{"cached_at":"2026-09-01T20:51:49.874036+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72028096","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","id":72028096,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txwd/","court_id":"txwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8566/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2025-12-12T07:55:14.977517-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T08:47:37.699743-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"David Counts","referred_to_str":"Derek T. Gilliland","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-12-12","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-01","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry Digital LLC","case_name_full":"","slug":"malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc","docket_number":"7:25-cv-00567","docket_number_core":"2500567","docket_number_raw":"7:25-cv-00567","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"7","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"DC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"DTG","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1172879815","cause":"35:100 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-12-12T07:55:14.970002-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17952742/","id":17952742,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841651/","attorney_id":11841651,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841651/","attorney_id":11841651,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841651/","attorney_id":11841651,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841652/","attorney_id":11841652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841652/","attorney_id":11841652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841652/","attorney_id":11841652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248477/","attorney_id":11248477,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248477/","attorney_id":11248477,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841653/","attorney_id":11841653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841653/","attorney_id":11841653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841653/","attorney_id":11841653,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841654/","attorney_id":11841654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841654/","attorney_id":11841654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841654/","attorney_id":11841654,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841655/","attorney_id":11841655,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"f/k/a Cipher Mining Inc.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-03-22T22:53:58.024006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-22T22:53:58.024020-07:00","name":"Cipher Digital Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16863585/","id":16863585,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841649/","attorney_id":11841649,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841650/","attorney_id":11841650,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Counter Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.266873-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.266884-08:00","name":"Riot Platforms, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16863584/","id":16863584,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841648/","attorney_id":11841648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841648/","attorney_id":11841648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841649/","attorney_id":11841649,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841650/","attorney_id":11841650,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.251428-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.251440-08:00","name":"Fortitude Mining, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16863583/","id":16863583,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704357/","attorney_id":13704357,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248475/","attorney_id":11248475,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248476/","attorney_id":11248476,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841648/","attorney_id":11841648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841648/","attorney_id":11841648,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841649/","attorney_id":11841649,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841650/","attorney_id":11841650,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.234939-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.234952-08:00","name":"Foundry Digital LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16863582/","id":16863582,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841646/","attorney_id":11841646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841646/","attorney_id":11841646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704356/","attorney_id":13704356,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248471/","attorney_id":11248471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248471/","attorney_id":11248471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959896/","attorney_id":10959896,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959896/","attorney_id":10959896,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13754889/","attorney_id":13754889,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13754889/","attorney_id":13754889,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248474/","attorney_id":11248474,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841647/","attorney_id":11841647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959897/","attorney_id":10959897,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.068187-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T13:47:50.068197-08:00","name":"Key Patent Innovations Ltd.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16863581/","id":16863581,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841646/","attorney_id":11841646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841646/","attorney_id":11841646,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704356/","attorney_id":13704356,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13704355/","attorney_id":13704355,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248471/","attorney_id":11248471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248471/","attorney_id":11248471,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959896/","attorney_id":10959896,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959896/","attorney_id":10959896,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248472/","attorney_id":11248472,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248472/","attorney_id":11248472,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248473/","attorney_id":11248473,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248473/","attorney_id":11248473,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11248474/","attorney_id":11248474,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11841647/","attorney_id":11841647,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10959897/","attorney_id":10959897,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","docket_id":72028096,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-12-16T13:47:49.956895-08:00","date_modified":"2025-12-16T13:47:49.956912-08:00","name":"Malikie Innovations Ltd.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476516451/","id":476516451,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492081305/","id":492081305,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/149/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-01T08:07:29.930765-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T08:07:29.945561-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"149","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037309056","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Terminate Parties","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-01T08:07:29.881162-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T08:07:29.907724-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-01","time_filed":"09:26:22","entry_number":149,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":493,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476507316/","id":476507316,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492071865/","id":492071865,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/148/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-09-01T07:17:20.202510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T08:47:37.534391-07:00","sha1":"4f218bc5df1bc60171b6fcf86fd8b74431cbd637","page_count":1,"file_size":177254,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.148.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 148 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD., \u00a7\nKEY PATENT INOVVATIONS LTD., \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 NO. MO:25-CV-00567\n \u00a7\nFOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC, FORTITUDE \u00a7\nMINING, LLC, RIOT PLATFORMS, INC., \u00a7\nCIPHER DIGITAL INC. F/K/A/ CIPHER \u00a7\nMINING INC., \u00a7\n Defendants. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is Plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant FOUNDRY\n\nDIGITAL, LLC (Doc. 145) filed August 28, 2026, without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil\n\nProcedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id.). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action\n\nwithout a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a\n\nmotion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Defendant has not served an answer or\n\na motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff\u2019s notice is therefore \u201cself-effectuating and terminates the case\n\nin and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.\u201d In re Amerijet Int\u2019l, Inc., 785\n\nF.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). This dismissal is without prejudice pursuant to\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) This Dismissal only applies to Defendant FOUNDRY\n\nDIGITAL, LLC.\n\n It is so ORDERED.\n\n SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n DAVID COUNTS\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-01T08:47:37.528615-07:00","document_number":"148","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037308858","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Terminate Parties","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-01T07:17:20.171420-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T07:17:20.178479-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-01","time_filed":"09:08:26","entry_number":148,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":490,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476458969/","id":476458969,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492021604/","id":492021604,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/147/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-31T16:05:30.867579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T16:05:30.877323-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"147","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037306942","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T16:05:30.846805-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T16:05:30.851902-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"17:20:54","entry_number":147,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":487,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476420940/","id":476420940,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491983107/","id":491983107,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-31T13:09:07.147409-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T13:09:07.147424-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Sealed Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T13:09:07.131507-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T13:09:13.760098-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"14:19:29","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476407673/","id":476407673,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491969594/","id":491969594,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-31T12:18:27.234354-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T12:18:27.234367-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T12:18:27.224787-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T13:09:11.384319-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"14:22:34","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476164031/","id":476164031,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491719224/","id":491719224,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/145/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-28T09:07:07.341752-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T11:29:27.549319-07:00","sha1":"2c99c0f3f3204a494ed61b0f88ebff8b62733087","page_count":3,"file_size":179781,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.145.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 145 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD.,\n KEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v. CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00567-DC-DTG\n\n FOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC, FORTITUDE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MINING, LLC, RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.,\n CIPHER DIGITAL INC. F/K/A/ CIPHER\n MINING INC.\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF FOUNDRY DIGITAL, LLC\n WITHOUT PREJUDICE\n\n Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Malikie\n\nInnovations Ltd. and Key Patents Ltd. hereby file this notice of dismissal of Defendant, Foundry\n\nDigital LLC, without prejudice, in the above-captioned action, including all claims. Each party\n\nshall bear its own costs and fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 145 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Khue V. Hoang\nMark D. Siegmund Khue V. Hoang (pro hac vice)\nTexas Bar No. 24117055 Patrick R. Colsher\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\nWaco, Texas 76720 New York, NY 10019\nTel: (254) 732-2242 Tel: (212) 381-1965\nmsiegmund@cjsjlaw.com khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\nWilliam D. Ellerman\nTexas Bar No. 24007151 Matthew G. Berkowitz\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Courtland L. Reichman (pro hac vice)\nOne Glen Lakes Tower Michael M. Polka\n8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105 Michael Caulkins\nDallas, Texas 75231 Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\nTel: (254) 732-2242 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\nwellerman@cjsjlaw.com Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n creichman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Christine E. Lehman\n Adam Adler (pro hac vice)\n Philip J. Eklem\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 1909 K Street, NW, Suite 800\n Washington, DC 20006\n Tel: (202) 894-7310\n clehman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Vivek P. Shankam (pro hac vice)\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, Suite 270\n Austin, TX 78746\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n vshankam@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n Malikie Innovations, Ltd. and\n Key Patent Innovations, Ltd.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 145 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 28, 2026.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T11:29:27.541247-07:00","document_number":"145","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037292478","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T09:07:07.309605-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T09:07:07.317488-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"10:55:05","entry_number":145,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":475,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476163966/","id":476163966,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491719160/","id":491719160,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/146/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-28T09:07:06.099592-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T11:29:52.348600-07:00","sha1":"eaca3332053b4cdfdec7f0be8134c169ebdc3f44","page_count":3,"file_size":179168,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.146.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 146 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD.,\n KEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v. CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00567-DC-DTG\n\n FOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC, FORTITUDE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MINING, LLC, RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.,\n CIPHER DIGITAL INC. F/K/A/ CIPHER\n MINING INC.\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF FORTITUDE MINING, LCC\n WITHOUT PREJUDICE\n\n Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Malikie\n\nInnovations Ltd. and Key Patents Ltd. hereby file this notice of dismissal of Defendant, Fortitude\n\nMining, LLC, without prejudice, in the above-captioned action, including all claims. Each party\n\nshall bear its own costs and fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 146 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Khue V. Hoang\nMark D. Siegmund Khue V. Hoang (pro hac vice)\nTexas Bar No. 24117055 Patrick R. Colsher\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\nWaco, Texas 76720 New York, NY 10019\nTel: (254) 732-2242 Tel: (212) 381-1965\nmsiegmund@cjsjlaw.com khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\nWilliam D. Ellerman\nTexas Bar No. 24007151 Matthew G. Berkowitz\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Courtland L. Reichman (pro hac vice)\nOne Glen Lakes Tower Michael M. Polka\n8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105 Michael Caulkins\nDallas, Texas 75231 Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\nTel: (254) 732-2242 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\nwellerman@cjsjlaw.com Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n creichman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Christine E. Lehman\n Adam Adler (pro hac vice)\n Philip J. Eklem\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 1909 K Street, NW, Suite 800\n Washington, DC 20006\n Tel: (202) 894-7310\n clehman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Vivek P. Shankam (pro hac vice)\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, Suite 270\n Austin, TX 78746\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n vshankam@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n Malikie Innovations, Ltd. and\n Key Patent Innovations, Ltd.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 146 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 28, 2026.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T11:29:52.339332-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037292497","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Voluntary Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T09:07:06.040364-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T09:07:06.049149-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"10:55:58","entry_number":146,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":477,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475926444/","id":475926444,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491473636/","id":491473636,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/144/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-26T15:06:56.213178-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T05:43:04.921183-07:00","sha1":"5af7f1dab085ddbcb64dbb1921fc5f9972e6e012","page_count":1,"file_size":289536,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.144.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 144 _ Filed 08/24/26 Pagei1ofi1\n\nFILED\n\nAUG 27 2026\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S, DISTRICY CLERK\n\nFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\nMIDLAND/ODESSA AND PECOS DIVISIONS Bee\nDEPUTY\n\n\u00a7\n\n\u00a7\n\n\u00a7\n\nSTANDING ORDER REGARDING FILING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL\nAND REDACTED PUBLIC VERSIONS\n\nThis Order applies to all patent cases pending before the undersigned. As a public forum,\nthe Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to documents filed with the Court.\nBecause parties in patent cases routinely file confidential information, this Order grants leave for\nany party in a patent case to file materials containing confidential information under seal. Parties\nneed not file a separate motion for leave.\n\nThe filing party shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading\nfiled under seal within seven days. The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such\ndocuments. Exhibits that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all.\nThe parties shall coordinate to make sure that the publicly available version redacts information\nthat any party deems confidential. Redactions should be targeted to redact only that information.\nThe publicly available version shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is\nconfidential.\n\nThe Court will enter a sealed order to resolve a motion if either party filed its briefing\nunder seal. The movant shall email a redacted version of the Court\u2019s sealed order for publication\nwithin seven days after the Court enters the sealed Order. The movant shall email the redacted,\npublic version to the Court\u2019s law clerk (txwdml_nojudge_chambers_md_judgecounts@txwd.uscourts.gov).\n\nIt isso ORDERED.\n\nSIGNED thisZ\u2018T\" day of August, 2026.\n\n-\n\nDAVID COUNTS\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T05:43:04.915175-07:00","document_number":"144","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037279145","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T15:06:56.160615-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T15:06:56.183978-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"16:27:27","entry_number":144,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":473,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475682550/","id":475682550,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491223253/","id":491223253,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/143/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-25T08:07:32.963113-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T08:13:38.009645-07:00","sha1":"51d8013c76a110ac46355d18bdbd441f731ff4ae","page_count":1,"file_size":115192,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.143.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 143 Filed 08/25/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD., KEY \u00a7\nPATENT INNOVATIONS LTD. \u00a7\n \u00a7 NO: MO:25-CV-00567-DC-DTG\nvs. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nFOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC, ET AL.\n Defendant\n\n\n ORDER SETTING MARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON\n IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is SET for\n\nMARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON, in U.S. District Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor,\n\n800 Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas, on Wednesday, September 02, 2026 at 02:00 PM (2 hour time\n\nblock).\n\n\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ______________________________\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-25T08:13:38.004507-07:00","document_number":"143","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037261830","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting/Resetting Markman Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-25T08:07:32.922500-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T08:07:32.943339-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-25","time_filed":"09:48:48","entry_number":143,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":471,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475532850/","id":475532850,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491068601/","id":491068601,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/140/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.599014-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.599028-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"140","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.569672-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.577916-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":140,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 43 Motion to Dismiss filed by Fortitude Mining, LLC, 64 Sealed Motion filed by Fortitude Mining, LLC. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (jb3) (Entered: 08/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475532849/","id":475532849,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491068600/","id":491068600,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/139/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.531488-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.531501-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"139","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.505044-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.513521-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":139,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Sealed Transcript of Sealed Motion Hearing filed (This transcript is not available electronically) (slt) Modified on 8/17/2026 Corrected Title of hearing. (ktm). (Entered: 08/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475532848/","id":475532848,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491068599/","id":491068599,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/138/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.480042-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.480056-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"138","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.450585-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.460415-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-14","time_filed":null,"entry_number":138,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Sealed Report & Recommendation on Foundry Digital LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (DKT. NO. 44). Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (slt) (Entered: 08/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475532847/","id":475532847,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491068598/","id":491068598,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/137/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.379625-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.379639-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"137","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.301894-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.320591-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":137,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Sealed Order Denying Defendant Riot Platform, Inc.'s Motion for Intra-District Transfer (DKT. 66). Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (slt) (Entered: 08/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475361862/","id":475361862,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490891285/","id":490891285,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/142/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-21T10:17:05.615184-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:26:57.046404-07:00","sha1":"76d521e9686c23a635aaf7aa90cfc24d4bd1b1bd","page_count":8,"file_size":243557,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.142.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD., and KEY\nPATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.\n\n Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00567-DC-DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nFOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC; FORTITUDE\nMINING, LLC; RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.;\nAND CIPHER DIGITAL INC. F/K/A/ CIPHER\nMINING INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\n Pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 63) and Court\u2019s Standing Order Governing\n\nProceedings (OGP)\u2014Patent Cases, Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations\n\nLtd. (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) and Defendants Foundry Digital LLC, Fortitude Mining, LLC, Riot Platforms,\n\nInc., and Cipher Digital Inc. (\u201cDefendants\u201d) hereby submit the following Joint Claim Construction\n\nStatement.\n\n I. Disputed Constructions\n\n Defendants\u2019\n Proposed Plaintiffs\u2019 Proposed\n # Claim/Term Proposed\n By Construction\n Construction\n \u2019286 patent\n 1 Claim 1: [preamble] \u201cA Defendants Preamble is The full preamble is not\n method for performing, limiting, and limiting and is not\n on a cryptographic indefinite. indefinite.\n apparatus, a\n Montgomery-style\n reduction in a\n cryptographic operation\u201d\n 2 Claim 1: \u201cinstead of a Defendants Indefinite. Plain and ordinary\n modulus used in meaning.\n performing a standard\n Montgomery reduction\u201d\n \u2019039 Patent\n 3 Claim 1: [preamble] \u201cA Plaintiffs/ Preamble is The full preamble is not\n method for maximizing a Defendants limiting, and limiting and not indefinite.\n number of registers at an indefinite.\n end of an iteration of a\n hash algorithm for use in\n a next iteration\u201d\n 4 Claim 1: \u201csaid reversing Defendants Indefinite. \u201csaid reversing resulting in\n resulting in an average an average number of\n number of words that words that need to be\n need to be loaded into the loaded into the registers\n registers per iteration per categorized and\n being reduced by at least unrolled iteration being\n one half\u201d reduced by at least one\n half\u201d\n 5 Claim 3: \u201cadvanced Defendants Indefinite. \u201cprocessor architecture\n processor architecture to capable of loading/storing\n leverage capabilities\u201d at least double words, i.e.,\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\n Defendants\u2019\n Proposed Plaintiffs\u2019 Proposed\n# Claim/Term Proposed\n By Construction\n Construction\n 64-bit words, to leverage\n capabilities\u201d\n6 Claim 4: \u201cARM type Defendants Indefinite. \u201cprocessors with ARM\n processors\u201d architecture\u201d\n7 Claim 6: \u201cconsuming Defendants Indefinite. \u201cusing state values\n state values residing in residing in the registers at\n the registers at an end of an end of an even or odd\n an iteration at a beginning iteration at a beginning of\n of a following iteration\u201d a following odd or even\n iteration\u201d\n\n\n II. Agreed-Upon Constructions\n\n# Term Agreed-Upon Construction\n1 \u201cverifying that the second elliptic Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n curve point Q represents the public\n key of the signer\u201d\n\n \u2019827 Patent, Claim 2\n2 \u201cword\u201d \u201cunit of data (in bits) that that a computer processor\n can handle in a single operation\u201d\n \u2019286 Patent, Claim 1\n3 \u201cleast significant word\u201d \u201cword that makes the smallest contribution to the\n value of the operand\u201d\n \u2019286 Patent, Claim 1\n4 \u201ccategorizing and unrolling iterations Plain and ordinary meaning\n of an original secure hash algorithm\n into even iterations and odd\n iterations\u201d\n\n \u2019039 Patent, Claim 1\n5 \u201creduced result\u201d Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n\n \u2019062 Patent, Claim 1\n6 \u201cwords\u201d \u201cunit of data (in bits) that that a computer processor\n can handle in a single operation\u201d\n \u2019062 Patent Claim 4\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\n III. Stipulated Constructions1\n\n # Term Stipulated Construction\n 1 \u201cperform a replacement of a least Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n significant word of the operand\u201d\n\n \u2019286 Patent, Claim 1\n 2 \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d \u201cadd a multiple of the modulus to the operand to\n zero out the least significant word of the operand\u201d\n \u2019286 Patent, Claim 1\n 3 \u201cunreduced result\u201d \u201cresult without any reduction to a specific finite\n field or word size reduction\u201d\n \u2019 062 Patent, Claim 1\n\n\n\n\n1\n In the interest of conserving party and judicial resources, the parties have agreed to adopt the\nCourt\u2019s constructions from its claim construction order in Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Mara\nHoldings, Inc., C.A. No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG, Dkt. 80 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2026) for the\nfollowing claim terms, while preserving their right to appeal those constructions consistent with\nthe positions set forth in their stipulation (Dkt. 99).\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 21, 2026\n\n/s/ Khue V. Hoang /s/ Andrew J. Danford\nKhue V. Hoang John V. Hobgood (pro hac vice)\nPatrick Colsher Andrew J. Danford (pro hac vice)\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND\n & Feldberg LLP DORR LLP\n650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320 60 State Street\nNew York, NY 10019 Boston, Massachusetts 02109\nTel: (212) 381-1965 Tel: (617) 526-6000\nkhoang@reichmanjorgensen.com john.hobgood@wilmerhale.com\npcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com andrew.danford@wilmerhale.com\n\nChristine E. Lehman Ben S. Fernandez (pro hac vice)\nAdam Adler WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND\nPhilip J. Eklem DORR LLP\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman 1225 17th Street, Suite 2600\n & Feldberg LLP Denver, Colorado 80202\n1909 K Street, NW, Suite 800 Tel: (720) 274-3163\nWashington, DC 20006 ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com\nTel: (202) 894-7310\nclehman@reichmanjorgensen.com Laura E. Powell (pro hac vice)\naadler@reichmankjorgensen.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND\npeklem@reichmanjorgensen.com DORR LLP\n 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\nCourtland L. Reichman Washington, DC 20037\nMatthew G. Berkowitz Tel: (202) 663-6294\nMichael M. Polka laura.powell@wilmerhale.com\nMichael Caulkins\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman Melissa R. Smith\n & Feldberg LLP Texas State Bar No. 24001351\n100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300 GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\nRedwood Shores, CA 94065 303 South Washington Avenue\nTel: (650) 623-1401 Marshall, Texas 75670\ncreichman@reichmanjorgensen.com Tel: (903) 934-8450\nmberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\nmpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\nmcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com Attorneys for Defendant Cipher Digital Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\nVivek P. Shankam, Ph.D. /s/ Justin S. Cohen\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman Justin S. Cohen\n & Feldberg LLP State Bar No. 24078356\n901 S. MoPac Expwy., Bldg. 1, Suite 270 justin.cohen@hklaw.com\nAustin, TX 78746 Robert S. Hill\nTel: (737) 227-3117 State Bar No. 276056\nvshankam@reichmanjorgensen.com robert.hill@hklaw.com\n Morgan Delabar\nMark D. Siegmund, TX Bar No. 24117055 State Bar No. 24116625\nWilliam D. Ellerman, TX Bar No. 24007151 morgan.delabar@hklaw.com\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Holland & Knight LLP\n7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor One Arts Plaza\nWaco, TX 76710 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500\nTelephone: (254) 732-2242 Dallas, Texas 75201\nFacsimile: (866) 627-3509 Tel: (214) 969-1700\nmsiegmund@cjsjlaw.com Fax: (214) 969-1751\nwellerman@cjsjlaw.com\n Amy Simpson (admitted pro hac vice)\nAttorneys for Plaintiffs Malikie CA State Bar No. 241090\nInnovations Ltd. and Key Patent amy.simpson@hklaw.com\nInnovations Ltd. Holland & Knight LLP\n 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200\n Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Tel: (310) 201-8900\n\n Deron R. Dacus\n State Bar No. 00790553\n ddacus@dacusfirm.com\n THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.\n 821 ESE Loop 323, Suire 430\n Tyler, Texas 75701\n Tel: (903) 705-1117\n\n Attorneys for Defendants\n Foundry Digital LLC, Fortitude Mining, LLC,\n and Riot Platforms, Inc.\n\n /s/ Timothy T. Wang\n Timothy Wang\n NI, WANG & MASSAND, PLLC\n 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615\n Dallas, TX 75251\n (972) 331-4603\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\n (972) 314-0900 Fax\n twang@nilawfirm.com\n Counsel for Defendant-Intervenor Shenzhen\n MicroBT Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 142 Filed 08/21/26 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document\n\nhas been served on August 21, 2026, to all counsel of record.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-24T08:26:57.042814-07:00","document_number":"142","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037246293","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-21T10:17:05.575298-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.665774-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-21","time_filed":"11:36:45","entry_number":142,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":469,"description":"Joint Claim Construction Brief or Statement by Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Malikie Innovations Ltd.. (Siegmund, Mark) (Entered: 08/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474874521/","id":474874521,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490388677/","id":490388677,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/141/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-18T10:05:29.774968-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:26:14.812031-07:00","sha1":"fd34f6a11dd0a5cb597ae0bea4f24024bcdbd9fb","page_count":16,"file_size":325089,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172879815.141.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD.,\nKEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.\n\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v. CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00567-DC-DTG\n\nFOUNDRY DIGITAL LLC; FORTITUDE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nMINING, LLC; RIOT PLATFORMS, INC.;\nAND CIPHER DIGITAL INC. F/K/A/\nCIPHER MINING INC.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nI. THE \u2019286 PATENT ............................................................................................................... 2\n A. \u201cA method for performing, on a cryptographic apparatus, a Montgomery-style\n reduction in a cryptographic operation\u201d (claim 1; preamble) ....................................... 2\n B. \u201cinstead of a modulus used in performing a standard Montgomery reduction\u201d (claim\n 1) ................................................................................................................................... 3\nII. THE \u2019039 PATENT ............................................................................................................... 4\n A. \u201cA method for maximizing a number of registers at an end of an iteration of a hash\n algorithm for use in a next iteration.\u201d (claim 1; preamble) .......................................... 4\n B. \u201csaid reversing resulting in an average number of words that need to be loaded into\n the registers per iteration being reduced by at least one half\u201d (claim 1) ...................... 5\n C. \u201cadvanced processor architecture to leverage capabilities\u201d (claim 3) .......................... 8\n D. \u201cARM type processors\u201d (claim 4) ................................................................................ 9\n E. \u201cconsuming state values residing in the registers at an end of an iteration at a\n beginning of a following iteration\u201d (claim 6) ............................................................. 10\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nAdams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.,\n 616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9\n\nAlnylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.,\n 138 F.4th 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2025) ................................................................................................8\n\nBASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,\n 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................7, 8\n\nBio-Rad Lab\u2019ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,\n 967 F.3d 1353 (Fed Cir. 2020)...................................................................................................3\n\nClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.,\n 35 F.4th 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................10\n\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. v. Mara Holdings, Inc.,\n No. 7:25-cv-222-DC-DTG, Dkt. 80 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2026) ..............................................2\n\nNevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,\n 955 F.3d 35 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................................10\n\nNimbelink Corp. v. Digi Int\u2019l Inc.,\n No. 2024-2292, 2026 WL 492037 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2026) ....................................................5\n\nOsseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc.,\n 116 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................1\n\nPhillips v. AWH Corp.,\n 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................4, 8, 9\n\nSmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,\n 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................7\n\nSRI Int\u2019l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,\n 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................................8\n\nTeva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,\n 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................4\n\nTomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,\n 790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................2, 3\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\nVLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,\n 53 F.4th 646 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................3\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Defendants ask the Court to find every disputed term indefinite, which it can only do upon\n\na showing of clear and convincing evidence that a POSITA would not have been able to understand\n\nthe scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. Defendants offer nothing in support, relying\n\ninstead on uncorroborated attorney arguments. This per se insufficiency dooms Defendants\u2019\n\ncause. See Dkt. 127 at 11 n.6. Defendants resort to attacking Plaintiffs\u2019 expert, Dr. Martin, for\n\nnot being a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., in 2009, when Dr.\n\nMartin had not yet matriculated from his Bachelor\u2019s program. But precedent is \u201cclear\u201d that Dr.\n\nMartin \u201cneed not have acquired that skill level prior to the time of the invention,\u201d and he \u201ccan\n\nacquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary\n\nskill knew at the time of the invention.\u201d Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F.4th\n\n1335, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (emphasis added). Dr. Martin undisputedly meets the\n\nqualifications of a POSITA in this case1, which is all the law requires, id. at 1340, and his testimony\n\nis unrebutted by that of anyone else so qualified.\n\n Defendants\u2019 arguments are also legally insufficient. As to the preamble terms at issue,\n\nDefendants construe them in a vacuum, divorced from the intrinsic context, and by analogy to non-\n\nanalogous preamble in other cases. A correct application of the governing legal framework shows,\n\nhowever, that none of the preamble terms at issue are limiting. On indefiniteness, besides failing\n\nto supply any evidence that a POSITA would have been unable to understand the claims with\n\nreasonable certainty, Defendants arguments are based on strained interpretations of the claims that\n\nignore the intrinsic evidence and attempt to manufacture confusion where there is none.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Dr. Martin\u2019s declaration explains his qualifications, Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6\u00b61-30, and his deposition\ntestimony corroborates how he developed an understanding of what a POSITA knew at the time\nof the invention. Dkt. 135-2 (Martin Tr.) at 26:10-27:25.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\nI. THE \u2019286 PATENT\n\n A. \u201cA method for performing, on a cryptographic apparatus, a Montgomery-\n style reduction in a cryptographic operation\u201d (claim 1; preamble)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Preamble is limiting, and indefinite The full preamble is not limiting and is not indefinite.\n\n The same term (\u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d) of the same claim was at issue in Mara2.\n\nThere, the Court held the term is not limiting because \u201cnone of the Catalina guideposts are\n\npresent.\u201d Mara at 15-17. Nothing is different here. \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d does not\n\nprovide antecedent basis for any term in the claim\u2019s body nor was it relied on during prosecution\n\nto distinguish prior art. Dkt. 127 at 4; Mara at 16. Despite asserting that Montgomery-style\n\nreduction is structural, \u201c[D]efendant[s] do[] not identify any missing steps\u201d from the claim body,\n\nwhich \u201crecites all steps necessary to perform the claimed method.\u201d Mara at 16-17; accord Dkt.\n\n127 at 4 (citing Ex. A \u00b6\u00b6 60-62). And while Defendants claim that Montgomery-style reduction\n\nis not a mere intended purpose or result, the preamble itself indicates that it is, as the Court held in\n\nMara. Mara at 16; accord Dkt. 127 at 4 (citing Ex. A \u00b6\u00b6 60-62); TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790\n\nF.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting \u201cstandard pattern\u201d of non-limiting preamble).\n\n Defendants\u2019 argument that Montgomery-style reduction \u201ccannot be separated from the\n\nadmittedly limiting \u2018cryptographic operation\u2019 of which it is a part\u201d cannot be squared with\n\nTomTom. There, the preamble recited \u201c[a] method for generating and updating data for use in a\n\ndestination tracking system of at least one mobile unit comprising.\u201d Id. at 1322 (emphasis added).\n\nThe underlined part was held limiting because it provided antecedent basis for terms in the body.\n\nId. at 1323. The italicized part was non-limiting, despite the preamble expressly stating that it is\n\n\n\n\n2\n Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Mara Holdings, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-222-DC-DTG, Dkt. 80 at 15-17\n(W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2026) (\u201cMara Case\u201d).\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\n\u201cfor use in\u201d the limiting part, because it (a) was not the antecedent basis for any term, (b) only\n\nstated the intended use of the invention, and (c) the body of the claim was structurally complete\n\nwithout it. Id. at 1324 (emphasis added). The same is true here for \u201cMontgomery-style reduction,\u201d\n\nmaking it similarly non-limiting. The preamble in Bio-Rad Lab\u2019ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967\n\nF.3d 1353 (Fed Cir. 2020) is not analogous. The entire preamble in that case\u2014\u201c[a] method for\n\nconducting a reaction in plugs in a microfluidic system, comprising the steps of\u201d\u2014was limiting\n\nbecause \u201ca reaction\u201d (what the method is \u201cfor conducting\u201d) and \u201ca microfluidic system\u201d both\n\nprovided antecedent basis. Id. at 1361, 1371. \u201c[A] Montgomery-style reduction\u201d does not.\n\n If the Court comes to a contrary determination that \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d is\n\nlimiting, then the term is not indefinite. Defendants argue the term is \u201csubjective\u201d or otherwise\n\n\u201csuperfluous\u201d but cite no evidence in support. Dkt. 127 at 5-6. The patent\u2019s examples of\n\n\u201cMontgomery-style\u201d reduction (\u2019286 Pat., 2:47-53, 4:40-6:19) show that the term is used to refer\n\nto (or is descriptive of) the claimed method. Dkt. 127 at 5-63; Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6\u00b6 66-67; Dkt.\n\n135-2 (Ex. 1) at 36:23-38:8, 42:4-11; see also VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 53 F.4th 646, 653\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2022) (\u201ca construction that introduces redundancy into a claim \u2026 is not foreclosed,\u201d\n\nparticularly where \u201cintrinsic evidence makes it clear that the \u2018redundant\u2019 construction is correct\u201d).\n\n B. \u201cinstead of a modulus used in performing a standard Montgomery\n reduction\u201d (claim 1)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite. Plain and ordinary meaning.\n\n Claim 1 recites computing a modified operand using a reduction value \u201cinstead of a\n\nmodulus used in performing a standard Montgomery reduction,\u201d where the reduction value is \u201ca\n\n\n\n3\n With apologies to the Court, citations to Exhibit A in Plaintiffs\u2019 responsive brief (Dkt. 127) are\noff by one paragraph number (shifted one paragraph number too high).\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\nfunction of the modulus.\u201d Dkt. 127 at 6. A POSITA would have understood \u201cinstead of a modulus\n\nused in performing a standard Montgomery reduction\u201d to have its plain and ordinary meaning: that\n\nthe reduction value (although it is a function of the modulus) is not itself the modulus. Dkt. 127\n\nat 6-7, Ex. A \u00b6\u00b6 69-71.\n\n Defendants offer no evidence to the contrary. Instead, they double down on conclusory\n\nattorney arguments and rhetorical questions (which are not evidence) that supposedly identify\n\ndifferent ways one could interpret the claim. Dkt. 127 at 7. These different interpretations are\n\nrooted in made-up confusion and are divorced from the clear context provided by the claim\n\nlanguage and the specification.4 Beyond that, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs\u2019 position would\n\nrender the \u201cinstead of\u201d phrase \u201csuperfluous\u201d if the preamble term \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d\n\nexcludes standard Montgomery reduction. Dkt. 135 at 4. As explained above, \u201cMontgomery-style\n\nreduction\u201d is not limiting and can have no such effect. Supra \u00a7 I.A.\n\nII. THE \u2019039 PATENT\n A. \u201cA method for maximizing a number of registers at an end of an iteration of a\n hash algorithm for use in a next iteration.\u201d (claim 1; preamble)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Preamble is limiting, and indefinite The full preamble is not limiting and not indefinite.\n\n A POSITA would understand that \u201cmaximizing\u201d a number of registers simply describes\n\nthe purpose of the claimed method\u2014how the method is performed is detailed in the claim steps.\n\nDkt. 127 at 10; Dkt. 127-2 \u00b6\u00b6 77-81. The specification confirms this, explaining that \u201cmaximizing\u201d\n\n\n\n4\n Defendants\u2019 reliance on Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir.\n2015) is misplaced. Teva held that \u201c[t]he meaning one of skill in the art would attribute to [a claim\nterm] in light of its use in the [intrinsic record] is a question of law\u201d reviewed without deference\nand does not become a question of fact subject to deference simply by having an expert testify on\nit. Id. It did not hold that that expert testimony cannot be relied on to ascertain a POSITA\u2019s\nunderstanding when resolving an indefiniteness question. Id.; see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d\n1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (courts may rely on expert testimony as extrinsic evidence).\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\nthe number of registers \u201cis achieved by categorizing the [hash] algorithm iterations into even and\n\nodd iterations, where the sequence of computation in the even iteration is reversed in the odd\n\niteration,\u201d which correspond to steps of claim 1. \u2019039 Pat., 2:8-14; see id., 3:51-59, Abstract. The\n\n\u201cmaximizing\u201d language in the preamble adds no essential steps or structure to the claim, and\n\nbecause all other Catalina guideposts are absent, the term is not limiting. Dkt. 127 at 9-10.\n\n Defendants try to elevate \u201cmaximizing\u201d to limiting status by claiming that \u201cmaximizing\u201d\n\ndistinguishes from \u201cmerely increas[ing].\u201d Dkt. 135 at 5. No evidence supports this theory. That\n\n\u201ca number of registers\u201d is limiting (because it provides antecedent basis for \u201cthe registers\u201d in the\n\nbody) does not require \u201cmaximizing\u201d to be limiting too. As explained above, \u201cmaximizing\u201d is\n\nachieved by performing the steps of the claim; it merely \u201cextoll[s] the virtues of the structurally\n\ncomplete invention contained within the body of the claim.\u201d Nimbelink Corp. v. Digi Int\u2019l Inc.,\n\nNo. 2024-2292, 2026 WL 492037, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2026); see id. (\u201cWe have long held\n\nthat preamble language that merely extolls the benefits or features of the claimed invention does\n\nnot limit claim scope.\u201d).\n\n If limiting, \u201cmaximizing\u201d is not indefinite. The specification describes \u201cmaximizing\u201d as\n\nbeing \u201cachieved by categorizing the [hash] algorithm iterations into even and odd iterations, where\n\nthe sequence of computation in the even iteration is reversed in the odd iteration\u201d (\u2019039 Pat., 2:8-\n\n14) (emphasis added), meaning it is achieved when the steps of claim 1 are performed. Dkt. 127\n\nat 11-12; Ex. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6 81. Defendants\u2019 indefiniteness argument lacks any tether.\n\n B. \u201csaid reversing resulting in an average number of words that need to be\n loaded into the registers per iteration being reduced by at least one half\u201d\n (claim 1)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite \u201csaid reversing resulting in an average number of words\n that need to be loaded into the registers per categorized and\n unrolled iteration being reduced by at least one half\u201d\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\n The words of the claim are unambiguous. Claim 1 recites \u201creversing a sequence of\n\ncomputations\u201d that \u201cresult[s] in an average number of words that need to be loaded into the\n\nregisters per iteration being reduced by at least one half.\u201d The plain language requires that\n\nreduction occurs as a result of reversing. Dkt. 127 at 12-13; Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6\u00b6 83-84.\n\nReduction therefore concerns only what happens after reversing occurs. Id. The specification\n\nconfirms this. The Pseudocode 2 example shows that reversing (and the load reduction that results\n\nfrom it) begins after the initial iteration i=0, starting with the first reversal at i=1. Dkt. 127 at 13-\n\n14; Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6\u00b6 85-87.\n\n Pseudocode 2 Example\n\n i Reverse? Words Reused Words Loaded # Words Loaded\n 0 (even) no (none) A-H 8\n 1 (odd) yes A, E, F, G, H B, C, D 3\n 2 (even) yes A, B, C A, E, F, G, H 5\n\nThe first reversal at i=1 begins the reuse of registers and the reduction of loads such that, on\n\naverage, the number of loads per iteration is reduced by at least half. Id. No reversal (and no load\n\nreduction) happens at i=0, making i=0 not within the scope of the claim. Id. This plain-language\n\napplication of the claim is consistent with the \u2019039 Patent\u2019s teaching that \u201c[t]he average number\n\nof words \u2026 in our new implementation is four \u2026 instead of eight,\u201d i.e., (3+5)\u00f72=4. Id.\n\n(emphasis added); \u2019039 Pat., 4:60-63.\n\n Defendants\u2019 indefiniteness positions are based on contrived claim interpretations that are\n\ncontrary to both the claim language and the specification. Defendants\u2019 argument that the claimed\n\naverage \u201cper iteration\u201d includes iterations that are not reversed is belied by the claim, which limits\n\nrelevant iterations to those that are the result of reversing. The claim also recites \u201can average\n\nnumber of words that need to be loaded into the registers per iteration,\u201d which does not require the\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\naverage to be across all iterations of an algorithm\u2014only an average that satisfies the limitations\n\nof this element is required.\n\n Defendants argue that the sequence in i=0 (even) is \u201creversed\u201d as compared to that in i=1\n\n(odd) and therefore must be included in the computation of the average. Dkt. 135 at 7. Not true.\n\nThe i=0 iteration precedes the i=1 iteration, making it nonsensical to say that the prior iteration is\n\nthe reverse of the latter. The common sense interpretation, as corroborated by the specification\n\nand attested to by Plaintiffs\u2019 POSITA expert, is that i=0 is not a reversal of anything and that\n\nreversing cannot begin until i=1.\n\n Defendant\u2019s argument that claim 1 is indefinite because it does not exclude counting words\n\ncontaining other values in the specification\u2019s embodiments (Ki and w) in the average is irrelevant\n\nand misleading. Inferring the claim is indefinite by suggesting that it covers different averages\n\ninvolving different variables \u201cis legally incorrect\u201d because \u201cbreadth is not indefiniteness.\u201d BASF\n\nCorp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).\n\n Defendants\u2019 argument that \u201chow the average is calculated\u201d determines \u201c[i]f the same\n\nalgorithm can satisfy or not satisfy the claim\u201d impermissibly conflates breadth with indefiniteness\n\nand claim construction with infringement. Dkt. 135 at 6, 8. There is no dispute about how the\n\nclaim says the average is calculated: divide the number of words loaded by the number of iterations\n\ninvolved in loading them. Because \u201cclaim 1 unambiguously identifies the bounds of the claim,\u201d\n\nit cannot be indefinite. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2005). Defendants\u2019 arguments that the claim does not specify \u201cwhich iterations or how many\n\niterations \u2026 are included\u201d (Dkt. 100 at 13), \u201cwhere in the algorithmic process that average is\n\ncalculated\u201d (id.), and which words are included (Dkt. 135 at 8), and therefore covers different\n\naverages, requires confusing breadth with indefiniteness. SmithKline Beecham, 403 F.3d at 1341;\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\nBASF, 875 F.3d at 1367. Whether claim 1 reads on certain implementations is a question of\n\ninfringement, which is taken up only after claim construction. SRI Int\u2019l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.\n\nof Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (\u201cit is only after the claims have been construed \u2026\n\nthat the claims, as so construed, are applied \u2026 to determine infringement\u201d).\n\n C. \u201cadvanced processor architecture to leverage capabilities\u201d (claim 3)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite \u201cprocessor architecture capable of loading/storing at least\n double words, i.e., 64-bit words, to leverage capabilities\u201d\n\n The dispute hinges on the meaning of \u201cadvanced\u201d in the phrase \u201cadvanced processor\n\narchitecture.\u201d Defendants argue that an \u201cadvanced\u201d processor architecture could have multiple\n\nfeatures. Dkt. 135 at 9. However, the specification\u2014which is \u201cthe single best guide\u201d to discerning\n\nthe meaning of \u201cadvanced\u201d processor architecture (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315, 1321)\u2014\n\n\u201cspecifically\u201d identifies what constitutes \u201cadvanced\u201d architecture. Dkt. 127 at 17.\n\n [T]he register assignment takes into consideration the possibility of leveraging the\n capabilities of more advanced processor features, specifically load/store double word, i.e.,\n 64-bit word, which is found in ARM architectures starting from ARMv5te.\n\n\u2019039 Pat. 5:30-34. That is definitional. Dkt. 127 at 17; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (\u201cthe\n\nspecification \u2018acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it\n\ndefines terms by implication\u2019\u201d).5 A POSITA would understand that an \u201cadvanced\u201d processor\n\narchitecture has at least these \u201cspecifically\u201d identified features. Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6\u00b6 95-96.\n\n Defendants contend the specification also identifies \u201cdata preloading\u201d as another advanced\n\nprocessor capability, but that statement is exemplary, not definitional. \u2019286 Pat., 2:16-20.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Alnylam Pharms., Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., 138 F.4th 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025) does not show\nthat the \u2019039 Patent\u2019s use of \u201cspecifically\u201d is non-definitional. In fact, it shows the opposite, citing\nmultiple authorities indicating that similar words (\u201cspecific\u201d and \u201cspecify\u201d) \u201cconnote[] \u2026 notions\nof specificity, definiteness, explicitness, particularity, precision, or detail. Id. at 1334.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\nMoreover, dependent claim 5\u2019s inclusion of a \u201cdata preloading\u201d limitation creates a strong\n\npresumption that claim 3 does not require it. Dkt. 127 at 18.6 Defendants have no answer to that.\n\n D. \u201cARM type processors\u201d (claim 4)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite \u201cprocessors with ARM architecture\u201d\n\n The patent is clear that \u201c[ARM] type\u201d is synonymous with \u201cARM.\u201d Dkt. 127 at 18; Dkt.\n\n127-2 (Ex. A) \u00b6 98. The specification equates \u201c[ARM] type\u201d with \u201cARM\u201d (\u2019039 Pat., 1:45-46)\n\nand consistently uses \u201cARM\u201d in reference to \u201cARM architecture\u201d and \u201cARM processor.\u201d Id. at\n\n5:33, 5:47, 5:57-59, Abstract. None of this is disputed. Defendants\u2019 argument that \u201cARM type\u201d\n\ncannot be synonymous with \u201cARM\u201d reads the claim in a vacuum and turns a blind eye to the\n\nteachings of the specification. That is not how claims are construed. Adams Respiratory\n\nTherapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (\u201cClaim terms are not\n\nconstrued in a vacuum divorced from the specification.\u201d); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (a POSITA\n\nis deemed to read the claim in the context of the specification).\n\n Defendants also argue that the greater phrase \u201cthe advanced processor architecture\n\ncomprises ARM type processors\u201d does not make sense because \u201can architecture is not a processor.\u201d\n\nDkt. 135 at 10. But this \u201csyntactical\u201d argument has nothing to do with whether a POSITA would\n\nunderstand \u201cARM type processor\u201d with reasonable certainty. Regardless, the claim does not say\n\nthat the advanced processor architecture \u201cis\u201d a processor, but that it \u201ccomprises ARM type\n\nprocessors.\u201d The specification teaches that architecture can comprise processors, see, e.g., \u2019039\n\nPat., 1:44-47 (ARMv5t architecture includes \u201c[ARM] type\u201d processor), which is corroborated by\n\n\n\n\n6\n That presumption does not apply to \u201cdouble word loading and storing.\u201d Dkt. 127 at 18.\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\nDr. Martin\u2019s testimony, Dkt. 127-2 \u00b6 99; see id. \u00b6 52 (\u201cUsually, a family of CPUs will all conform\n\nto the same ISA.\u201d). Defendants cite no evidence to the contrary.\n\n E. \u201cconsuming state values residing in the registers at an end of an iteration at a\n beginning of a following iteration\u201d (claim 6)\n\n Defendants\u2019 Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite \u201cusing state values residing in the registers at an end\n of an even or odd iteration at a beginning of a\n following odd or even iteration\u201d\n\n The plain language of the claim requires \u201cconsuming\u201d7 something and indicates when the\n\nconsuming happens (\u201cat a beginning of a following iteration\u201d) and what is consumed (\u201cstate values\n\nresiding in the registers at an end of an iteration\u201d); Dkt. 127 at 19-20; Dkt. 127-2 (Ex. A \u00b6\u00b6 101-\n\n103). Defendants cannot dispute that this is the natural and consistent-with-specification reading\n\nof the claim. Instead, Defendants insist there may be other ways to interpret the claim, but are\n\nunable to support the plausibility of any of them. This ends the dispute in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor. The\n\nmere fact that Defendants can manufacture other (incorrect) interpretations\u2014which is all\n\nDefendants do\u2014is legally insufficient to show indefiniteness. Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 955\n\nF.3d 35, 41 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (\u201cThe test is not merely whether a claim is susceptible to differing\n\ninterpretations. Such a test would render nearly every claim term indefinite so long as a party\n\ncould manufacture a plausible construction.\u201d); ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.,\n\n35 F.4th 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (\u201cClearOne\u2019s arguments for indefiniteness merely identify\n\ndifferent ways one could interpret self-similar. Just because a term is susceptible to more than one\n\nmeaning does not render it indefinite.\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n7\n Defendants do not dispute that \u201cconsuming\u201d means \u201cusing.\u201d Dkt. 135 at 10; see Dkt. 127 at 19.\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 18, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Khue V. Hoang\nMark D. Siegmund Khue V. Hoang (pro hac vice)\nTexas Bar No. 24117055 Patrick R. Colsher\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\nWaco, Texas 76720 New York, NY 10019\nTel: (254) 732-2242 Tel: (212) 381-1965\nmsiegmund@cjsjlaw.com khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\nWilliam D. Ellerman\nTexas Bar No. 24007151 Matthew G. Berkowitz\nCherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC Courtland L. Reichman (pro hac vice)\nOne Glen Lakes Tower Michael M. Polka\n8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105 Michael Caulkins\nDallas, Texas 75231 Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\nTel: (254) 732-2242 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\nwellerman@cjsjlaw.com Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n creichman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Christine E. Lehman\n Adam Adler (pro hac vice)\n Philip J. Eklem\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 1909 K Street, NW, Suite 800\n Washington, DC 20006\n Tel: (202) 894-7310\n clehman@reichmanjorgensen.com\n peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Vivek P. Shankam (pro hac vice)\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, Suite 270\n Austin, TX 78746\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n vshankam@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n Malikie Innovations, Ltd. and\n Key Patent Innovations, Ltd.\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG Document 141 Filed 08/18/26 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 18, 2026.\n\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-24T08:26:14.805099-07:00","document_number":"141","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037214389","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T10:05:29.736691-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T08:25:32.630804-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-18","time_filed":"11:46:03","entry_number":141,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":467,"description":"Reply Claim Construction Brief by Key Patent Innovations Ltd., Malikie Innovations Ltd.. (Siegmund, Mark) (Entered: 08/18/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474705304/","id":474705304,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490215000/","id":490215000,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-17T08:14:45.178075-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T08:14:45.178091-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Report and Recommendations","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T08:14:45.163909-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T08:14:45.163925-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"10:04:55","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474689054/","id":474689054,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490198285/","id":490198285,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-17T06:19:41.693022-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:19:41.693040-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript of Sealed or In Camera Proceedings Filed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T06:19:41.678161-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T06:19:41.678181-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"08:07:56","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474552873/","id":474552873,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490056522/","id":490056522,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-14T15:09:50.556526-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T15:09:50.556554-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-14T15:09:50.542371-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T15:09:50.542394-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-14","time_filed":"16:16:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474147369/","id":474147369,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489638719/","id":489638719,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-12T08:07:06.625573-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T08:07:06.625590-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sealed Order on Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-12T08:07:06.613080-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-12T08:07:06.613099-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-12","time_filed":"09:34:48","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474015996/","id":474015996,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72028096/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489503139/","id":489503139,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72028096/136/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-foundry-digital-llc/","date_created":"2026-08-11T10:08:44.140373-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-11T10:08:44.151585-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"136","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037170410","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-11T10:08:44.113617-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-11T10:08:44.120648-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-11","time_filed":"11:39:18","entry_number":136,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":454,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72028096&page_size=40"}