and one outlet misidentified it as German rather than Austrian. Defendant Western Digital Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Jose, California, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Digital Corporation; it designs and manufactures magnetic recording media and hard disk drives (WDC 10-K disclosure). MRT's trial team was Russ August & Kabat (Marc Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Paul Kroeger, et al.); WD's was Latham & Watkins (Douglas Lumish, Richard Frenkel, Patricia Young, Joseph Lee) (Reuters, July 30, 2024).

The accused technology is the perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR) media inside Western Digital's hard drives — effectively all WD HDDs sold in the U.S. since the '864 patent issued on March 27, 2018, with products such as the WD Red Pro / WD80EFX 8TB cited illustratively. The asserted family, titled "Multilayer exchange spring recording media," covers the industry's move to exchange-spring / exchange-coupled composite (ECC) media: a magnetic recording medium with a hard magnetic storage layer and a multilayer "nucleation host" of two or more exchange-coupled ferromagnetic layers whose anisotropy increases toward the hard storage layer. Suess's 2006 insight — counterintuitive because the hardest layer sits farthest from the write head — decouples coercivity from thermal stability, making high-anisotropy media writable and breaking the "superparamagnetic limit" that capped areal density, enabling growth from roughly 200–300 Gb/in² toward ~1 Tb/in² (Toshiba complaint ¶¶ 11–21; Seagate MTD ruling, D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-01460). Four patents were originally asserted: U.S. 9,978,413 and U.S. 11,133,031 (dropped by MRT before trial) and the two that reached the jury — U.S. 9,928,864 (the 2006-filed parent, issued Mar. 27, 2018) and U.S. 11,138,997 (continuation, issued Oct. 5, 2021), both claiming the graded-anisotropy multilayer nucleation host/storage-layer structure (WDC 10-K).

Procedural posture and significance. The case was filed August 26, 2022 in the Central District of California's Southern Division in Santa Ana — Orange County, home to Toshiba America's Irvine operations and a venue where MRT would later consolidate its campaign — and was assigned to Judge James V. Selna (JVS), with Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick (DFM). After an eight-day trial (July 16–26, 2024), a jury found both tried patents infringed and not invalid and awarded $262,388,800 as a lump-sum reasonable royalty covering past and future infringement through patent expiry; the court then added $117,267,508 in prejudgment interest in a judgment entered August 15, 2024, plus post-judgment interest of roughly $46,000/day — a total exposure near $380 million that WD accrued as an aggregate liability on its balance sheet (Law360 case docket; WDC 10-K). WD moved for JMOL/new trial on September 27, 2024 and MRT opposed in October; in parallel MRT filed a second C.D. Cal. suit (No. 8:24-cv-01848) on the continuation patent U.S. 12,020,734, which survived WD's motion to dismiss in part. The parties then resolved both WD cases confidentially, and the actions were dismissed — with the docket's closing order dated July 8, 2025 (C.D. Cal. Civil Minutes, 8:24-cv-01848, July 8, 2025; Law360, May 16, 2025).

The case is notable on several axes. First, it produced one of the largest patent verdicts of 2024 — IAM Media noted it was one of only two jury verdicts that year to exceed $100 million — and an unusually large prejudgment-interest add-on (IAM). Second, it was a rare successful assertion by an inventor-owned, university-linked NPE against a major operating company, with the plaintiff's case built on infringement admissions and praise from the defendants' own ecosystem: Seagate's former CTO Dr. Mark Re testified that "Seagate uses Dr. Seuss' inventions" and that the two patents are "the foundation on which modern PMR media is built," and WD's own materials credited Suess's exchange-spring work with guiding PMR media advances (Seagate MTD ruling). Third, the verdict had industry-wide implications: because the patented media structure is used across essentially all modern PMR drives, MRT opened follow-on campaigns against the other HDD makers — Seagate (D. Minn., No. 0:25-cv-01460) and Toshiba (C.D. Cal., No. 8:25-cv-00786, also before Judge Selna) — and Resonac, the media supplier, responded with IPR petitions (IPR2026-00014/-00015/-00016) against the '864, '997, and '734 patents plus a Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action, teeing up a discretionary-denial fight over settled expectations and the jury's validity finding (Resonac/MRT PTAB briefing, 2025–2026). Finally, the case illustrates the downstream-customer vs. upstream-supplier dynamic in a three-player oligopoly (WD, Seagate, Toshiba): MRT sued HDD makers rather than the media supplier, and the supplier's later IPRs and DJ action became the principal venue for validity and non-infringement challenges once WD settled (MRT PTAB filing).

---

Sourcing notes / open items

• Settlement amount: Press reporting I located confirms only that the parties agreed to end the dispute and that the cases were dismissed; terms were confidential. The $130 million global settlement figure in the case summary is not something I could independently corroborate with the sources available — treat it as unverified unless a filing or WD disclosure supports it. (WD's 10-K accrued ~$384M pre-settlement.)
• "Both cases" dismissed: PTAB briefing states two WD actions (the '864/'997 case and the '734 case, 8:24-cv-01848) were dismissed in May 2025, with the closing order entered July 8, 2025. The metadata's termination date of July 8, 2025 matches that closing order.
• Possible separate W.D. Tex. filing: A Docket Alarm copy of a complaint with the same asserted patents appears as MR Technologies GmbH v. Western Digital Corporation, No. 6:22-cv-00612 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.). I could not verify that docket's disposition or whether it was a companion to the C.D. Cal. action (suggesting MRT initially filed against both the parent and the operating subsidiary); flagging for a PACER check.
• Inventor's affiliation: Sources describe Suess at the University of Vienna (2024 reporting); an older German-language profile placed him at TU Wien. I could not pin down the exact timeline of his affiliations.
• Verdict and interest figures are corroborated across Reuters, Law360, WD's SEC filings, and MRT's own later complaints; trial dates, counsel, and judge are corroborated by the court transcript header and Reuters.

I'll research the docket history, motions, and PTAB proceedings to build the chronological legal developments section.

Let me dig into specific motion practice, claim construction, and PTAB activity.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Important cross-check on the metadata: the case metadata and my prior summary give the termination date as 2025-07-08, matching the closing order. Docket Alarm's landing page for 8:22-cv-01599 lists "Terminated Aug. 14, 2024" — that appears to reflect the entry of judgment/closed-flag date, not the dismissal, and is inconsistent with the later stipulation of dismissal. I treat the July 8, 2025 dismissal as authoritative and the Docket Alarm "terminated" field as a data artifact. Below, dates marked (unconfirmed) could not be pinned to a specific docket entry in the sources I could reach.

---

1. Filing, transfer, and initial pleadings (2022–2023)

WD's answer pleaded counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the asserted claims were not infringed and were invalid under §§ 103 and 112 — the same counterclaims that carried through to the final pretrial order (Dkt. 481, ¶ 8(d)) listing Counterclaims 1–4 for the '864 and '997 claims. I did not locate any Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, motion to transfer out of the Central District, or motion to stay pending IPR in this case — the only venue event was the clerk-initiated intra-district transfer. That is consistent with the case never being stayed: MRT does not appear to have faced a WD-filed PTAB petition (see §7).

2. Case management and discovery milestones

• 2022-11-28: Rule 26(f) scheduling conference (set by Dkt. 17). The initial Scheduling Order followed (the court's "Order for Jury Trial" referenced in the pretrial order as Dkt. 26).
• 2023-05-26 (Dkt. 90): Order granting MRT leave to file under seal its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. 89). WD's Amended Answer is Dkt. 110. Both are the operative pleadings identified in the pretrial order. The FAC was the vehicle by which MRT narrowed/adjusted the asserted set as the case progressed (Patexia docket listing).
• 2023-06-14 (Dkt. 92) and 2023-07-18 (Dkt. 94): Orders granting joint stipulations modifying the case schedule (Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 93) — the case slipped at least twice before Markman.
• Discovery was document-, source-code-, and DCM-code-intensive: the July 2024 pretrial order admits and requires no proof the methodology by which "DCM codes" identify specific media designs, groups them into six representative groups (Groups 1, 2, 3, 4a–4c, 5), and deems one representative DCM per group to have "substantially the same structure and design as the other members of its group." That stipulation was the structural backbone of MRT's case-wide infringement proof: rather than try every drive/media SKU, MRT used representative DCM codes and group-wide groupings (Dkt. 481, ¶ 7).

Strategic significance of the DCM grouping: by obtaining WD's stipulation that representative DCM codes stand in for large families of media designs, MRT converted "almost every WD drive since 2018" into a manageable liability case and supported a lump-sum, portfolio-wide royalty rather than a SKU-by-SKU running royalty.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — the pivotal pretrial ruling

• 2023-12-21: The Court entered its Order Regarding Claim Construction. This is documented in MRT's trial expert declaration, which states the opinions "applied the constructions adopted by the Court in its December 21, 2023 Order Regarding Claim Construction" and, "for any terms that were not construed, I applied the plain meaning to a POSITA in light of the specification" (MRT expert declaration, MRT–PTAB Ex.).
• The central disputed term was the "nucleation host," construed in the later PTAB/DJ papers as "nucleation host … comprises ferromagnetic layers with increasing anisotropy constant K from layer to layer." MRT's DJ/PTAB briefing expressly states that "[t]he construction of this term was a core dispute in the CDCA case against WD" and that "the CDCA court has already … constru[ed] the claims (including the 'nucleation host' limitation …)" (MRT filing).
• WD later attacked the infringement verdict in post-trial motions on the theory that the jury had been mis-instructed on the meaning of a claim term directly affecting infringement (see §5). That confirms the claim-construction fight — not prior art — was where WD believed the case was lost.

Open item: I could not retrieve the full text of the Dec. 21, 2023 Markman order, so I cannot list every construed term or the court's exact constructions beyond the "nucleation host" language quoted above. A PACER pull of the December 2023 order would close this gap.

4. Pretrial order and trial (July 2024)

• 2024-07-09 — Pretrial Order (Dkt. 481). Key contents:
  • Operative pleadings: FAC (Dkt. 89) and WD Amended Answer (Dkt. 110).
  • Asserted claims narrowed to two patents: MRT would pursue claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13 of the '864 and claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9 of the '997, on theories of direct and literal infringement under § 271(a), with a § 284 reasonable royalty.
  • WD's defenses: non-infringement and § 103 and/or § 112 invalidity of the '864 and '997 claims.
  • The pretrial order contemplated five days of evidence, 14 hours per side.
  • MRT's trial witness list included inventor Dieter Suess and industry experts Mark Re and Jim Bergman; WD's fact witnesses included Kumar Srinivasan and others.
• The '413 and '031 patents were dropped before trial — WD's 10-K states flatly that "[a]s the case progressed, MRT dropped its claims with respect to U.S Patent Nos. 9,978,413 and 11,133,031, and the case proceeded to trial on the remaining two patents" (WDC 10-K excerpt). Open item: the docket entry memorializing the dismissal of those two patents was not located; it may have occurred via the FAC or a later stipulation.
• Trial: 2024-07-16 to 2024-07-26. WD's invalidity case rested on obviousness combinations of Victora/Hagadorn/Berger/Li; the trial transcript (Day 7, July 25, 2024) shows MRT's rebuttal expert walking the jury through why those combinations don't meet the "nucleation host" limitations and why the Hagadorn reference was outside the field of endeavor and thus not prior art (trial transcript via PTAB exhibit).
• 2024-07-26 — Jury verdict: both tried patents infringed and not invalid; $262,388,800 lump-sum reasonable royalty covering past and future infringement through patent expiry (Reuters, 2024-07-30; Blocks & Files, 2024-08-13).

5. Judgment and post-trial motions (Aug.–Oct. 2024)

• 2024-08-15 — Judgment entered: $262,388,800 plus $117,267,508 in prejudgment interest, plus post-judgment interest of roughly $46,000/day (Seagate MTD ruling, D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-01460, reciting the WD judgment figures; WDC 10-K).
• 2024-06-28 (fiscal-year close) — WD accrual: WD booked an aggregate $384 million liability, with $291M expensed and $93M capitalized and amortized over the remaining lives of the MRT patents, and stated it "plans to file post-trial motions, and if not successful, plans to appeal" (WD 10-K "Legal Proceedings").
• 2024-09-27 — WD post-trial motions (JMOL/new trial) filed, arguing the infringement verdict and damages award were "against the great weight of the evidence," that the jury was mis-instructed on a claim term meaning directly affecting infringement, and that the validity verdict was tainted by erroneous evidentiary rulings that prevented WD from fully presenting its invalidity case (Chinese-language summary of the parties' filings, 2025-05-20). MRT opposed in October 2024. Open item: the specific docket numbers for WD's Rule 50/59 motion and MRT's opposition were not retrievable; the substance above comes from secondary reporting, not the filings themselves.
• WD publicly signaled it would appeal the verdict "as soon as possible" (Tom's Hardware, Aug. 2024).
• No Federal Circuit appeal was ever perfected. Because the parties settled, the validity and infringement determinations were never tested on appeal — a point Resonac later emphasized to the PTAB ("Patent Owner settled the WD Actions before the validity determinations were tested in post-trial briefing or on appeal") (Resonac opposition).

6. Second WD action, global settlement, and dismissal (2024–2025)

• 2024 (late) — MRT files a second C.D. Cal. suit, No. 8:24-cv-01848, asserting the continuation patent U.S. 12,020,734 (the '734 patent, issued 2024). WD moved to dismiss; the motion was granted in part / denied in part (per my prior summary). PTAB briefing confirms this was a second action against WD that was resolved alongside the first (MRT PTAB filing). Open item: the exact filing date and the MTD ruling are not confirmed in the sources I reached.
• 2025-04 — the parties reach a confidential global resolution of both WD actions. (The metadata's $130 million settlement figure remains uncorroborated by any filing or WD disclosure I could locate; WD's balance-sheet accrual pre-settlement was ~$384M.)
• 2025-05 — the court dismissed both cases on the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal. PTAB briefing states: "In May 2025, after having been resolved between the parties, the court dismissed both cases pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal" (MRT filing, above).
• 2025-07-08 — closing order entered, which is the case metadata's termination date. (C.D. Cal. Civil Minutes, 8:24-cv-01848, 2025-07-08; Law360, 2025-05-16.)

Disposition: settled and dismissed; no judgment-enforcement, fee, or appeal proceedings followed. WD's JMOL/new-trial motion was mooted by settlement rather than decided.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

During the pendency of the WD case (2022–2025), I found no evidence of WD-filed IPR/PGR petitions against the '413, '864, '031, or '997 patents, and correspondingly no motion to stay pending IPR and no PTAB-driven amendment or cancellation of any asserted claim. That is a notable feature of this litigation: WD defended validity in the district court rather than at the PTAB — the opposite of the WD v. Seagate/Toshiba posture it created for its competitors, who now face Resonac's IPRs (below).

The PTAB activity that exists is post-settlement and belongs to Resonac (the media supplier), not WD:

• Resonac filed three IPRs — IPR2026-00014, -00015, and -00016 — against the '864, '997, and '734 patents. These were filed after MRT expanded its campaign to Seagate (D. Minn., No. 0:25-cv-01460) and Toshiba (C.D. Cal., No. 8:25-cv-00786), and after Resonac filed a parallel N.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action seeking only non-infringement (not invalidity). Netlisted FWD date appears to be April 2027 (Resonac opposition, IPR2026-00014).
• The effect of the WD litigation on the IPRs is the live dispute: MRT requested discretionary denial under Fintiv/§ 314(a), arguing (i) the WD jury already found the claims valid, (ii) MRT had a "settled expectation" the patents would not be challenged because WD never petitioned, and (iii) multiple parallel proceedings waste resources. Resonac countered that it was never a party, RPI, or privy of WD, was never subpoenaed or asked to indemnify, and that WD's verdict "cannot bind a nonparty in a later PTAB proceeding," citing WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Resonac opposition; MRT filing). As of the source date, institution was still awaiting the Director's decision on discretionary denial.
• Spillover into the follow-on cases: In the Toshiba action, Toshiba moved in October 2025 to stay pending the Resonac DJ action, representing that it has a contractual indemnity right from Resonac, which "has agreed to indemnify" it — turning the WD case's downstream-customer strategy into an upstream-supplier liability fight (MRT filing).

---

Sourcing notes / open items

1. Markman order text (Dkt. of 2023-12-21) not retrieved; only the "nucleation host" construction is documented, and only via later filings. A PACER pull is needed to state the full set of constructions.
2. WD's JMOL/new-trial motion — I have the substance ("against the great weight of the evidence"; claim-term jury-instruction error; evidentiary rulings foreclosing a full invalidity case) only from secondary reporting, not the filing. Docket numbers and the exact filing date (reported as 2024-09-27) are (unconfirmed).
3. The $130M settlement figure remains uncorroborated. Reported record supports only a confidential resolution and joint stipulation of dismissal.
4. Dismissal of the '413 and '031 claims is documented by WD's 10-K but not tied to a specific docket entry I could retrieve.
5. No stay-pending-IPR and no WD-filed IPR — stated as a negative finding based on the absence of such documents in the dockets, PTAB papers, and press coverage I searched. This is a strong but not airtight negative; a full PACER docket and PTAB party search (Western Digital as petitioner) would confirm.
6. Termination-date discrepancy: metadata/summary = 2025-07-08 (closing order); Docket Alarm's case record = "Terminated Aug. 14, 2024." I treat the metadata as authoritative per the case rules.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record using docket and firm sources.

Let me pin down the docket-level appearances and firm bios.

Let me pull the docket sheet's counsel listing and check for any later substitutions.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — MR Technologies, GmbH

Bottom line: One firm represented the plaintiff throughout this case: Russ August & Kabat LLP (RAK), Los Angeles. No local-counsel firm, no co-counsel, and no in-house appearance is reflected in the sources I could reach. The RAK team was led at trial by Marc A. Fenster and Reza Mirzaie, with a supporting group of RAK partners and associates. There were no substitutions or withdrawals of plaintiff's counsel of record that I could verify (the only appearance-related docket event I located was the addition of Paul Kroeger via a G-123 notice, Dkt. 21, and a pro hac vice application by Matthew Aichele that was stricken by order — see caveats).

---

Attorney roster (plaintiff / counter-defendant MR Technologies, GmbH)

Party-representation summary (per UniCourt): plaintiff/counter-defendant attorneys of record = Jonathan D. Link, Paul A. Kroeger, Marc A. Fenster, Reza Mirzaie (UniCourt). The broader trial-team names come from the court's own appearance line, Reuters's counsel attribution, and RAK's firm materials, which consistently agree with one another.

---

Structural notes

• No separate "local counsel." RAK's Los Angeles office is inside the Central District of California, so the firm served simultaneously as trial counsel and as counsel admitted in the forum. The only pro hac vice activity I found was for Aichele (a non-resident attorney), not for a local-counsel firm.
• No in-house counsel appeared for MRT. MRT is a small, privately held Austrian company (Vienna) whose principal is inventor Dr. Dieter Suess; nothing in the docket or press reflects an in-house lawyer on the signature blocks. (Cf., by contrast, the WD side, which had Latham & Watkins plus what appear to be in-house/corporate appearances.)
• Counsel of record vs. trial team. Docket-level "counsel of record" (Fenster, Mirzaie, Kroeger, Link) is narrower than the full trial team (adding Chang, Ledahl, Buczko, Aichele, Chan). RAK's firm materials describe the team as "led by Marc Fenster and Reza Mirzaie," "assisted by Dale Chang, Brian Ledahl, Matt Aichele, Jacob Buczko, Minna Chan, and Paul Kroeger" (RAK press release).
• Firm profile. RAK describes itself as "one of the country's top five plaintiff's patent practices," with a 32-lawyer patent litigation group chaired by Fenster (Daily Journal profile). Fenster is described in that profile as specializing in representing inventors.
• Related matters, same team. The same RAK group (Fenster, Mirzaie, Chang, Kroeger) signed the complaint in MRT's follow-on case against WD on the '734 patent, No. 8:24-cv-01848 (Dkt. 1 signature block). If you need MRT's counsel in the Seagate (D. Minn. 0:25-cv-01460) and Toshiba (C.D. Cal. 8:25-cv-00786) actions, those dockets should be pulled separately — the Toshiba case is also before Judge Selna.

---

Caveats and open items (do not treat as verified)

1. Stricken pro hac vice application. The docket (via Patexia's document index) shows an "APPLICATION of Non-Resident Attorney Matthew D. Aichele for Pro Hac Vice" that was "STRICKEN BY ORDER OF THE COURT SEE DKT. 109." I could not retrieve Dkt. 95 or Dkt. 109, so I cannot say whether Aichele refiled and was ultimately admitted, or whether his participation was limited to the trial team without formal pro hac vice status. The presence of his name in the court's own appearance line (and in RAK's and Reuters's trial-team lists) is why I list him, but his formal admission status for this case is unconfirmed.
2. Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712). Wang appears on an RAK signature block with Fenster, Kroeger and others in a brief that cites this case (an RAK filing for a different client, SPEX, referencing "MR Tech., GMBH v. Western Digital Tech., Inc., 8:22-cv-01599-JVS, D.I. 61"). That citation does not establish Wang as MRT's counsel here, and I am not listing him as counsel of record. Flagging it only because a keyword search can produce a false positive.
3. Jonathan D. Link's firm. He is listed as a plaintiff-side attorney on the UniCourt docket and appears in Judge Selna's courtroom minute entry, but I could not confirm his firm affiliation or current status; UniCourt's attorney list gives no firm. Treat his firm as unconfirmed.
4. "Jacob Buckzo." Reuters and the court's minute line spell it "Buckzo"; the attorney's name is Jacob R. Buczko (RAK partner). This is a spelling variant, not a second attorney.
5. No independent confirmations for Minna Chan's role, SBN, or current affiliation beyond the two team lists.
6. Pre-settlement dismissals. Because the case settled and was dismissed (closing order July 8, 2025), there is no later docket activity — e.g., no fee motion, no substitution — that would have changed the counsel roster after mid-2025. I found no notice of withdrawal or substitution for any plaintiff-side attorney.

Primary sources for the roster: Reuters counsel line (Reuters, 7/30/2024); RAK press release and attorney bios (raklaw.com); Judge Selna's calendar/minutes appearance line (cacd.uscourts.gov); UniCourt docket attorney listing; the '734 complaint signature block (8:24-cv-01848, Dkt. 1); MRT's prejudgment-interest application bearing the RAK signature block in 8:22-cv-01599.