{"cached_at":"2026-09-12T10:48:17.815172+00:00","cl_docket_id":"70243940","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","id":70243940,"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/70243940/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2025-05-12T10:02:38.391106-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-16T05:44:17.744017-07:00","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":"2025-05-12","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-06-15","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)","case_name_full":"","slug":"malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital","docket_number":"7:25-cv-00222","docket_number_core":"2500222","docket_number_raw":"7:25-cv-00222","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":"1172841950","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","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":"2025-05-12T10:02:38.387357-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15473157/","id":15473157,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10939617/","attorney_id":10939617,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10939617/","attorney_id":10939617,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10939617/","attorney_id":10939617,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382410/","attorney_id":10382410,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382410/","attorney_id":10382410,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382411/","attorney_id":10382411,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382411/","attorney_id":10382411,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382412/","attorney_id":10382412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382412/","attorney_id":10382412,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550487/","attorney_id":10550487,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550487/","attorney_id":10550487,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819450/","attorney_id":11819450,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819450/","attorney_id":11819450,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550488/","attorney_id":10550488,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550488/","attorney_id":10550488,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550489/","attorney_id":10550489,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550489/","attorney_id":10550489,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550490/","attorney_id":10550490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550490/","attorney_id":10550490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550491/","attorney_id":10550491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550491/","attorney_id":10550491,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550492/","attorney_id":10550492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550492/","attorney_id":10550492,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550493/","attorney_id":10550493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550493/","attorney_id":10550493,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550494/","attorney_id":10550494,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10550494/","attorney_id":10550494,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.325897-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.325913-07:00","name":"MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15473156/","id":15473156,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382407/","attorney_id":10382407,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382407/","attorney_id":10382407,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382408/","attorney_id":10382408,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382408/","attorney_id":10382408,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819449/","attorney_id":11819449,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819449/","attorney_id":11819449,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819448/","attorney_id":11819448,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382409/","attorney_id":10382409,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382409/","attorney_id":10382409,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10335674/","attorney_id":10335674,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.204923-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.204939-07:00","name":"Key Patent Innovations Ltd.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15473155/","id":15473155,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382407/","attorney_id":10382407,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382407/","attorney_id":10382407,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382408/","attorney_id":10382408,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382408/","attorney_id":10382408,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819447/","attorney_id":11819447,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11819448/","attorney_id":11819448,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382409/","attorney_id":10382409,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10382409/","attorney_id":10382409,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10335674/","attorney_id":10335674,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","docket_id":70243940,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.159726-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-12T11:26:28.159753-07:00","name":"Malikie Innovations Ltd.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467527617/","id":467527617,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482793582/","id":482793582,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/100/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-15T15:06:51.084719-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T08:40:54.206899-07:00","sha1":"dd885601511b06eb3f60e609fb0d9f86f7a907a5","page_count":2,"file_size":107407,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.100.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.100.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 100 Filed 06/15/26 Page 1 of 2\nAO 120 (Rev. 08/10)\n\n Mail Stop 8 REPORT ON THE\nTO: FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN\n Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450 ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 TRADEMARK\n\n In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been\n filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Midland Division on the following\n G Trademarks or G\u2714Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 292.):\n\nDOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT\n 7:25-cv-00222 5/12/2025 Western District of Texas, Midland Division\nPLAINTIFF DEFENDANT\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and MARA Holdings, Inc.\nKey Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n\n PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT\n HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK\n TRADEMARK NO. OR TRADEMARK\n1 8,788,827 7/22/2014 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n2 10,284,370 5/7/2019 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n3 7,372,960 5/13/2008 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n4 8,666,062 3/4/2014 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n5 7,372,961 5/13/2008 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n In the above\u2014entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:\nDATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY\n G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading\n PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT\n HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK\n TRADEMARK NO. OR TRADEMARK\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n\n In the above\u2014entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:\nDECISION/JUDGEMENT 6/15/2026 Order Dismissing Case (Doc 99)\n\n\n\n\nCLERK DATE\n PHILIP J. DEVLIN 06/15/2026\n\n\nCopy 1\u2014Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3\u2014Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director\nCopy 2\u2014Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4\u2014Case file copy\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 100 Filed 06/15/26 Page 2 of 2\nAO 120 (Rev. 08/10)\n\n Mail Stop 8 REPORT ON THE\nTO: FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN\n Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n P.O. Box 1450 ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR\n Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 TRADEMARK\n\n In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been\n filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Midland Division on the following\n G Trademarks or G\u2714Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 292.):\n\nDOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT\n 7:25-cv-00222 5/12/2025 Western District of Texas, Midland Division\nPLAINTIFF DEFENDANT\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and MARA Holdings, Inc.\nKey Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n\n PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT\n HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK\n TRADEMARK NO. OR TRADEMARK\n1 8,532,286 9/10/2013 Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n\n In the above\u2014entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:\nDATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY\n G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading\n PATENT OR DATE OF PATENT\n HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK\n TRADEMARK NO. OR TRADEMARK\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n\n In the above\u2014entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:\nDECISION/JUDGEMENT 6/15/2026 Order Dismissing Case (Doc 99)\n\n\n\n\nCLERK DATE\n PHILIP J. DEVLIN 06/15/2026\n\n\nCopy 1\u2014Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3\u2014Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director\nCopy 2\u2014Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4\u2014Case file copy\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-16T05:44:17.520194-07:00","document_number":"100","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036766763","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Report on Patent/Trademark (AO-120)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-15T15:06:51.061173-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T15:06:51.066833-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":"16:47:33","entry_number":100,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":299,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467474768/","id":467474768,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482739893/","id":482739893,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/99/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-15T11:17:24.580527-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T07:59:38.566607-07:00","sha1":"9cff32591d2f33295dda754317c002495fa4648c","page_count":1,"file_size":167653,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.99.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.99.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 99 Filed 06/15/26 Page 1 of 1\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., \u00a7\nKEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD. \u00a7\n Plaintiffs, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 NO. MO:25-CV-00222\n \u00a7\nMARA HOLDINGS, INC. F/K/A, \u00a7\nMARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, \u00a7\nINC., \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is the Plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 98)\nfiled June 15, 2026. The Plaintiff agrees and stipulates that all claims for relief asserted against\nDefendant are dismissed with prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a\nplaintiff to dismiss an action upon filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have\nappeared. The Plaintiff has done so. \u201cStipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require\nno judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.\u201d Yesh Music v.\nLakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). The request to dismiss all claims against\nDefendants is hereby GRANTED.\n The Court therefore ORDERS that the Clerk of Court CLOSE this action. Each party\nshall bear and pay their respective attorney fees and costs herein.\n It is so ORDERED.\n SIGNED this 15th day of June, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DAVID COUNTS\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-15T12:10:45.555646-07:00","document_number":"99","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036763092","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Dismissing Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-15T11:17:24.538502-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T11:17:24.547681-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":"13:01:15","entry_number":99,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":297,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467427082/","id":467427082,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482690515/","id":482690515,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/98/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-15T07:17:56.806588-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-18T06:36:17.017569-07:00","sha1":"39e94d6144f7caefc4c1d1a04c7c8710f2696a76","page_count":2,"file_size":803979,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.98.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.98.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 98 Filed 06/15/26 Page 1 of 2\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 CASE NO. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n V.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MARA HOLDINGS, INC. (FIK/ A\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL\n\n Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. And Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively\n\nPlaintiffs) and Defendant Mara Holdings, Inc., having reached an agreement, jointly stipulate as\n\nfollows pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii):\n\n 1. The above-captioned action and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant\n\n are hereby dismissed with prejudice;\n\n 2. All counterclaims asserted by Defendant against Plaintiffs are hereby dismissed\n\n without prejudice to the extent specified in the parties' agreement; and\n\n 3. All parties shall bear their own fees, costs, and expenses.\n\n\nDated: June 9, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n ~\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser\n Isl Khue V. Hoang\n Khue V. Hoang\n khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Ian A. Moore Patrick Colsher\n Tom Yu pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Thomas Macchio REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n GARRISON LLP 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\n 1285 Sixth Avenue New York, NY 10019\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 98 Filed 06/15/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 381-1965\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Matthew G. Berkowitz\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\nChristopher M. Pepe Michael M. Polka\nW. Sutton Ansley mpolka@reichmanj orgensen.com\nEric C. Westerhold REICHMAN JORGENSEN\nPAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\nGARRISON LLP 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n2001 K Street NW Redwood Shores, CA 94065\nWashington, DC 20006 Telephone: (650) 623-1401\nTelephone: (202) 223-7300\n Philip J. Eklem\nSteve Wingard peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\nState Bar No. 00788694 REICHMAN JORGENSEN\nswingard@scottdoug.com LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\nRobert P. Earle 1909 K Street NW, Suite 800\nState Bar No. 241245566 Washington DC, 20006\nrearle@scottdoug.com Telephone: (202) 894-7310\nStephen L. Burbank\nState Bar No. 24109672 Mark D. Siegmund\nsburbank@scottdoug.com TX Bar No. 24117055\nSCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\nAustin, TX 78701-3234 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor\nTelephone: (512) 495-6300 Waco, TX 76710\nFacsimile: (512) 495-6399 Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Facsimile: (866) 627-3509\nCounsel for Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc.\n Counsel for Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations\n Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing\ndocument was served on all counsel of record via the Court's electronic filing system on this\n15th day of June, 2026.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund_________________\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-15T08:05:28.891280-07:00","document_number":"98","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036760459","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482699988/","id":482699988,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/98/1/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-15T08:05:16.517589-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T08:05:16.517603-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":98821,"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":"98","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036760460","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-15T07:17:56.775123-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-15T07:17:56.785302-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-15","time_filed":"09:01:57","entry_number":98,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":295,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467012850/","id":467012850,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482265756/","id":482265756,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/97/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-10T14:17:43.206659-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-10T14:17:43.214151-07:00","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":"97","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036732847","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-10T14:17:43.178062-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-10T14:17:43.185460-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-10","time_filed":"16:02:09","entry_number":97,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":293,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466883304/","id":466883304,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482132979/","id":482132979,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/96/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-09T16:05:27.020649-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T02:57:39.867606-07:00","sha1":"68c1aafe8b9ddc647ad5012afc21c5bae7cec13e","page_count":2,"file_size":743939,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.96.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.96.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 96 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 2\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 CASE NO. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n V.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MARA HOLDINGS, INC. (F/K/A\n MARATHON DIGIT AL HOLDINGS, INC\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n JOINT MOTION TO STAY ALL DEADLINES AND NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT\n\n Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. And Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively\n\n\"Plaintiffs\") and Defendant Mara Holdings, Inc., (collectively the \"Parties\") file this Joint Motion\n\nto Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement. The Parties hereby notify the Court that they have\n\nreached an agreement that settles all matters in controversy between the Parties.\n\n In furtherance of their agreement, the Parties expect to move to dismiss this case in the next\n\nthirty (30) days. Thus, the Parties respectfully ask that the Court stay all unreached deadlines set\n\nforth in the Court's First Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 50) for thirty (30) days while they\n\nfinalize the long-form agreement and move to dismiss.\n\n\nDated: June 9, 2026 Respectful~ u~mitted,\n\n ~~\n Khue V. Hoang\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Ian A. Moore Patrick Colsher\n Tom Yu pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Thomas Macchio REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n GARRISON LLP 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\n 1285 Sixth Avenue New York, NY 10019\n\n\n4907-2574-4563\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 96 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 381-1965\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000 Matthew G. Berkowitz\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Christopher M. Pepe Michael M. Polka\n W. Sutton Ansley mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n Eric C. Westerhold REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n GARRISON LLP 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n 2001 K Street NW Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (650) 623-1401\n Telephone: (202) 223-7300\n Philip J. Eklem\n Steve Wingard peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n State Bar No. 00788694 REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n swingard@scottdoug.com LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n Robert P. Earle 1909 K Street NW, Suite 800\n State Bar No. 241245566 Washington DC, 20006\n rearle@scottdoug.com Telephone: (202) 894-7310\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672 Mark D. Siegmund\n sburbank@scottdoug.com TX Bar No. 24117055\n SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n Austin, TX 78701-3234 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor\n Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Waco, TX 76710\n Facsimile: (512) 495-6399 Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Facsimile: (866) 627-3509\n Counsel for Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc.\n Counsel for Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations\n Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n4907-2574-4563\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-10T05:31:27.887255-07:00","document_number":"96","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036725299","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482163251/","id":482163251,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/96/1/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-10T05:31:16.268173-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-10T05:31:16.268186-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":101195,"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":"96","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036725300","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-09T16:05:26.986059-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-09T16:05:26.996468-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-09","time_filed":"17:51:03","entry_number":96,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":291,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466000678/","id":466000678,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481220370/","id":481220370,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/95/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-02T09:18:07.923928-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T03:25:15.907716-07:00","sha1":"286bebbd121535fb0cfb867005fdf75513d785e5","page_count":1,"file_size":137055,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.95.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.95.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 95 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD. and \u00a7\nKEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiffs, \u00a7\n \u00a7 CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00222-DC-DTG\nv. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nMARA HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a \u00a7\nMarathon Digital Holdings, inc.), \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant, \u00a7\n\n ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT\u2019S UNOPPOSED\n MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY (DKT. NO. 92)\n\n Pending before the Court is the defendant, MARA Holdings, Inc.\u2019s Unopposed Motion\n\nfor the Issuance of Letter Rogatory to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to Examine Persons\n\nand Produce Documents of Blackberry Limited (Dkt. No. 92). Having considered the motion, the\n\nCourt finds it should be GRANTED.\n\n Accordingly, the Court will execute the Letter Rogatory attached to the defendant\u2019s\n\nmotion (Dkt. No. 92-1). The Clerk is DIRECTED to authenticate, under seal of this Court, the\n\nCourt\u2019s signature on the Letter Rogatory, and to return the original signed and sealed executed\n\nLetter (including its schedules and exhibit), as well as two certified copies of the signed and\n\nsealed executed Letter (including its schedules and exhibit), to the defendant\u2019s counsel for\n\ndelivery to the proper authority.\n\n SIGNED this 2nd day of June, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-03T13:23:19.102602-07:00","document_number":"95","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036668503","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T09:18:07.893866-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-02T09:18:07.901134-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-02","time_filed":"11:11:43","entry_number":95,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":289,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465968199/","id":465968199,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481187319/","id":481187319,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/94/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-06-02T06:17:04.505394-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T02:49:54.634804-07:00","sha1":"c7e4835423008e12ee165874986f73d62c99dd9f","page_count":4,"file_size":207995,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.94.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.94.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/481187319.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 94 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nMALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD. and \u00a7\nKEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiffs, \u00a7\n \u00a7 CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00222-DC-DTG\nv. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nMARA HOLDINGS INC. (f/k/a \u00a7\nMARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, \u00a7\nINC.), \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant, \u00a7\n\n ORDER DENYING OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY (DKT. NO. 54)\n\n Pending before the Court is the defendant, MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital\n\nHoldings, Inc.)\u2019s opposed motion to stay this matter in light of ex parte reexaminations that the\n\ndefendant and a third party filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office seeking\n\nreexamination of the patents at issue. Dkt. No. 54. The defendant argues that staying the case\n\nwill simplify the issues before the Court and conserve judicial resources. Id. at 5\u20137. The\n\nplaintiffs claim that a stay would cause them undue prejudice and indefinitely delay the case. See\n\nDkt. No. 61 at 3\u201310. Having considered each argument carefully, the Court finds that the motion\n\nshould be DENIED.\n\n Patent infringement suits are not automatically stayed pending the resolution of parallel\n\nUSPTO proceedings. See Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. IKO Indus. Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00317-\n\nADA, 2021 WL 455610, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021) (quoting Realtime Data, LLC v.\n\nRackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-00961-RWS-JDl, 2017 WL 772654, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27,\n\n2017)). Rather, courts must first determine if the stay\u2019s benefits outweigh its inherent costs. Id.\n\n(quoting EchoStar Techs. Corp. v. TiVo, Inc., No. 5:05-CV-81, 2006 WL 2501494, at *1 (E.D.\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 94 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nTex. July 14, 2006). To do so, courts generally weigh (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice\n\nor tactically disadvantage the non-movant; (2) the stage of the proceedings; and (3) whether a\n\nstay would simplify the issues in this case. See id.; see also Worldwide Oilfield Mach., Inc. v.\n\nAmeriforge Grp., Inc., No. H-13-3123, 2015 WL 12780757, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 5, 2015)\n\n(citing E-Watch, Inc. v. Lorex Canada, Inc., No. H-12-3314, 2013 WL 55425298, (S.D. Tex.\n\nSept. 26, 2013)).\n\n The parties dispute the potential prejudice occasioned by a stay. The defendant argues\n\nthat the plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a stay because they do not compete with the\n\ndefendant, they seek only monetary damages, and they delayed filing this case for over two years\n\nafter the patents-at-issue were acquired. Dkt. No. 54 at 8. The plaintiffs, however, argue a stay\n\nwill prejudice their business of licensing their technology and force the plaintiffs to defend the\n\nvalidity of their patents twice\u2014before the patent office and in this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 61 at 9-10.\n\nThey also argue that they would be tactically disadvantaged because an ex parte reexam has no\n\nestoppel effect, which would give the defendant two bites at the invalidity apple. Id. at 10.\n\nFinally, they contend that a stay would deprive them of the opportunity to depose the defendant\u2019s\n\nexperts who signed declarations in support of the defendant\u2019s ex parte reexaminations. Dkt. No.\n\n61 at 10.\n\n The Court finds that granting the stay would practically and tactically prejudice the\n\nplaintiffs. As this Court has previously held, a patent owner that seeks solely monetary relief still\n\nhas an interest in enforcing its patent right. TC Tech. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, No. 6-20-CV-00899-\n\nADA, 2021 WL 8083373, at *2 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (citing MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Tissue Transplant\n\nTech. Ltd., 2015 WL 11573771, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2015)). As noted by the plaintiff, there is\n\nno estoppel effect to the ex parte reexaminations. Dkt. No. 61 at 5. This allows the defendant to\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 94 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\ninitiate the reexaminations, evaluate the plaintiffs\u2019 arguments in those proceedings, and modify\n\ntheir invalidity arguments in this case based on the result of the reexaminations. This effectively\n\ngives the defendant \u201cto bites at the [invalidity] apple.\u201d Id. at 10 (citing EON Corp. IP Holdings,\n\nLLC v. Sensus USA Inc., No. 6:09-CV-116, 2009 WL 9506927, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2009)).\n\nOf less importance, but still relevant, is the argument that a stay of this case would effectively\n\nforeclose discovery of the experts who signed declarations in support of the ex parte\n\nreexaminations. The Court is persuaded that granting a stay would unduly prejudice and\n\ntactically disadvantage the plaintiffs.\n\n The Court next considers whether a stay is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.\n\nThe parties disagree on the reexamination\u2019s estimated duration. Compare Dkt. No. 54 at 7 with\n\nDkt. No. 61 at 5\u20136. The defendant contends that the average length of an ex parte reexamination\n\nis just over 15 months, but speculates that as the patents have expired, they could conclude faster.\n\nDkt. No. 54 at 7. The plaintiffs counter by noting that the that the average duration of\n\nreexaminations appealed to the PTAB is 27.33 months. Dkt. No. 61 at 6. Either assumption\n\nwould carry the stay past the current trial date of March 1, 2027. See Dkt. No. 50. From the\n\nrecord before it, the Court concludes that the proposed stay would delay the scheduled trial date,\n\nand so this factor weighs against the defendant\u2019s motion.\n\n The most important factor before the Court is whether the reexamination will simplify the\n\nissues in this case. See Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00530-ADA, 2023 WL\n\n7476358, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023) (citing NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-\n\nCV-01058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *4, *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015)). The defendant speculates\n\nthat reexamination proceedings are highly likely to cancel some of the asserted claims and\n\nprovide guidance about the scope of the claims for claim construction. Dkt. No. 54 at 5. The\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 94 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\nplaintiffs note that unlike an inter partes reexam, the defendant neither bound nor estopped by an\n\nex parte reexamination. Dkt. No. 61 at 5. This lack of estoppel combined with the potential\n\nadjustment to its invalidity case based on file history created during the reexaminations\n\npersuades the Court that a stay is unlikely to simplify the case. The parties have already\n\nexchanged preliminary infringement and invalidity contentions, the Court has already conducted\n\na Markman hearing and entered its claim construction order in this case, fact discovery has\n\nopened, and the case is on track for trial in March of 2027. See Dkt. Nos. 50 & 80.\n\n Considering the factors, the Court concludes that the facts of this case do not warrant a\n\nstay. Therefore, the Court DENIES the defendant\u2019s motion (Dkt. No. 54).\n\nSIGNED this 1st day of June, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-02T07:51:29.778355-07:00","document_number":"94","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036665940","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-02T06:17:04.480163-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-02T06:17:04.485911-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-02","time_filed":"08:07:31","entry_number":94,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":287,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464893182/","id":464893182,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480082652/","id":480082652,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-21T16:05:37.964460-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T04:16:45.684741-07:00","sha1":"028678f49c891ae68fd496ea420fdd45251e00b0","page_count":3,"file_size":162380,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93 Filed 05/21/26 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 CASE NO. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MARA HOLDINGS, INC. (F/K/A\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF MARA HOLDINGS,\n INC.\u2019S MOTION TO STAY PENDING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION\n\n Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. (\u201cMARA\u201d) hereby notifies the Court of supplemental\n\nauthority in support of MARA\u2019s motion to stay this case pending the results of the ex parte\n\nreexaminations of all six of the patents-in-suit (Dkt. 54).\n\n As the Court is aware, MARA petitioned the Patent Office to institute ex parte\n\nreexaminations on each of the six patents-in-suit, and the Patent Office granted each of those\n\npetitions, finding that each petition raised a substantial new question of patentability. Dkt. 79.\n\n MARA hereby provides notice that, on May 20, 2026, the Patent Office denied Plaintiffs\u2019\n\nrequests for summary termination of the ex parte reexaminations of five of the patents-in-suit.\n\nThus, those pending reexaminations will proceed on the merits. For the Court\u2019s convenience,\n\nMARA has attached hereto copies of those decisions as Exhibit A\u2013E. 1\n\n\n\n\n1\n Plaintiffs have filed a nearly identical request for a summary termination of the ex parte\nreexamination proceeding concerning the sixth patent-in-suit. Earlier today, MARA filed a timely\nopposition to that request, which remains pending.\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n MARA respectfully requests that the Court take notice of and consider the Patent Office\u2019s\n\ndenial of Plaintiffs\u2019 request to terminate the ex parte reexaminations. See Dkt. 61 at 4, n. 3\n\n(Plaintiffs asserting that the motion to stay should be denied in part because it intended to request\n\nthat the Patent Office terminate the reexamination proceedings).\n\n\n Dated: May 21, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Steve Wingard\n Steve Wingard\n State Bar No. 00788694\n swingard@scottdoug.com\n Robert P. Earle\n State Bar No. 241245566\n rearle@scottdoug.com\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672\n sburbank@scottdoug.com\n Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400\n Austin, TX 78701-3234\n Telephone: (512) 495-6300\n Facsimile: (512) 495-6399\n\n Catherine Nyarady\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser\n Ian A. Moore\n Tom Yu\n Thomas Macchio\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison\n LLP\n 1285 Sixth Avenue\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000\n\n Christopher M. Pepe\n W. Sutton Ansley\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison\n LLP\n 2001 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on May 21, 2026, a copy of the foregoing\n\nwas served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system upon all counsel of record.\n\n\n\n /s/ Steve Wingard\n Steve Wingard\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:48:49.057205-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599853","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480261273/","id":480261273,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/1/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-23T13:48:36.732464-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T03:55:34.260922-07:00","sha1":"894e569f030a408313bbb36f687d59eea8ba0a3d","page_count":7,"file_size":326904,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:48:49.930697-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599854","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480261274/","id":480261274,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/2/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-23T13:48:36.817432-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T03:55:36.293635-07:00","sha1":"6d28070b9e21f7f9b965d6cc574dfb910cfe545e","page_count":7,"file_size":443050,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Pagelof7\n\nEXHIBIT B\n\fCase fee oy 00 ae DC DIG Document 93-2 \u2014 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2of7\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. | CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,818 12/22/2025 8788827 024482-00039.827 3414\n184647 7590 05/20/2026 EXAMINER\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n100 Marine Parkway SORRELL, ERON J\nSuite 300\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n05/20/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS\n\nANISH R. DESAI PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP May 20, 2026\n1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS\nNEW YORK, NY 10019\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015818\nPATENT NO. : 8788827\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Page4of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (For Patent Owner)\n100 Marine Parkway\n\nSuite 300\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nAnish R. Desai (For Third Party Requester)\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n\n1285 Avenue of the Americas\n\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nTn re Struik et al. :\nU.S. Patent No.: 8,788,827 B2 - DECISION\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Proceeding > ON\n\nControl No.: 90/015,818 : PETITION\nFiled: December 22, 2025 :\n\nThis decision addresses patent owner\u2019s April 3, 2026 petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION\nFOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION\u2019 OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183.\u201d This decision also addresses requester\u2019s April 17, 2026 paper entitled \u201cOPPOSITION TO\nPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY\nTERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d. Patent owner\u2019s April 3, 2026\npetition, requester\u2019s April 17, 2026 paper, and the record as a whole are before the Office of Patent Legal\nAdministration (OPLA) for consideration.\n\nPERTINENT BACKGROUND\n\nOn December 22, 2025, MARA Holdings, Inc. (requester) deposited a request for ex parte reexamination\nof claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,827 B2 (the \u2019827 patent), which proceeding was assigned Control\nNo. 90/015,818 (the \u2019818 or present reexamination proceeding). On February 5, 2026, the Central\nReexamination Unit (CRU) examiner ordered reexamination. The examiner analyzed the prosecution\nhistory and found that each of the proposed grounds in the request raises a substantial new question of\npatentability (SNQ).' On April 3, 2026, patent owner filed a petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S\nPETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183\u201d (patent owner\u2019s combined petition). On April 17, 2026, requester filed a paper entitled\n\u201cOPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR\nSUMMARY TERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d (opposition).\n\n1 See \u201cOrder Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination,\u201d February 5, 2026 (order).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Page5of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,818 -2-\nDECISION\nI. Patent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183\n\nPatent owner\u2019s April 3, 2026 combined petition includes: (i) a petition under 37 CFR 1.183, which will\nbe construed\u2019 as requesting waiver of any applicable regulations to permit entry and consideration of\npatent owner\u2019s April 3, 2026 combined petition prior to examination, and (ii) a petition under 37 CFR\n1.181 to vacate the order granting reexamination and to terminate the present reexamination proceeding\nunder 35 U.S.C. 325(d).3\n\n37 CFR 1.540, in pertinent part, provides:\n\nNo submissions other than the statement pursuant to \u00a7 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte\nreexamination requester pursuant to \u00a7 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.\n\nOffice guidance emphasizes the importance of evaluating issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d) when making\na determination on a request for ex parte reexamination.* Permitting patent owner to call attention to\npotential issues involving \u00a7 325(d) serves an important purpose in ensuring that proper consideration was\ngiven on whether to exercise discretion to move forward with an otherwise meritorious request for\nreexamination. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the present reexamination proceeding,\npatent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183 for waiver of 37 CFR 1.540 to permit entry and consideration\nof patent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition is granted. The provisions of the necessary rules are hereby waived.\nPatent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition has been entered and considered as set forth below.\n\nFurthermore, requester is permitted to file a paper in opposition to a patent owner petition requesting\ntermination of the present reexamination proceeding, just as the requester is permitted to file a paper in\nopposition to a patent owner petition to vacate a reexamination order under 35 U.S.C. 304 (and deny\nreexamination) on the basis that the order is an w/fra vires action on the part of the Office.> Accordingly,\nrequester\u2019s April 17, 2026 opposition has been entered and considered to the extent it addresses patent\nowner\u2019s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 325(d).\n\nII. Patent owner\u2019s petition to vacate the reexamination\n\nPatent owner argues that the Office should terminate the present reexamination proceeding pursuant to 35\nU.S.C. 325(d), because: (1) discretionary factors such as those cited in the March 26, 2025 \u201cInterim\nProcesses for PTAB Workload Management Memorandum\u201d (PTAB Workload Memo) should be applied\nin the present reexamination proceeding, and weigh in favor of termination;\u00b0 and (2) the Office lacks\nstatutory authority to conduct reexaminations on expired patents.\u2019\n\n? Patent owner requests waiver of any requirement of the regulations that would otherwise preclude summary termination of\nthe reexamination.\n\n3 Petition, p. 29.\n\n4 See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) \u00a7 2242, subsection II (\u201c[a|ny issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\nraised in the request must be referred to the examiner\u2019s SPRS or the director of the CRU.\u201d).\n\n5 See, e.g., MPEP \u00a7 2246, subsection II.\n\n\u00a9 Petition, pp. 2-3 and 22-29, referencing the PTAB Interim Director Discretionary Process, \u00a7 I.B, available at\nhttps:/Awww.uspto. gov/patents/ptab/interim-director-discretionary-process, which relies on considerations set forth in the\nPTAB Workload Memo. The PTAB Workload Memo enumerates \u00a7 314(a) and 324(a) considerations such as: \u201c[w]hether the\nPTAB or another forum has already adjudicated the validity or patentability of the challenged patent claims\u201d; \u201c[w]hether there\nhave been changes in the law or new judicial precedent issued since issuance of the claims that may affect patentability\u201d; \u201c[t]he\n\n99, 66\n\nstrength of the unpatentability challenge; \u201c[t]he extent of the petition\u2019s reliance on expert testimony\u201d; \u201c[s]ettled expectations\nof the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force\u201d; \u201c[c]ompelling economic, public health, or national\nsecurity interests\u201d; and \u201c[a]ny other considerations bearing on the Director\u2019s discretion.\u201d\n\n7 Petition, pp. 3-22.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Page6\u00e9of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,818 -3-\n\nA. Arguments related to 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\n\n35 U.S.C. 325(d) states, in pertinent part (emphasis added):\n\nIn determining whether to... . order a proceeding under... . chapter 30, .. . the Director may\ntake into account whether, and reject the . . . request because, the same or substantially the same\nprior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.\n\nIn support of termination under 35 U.S.C. 325(d), patent owner asserts that discretionary factors, such as\nsettled expectations and limited Office resources, weigh in favor of termination of the present\nreexamination proceeding.\u00ae Relying on Jn re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), patent\nowner argues that \u201cjust as 35 USC \u00a7 314(a) provides statutory authority for the Office\u2019s broad latitude to\ndiscretionarily deny [inter partes review] petitions, the fact that determinations under 35 USC \u00a7 303-as\ninterpreted by the en banc Federal Circuit\u2014are \u2018discretionary\u2019 should give rise to an equal breadth of\ndiscretionary denial authority in the EPR context.\u201d\u201d The opposition argues that \u201cneither condition [for\nexercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d)] is present here\u201d!\u00ae in that there have been no other post grant\nchallenges to the *827 patent'! and the request presents new art and new arguments that have not\npreviously been considered by the Office.!? The opposition further argues \u201cthe \u00a7 325(d) analysis [] is\nlimited to whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented.\u201d ?\n\nThe parties\u2019 arguments have been fully considered. As an initial matter, a predicate to the Office\nexercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) 1s that the same or substantially the same prior art or\narguments previously were presented to the Office. The present reexamination proceeding is the first\nchallenge to the 827 patent before the Office. In the order, the examiner reviewed the prosecution history\nand the post grant history for the underlying patent, and determined that a discretionary denial of\nreexamination pursuant to \u00a7 325(d) \u201cis not applicable\u201d in this instance.!* Additionally, patent owner\u2019s\npetition does not assert that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were\npresented to the Office, a threshold that must be met in order for the Office to even consider whether to\nexercise discretion under \u00a7 325(d). Because patent owner has not established that the same or substantially\nthe same prior art or arguments are presented here, discretionary considerations do not come into play.\n\nFurther, patent owner\u2019s interpretation of Etter is misplaced. The cited portion of Etter simply states that\nthe determination of whether an SNQ exists \u201cis discretionary with the Commissioner\u2019. The\ndetermination of the existence of an SNQ is \u201cdiscretionary\u201d only in the sense that there is no recourse by\nway of appeal. See 35 U.S.C. 303(c). However, upon determining that an SNQ does exist, there is no\ndiscretion within \u00a7\u00a7 303-305 not to order and conduct reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. 303 (\u201cthe Director\n\n8 See, generally, petition at pp. 22-29.\n\n\u00b0 Petition, p. 23.\n\n1\u00b0 Opposition, p. 17.\n\n' See opposition, pp. 17 and 20.\n\n12 See opposition, pp. 17 and 21.\n\n13 Opposition, p. 18.\n\n4 See order, p. 6-8 and 15. See also, order, p. 4 (stating that the references cited in the request are \u201cnewly cited with respect to\nthe \u00b0827 Patent\u2019).\n\n15 See Etter, 756 F.2d at 857 (\u201cThe intent that reexamination proceedings and court actions involving challenges to validity be\ndistinct and independent is reflected in the legislative history of \u00a7 303, which notes that denial of a request for reexamination\ndoes not deprive the requestor (if not the patent owner) \u2018of any legal right\u2019 to contest validity in subsequent court proceedings.\nHouse Report at 6466. That \u201clegal right\u2019 may be exercised as a matter of right, but determination of whether a \u201csubstantial new\nquestion of patentability\u2019 exists, and therefore whether reexamination may be had, is discretionary with the Commissioner,\nand, as \u00a7 303 provides, that determination is final, i.e., not subject to appeal.\u201d).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-2 Filed 05/21/26 Page7of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,818 -4-\n\nwill determine whether a [SNQ] is raised by the request\u201d); 35 U.S.C. 304 (If. . the Director finds that a\n[SNQ] is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination\u201d); and 35 U.S.C. 305 (\u201cAfter\nthe times for filing the statement and reply. . reexamination will be conducted\u201d) (emphasis added). Unlike\nthe broad discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) with respect to inter partes review proceedings, the\nOffice\u2019s discretion not to order reexamination is limited to \u00a7 325(d), a provision introduced after /iter.\nThus, the Office must proceed with reexamination if an SNQ is raised in the request, unless it exercises\ndiscretion under \u00a7 325(d) to reject the request.\n\nThe preceding review of the patent owner\u2019s arguments and of the particular facts and circumstances of the\npresent reexamination proceeding demonstrates that there was no abuse of discretion when the Office\ndeclined to exercise its discretion to reject the request in the present reexamination proceeding pursuant\nto \u00a7 325(d). Accordingly, patent owner\u2019s petition to terminate the present reexamination proceeding on\nthe basis of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) is dismissed.\n\nB. Arguments related to the expiration of the \u2019827 patent\n\nPatent owner asserts that Office should terminate this proceeding, because the Office \u201clacks statutory\nauthorization to conduct reexamination of an expired patent.\u201d!\u00a9 However, in the precedential Gesture\u2019\ndecision, the USPTO\u2019s reviewing court concluded that the Office \u201chas jurisdiction over ex parte\nreexamination concerning expired patents\u201d'* and that \u201c[a] patent owner maintains some rights after the\npatent expires, including the right to sue for past damages, which can create a live case or controversy that\ncan be resolved by an ex parte reexamination.\u201d \u201d Furthermore, the Federal Circuit subsequently confirmed\nits determination that the Office has authority to reexamine expired patents.*? Thus, patent owner\u2019s\nrequest for termination on the basis that the patent is expired cannot be granted, because it is contrary to\ncontrolling law.\n\nInquiries concerning this decision should be directed to Andrea S. Grossman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office\nof Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 270-3314, or the undersigned at (571) 272-7717.\n\n[Nicole D. Haines/\n\nNicole D. Haines\n\nSenior Legal Advisor\n\nOffice of Patent Legal Administration May 19, 2026\n\n16 Petition, p. 3. See also, petition pp. 3-22.\n\n\" In ve Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 2025-1075, Doc. 56 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2025).\n\n18 Td. at 9.\n\n19 Td.\n\n\u00b0\u00b0 In re: Estech Systems IP, LLC, No. 2024-1935, Doc. 41 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) at 8 (non-precedential) (\u201cWe recently\n\u2018confirm[ed] that the Board has jurisdiction over ex parte reexaminations concerning expired patents.\u201d\u201d).\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:48:50.500052-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599855","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480261275/","id":480261275,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/3/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-23T13:48:36.834594-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T03:55:35.793868-07:00","sha1":"5041e25785099d98db84cea83ac25eccf9e52db7","page_count":7,"file_size":440610,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Pagelof7\n\nEXHIBIT C\n\fCase fee oy 00 ae DC DIG Document 93-3 \u2014 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2of7\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. | CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,820 12/22/2025 7372960 024482-00039.960 2200\n184647 7590 05/20/2026 EXAMINER\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n100 Marine Parkway HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E\nSuite 300\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n05/20/2026 PAPER\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS May 20, 2026\n\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n1285 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NEW YORK 10019\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015820\nPATENT NO. : 7372960\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Page4of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (For Patent Owner)\n100 Marine Parkway\n\nSuite 300\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nAnish R. Desai (For Third Party Requester)\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n\n1285 Avenue of the Americas\n\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nIn re Lambert\nU'S. Patent No.: 7,372,960 B2 : DECISION\nEx Parte Reexamination Proceeding > ON\n\nControl No.: 90/015,820 : PETITION\nFiled: December 22, 2025 :\n\nThis decision addresses patent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION\nFOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION\u2019 OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183.\u201d This decision also addresses requester\u2019s April 24, 2026 paper entitled \u201cOPPOSITION TO\nPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY\nTERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d. Patent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026\npetition, requester\u2019s April 24, 2026 paper, and the record as a whole are before the Office of Patent Legal\nAdministration (OPLA) for consideration.\n\nPERTINENT BACKGROUND\n\nOn December 22, 2025, MARA Holdings, Inc. (requester) deposited a request for ex parte reexamination\nof claims 3 and 6-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,960 B2 (the \u00b0960 patent), which proceeding was assigned\nControl No. 90/015,820 (the \u2019820 or present reexamination proceeding). On February 11, 2026, the\nCentral Reexamination Unit (CRU) examiner ordered reexamination. The examiner analyzed the\nprosecution history and found that each of the proposed grounds in the request raises a substantial new\nquestion of patentability (SNQ).! On April 10, 2026, patent owner filed a petition entitled \u201cPATENT\nOWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION\nOF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183\u201d (patent owner\u2019s combined petition). On April 24, 2026, requester filed a paper entitled\n\u201cOPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR\nSUMMARY TERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d (opposition).\n\n! See \u201cOrder Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination,\u201d February 11, 2026 (order).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Page5of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,820 -2-\nDECISION\nI. Patent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183\n\nPatent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 combined petition includes: (i) a petition under 37 CFR 1.183, which will\nbe construed\u2019 as requesting waiver of any applicable regulations to permit entry and consideration of\npatent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 combined petition prior to examination, and (i1) a petition under 37 CFR\n1.181 to vacate the order granting reexamination and to terminate the present reexamination proceeding\nunder 35 U.S.C. 325(d).3\n\n37 CFR 1.540, in pertinent part, provides:\n\nNo submissions other than the statement pursuant to \u00a7 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte\nreexamination requester pursuant to \u00a7 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.\n\nOffice guidance emphasizes the importance of evaluating issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d) when making\na determination on a request for ex parte reexamination.* Permitting patent owner to call attention to\npotential issues involving \u00a7 325(d) serves an important purpose in ensuring that proper consideration was\ngiven on whether to exercise discretion to move forward with an otherwise meritorious request for\nreexamination. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the present reexamination proceeding,\npatent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183 for waiver of 37 CFR 1.540 to permit entry and consideration\nof patent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition is granted. The provisions of the necessary rules are hereby waived.\nPatent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition has been entered and considered as set forth below.\n\nFurthermore, requester is permitted to file a paper in opposition to a patent owner petition requesting\ntermination of the present reexamination proceeding, just as the requester is permitted to file a paper in\nopposition to a patent owner petition to vacate a reexamination order under 35 U.S.C. 304 (and deny\nreexamination) on the basis that the order is an w/fra vires action on the part of the Office.> Accordingly,\nrequester\u2019s April 24, 2026 opposition has been entered and considered to the extent it addresses patent\nowner\u2019s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 325(d).\n\nII. Patent owner\u2019s petition to vacate the reexamination\n\nPatent owner argues that the Office should terminate the present reexamination proceeding pursuant to 35\nU.S.C. 325(d), because: (1) discretionary factors such as those cited in the March 26, 2025 \u201cInterim\nProcesses for PTAB Workload Management Memorandum\u201d (PTAB Workload Memo) should be applied\nin the present reexamination proceeding, and weigh in favor of termination;\u00b0 and (2) the Office lacks\nstatutory authority to conduct reexaminations on expired patents.\u2019\n\n? Patent owner requests waiver of any requirement of the regulations that would otherwise preclude summary termination of\nthe reexamination.\n\n3 Petition, p. 29.\n\n4 See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) \u00a7 2242, subsection II (\u201c[a|ny issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\nraised in the request must be referred to the examiner\u2019s SPRS or the director of the CRU.\u201d).\n\n5 See, e.g., MPEP \u00a7 2246, subsection II.\n\n\u00a9 Petition, pp. 2-3 and 22-29, referencing the PTAB Interim Director Discretionary Process, \u00a7 I.B, available at\nhttps:/Awww.uspto. gov/patents/ptab/interim-director-discretionary-process, which relies on considerations set forth in the\nPTAB Workload Memo. The PTAB Workload Memo enumerates \u00a7 314(a) and 324(a) considerations such as: \u201c[w]hether the\nPTAB or another forum has already adjudicated the validity or patentability of the challenged patent claims\u201d; \u201c[w]hether there\nhave been changes in the law or new judicial precedent issued since issuance of the claims that may affect patentability\u201d; \u201c[t]he\n\n99, 66\n\nstrength of the unpatentability challenge; \u201c[t]he extent of the petition\u2019s reliance on expert testimony\u201d; \u201c[s]ettled expectations\nof the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force\u201d; \u201c[c]ompelling economic, public health, or national\nsecurity interests\u201d; and \u201c[a]ny other considerations bearing on the Director\u2019s discretion.\u201d\n\n7 Petition, pp. 3-22.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Page6\u00e9of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,820 -3-\n\nA. Arguments related to 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\n\n35 U.S.C. 325(d) states, in pertinent part (emphasis added):\n\nIn determining whether to... . order a proceeding under... . chapter 30, .. . the Director may\ntake into account whether, and reject the . . . request because, the same or substantially the same\nprior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.\n\nIn support of termination under 35 U.S.C. 325(d), patent owner asserts that discretionary factors, such as\nsettled expectations and limited Office resources, weigh in favor of termination of the present\nreexamination proceeding.\u00ae Relying on Jn re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), patent\nowner argues that \u201cjust as 35 USC \u00a7 314(a) provides statutory authority for the Office\u2019s broad latitude to\ndiscretionarily deny [inter partes review] petitions, the fact that determinations under 35 USC \u00a7 303-as\ninterpreted by the en banc Federal Circuit\u2014are \u2018discretionary\u2019 should give rise to an equal breadth of\ndiscretionary denial authority in the EPR context.\u201d\u201d The opposition argues that \u201cneither condition [for\nexercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d)] is present here\u201d,'\u00b0 because there have been no other post\ngrant challenges to the \u2019960 patent!\u2019 and the request presents new art and new arguments that have not\npreviously been considered by the Office.!? The opposition further argues \u201cthe \u00a7 325(d) analysis [] is\nlimited to whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented.\u201d ?\n\nThe parties\u2019 arguments have been fully considered. As an initial matter, a predicate to the Office\nexercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) 1s that the same or substantially the same prior art or\narguments previously were presented to the Office. The present reexamination proceeding is the first\nchallenge to the \u00b0960 patent before the Office. In the order, the examiner reviewed the prosecution history\nand the post grant history for the underlying patent, and determined that a discretionary denial of\nreexamination pursuant to \u00a7 325(d) not applicable in this instance.'4 Additionally, patent owner\u2019s petition\ndoes not assert that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to\nthe Office, a threshold that must be met in order for the Office to even consider whether to exercise\ndiscretion under \u00a7 325(d). Because patent owner has not established that the same or substantially the\nsame prior art or arguments are presented here, discretionary considerations do not come into play.\n\nFurther, patent owner\u2019s interpretation of Etter is misplaced. The cited portion of Etter simply states that\nthe determination of whether an SNQ exists \u201cis discretionary with the Commissioner\u2019. The\ndetermination of the existence of an SNQ is \u201cdiscretionary\u201d only in the sense that there is no recourse by\nway of appeal. See 35 U.S.C. 303(c). However, upon determining that an SNQ does exist, there is no\ndiscretion within \u00a7\u00a7 303-305 not to order and conduct reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. 303 (\u201cthe Director\nwill determine whether a [SNQ] is raised by the request\u201d); 35 U.S.C. 304 (If. . the Director finds that a\n\n8 See, generally, petition at pp. 22-29.\n\n? Petition, p. 23.\n\n1\u00b0 Opposition, p. 17.\n\n' See opposition, pp. 17 and 20.\n\n2 See opposition, pp. 17 and 21.\n\n13 Opposition, p. 18.\n\n4 See order, p. 4-6 and 8.\n\n15 See Etter, 756 F.2d at 857 (\u201cThe intent that reexamination proceedings and court actions involving challenges to validity be\ndistinct and independent is reflected in the legislative history of \u00a7 303, which notes that denial of a request for reexamination\ndoes not deprive the requestor (if not the patent owner) \u2018of any legal right\u2019 to contest validity in subsequent court proceedings.\nHouse Report at 6466. That \u201clegal right\u2019 may be exercised as a matter of right, but determination of whether a \u201csubstantial new\nquestion of patentability\u2019 exists, and therefore whether reexamination may be had, is discretionary with the Commissioner,\nand, as \u00a7 303 provides, that determination is final, i.e., not subject to appeal.\u201d).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-3 Filed 05/21/26 Page/7of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,820 -4-\n\n[SNQ] is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination\u201d); and 35 U.S.C. 305 (\u201cAfter\nthe times for filing the statement and reply. . reexamination will be conducted\u201d) (emphasis added). Unlike\nthe broad discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) with respect to inter partes review proceedings, the\nOffice\u2019s discretion not to order reexamination is limited to \u00a7 325(d), a provision introduced after /iter.\nThus, the Office must proceed with reexamination if an SNQ is raised in the request, unless it exercises\ndiscretion under \u00a7 325(d) to reject the request.\n\nThe preceding review of the patent owner\u2019s arguments and of the particular facts and circumstances of the\npresent reexamination proceeding demonstrates that there was no abuse of discretion when the Office\ndeclined to exercise its discretion to reject the request in the present reexamination proceeding pursuant\nto \u00a7 325(d). Accordingly, patent owner\u2019s petition to terminate the present reexamination proceeding on\nthe basis of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) is dismissed.\n\nB. Arguments related to the expiration of the \u2019960 patent\n\nPatent owner asserts that Office should terminate this proceeding, because the Office \u201clacks statutory\nauthorization to conduct reexamination of an expired patent.\u201d!\u00b0 However, in the precedential Gesture\u2019\ndecision, the USPTO\u2019s reviewing court concluded that the Office \u201chas jurisdiction over ex parte\nreexamination concerning expired patents\u201d!* and that \u201c[a] patent owner maintains some rights after the\npatent expires, including the right to sue for past damages, which can create a live case or controversy that\ncan be resolved by an ex parte reexamination.\u201d \u201d Furthermore, the Federal Circuit subsequently confirmed\nits determination that the Office has authority to reexamine expired patents.*? Thus, patent owner\u2019s\nrequest for termination on the basis that the patent is expired cannot be granted, because it is contrary to\ncontrolling law.\n\nInquiries concerning this decision should be directed to Andrea S. Grossman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office\nof Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 270-3314, or the undersigned at (571) 272-7717.\n\n[Nicole D. Haines/\n\nNicole D. Haines\n\nSenior Legal Advisor\n\nOffice of Patent Legal Administration May 19, 2026\n\n16 Petition, p. 3. See also, petition, pp. 3-22.\n\n\" In ve Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 2025-1075, Doc. 56 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2025).\n\n18 Td. at 9.\n\n19 Td.\n\n\u00b0\u00b0 In re: Estech Systems IP, LLC, No. 2024-1935, Doc. 41 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) at 8 (non-precedential) (\u201cWe recently\n\u2018confirm[ed] that the Board has jurisdiction over ex parte reexaminations concerning expired patents.\u201d\u201d).\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:48:51.079613-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599856","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480261276/","id":480261276,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/4/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-23T13:48:36.851691-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T03:55:36.430564-07:00","sha1":"963d14f1905c9b17e0b741de41813cc35b8f8dfd","page_count":7,"file_size":446060,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Pagelof7\n\nEXHIBIT D\n\fCase fee oy 00 ae DC DIG Document 93-4 \u2014 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2of7\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. | CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,819 01/06/2026 8666062 024482-00039.062 8530\n184647 7590 05/20/2026 EXAMINER\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n100 Marine Parkway HENEGHAN, MATTHEW E\nSuite 300\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n05/20/2026 PAPER\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS May 20, 2026\n\nANISH R. DESAI PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP\n1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS\nNEW YORK, NY 10019\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015819\nPATENT NO. : 8666063\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Page4of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (For Patent Owner)\n100 Marine Parkway\n\nSuite 300\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nAnish R. Desai (For Third Party Requester)\nPaul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n\n1285 Avenue of the Americas\n\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nIn re Lambert\nU:S. Patent No.: 8,666,062 B2 : DECISION\nEx Parte Reexamination Proceeding > ON\n\nControl No.: 90/015,819 : PETITION\nFiled: January 6, 2026\n\nThis decision addresses patent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION\nFOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION\u2019 OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183.\u201d This decision also addresses requester\u2019s April 24, 2026 paper entitled \u201cOPPOSITION TO\nPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY\nTERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d. Patent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026\npetition, requester\u2019s April 24, 2026 paper, and the record as a whole are before the Office of Patent Legal\nAdministration (OPLA) for consideration.\n\nPERTINENT BACKGROUND\n\nOn January 6, 2026', MARA Holdings, Inc. (requester) deposited a request for ex parte reexamination of\nclaims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,666,062 B2 (the \u2019062 patent), which proceeding was assigned Control\nNo. 90/015,819 (the \u00b0819 or present reexamination proceeding). On February 11, 2026, the Central\nReexamination Unit (CRU) examiner ordered reexamination. The examiner analyzed the prosecution\nhistory and found that each of the proposed grounds in the request raises a substantial new question of\npatentability (SNQ).* On April 10, 2026, patent owner filed a petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S\nPETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183\u201d (patent owner\u2019s combined petition). On April 24, 2026, requester filed a paper entitled\n\u201cOPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR\nSUMMARY TERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW\u201d (opposition).\n\n' Requester filed an incomplete request for reexamination on December 22, 2025.\n2 See \u201cOrder Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination,\u201d February 11, 2026 (order).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Page5of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,819 -2-\nDECISION\nI. Patent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183\n\nPatent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 combined petition includes: (i) a petition under 37 CFR 1.183, which will\nbe construed? as requesting waiver of any applicable regulations to permit entry and consideration of\npatent owner\u2019s April 10, 2026 combined petition prior to examination, and (i1) a petition under 37 CFR\n1.181 to vacate the order granting reexamination and to terminate the present reexamination proceeding\nunder 35 U.S.C. 325(d).4\n\n37 CFR 1.540, in pertinent part, provides:\n\nNo submissions other than the statement pursuant to \u00a7 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte\nreexamination requester pursuant to \u00a7 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.\n\nOffice guidance emphasizes the importance of evaluating issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d) when making\na determination on a request for ex parte reexamination.\u201d Permitting patent owner to call attention to\npotential issues involving \u00a7 325(d) serves an important purpose in ensuring that proper consideration was\ngiven on whether to exercise discretion to move forward with an otherwise meritorious request for\nreexamination. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the present reexamination proceeding,\npatent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183 for waiver of 37 CFR 1.540 to permit entry and consideration\nof patent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition is granted. The provisions of the necessary rules are hereby waived.\nPatent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition has been entered and considered as set forth below.\n\nFurthermore, requester is permitted to file a paper in opposition to a patent owner petition requesting\ntermination of the present reexamination proceeding, just as the requester is permitted to file a paper in\nopposition to a patent owner petition to vacate a reexamination order under 35 U.S.C. 304 (and deny\nreexamination) on the basis that the order is an w/fra vires action on the part of the Office.\u00b0 Accordingly,\nrequester\u2019s April 24, 2026 opposition has been entered and considered to the extent it addresses patent\nowner\u2019s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 325(d).\n\nII. Patent owner\u2019s petition to vacate the reexamination\n\nPatent owner argues that the Office should terminate the present reexamination proceeding pursuant to 35\nU.S.C. 325(d), because: (1) discretionary factors such as those cited in the March 26, 2025 \u201cInterim\nProcesses for PTAB Workload Management Memorandum\u201d (PTAB Workload Memo) should be applied\nin the present reexamination proceeding, and weigh in favor of termination;\u2019 and (2) the Office lacks\nstatutory authority to conduct reexaminations on expired patents.*\u00ae\n\n3 Patent owner requests waiver of any requirement of the regulations that would otherwise preclude summary termination of\nthe reexamination.\n\n4 Petition, p. 29.\n\n5 See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) \u00a7 2242, subsection II (\u201c[a|ny issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\nraised in the request must be referred to the examiner\u2019s SPRS or the director of the CRU.\u201d).\n\n\u00ae See, e.g., MPEP \u00a7 2246, subsection II.\n\n\u2019 Petition, pp. 2-3 and 22-29, referencing the PTAB Interim Director Discretionary Process, \u00a7 IB, available at\nhttps:/Awww.uspto. gov/patents/ptab/interim-director-discretionary-process, which relies on considerations set forth in the\nPTAB Workload Memo. The PTAB Workload Memo enumerates \u00a7 314(a) and 324(a) considerations such as: \u201c[w]hether the\nPTAB or another forum has already adjudicated the validity or patentability of the challenged patent claims\u201d; \u201c[w]hether there\nhave been changes in the law or new judicial precedent issued since issuance of the claims that may affect patentability\u201d; \u201c[t]he\n\n99, 66\n\nstrength of the unpatentability challenge; \u201c[t]he extent of the petition\u2019s reliance on expert testimony\u201d; \u201c[s]ettled expectations\nof the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force\u201d; \u201c[c]ompelling economic, public health, or national\nsecurity interests\u201d; and \u201c[a]ny other considerations bearing on the Director\u2019s discretion.\u201d\n\n8 Petition, pp. 3-22.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Page6\u00e9of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,819 -3-\n\nA. Arguments related to 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\n\n35 U.S.C. 325(d) states, in pertinent part (emphasis added):\n\nIn determining whether to... . order a proceeding under... . chapter 30, .. . the Director may\ntake into account whether, and reject the . . . request because, the same or substantially the same\nprior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.\n\nIn support of termination under 35 U.S.C. 325(d), patent owner asserts that discretionary factors, such as\nsettled expectations and limited Office resources, weigh in favor of termination of the present\nreexamination proceeding.\u201d Relying on Jn re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), patent\nowner argues that \u201cjust as 35 USC \u00a7 314(a) provides statutory authority for the Office\u2019s broad latitude to\ndiscretionarily deny [inter partes review] petitions, the fact that determinations under 35 USC \u00a7 303-as\ninterpreted by the en banc Federal Circuit\u2014are \u2018discretionary\u2019 should give rise to an equal breadth of\ndiscretionary denial authority in the EPR context.\u201d!\u00b0 The opposition argues that \u201cneither condition [for\nexercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d)] is present here\u201d,'! because there have been no other post\ngrant challenges to the \u2019062 patent!\u201d and the request presents new art and new arguments that have not\npreviously been considered by the Office.!? The opposition further argues \u201cthe \u00a7 325(d) analysis [] is\nlimited to whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented.\u201d 4\n\nThe parties\u2019 arguments have been fully considered. As an initial matter, a predicate to the Office\nexercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) 1s that the same or substantially the same prior art or\narguments previously were presented to the Office. The present reexamination proceeding is the first\nchallenge to the 062 patent before the Office. In the order, the examiner reviewed the prosecution history\nand the post grant history for the underlying patent, and determined that a discretionary denial of\nreexamination pursuant to \u00a7 325(d) is not applicable in this instance.!\u00b0 Additionally, patent owner\u2019s\npetition does not assert that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were\npresented to the Office, a threshold that must be met in order for the Office to even consider whether to\nexercise discretion under \u00a7 325(d). Because patent owner has not established that the same or substantially\nthe same prior art or arguments are presented here, discretionary considerations do not come into play.\n\nFurther, patent owner\u2019s interpretation of Etter is misplaced. The cited portion of Etter simply states that\nthe determination of whether an SNQ exists \u201cis discretionary with the Commissioner\u2019.'\u00b0 The\ndetermination of the existence of an SNQ is \u201cdiscretionary\u201d only in the sense that there is no recourse by\nway of appeal. See 35 U.S.C. 303(c). However, upon determining that an SNQ does exist, there is no\ndiscretion within \u00a7\u00a7 303-305 not to order and conduct reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. 303 (\u201cthe Director\n\n\u00b0 See, generally, petition at pp. 22-29.\n\n' Petition, p. 23.\n\n\"| Opposition, p. 17.\n\n12 See opposition, pp. 17 and 20.\n\n13 See opposition, pp. 17 and 21.\n\n4 Opposition, p. 18.\n\n15 See order, p. 5-6 and 9. See also, order, p. 5 (stating that the references relied on in the request have not been considered on\nthe merits in a final court judgment or by an examiner in a previous proceeding).\n\n16 See Etter, 756 F.2d at 857 (\u201cThe intent that reexamination proceedings and court actions involving challenges to validity be\ndistinct and independent is reflected in the legislative history of \u00a7 303, which notes that denial of a request for reexamination\ndoes not deprive the requestor (if not the patent owner) \u2018of any legal right\u2019 to contest validity in subsequent court proceedings.\nHouse Report at 6466. That \u201clegal right\u2019 may be exercised as a matter of right, but determination of whether a \u201csubstantial new\nquestion of patentability\u2019 exists, and therefore whether reexamination may be had, is discretionary with the Commissioner,\nand, as \u00a7 303 provides, that determination is final, i.e., not subject to appeal.\u201d).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-4 Filed 05/21/26 Page/7of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,819 -4-\n\nwill determine whether a [SNQ] is raised by the request\u201d); 35 U.S.C. 304 (If. . the Director finds that a\n[SNQ] is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination\u201d); and 35 U.S.C. 305 (\u201cAfter\nthe times for filing the statement and reply. . reexamination will be conducted\u201d) (emphasis added). Unlike\nthe broad discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) with respect to inter partes review proceedings, the\nOffice\u2019s discretion not to order reexamination is limited to \u00a7 325(d), a provision introduced after /iter.\nThus, the Office must proceed with reexamination if an SNQ is raised in the request, unless it exercises\ndiscretion under \u00a7 325(d) to reject the request.\n\nThe preceding review of the patent owner\u2019s arguments and of the particular facts and circumstances of the\npresent reexamination proceeding demonstrates that there was no abuse of discretion when the Office\ndeclined to exercise its discretion to reject the request in the present reexamination proceeding pursuant\nto \u00a7 325(d). Accordingly, patent owner\u2019s petition to terminate the present reexamination proceeding on\nthe basis of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) is dismissed.\n\nB. Arguments related to the expiration of the 062 patent\n\nPatent owner asserts that Office should terminate this proceeding, because the Office \u201clacks statutory\nauthorization to conduct reexamination of an expired patent.\u201d!\u2019 However, in the precedential Gesture'\u00ae\ndecision, the USPTO\u2019s reviewing court concluded that the Office \u201chas jurisdiction over ex parte\nreexamination concerning expired patents\u201d!? and that \u201c[a] patent owner maintains some rights after the\npatent expires, including the right to sue for past damages, which can create a live case or controversy that\ncan be resolved by an ex parte reexamination.\u201d\u201d~\u201d Furthermore, the Federal Circuit subsequently confirmed\nits determination that the Office has authority to reexamine expired patents.*! Thus, patent owner\u2019s\nrequest for termination on the basis that the patent is expired cannot be granted, because it is contrary to\ncontrolling law.\n\nInquiries concerning this decision should be directed to Andrea S. Grossman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office\nof Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 270-3314, or the undersigned at (571) 272-7717.\n\n[Nicole D. Haines/\n\nNicole D. Haines\n\nSenior Legal Advisor\n\nOffice of Patent Legal Administration May 19, 2026\n\n\" Petition, p. 3. See also, petition. pp. 3-22.\n\n18 In re Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, No. 2025-1075, Doc. 56 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 1, 2025).\n\n19 Td. at 9.\n\n9 Td.\n\n21 In re: Estech Systems IP, LLC, No. 2024-1935, Doc. 41 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) at 8 (non-precedential) (\u201cWe recently\n\u2018confirm[ed] that the Board has jurisdiction over ex parte reexaminations concerning expired patents.\u201d\u201d).\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:50:05.404138-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599857","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480261277/","id":480261277,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/93/5/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-23T13:48:37.433258-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-24T04:16:48.650340-07:00","sha1":"f16e8e8e445eb2b36406380e92bcaabedac6ea58","page_count":7,"file_size":406902,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.93.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Pagelof7\n\nEXHIBIT E\n\fCase fee oy 00 ae DC DIG Document 93-5 \u2014 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2of7\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. | CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,830 01/05/2026 8532286 107149.1 EPR '286 7370\n184647 7590 05/20/2026 EXAMINER\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n100 Marine Parkway GB, YUZHEN\nSuite 300\nRedwood City, CA 94065 | ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n05/20/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Page3of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nMay 20, 2026\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS\n\nKing & Spalding LLP\n1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 20006\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015830\nPATENT NO. : 8532286\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Page4of7\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nReichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (For Patent Owner)\n100 Marine Parkway\n\nSuite 300\n\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nKing & Spalding LLP (For Third Party Requester)\n1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.\nWashington, DC 20006\n\nIn re Lambert\nU'S. Patent No.: 8,532,286 B2 : DECISION\nEx Parte Reexamination Proceeding > ON\n\nControl No.: 90/015,830 : PETITION\nFiled: January 5, 2026\n\nThis decision addresses patent owner\u2019s March 27, 2026 petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S\nPETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183.\u201d This decision also addresses requester\u2019s April 10, 2026 paper entitled \u201cOPPOSITION TO\nPATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY\nTERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7\n1.181, 1.182, AND 1.183\u201d. Patent owner\u2019s March 27, 2026 petition, requester\u2019s April 10, 2026 paper,\nand the record as a whole are before the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) for consideration.\n\nPERTINENT BACKGROUND\n\nOn January 5, 2026!, Core Scientific, Inc. (requester) deposited a request for ex parte reexamination of\nclaims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,286 B2 (the \u2019286 patent), which proceeding was assigned Control\nNo. 90/015,830 (the \u2019830 or present reexamination proceeding). On January 30, 2026, the Central\nReexamination Unit (CRU) examiner ordered reexamination. The examiner analyzed the prosecution\nhistory and found that each of the proposed grounds in the request raises a substantial new question of\npatentability (SNQ).? On March 27, 2026, patent owner filed a petition entitled \u201cPATENT OWNER\u2019S\nPETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR SUMMARY TERMINATION OF\nREEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND\n1.183\u201d (patent owner\u2019s combined petition). On April 10, 2026, requester filed a paper entitled\n\u201cOPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER\u2019S PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AND FOR\nSUMMARY TERMINATION OF REEXAMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW, PURSUANT TO 37\nC.F.R. \u00a7\u00a7 1.181, 1.182, AND 1.183\u201d (opposition).\n\n' Requester filed an incomplete request on December 23, 2025.\n? See \u201cOrder Granting Request for Ex Parfe Reexamination,\u201d January 30, 2026 (order).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Page5of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,830 -2-\nDECISION\nI. Patent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183\n\nPatent owner\u2019s March 27, 2026 combined petition includes: (i) a petition under 37 CFR 1.183, which will\nbe construed? as requesting waiver of any applicable regulations to permit entry and consideration of\npatent owner\u2019s March 27, 2026 combined petition prior to examination, and (ii) a petition under 37 CFR\n\n1.181 to vacate the order granting reexamination and to terminate the present reexamination proceeding\nunder 35 U.S.C. 325(d).4\n\n37 CFR 1.540, in pertinent part, provides:\n\nNo submissions other than the statement pursuant to \u00a7 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte\nreexamination requester pursuant to \u00a7 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.\n\nOffice guidance emphasizes the importance of evaluating issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d) when making\na determination on a request for ex parte reexamination.\u201d Permitting patent owner to call attention to\npotential issues involving \u00a7 325(d) serves an important purpose in ensuring that proper consideration was\ngiven on whether to exercise discretion to move forward with an otherwise meritorious request for\nreexamination. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the present reexamination proceeding,\npatent owner\u2019s petition under 37 CFR 1.183 for waiver of 37 CFR 1.540 to permit entry and consideration\nof patent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition is granted. The provisions of the necessary rules are hereby waived.\nPatent owner\u2019s \u00a7 325(d) petition has been entered and considered as set forth below.\n\nFurthermore, requester is permitted to file a paper in opposition to a patent owner petition requesting\ntermination of the present reexamination proceeding, just as the requester is permitted to file a paper in\nopposition to a patent owner petition to vacate a reexamination order under 35 U.S.C. 304 (and deny\nreexamination) on the basis that the order is an w/fra vires action on the part of the Office.\u00b0 Accordingly,\nrequester\u2019s April 10, 2026 opposition has been entered and considered to the extent it addresses patent\nowner\u2019s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 325(d).\n\nII. Patent owner\u2019s petition to vacate the reexamination\n\nPatent owner argues that the Office should terminate the present reexamination proceeding pursuant to 35\nU.S.C. 325(d), because discretionary factors such as those cited in the March 26, 2025 \u201cInterim Processes\nfor PTAB Workload Management Memorandum\u201d (PTAB Workload Memo) should be applied in the\npresent reexamination proceeding, and weigh in favor of termination.\u2019\n\n3 Patent owner requests waiver of any requirement of the regulations that would otherwise preclude summary termination of\nthe reexamination.\n\n4 Petition, pp. 9-10.\n\n5 See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) \u00a7 2242, subsection II (\u201c[a]ny issues involving 35 U.S.C. 325(d)\nraised in the request must be referred to the examiner\u2019s SPRS or the director of the CRU).\u201d).\n\n\u00ae See, e.g., MPEP \u00a7 2246, subsection II.\n\n7? Petition, pp. 1-9, referencing the PTAB Interim Director Discretionary Process, \u00a7 IB, available at\nhttps:/Awww.uspto. gov/patents/ptab/interim-director-discretionary-process, which relies on considerations set forth in the\nPTAB Workload Memo. The PTAB Workload Memo enumerates \u00a7 314(a) and 324(a) considerations such as: \u201c[w]hether the\nPTAB or another forum has already adjudicated the validity or patentability of the challenged patent claims\u201d; \u201c[w]hether there\nhave been changes in the law or new judicial precedent issued since issuance of the claims that may affect patentability\u201d; \u201c[t]he\n\n99, 66\n\nstrength of the unpatentability challenge; \u201c[t]he extent of the petition\u2019s reliance on expert testimony\u201d; \u201c[s]ettled expectations\n\nof the parties, such as the length of time the claims have been in force\u201d; \u201c[c]ompelling economic, public health, or national\nsecurity interests\u201d; and \u201c[a]ny other considerations bearing on the Director\u2019s discretion.\u201d\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Page6\u00e9of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,830 -3-\n\n35 U.S.C. 325(d) states, in pertinent part (emphasis added):\n\nIn determining whether to... . order a proceeding under... . chapter 30, .. . the Director may\ntake into account whether, and reject the . . . request because, the same or substantially the same\nprior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.\n\nIn support of termination under 35 U.S.C. 325(d), patent owner asserts that discretionary factors, such as\nsettled expectations and limited Office resources, weigh in favor of termination of the present\nreexamination proceeding.\u00ae Relying on Jn re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc), patent\nowner argues that \u201cjust as 35 USC \u00a7 314(a) provides statutory authority for the Office\u2019s broad latitude to\ndiscretionarily deny [inter partes review] petitions, the fact that determinations under 35 USC \u00a7 303-as\ninterpreted by the en banc Federal Circuit\u2014are \u2018discretionary\u2019 should give rise to an equal breadth of\ndiscretionary denial authority in the EPR context.\u201d\u00ae The opposition argues that there is no basis [for\nexercising discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d)] here,!\u00b0 because there have been no other post grant\nchallenges to the \u2019286 patent and none of the references relied on in the request have previously been\nconsidered by the Office.\"!\n\nThe parties\u2019 arguments have been fully considered. As an initial matter, a predicate to the Office\nexercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) 1s that the same or substantially the same prior art or\narguments previously were presented to the Office. The present reexamination proceeding is the first\nchallenge to the \u2019286 patent before the Office. In the order, the examiner reviewed the prosecution history\nand the post grant history for the underlying patent, and determined that a discretionary denial of\nreexamination pursuant to \u00a7 325(d) \u201cis not applicable\u201d in this instance.!? Additionally, patent owner\u2019s\npetition does not assert that the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were\npresented to the Office, a threshold that must be met in order for the Office to even consider whether to\nexercise discretion under \u00a7 325(d). Because patent owner has not established that the same or substantially\nthe same prior art or arguments are presented here, discretionary considerations do not come into play.\n\nFurther, patent owner\u2019s interpretation of Etter is misplaced. The cited portion of Etter simply states that\nthe determination of whether an SNQ exists \u201cis discretionary with the Commissioner\u2019.'3 The\ndetermination of the existence of an SNQ is \u201cdiscretionary\u201d only in the sense that there is no recourse by\nway of appeal. See 35 U.S.C. 303(c). However, upon determining that an SNQ does exist, there is no\ndiscretion within \u00a7\u00a7 303-305 not to order and conduct reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. 303 (\u201cthe Director\nwill determine whether a [SNQ] is raised by the request\u201d); 35 U.S.C. 304 (If. . the Director finds that a\n[SNQ] is raised, the determination will include an order for reexamination\u201d); and 35 U.S.C. 305 (\u201cAfter\nthe times for filing the statement and reply. . reexamination will be conducted\u201d) (emphasis added). Unlike\nthe broad discretion afforded under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) with respect to inter partes review proceedings, the\nOffice\u2019s discretion not to order reexamination is limited to \u00a7 325(d), a provision introduced after /iter.\n\n8 See, generally, petition at pp. 1-9.\n\n\u00b0 Petition, p. 3.\n\n1\u00b0 Opposition, p. 17.\n\n! See opposition, pp. 9-10.\n\n1 See order, pp. 2-4, 16.\n\n13 See Etter, 756 F.2d at 857 (\u201cThe intent that reexamination proceedings and court actions involving challenges to validity be\ndistinct and independent is reflected in the legislative history of \u00a7 303, which notes that denial of a request for reexamination\ndoes not deprive the requestor (if not the patent owner) \u2018of any legal right\u2019 to contest validity in subsequent court proceedings.\nHouse Report at 6466. That \u201clegal right\u2019 may be exercised as a matter of right, but determination of whether a \u201csubstantial new\nquestion of patentability\u2019 exists, and therefore whether reexamination may be had, is discretionary with the Commissioner,\nand, as \u00a7 303 provides, that determination is final, i.e., not subject to appeal.\u201d).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 93-5 Filed 05/21/26 Page/7of7\n\nEx Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/015,830 -4-\n\nThus, the Office must proceed with reexamination if an SNQ is raised in the request, unless it exercises\ndiscretion under \u00a7 325(d) to reject the request.\n\nThe preceding review of the patent owner\u2019s arguments and of the particular facts and circumstances of the\npresent reexamination proceeding demonstrates that there was no abuse of discretion when the Office\ndeclined to exercise its discretion to reject the request in the present reexamination proceeding pursuant\nto \u00a7 325(d). Accordingly, patent owner\u2019s petition to terminate the present reexamination proceeding on\nthe basis of 35 U.S.C. 325(d) is dismissed.\n\nInquiries concerning this decision should be directed to Andrea S. Grossman, Senior Legal Advisor, Office\nof Patent Legal Administration, at (571) 270-3314, or the undersigned at (571) 272-7717.\n\n[Nicole D. Haines/\n\nNicole D. Haines\n\nSenior Legal Advisor\n\nOffice of Patent Legal Administration May 19, 2026\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T13:50:06.087322-07:00","document_number":"93","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"181036599858","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-21T16:05:37.928564-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-21T16:05:37.936898-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-21","time_filed":"17:59:28","entry_number":93,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":285,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462613116/","id":462613116,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477731831/","id":477731831,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/92/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-30T19:03:38.872083-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T03:10:25.903897-07:00","sha1":"805ddb9da658c43b39ad6ad32a380c4cb3a93b95","page_count":13,"file_size":191690,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.92.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.92.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 13\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\n\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and\nKey Patent Innovations Ltd.,\n Plaintiffs,\n Case No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n v.\n\nMARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital\nHoldings, Inc.)\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\nMARA\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY TO\n THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE TO EXAMINE PERSONS AND\n PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OF BLACKBERRY LIMITED\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 13\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. ii\nII. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1\nIII. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2\n A. A LETTER ROGATORY IS A PROPER METHOD FOR SEEKING\n DISCOVERY FROM BLACKBERRY ..................................................................2\n B. A LETTER ROGATORY IS APPROPRIATE UNDER CANADIAN LAW ........5\n C. MARA\u2019S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO BLACKBERRY LIMITED VIA THE\n PROPOSED LETTER ROGATORY ARE APPROPRIATE .................................5\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 13\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nBlackBerry Limited et al v. Avaya Inc.,\n No. 3-16-cv-02185 (N.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 72 ............................................................................2\n\nBlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al,\n No. 2-18-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 682 ...........................................................................2\n\nEl Paso Disposal, LP v. Ecube Labs Co.,\n 792 F. Supp. 3d 703 (W.D. Tex. 2025)......................................................................................3\n\nInt\u2019l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. LzLabs GmbH,\n No. W-22-CV-00299-DAE, Dkt. No. 315 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024) .....................................2\n\nIntel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,\n 542 U.S. 241 (2004) ...................................................................................................................2\n\nLantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,\n 841 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)........................................................................................4\n\nUnited States v. Mason,\n 919 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................3\n\nMcFadden Lyon Rouse LLC v. Lookkin,\n 2012 ONSC 2243 at para. 17 (Can.) ..........................................................................................5\n\nMobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry Corporation et al,\n No. 3-20-cv-02877 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 66 .............................................................................1\n\nQ3 Networking LLC v Siemens Canada,\n 2021 ONSC 2808 at para. 31 (Can.) ..........................................................................................5\n\nSPS Techs., LLC v. Briles Aerospace, Inc.,\n No. CV 18-9536 MWF (ASX), 2020 WL 12740646 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020) ......................4\n\nTruSun Techs., LLC v. Eaton Corp.,\n No. 6-19-CV-00656-ADA, Dkt. No. 67 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2021) ........................................3\n\nZingre et al. v. The Queen\n [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392 at 401 (Can.) .............................................................................................6\n\nStatutes\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651 ..............................................................................................................................4\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 13\n\n\n\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1781 ..............................................................................................................................4\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284 ................................................................................................................................6\n\nCanada Evidence Act, RSC 1985, c C-5..........................................................................................4\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(B) .................................................................................................................4\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)....................................................................................................................1\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B) ..............................................................................................................4\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 13\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Pursuant to Rule 28(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant MARA\n\nHoldings, Inc. (\u201cMARA\u201d) hereby submits the present Unopposed Motion requesting that the Court\n\nissue a Letter Rogatory for international judicial assistance (the \u201cLetter Rogatory\u201d) seeking\n\nassistance from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (\u201cOntario Court\u201d), to compel BlackBerry\n\nLimited (\u201cBlackBerry\u201d), a Canadian corporation, to produce documents specified in Schedule A\n\n(in the manner identified in Schedule B) of the Letter Rogatory and compel a representative of\n\nBlackBerry to testify on behalf of BlackBerry at a deposition on the topics identified in Schedule\n\nC of the Letter Rogatory.1 Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. (\u201cMalikie\u201d) and Key Patent\n\nInnovations Ltd. (\u201cKPI\u201d) do not oppose MARA\u2019s motion.\n\nII. BACKGROUND\n\n Plaintiffs allege that MARA infringes United States Patent Nos. 10,284,370 (\u201cthe \u2019370\n\nPatent\u201d); 7,372,960 (\u201cthe \u2019960 Patent\u201d); 7,372,961 (\u201cthe \u2019961 Patent\u201d); 8,532,286 (\u201cthe \u2019286\n\nPatent\u201d); 8,666,062 (\u201cthe \u2019062 Patent\u201d); and 8,788,827 (\u201cthe \u2019827 Patent\u201d) (collectively, the\n\n\u201cAsserted Patents\u201d). The Asserted Patents are part of a larger portfolio of patents originally held\n\nby Certicom Corporation (\u201cCerticom\u201d), which are all directed to cryptography (\u201cCerticom Patent\n\nPortfolio\u201d). The Certicom Patent Portfolio was initially assigned from the inventors to Certicom,\n\nthen subsequently assigned from Certicom to BlackBerry (as part of Blackberry\u2019s acquisition of\n\nCerticom), and finally from BlackBerry to Malikie. Following its purchase of the Certicom Patent\n\nPortfolio, Malikie asserted the Asserted Patents against MARA to commence this action.\n\n Between 2018 and 2021, BlackBerry, while still holding the Certicom Patent Portfolio,\n\nentered into at least three settlement agreements to resolve actions involving the Certicom Patent\n\n\n1\n The proposed Letter Rogatory, Schedules A-C, and Exhibit A to Schedule A are attached as Exhibit 1 to this\nMotion.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 13\n\n\n\n\nPortfolio, including the \u2019961 Patent asserted in this action. See MobileIron, Inc. v. BlackBerry\n\nCorporation et al, No. 3-20-cv-02877 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 66; BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook,\n\nInc. et al, No. 2-18-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 682; BlackBerry Limited et al v. Avaya Inc.,\n\nNo. 3-16-cv-02185 (N.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 72.\n\n MARA brings the present Motion for issuance of Letter Rogatory to obtain discovery from\n\nBlackBerry regarding its acquisition, sale of, licensing, and any settlement agreements (including\n\nany related communications and analyses) concerning the Certicom Patent Portfolio. MARA also\n\nseeks discovery into Certicom\u2019s involvement in the Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group\n\n(\u201cSECG\u201d) Consortium (letter available at\n\nhttps://www.secg.org/certicom_patent_letter_SECG.pdf), including any grant of \u201cnon-exclusive\n\nlicenses to [Certicom\u2019s] patents on a nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable terms\u201d given to\n\nany third party, as offered in the letter. After investigation, MARA determined that BlackBerry is\n\nheadquartered in Waterloo, Ontario. Discovery into these topics will shed light on details which\n\nmay be especially pertinent to issues in this case, including damages. This Court should grant the\n\npresent Motion because the issuance of the requested Letter Rogatory is the proper method of\n\nobtaining discovery under U.S. law, is appropriate under Canadian Law, and seeks evidence that\n\nis highly relevant to the case at hand and cannot otherwise be obtained.\n\nIII. ARGUMENT\n\n A. A LETTER ROGATORY IS A PROPER METHOD FOR SEEKING\n DISCOVERY FROM BLACKBERRY\n\n A Letter Rogatory is a formal written request sent by a court to a foreign court asking that\n\na witness residing within that foreign court\u2019s jurisdiction either provide documents, a deposition,\n\nor both for use in a pending action before the requesting court. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro\n\nDevices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 n.1 (2004); Int\u2019l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. LzLabs GmbH, No. W-22-\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 13\n\n\n\n\nCV-00299-DAE, Dkt. No. 315 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024) (granting motion for issuance of letter\n\nrogatory to compel production of documents and deposition of a Canadian entity); TruSun Techs.,\n\nLLC v. Eaton Corp., No. 6-19-CV-00656-ADA, Dkt. No. 67 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2021) (granting\n\nmotion for issuance of letter rogatory to compel deposition of a Canadian individual).\n\n \u201cDistrict courts have discretion in determining whether to issue a letter rogatory and their\n\nauthority to do so derives from their inherent power.\u201d El Paso Disposal, LP v. Ecube Labs Co.,\n\n792 F. Supp. 3d 703, 707 (W.D. Tex. 2025) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v.\n\nMason, 919 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 1990) (\u201cThe decision to issue letters rogatory lies within the\n\ndiscretion of the district court.\u201d). In determining whether to issue letters rogatory, courts consider\n\nthe following factors:\n\n (1) the importance of the documents or information requested to the litigation; (2)\n the specificity of the request; (3) whether the information originated in the United\n States; (4) whether alternative means of securing the information exist; and (5)\n the extent to which noncompliance with the request would undermine important\n interests of the United States, or compliance with the request would undermine\n important interests of the state where the information is located.\n\nEl Paso Disposal, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 707.\n\n First, the documents and testimony requested from BlackBerry are important because they\n\ncould provide information relevant to the potential damages associated with the Asserted Patents.\n\nSecond, the request is limited only to documents and testimony regarding the acquisition, sale of,\n\nlicensing, and any settlement agreements concerning the Certicom Patent Portfolio, which includes\n\nthe Asserted Patents and patents directed to related technology, and Certicom\u2019s involvement in the\n\nSECG. Third, while the information sought does not originate in the United States, as BlackBerry\n\nis located in Canada, \u201cwhere a court finds that information is not easily obtainable through\n\nalternative means, as here, this weighs in favor of issuing letters rogatory regardless of where the\n\ninformation originated.\u201d Id. at 710. Fourth, there are no other means of securing the information.\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 8 of 13\n\n\n\n\nBlackBerry is the entity that acquired Certicom and entered into at least three relevant settlement\n\nagreements and it is therefore in possession of the relevant information. Although MARA has also\n\nattempted to obtain such information directly from Malikie and through a third party subpoena\n\nserved on BlackBerry\u2019s subsidiary in the United States, neither entity has possession of or control\n\nover all of the information MARA seeks, as at least some of the information is uniquely within\n\nBlackBerry\u2019s possession. Fifth, the interests of the Canadian government do not outweigh those\n\nof the United States government such that the letter should not be issued. See Lantheus Med.\n\nImaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 841 F. Supp. 2d 769, 794 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (\u201c[T]he fifth factor\n\n[] requires the Court to balance the interests of Canada against the interests of the United States\u201d\n\nand \u201cthe exceptional nature of letters rogatory provide the foreign litigant with the protections that\n\nthe foreign sovereign lacks when an American court compels it to engage in jurisdictional\n\ndiscovery as a would-be defendant. Just as an American court enforcing letters rogatory issued in\n\na foreign court may limit enforcement of the order [], foreign courts charged with enforcing letters\n\nrogatory may limit enforcement of the discovery device where appropriate.\u201d).\n\n \u201cThe proper method for compelling the production of documents and obtaining deposition\n\ntestimony in Canada for use in a United States action is to proceed by means of a letter rogatory.\n\nThe Canada Evidence Act specifically provides that a court outside of Canada may serve letters\n\nrogatory upon a Canadian court.\u201d SPS Techs., LLC v. Briles Aerospace, Inc., No. CV 18-9536\n\nMWF (ASX), 2020 WL 12740646, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n4(f)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1)(B); 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651 (authorizing courts to issue \u201call writs\n\nnecessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and\n\nprinciples of law\u201d); 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1781 (permitting \u201cthe transmittal of a letter rogatory or request\n\ndirectly from a tribunal in the United States to the foreign or international tribunal, officer, or\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 9 of 13\n\n\n\n\nagency to whom it is addressed and its return in the same manner.\u201d).\n\n B. A LETTER ROGATORY IS APPROPRIATE UNDER CANADIAN LAW\n\n A Letter Rogatory is an appropriate method for obtaining discovery under Canadian Law.\n\nThe Ontario Court has jurisdiction to enforce Letters Rogatory where: \u201ca) a foreign court, desirous\n\nof obtaining testimony in relation to a pending civil, commercial or criminal matter, has authorized\n\nthe obtaining of evidence; b) the party from whom the evidence is sought is within the jurisdiction\n\nof Ontario; c) the evidence sought from the Ontario party is in relation to a pending proceeding\n\nbefore the foreign court or tribunal; and d) the foreign court or tribunal is a court or tribunal of\n\ncompetent jurisdiction.\u201d Q3 Networking LLC v. Siemens Canada, 2021 ONSC 2808 at para. 31\n\n(Can.). The Ontario Court has the discretion to grant or deny a request from the foreign court. \u201cIn\n\nexercising this discretion, the Ontario Court shall consider whether: (a) the evidence sought is\n\nrelevant; (b) the evidence is necessary for pre-trial discovery or trial of the foreign action; (c) the\n\nevidence is not otherwise obtainable; (d) the documents sought are identified with reasonable\n\nspecificity; (e) the order sought is not contrary to Canadian public policy; and (f) the order sought\n\nis not unduly burdensome.\u201d McFadden Lyon Rouse LLC v. Lookkin, 2012 ONSC 2243 at para.\n\n17 (Can.). MARA\u2019s requested Letter Rogatory satisfies these factors.\n\n C. MARA\u2019S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO BLACKBERRY LIMITED VIA\n THE PROPOSED LETTER ROGATORY ARE APPROPRIATE\n\n The documents and testimony that MARA requests from BlackBerry are highly relevant\n\nto the instant action. The document requests and deposition topics are directed to BlackBerry\u2019s\n\npurchase, sale of, licensing, and settlement agreements involving the Certicom Patent Portfolio,\n\nincluding any economic analysis, valuation, review, or other assessment of the Certicom Patent\n\nPortfolio, and Certicom\u2019s involvement in the SECG. Therefore, these requests are relevant to at\n\nleast issues related to damages, including, but not limited to, any calculation of any reasonably\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 10 of 13\n\n\n\n\nroyalty under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284.\n\n The documents and testimony that MARA requests from BlackBerry are not otherwise\n\nobtainable. Although MARA has attempted to obtain such information directly from Malikie and\n\nthrough a third party subpoena served on BlackBerry\u2019s subsidiary located in the United States,\n\nneither entity has possession of or control over all of the information MARA seeks, as at least\n\nsome of the information is uniquely within BlackBerry\u2019s possession.\n\n The documents and information that MARA seeks are identified with reasonable\n\nspecificity in Schedules A, B, and C of the Letter Rogatory. The requested documents and\n\ninformation are limited to BlackBerry\u2019s purchase, sale of, licensing, and settlement agreements\n\ninvolving the Certicom Patent Portfolio, including BlackBerry\u2019s own methods, calculations,\n\nvaluations, and estimates of the value of the Certicom Patent Portfolio.\n\n The order sought for issuance of Letter Rogatory is not contrary to Canadian public policy\n\nand is not unduly burdensome. In assessing these factors, the Ontario Court will consider whether\n\nthe request is contrary to the witness\u2019 constitutional rights, whether the request affects the rights\n\nof other third parties, whether the request seeks to impose obligations on third parties that\n\nsubstantially exceed those they would bear if the underlying litigation took place in Canada, and\n\nthe time, effort, and expense required of witnesses if the Letter Rogatory is enforced. See Zingre\n\net al. v. The Queen [1981] 2 S.C.R. 392 at 401 (Can.) (\u201cA foreign request is given full force and\n\neffect unless it be contrary to the public policy of the jurisdiction to which the request is directed\n\n[] or otherwise prejudicial to the sovereignty or the citizens of the latter jurisdiction.\u201d); see also\n\nFriction Division Products, Inc. and E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc. et al. (No. 2) (1986),\n\n56 O.R. (2d) 722 (H.C.J.) at para. 34 (Can.) (\u201cI do not think the two proposed witnesses are being\n\nasked to do anything which can be said to be burdensome or oppressive, measured against the\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 11 of 13\n\n\n\n\nwitnesses\u2019 obligations in Ontario were this matter to be tried here.\u201d). The obligations placed on\n\nBlackBerry will be minimal, as the document requests and deposition topics are narrowly tailored\n\nto information relevant to the current case.\n\n MARA respectfully requests that the Court grants this Unopposed Motion, endorses the\n\nattached Letter Rogatory, and directs the Clerk to place the Court\u2019s seal upon them and return them\n\nto MARA for delivery to the foreign jurisdiction.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 12 of 13\n\n\n\n\nDated: April 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady\n Catherine Nyarady\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser\n Ian A. Moore\n Tom Yu\n Thomas Macchio\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &\n Garrison LLP\n 1285 Sixth Avenue\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000\n\n Christopher M. Pepe\n W. Sutton Ansley\n Eric C. Westerhold\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &\n Garrison LLP\n 2001 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n Telephone: (202) 223-7300\n\n Steve Wingard\n State Bar No. 00788694\n swingard@scottdoug.com\n Robert P. Earle\n State Bar No. 241245566\n rearle@scottdoug.com\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672\n sburbank@scottdoug.com\n Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400\n Austin, TX 78701-3234\n Telephone: (512) 495-6300\n Facsimile: (512) 495-6399\n Counsel for Defendant MARA\n Holdings, Inc.\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 92 Filed 04/30/26 Page 13 of 13\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that true and correct copies of this motion have been served upon each attorney\n\nof record via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady\n Catherine Nyarady\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-05-01T09:59:11.978798-07:00","document_number":"92","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036444695","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter Rogatory","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477799075/","id":477799075,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/92/1/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-01T09:59:00.670894-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-01T09:59:00.670916-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":304,"file_size":15775348,"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":"92","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036444696","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477799076/","id":477799076,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/92/2/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-05-01T09:59:01.294325-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-01T09:59:01.294339-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":72551,"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":"92","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181036444697","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-30T19:03:38.843450-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-30T19:03:38.851016-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-30","time_filed":"20:21:37","entry_number":92,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":283,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461721588/","id":461721588,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476820156/","id":476820156,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-23T08:04:15.921534-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T08:04:15.928411-07:00","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 Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T08:04:15.905642-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T08:04:15.905659-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-23","time_filed":"09:26:51","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461673835/","id":461673835,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476771654/","id":476771654,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/91/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-22T18:02:50.688922-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T18:02:50.695417-07:00","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":"91","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036379359","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Appear Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T18:02:50.664050-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T18:02:50.669330-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"19:27:24","entry_number":91,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":277,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461617869/","id":461617869,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476714200/","id":476714200,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/90/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-22T12:06:54.519670-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T12:06:54.525567-07:00","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":"90","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036370607","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T12:06:54.496955-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T12:06:54.503138-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"13:24:37","entry_number":90,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":273,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461605460/","id":461605460,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476701644/","id":476701644,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/89/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-22T11:04:59.926177-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T11:04:59.933405-07:00","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":"89","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036369919","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Change of Address","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T11:04:59.899960-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T11:04:59.906890-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"12:52:19","entry_number":89,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":271,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460406270/","id":460406270,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475465321/","id":475465321,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/88/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-10T12:15:41.303037-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-18T04:30:51.513886-07:00","sha1":"b0611aaa69d3f2f3e3fcfa31f7ca1ee846316ed3","page_count":10,"file_size":227153,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.88.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.88.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 10\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 \u00a7\nKey Patent Innovations Ltd., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiffs, \u00a7\n \u00a7 CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:25-cv-00222\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nMARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon \u00a7\nDigital Holdings, Inc.) \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 ANSWER TO DEFENDANT\u2019S COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd. (\u201cMalikie\u201d) and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (\u201cKPI\u201d)\n\n(collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby respond to the\n\nCounterclaims asserted by Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff MARA Holdings, Inc.\n\n(\u201cMARA\u201d) in its Answer to Plaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and\n\nCounterclaims (Dkt. No. 85). Plaintiffs respond to MARA\u2019s Counterclaims on a paragraph-by-\n\nparagraph basis as follows. To the extent any allegation in MARA\u2019s Counterclaims is not\n\nspecifically addressed herein, it is denied.\n\n DEFENDANT\u2019S COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n 160. Paragraph 160 contains conclusions of law and characterizations of MARA\u2019s own\n\npleading to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiffs\n\ndeny that MARA is entitled to any relief on its Counterclaims.\n\n THE PARTIES\n\n 161. Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 161 of MARA\u2019s Counterclaims and, on that basis, deny them.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 162. Plaintiffs admit that Malikie Innovations Ltd. is an entity organized and existing\n\nunder the laws of Ireland with registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street\n\nLower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin A96 VR66, Ireland. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 162 to the extent they mischaracterize or are inconsistent with the allegations in\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint.\n\n 163. Plaintiffs admit that Key Patent Innovations Ltd. is an entity organized and existing\n\nunder the laws of Ireland with registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street\n\nLower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin A96 VR66, Ireland. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 163 to the extent they mischaracterize or are inconsistent with the allegations in\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 164. Plaintiffs admit that this Court has personal jurisdiction over them with respect to\n\nMARA\u2019s Counterclaims. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 164.\n\n 165. Paragraph 165 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To\n\nthe extent a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiffs admit that this Court has subject-matter\n\njurisdiction over MARA\u2019s Counterclaims and deny any remaining allegations.\n\n 166. Plaintiffs admit that they asserted claims for patent infringement against MARA in\n\nthis Court. Plaintiffs deny the remaining characterizations and allegations in Paragraph 166.\n\n 167. Plaintiffs admit that their First Amended Complaint alleges that MARA infringes\n\nthe \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations or\n\ncharacterizations in Paragraph 167.\n\n 168. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 168.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 169. Paragraph 169 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To\n\nthe extent a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 169.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n 170. Plaintiffs admit that they brought suit against MARA on May 12, 2025, for\n\ninfringement of the \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents. Plaintiffs admit that the \u2019286\n\nPatent is not expired and that the \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, and \u2019961 Patents are currently expired,\n\nbut denies MARA\u2019s allegations to the extent they are intended to suggest the patents were not valid\n\nand enforceable during the period of MARA\u2019s infringement. Plaintiffs admit that the USPTO has\n\ngranted requests for ex parte reexamination as to all of the Asserted Patents but deny MARA\u2019s\n\nallegations to the extent they are intended to suggest that the Asserted Patents are not valid and\n\nenforceable. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations or characterizations in Paragraph 170.\n\n FIRST COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,827)\n\n 171. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013170 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 172. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 172.\n\n 173. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 173.\n\n 174. To the extent Paragraph 174 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 174 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n SECOND COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,827)\n\n 175. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013174 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 176. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 176.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 177. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 177.\n\n 178. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 178.\n\n THIRD COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,284,370)\n\n 179. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013178 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 180. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 180.\n\n 181. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 181.\n\n 182. To the extent Paragraph 182 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 182 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,284,370)\n\n 183. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013182 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 184. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 184.\n\n 185. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 185.\n\n 186. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 186.\n\n FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,666,062)\n\n 187. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013186 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 188. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 188.\n\n 189. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 189.\n\n 190. To the extent Paragraph 190 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 190 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\n SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,666,062)\n\n191. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013190 above as though\n\n fully set forth herein.\n\n192. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 192.\n\n193. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 193.\n\n194. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 194.\n\n SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,960)\n\n 195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013194 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 196. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 196.\n\n 197. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 197.\n\n 198. To the extent Paragraph 198 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 198 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,960)\n\n 199. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013198 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 200. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 200.\n\n 201. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 201.\n\n 202. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 202.\n\n NINTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961)\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 203. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013202 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 204. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 204.\n\n 205. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 205.\n\n 206. To the extent Paragraph 206 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 206 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n TENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961)\n\n 207. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013206 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 208. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 208.\n\n 209. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 209.\n\n 210. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 210.\n\n ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,286)\n\n 211. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013210 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n 212. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 212.\n\n 213. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 213.\n\n 214. To the extent Paragraph 214 requires a response, Plaintiffs admit that MARA seeks\n\nthe relief stated in Paragraph 214 but deny that MARA is entitled to such relief.\n\n TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,286)\n\n 215. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their responses to Paragraphs 160\u2013214 above as\n\nthough fully set forth herein.\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\n 216. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 216.\n\n 217. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 217.\n\n 218. Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 218.\n\n GENERAL DENIAL\n\n Except as expressly admitted herein, Plaintiffs deny each and every allegation contained in\n\nMARA\u2019s Counterclaims.\n\n ANSWER TO MARA\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n Plaintiffs deny that MARA is entitled to any of the relief requested in its Prayer for Relief\n\nor any other relief whatsoever. Plaintiffs specifically deny that MARA is entitled to:\n\n A. A judgment in Counterclaim Plaintiff\u2019s favor;\n\n B. Dismissal of Counterclaim Defendants\u2019 First Amended Complaint in its entirety\n\nwith prejudice;\n\n C. A finding that Counterclaim Plaintiff has not infringed and does not infringe any\n\nvalid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents;\n\n D. A finding that the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid;\n\n E. A declaration that Counterclaim Plaintiff is the prevailing party, that this is an\n\nexceptional case, or an award of costs, expenses, and attorneys\u2019 fees; and\n\n F. Any other and further relief.\n\n RESERVATION OF RIGHTS\n\n Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to assert any additional legal or equitable defenses to\n\nwhich they may be entitled, including all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules\n\nof Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States, and any other defenses that presently exist\n\nor may become available as a result of discovery or further factual investigation in this action.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\n DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury\n\non all issues triable to a jury.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Khue V. Hoang\n Khue V. Hoang\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 400 Madison Avenue, Suite 14D\n New York, NY 10017\n Tel: (212) 381-1965\n khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Matthew G. Berkowitz\n Michael Polka\n Michael Caulkins\n Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP\n 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\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 peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Of Counsel:\n\n Mark D. Siegmund, TX Bar No. 24117055\n Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Facsimile: (866) 627-3509\n Email: msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs Malikie Innovations Ltd.\n and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 88 Filed 04/10/26 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on the 10th day of April 2026, a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record who are deemed to\n\nhave consented to electronic service via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-04-13T05:56:28.049974-07:00","document_number":"88","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036289614","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-10T12:15:41.277546-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-10T12:15:41.283633-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-10","time_filed":"14:08:40","entry_number":88,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":269,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/460145752/","id":460145752,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/475194949/","id":475194949,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/87/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-04-08T15:02:38.986297-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-10T07:25:43.167699-07:00","sha1":"2d7de56117f70256ef134cd043481845cc575bdf","page_count":15,"file_size":340233,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.87.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.87.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 15\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\nKEY PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD.\n\n Plaintiffs,\n CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00222-DC-DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nMARA HOLDINGS, INC. (F/K/A\nMARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC.)\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT\u2019S OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM\n CONSTRUCTION ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1\n II. DISPUTED TERMS .................................................................................................. 1\n A. \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d (\u2019286 Patent) ................................................... 1\n B. \u201cperform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand\u201d (\u2019286\n Patent) ............................................................................................................... 2\n C. \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d (\u2019286 Patent) ................................................. 4\n D. \u201cfinite field operation\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) ............................................ 5\n E. \u201creduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) ...................................................... 5\n F. \u201cunreduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) .................................................. 5\n G. \u201cthe electronic message omits a public key of a signer\u201d (\u2019370 patent) ............. 6\n H. \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Q represents the public key of\n the signer\u201d (\u2019827 patent) ................................................................................... 7\n I. \u201crandom number generator\u201d (\u2019961 patent) ........................................................ 8\n J. \u201cseed\u201d (\u2019961 patent) .......................................................................................... 9\n K. \u201cThe method of claim 1 wherein if said output is rejected, said output is\n incremented by a deterministic function and a hash function is performed on\n said incremented output to produce a new output; a determination being made\n as to whether said new output is acceptable as a key.\u201d (\u2019961 patent) ............... 9\n III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 10\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nAm. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,\n 618 F.3d 1354 (2010).................................................................................................................2\n\nArctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,\n 919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................1\n\nC.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,\n 388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................7\n\nCatalina Mktg. Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,\n 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................1, 2\n\nCorning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,\n 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................2\n\nGeneral Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,\n 179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................2\n\nLiebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,\n 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................4\n\nMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,\n 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................4\n\nO2 Micro Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,\n 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................3, 7\n\nThorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,\n 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3\n\nStatutes\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................1\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ........................................................................................................................1\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1), Plaintiffs\n\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) respectfully submit the\n\nfollowing response to Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cDefendant\u201d) Objections to the Claim\n\nConstruction Order of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 86; \u201cObjections\u201d), regarding\n\ncertain terms construed in the Court\u2019s Claim Construction Order and Memorandum in Support\n\nThereof (Dkt. 80; \u201cOrder\u201d).\n\nII. DISPUTED TERMS\n\n A. \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d (\u2019286 Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Proposed Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201creduction that proceeds by clearing the least This term appears only in the preamble and is not\n significant portions of an unreduced operand and limiting.\n leaving the remainder in the more significant\n portions\u201d\n\n The Court correctly held that the preamble is not limiting under the relevant legal\n\nframework. Dkt. 80 at 15-16 (analyzing the Catalina1 guideposts); see Dkt. 53 at 3-7; Dkt. 65 at\n\n1-2. The Court held that Defendant failed to show that any of the hallmarks of a limiting preamble\n\nwere present, i.e., that the preamble provides antecedent basis for a term in the claim\u2019s body, recites\n\n\u201cadditional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification,\u201d or was relied on\n\n\u201cduring prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.\u201d Dkt. 80 at 16 (quoting\n\nCatalina, 289 F.3d at 808). The Court\u2019s analysis was proper under the law. See Arctic Cat Inc. v.\n\nGEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1327-29 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (discussing and applying\n\nCatalina). Defendant ignores this part of the Order (as it did Plaintiffs\u2019 similar arguments) and\n\nrecycles old arguments the court has correctly rejected.\n\n\n\n1\n Catalina Mktg. Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n Defendant\u2019s claim that the Court erred by failing to \u201caddress or analyze the specification\n\nor prosecution history to determine what the inventors actually invented and intended to\n\nencompass by the claim\u201d is wrong. Dkt. 86 at 1-2. The Court considered Defendant\u2019s arguments\n\nunder Corning Glass2 and General Electric3 in light of the specification and prosecution history\n\nand rejected them. Dkt. 80 at 10-11 (citing \u2019286 Patent and \u2019286 Patent File History), 13-14, 16.\n\nThe Court agreed with Plaintiffs that the preamble is non-limiting because it \u201csimply states the\n\nintended use or purpose of the invention\u201d while \u201cthe claim body recites a structurally complete\n\ninvention.\u201d Id. at 16. The Court\u2019s analysis correctly applies the governing legal principles. Id. at\n\n16-17; see Dkt. 53 at 3-7; Dkt. 65 at 1-2.\n\n The Court also rightly rejected Defendant\u2019s argument that the preamble \u201cdescribes how the\n\nclaimed method must proceed.\u201d Dkt. 86 at 2. The Court correctly determined that \u201cthe claim body\n\nrecites all steps necessary to perform the claimed method; namely, \u2026 the steps of \u2018obtaining,\u2019\n\n\u2018computing,\u2019 and \u2018outputting,\u2019\u201d and that \u201c[t]he defendant does not identify any missing steps.\u201d\n\nDefendant still identifies no missing steps. See Dkt. 86 at 2. There is no error in the Court\u2019s\n\ndetermination that the body of the claim, not the preamble, recites how the method must proceed.\n\nSee Catalina, 289 F.3d at 808; Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1359 (2010).\n\n B. \u201cperform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand\u201d (\u2019286\n Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201cadd a modular equivalent of the operand\u2019s least Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n significant word to the more significant words of\n the operand such that the result can be shifted\n down to drop the least significant word\u201d\n\n Defendant\u2019s objections identify no errors in the Court\u2019s construction. First, Defendant does\n\n\n2\n Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989).\n3\n General Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\nnot dispute that it \u201cd[id] not expressly allege lexicography or disclaimer.\u201d Dkt. 86 at 3 (quoting\n\nDkt. 80 at 22). Nor does Defendant dispute that absent lexicography or disclaimer, this term must\n\nbe given its plain and ordinary meaning, which the Court did. See Dkt. 80 at 6, 22 (citing Thorner\n\nv. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Defendant seems to argue\n\nthat its proposed construction is the plain and ordinary meaning of this term (rather than\n\nlexicography), and, as such, the Court left a dispute about what the term\u2019s plain and ordinary\n\nmeaning is unresolved. Dkt. 86 at 3 (citing O2 Micro Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,\n\n521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Not so. After holding that lexicography and disclaimer\n\ndo not apply, the Court rejected Defendant\u2019s construction four different ways (i.e., because it (1)\n\nis improperly limited to an embodiment in the specification, (2) improperly rewrites claim\n\nlanguage, (3) violates the doctrine of claim differentiation, and (4) is unduly narrow). Dkt. 80 at\n\n22-24. The Court also made clear that the plain English meaning of the term applies and rejected\n\nDefendant\u2019s arguments to the contrary. Id. at 24.4 The Court left no material dispute unresolved.\n\n Second, there is no error in the Court\u2019s conclusion that Defendant\u2019s construction\n\nimproperly limits the claim to an embodiment. Defendant argues its construction is not limited to\n\nusing a \u201cshifted version of the reduction value,\u201d but ignores the Court\u2019s reasoning that Defendant\u2019s\n\nconstruction \u201climits the claim term to this embodiment because [it] requires adding \u2018a modular\n\nequivalent of the operand\u2019s least significant word[.]\u2019\u201d Dkt. 80 at 23; see also id. (\u201cThe defendant\u2019s\n\nproposed construction improperly rewrites the claim language to require adding a specific type of\n\nreduction value, i.e., adding a \u2018modular equivalent of the operand\u2019s least significant word.\u2019\u201d).\n\n\n\n4\n Defendant\u2019s assertion that Plaintiffs \u201cacknowledged\u201d that \u201creplacement\u201d\u2014the only disputed\nword in this term\u2014\u201cdid not have a known plain and ordinary meaning and accordingly proposed\na specific construction\u201d is false and misleading. Dkt. 86 at 3. Plaintiffs have consistently argued\nthat \u201creplacement\u201d has its plan and ordinary English meaning. Dkt. 53 at 8-9; Dkt. 65 at 3.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\nDefendant\u2019s expert admitted that the modular equivalence required by Defendant\u2019s construction\n\ncomes from the way the reduction value in that particular embodiment is computed, i.e., n' = 2-w\n\nmod n. See Dkt. 80 at 22; Dkt. 65 at 3-4 (citing Dkt. 53-5 at 56:5-57:12). As the Court also held,\n\nclaim 2 recites that type of reduction value (n' = 2-w mod n), making claim 1 broader. Dkt. 80 at\n\n23-24 (applying the doctrine of claim differentiation). Because claim 1 does not require the\n\nspecific type of reduction required by Defendant\u2019s construction, the Court correctly rejected\n\nDefendant\u2019s construction. Dkt. 80 at 23-24.5\n\n Third, it was not error for the Court to reject Defendant\u2019s rewriting of the claim. While\n\n\u201c[c]laims must be read in view of the specification,\u201d Dkt. 86 at 4 (quoting Markman v. Westview\n\nInstruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)), it is well-settled that \u201cit is improper to read\n\nlimitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification\u2014even if it is the only\n\nembodiment\u2014into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee\n\nintended the claims to be so limited,\u201d Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2004), which Defendant did not show. Dkt. 80 at 23-24.\n\n C. \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d (\u2019286 Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201cadd a multiple of the modulus to the operand \u201cadd a multiple of the modulus to the operand to\n such that the least significant word of the result is zero out the least significant word of the operand\u201d\n zero and the result can be shifted down to drop the\n least significant word\u201d\n\n MARA did not object to the Court\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Even if Defendant\u2019s construction is not limited to a \u201cshifted\u201d reduction value, the Court\u2019s\nconstruction is not erroneous. The modular equivalence required by Defendant\u2019s construction\nlimits the claim to embodiments using a reduction value of the type n'=2-w mod n (as explained\nabove), which is recited in claim 2 and not required by claim 1. The Court\u2019s reasoning still applies.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\n D. \u201cfinite field operation\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201coperation where each operand is a finite field \u201can operation in a finite field\u201d\n element\u201d\n\n The Court\u2019s construction is correct. Defendant does not dispute that \u201celliptic curve\n\noperations involve conducting finite field operations,\u201d and instead argues that this is irrelevant.\n\nDkt. 86 at 6. Defendant is wrong. As the Court held, the patents teach that \u201can elliptic curve point\n\nconsists of two finite field elements,\u201d and \u201c[t]o carry out calculations involving points on the\n\nelliptic curve, calculations are done in the underlying finite field[.]\u201d Dkt. 80 at 32 (quoting \u2019960\n\nPat. at 7:48-49, 1:47-49). The patents also teach that \u201c[e]ach elliptic curve operation \u2026 requires\n\ncertain finite field operations.\u201d Id. (quoting \u2019960 Pat. at 7:26-27). Contrary to this intrinsic\n\nevidence, Defendant\u2019s construction limits \u201cfinite field operations\u201d only to those operations where\n\n\u201ceach operand\u201d (a term not used in the patents) is single \u201cfinite field element,\u201d which excludes\n\noperations on elliptic curve points (which are not single finite field elements but rather a pair of\n\nthem). Dkt. 65 at 6-7. The Court\u2019s conclusion that Defendant\u2019s construction is \u201cincorrect\u201d for\n\n\u201cexclude[ing] operations on elliptic curve points\u201d and \u201climit[ing] the claim term to one finite field\n\nelement per operand\u201d is supported by the intrinsic record.\n\n E. \u201creduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Constructions Court\u2019s Construction\n No construction needed. Plain and ordinary Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n meaning.\n\n MARA did not object to the Court\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n F. \u201cunreduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Constructions Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201cresult without any reduction to a specific finite \u201cresult without any reduction to a specific finite\n field or wordsize reduction\u201d field or wordsize reduction\u201d\n\n MARA did not object to the Court\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\n G. \u201cthe electronic message omits a public key of a signer\u201d (\u2019370 patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201cthe electronic message does not include any Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n representation of the public key of the signer\u201d\n\n The Court\u2019s determination that Defendant \u201cdoes not identify any disclosure in the\n\nspecification for\u201d replacing \u201cpublic key\u201d with \u201cany representation of the public key\u201d is accurate.\n\nDefendant does not dispute that the specification does not discuss omitting anything other than the\n\npublic key itself, Dkt. 53 at 21; Dkt. 65 at 9, or that the phrase \u201cany representation of the public\n\nkey\u201d is nowhere in the intrinsic record. See Dkt. 80 at 39. The Court is also correct that\n\nDefendant\u2019s construction excludes embodiments in which, as taught by the specification, a\n\n\u201ccompact version\u201d of the public key Q is communicated instead of the public key Q. Dkt. 80 at\n\n43; \u2019370 Patent at 16:22\u201327. Defendant does not dispute this, arguing only that such embodiments\n\nare \u201cnot relevant to the claims.\u201d Dkt. 86 at 7. Defendant is wrong. Its construction would prohibit\n\nembodiments that include sending a \u201ccompact version\u201d of the public key, as taught by the patent.\n\nSee \u2019370 Patent at 16:22\u201327. The Court\u2019s determination that Defendant\u2019s construction would\n\n\u201cvitiate the claim language that requires receiving signature (r, s)\u201d is also correct. Dkt. 80 at 43-\n\n44. Defendant argued that a \u201crepresentation of the public key Q\u201d encompasses things that \u201ccan be\n\nused to compute the public key Q.\u201d Dkt. 52 at 26 (emphasis added). Defendant also acknowledged\n\nthat \u201cthe claimed recovery equation computes Q using the signature (r,s).\u201d Dkt. 59 at 11 (emphasis\n\nadded). As the Court concluded, under Defendant\u2019s interpretation, the \u201c[s]ignature (r,s) could be\n\nconsidered to be a representation of the public key\u201d and therefore \u201cwould have to be omitted,\u201d\n\neven though the claim requires it to be sent. Dkt. 80 at 43-44. The brokenness of Defendant\u2019s\n\nconstruction is no fault of the Court, and the Court was right to reject it.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\n H. \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Q represents the public key of\n the signer\u201d (\u2019827 patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n Q represents the second elliptic curve point Q\u201d\n\n Defendant identifies no error in the Court\u2019s construction. The Court held that there is no\n\nbasis in the law for rewriting claim 2 as Defendant proposes. Dkt. 86 at 56-47. The Court\u2019s\n\ncitation to C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is apropos.\n\nDefendant\u2019s construction replaces \u201cthe public key of the signer\u201d in claim 2 with \u201cthe second elliptic\n\ncurve point Q\u201d of claim 1 because, in Defendant\u2019s view, they are the same thing. Dkt. 86 at 8;\n\nDkt. 59 at 12. Without endorsing it, the Court found that \u201ceven if\u201d Defendant\u2019s interpretation was\n\ncorrect, it would be unnecessary to replace the words of claim 2 with different words that (in\n\nDefendant\u2019s view) mean the same thing\u2014i.e., to perform the very type of \u201crephrasing\u201d or\n\n\u201cparaphrasing\u201d that C.R. Bard held \u201cdoes not represent genuine claim construction\u201d Dkt. 80 at 47.\n\n Defendant\u2019s appeal to O2 Micro is misplaced. The Court did not leave a dispute about the\n\nplain and ordinary meaning of this term undecided. Defendant asserts that \u201c[its] construction\n\nreflects its understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 2 as written,\u201d but the Court\n\nrejected Defendant\u2019s interpretation. Dkt. 80. Instead, the Court found that the term should be\n\nconstrued according to its plain and ordinary meaning as written\u2014not as rewritten by Defendant.\n\nId. Claim 2 as written is consistent with claim 1, which requires both (i) \u201cthe public key of the\n\nsigner comprises a second elliptic curve point Q\u201d and, separately, (ii) \u201cgenerating the public key\n\nof the signer comprises computing Q=r\u22121 (sR\u2212eG).\u201d Dkt. 65 at 11 (quoting \u2019827 patent, claim 1).\n\nClaim 2 then claims verifying that (i) represents (ii). Id. Defendant\u2019s interpretation reads out this\n\nrequirement.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\n I. \u201crandom number generator\u201d (\u2019961 patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Court\u2019s Construction\n \u201ca system or algorithm that generates a \u201ca system or algorithm that generates values\n random value\u201d according to a uniform random probability\n distribution\u201d\n\n The Court\u2019s construction is correct. Defendant\u2019s assertion that the Court improperly\n\nweighed the intrinsic evidence is wrong. The Court held that its construction is supported by the\n\nspecification\u2019s description of a \u201crandom number generator,\u201d finding that description to be \u201centirely\n\nconsistent with the outputs of both true RNGs and PRNGs.\u201d Dkt. 80 at 54. Defendant does not\n\nobject to this finding. Instead, Defendant argues that the Order did not \u201cgive proper weight\u201d to\n\nlanguage in dependent claim 7, which Defendant characterizes as \u201cclearly distinguish[ing]\n\nbetween \u2018random number generators\u2019 and \u2018deterministic functions\u2019 (i.e., pseudorandom number\n\ngenerators).\u201d Dkt. 86 at 9. The Court considered claim 7 but disagreed with Defendant\u2019s\n\ninterpretation of its effect on claim 1. The Court held that because \u201cdeterministic\u201d in claim 7\n\nmodifies \u201cfunction\u201d rather than \u201crandom number generator,\u201d and because claim 1 does not limit\n\n\u201crandom number generator to true or deterministic RNGs, \u201cclaim 1 covers both true RNGs and\n\nPRNGs.\u201d Dkt. 80. There is no error in the Court\u2019s reasoning.\n\n Because the intrinsic record supports the Court\u2019s construction, Defendant\u2019s objections to\n\nextrinsic evidence are moot. But they are also incorrect. Defendant does not object to the Court\u2019s\n\nreliance on (or the correctness of) the Handbook of Applied Cryptography\u2019s statement that\n\n\u201crandom numbers\u201d include \u201cpseudorandom numbers which are unpredictable to an adversary,\u201d\n\nwhich strongly supports the Court\u2019s conclusion. Dkt. 86 at 9. Nor does Defendant object to the\n\nCourt\u2019s conclusion that \u201cPRNGs can have unpredictable outputs.\u201d Dkt. 80 at 57 (citing Handbook\n\nof Applied Cryptography); see also id. (citing both parties\u2019 experts for the proposition that \u201cthe\n\noutputs of PRNGs can appear to be random or unpredictable\u201d). Instead, Defendant\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\nmischaracterizes the Court\u2019s conclusion to raise an irrelevant point about \u201ctruly random seeds\u201d\u2014\n\nDefendant\u2019s proposed construction says nothing about seeds. Thus, the Court committed no error.\n\n Nor was the Court\u2019s reliance on Defendant\u2019s expert\u2019s textbook erroneous. The extrinsic\n\nevidence Defendant objects to is consistent with the intrinsic record, making Defendant\u2019s objection\n\nirrelevant.\n\n J. \u201cseed\u201d (\u2019961 patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n \u201ca random value that is used as the starting \u201ca value obtained from a random number\n value for a cryptographic key generation generator that is used to as the starting value\n function\u201d for a cryptographic key generation function\u201d\n\n Defendant raises no independent objections to the Court\u2019s construction of \u201cseed,\u201d arguing\n\nonly that it should be modified for the same reasons Defendant gave for \u201crandom number\n\ngenerator.\u201d Dkt. 86 at 10. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above with respect to \u201crandom\n\nnumber generator,\u201d the Court\u2019s construction of \u201cseed\u201d is also correct.\n\n K. \u201cThe method of claim 1 wherein if said output is rejected, said output is\n incremented by a deterministic function and a hash function is performed on\n said incremented output to produce a new output; a determination being\n made as to whether said new output is acceptable as a key.\u201d (\u2019961 patent)\n\n Defendant\u2019s Construction Plaintiffs\u2019 Construction\n Indefinite Not indefinite.\n\n The Court correctly held that claim 7 is not indefinite.6 Defendant\u2019s assertion that there is\n\nno intrinsic record support for the Court\u2019s conclusion is wrong. In particular, the Court analyzed\n\nthe claim language itself and the specification (e.g., Fig. 3), both of which support the Court\u2019s\n\nconclusion of no indefiniteness. Dkt. 80 at 67-68. The Court also cited Plaintiffs\u2019 discussion of\n\n\n6\n Defendant\u2019s assertion that Plaintiffs \u201cdid not dispute \u2026 that claim 7 is indefinite if the claim\nrequires \u2018repeating said method\u2019 of claim 1 and performing the additional steps of claim 7\u201d (a) is\nnot an objection, and thus is improper, and (b) is wrong. As the Court held, claim 7 adds further\nlimitations to steps [a] to [c] of claim 1 when they are repeated. Dkt. 80 at 67-68.\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\nintrinsic evidence, which further supports the Court\u2019s finding. Dkt. 80 at 67 (citing Dkt. 53 at 33\n\n(discussing \u2019961 Pat., 4:50-52, 4:18-31, Fig. 3)).\n\n Defendant\u2019s objection that \u201cthe Order does not cite any evidence \u2026 to support its\n\ndetermination that a \u2018deterministic function\u2019 is a particular type of RNG,\u201d Dkt. 86 at 11, ignores\n\nthe evidence that the Court considered and summarized in the Order, which supports the Court\u2019s\n\nconclusion. See Dkt. 80 at 66-67. Such evidence demonstrates that a deterministic function is a\n\ntype of RNG, namely a PRNG, and is fully consistent with the intrinsic record. Id. (citing Dkt. 65\n\nat 16 (in turn citing Dkt. 59-3 at 125:25-127:22)); see \u00a7 II.I. (\u201crandom number generator\u201d), supra.\n\n Defendant also argues that the Court\u2019s analyses regarding claim 7 and the \u201crandom number\n\ngenerator\u201d term are inconsistent. Not true. The Court correctly found that the \u201crandom number\n\ngenerators\u201d include two types of RNGs \u2013 true RNG and pseudo RNG (or PRNG). Dkt. 80 at 54-\n\n55 (\u201c\u2018deterministic RNGs,\u2019 i.e., PRNGs, are a class of RNG\u201d). The Court also correctly found that\n\nPRNGs use \u201cdeterministic functions\u201d to generate pseudo random numbers. Id. Thus, the Court\u2019s\n\nstatement that the term \u201cdeterministic\u201d in Claim 7 describes a type of \u201cfunction\u201d (i.e.,\n\n\u201cdeterministic function\u201d) and not \u201ca type of \u2018random number generator,\u2019\u201d is fully consistent with\n\nits finding that \u201cClaim 7 requires using a particular RNG (\u2018deterministic function\u2019) to generate a\n\nnew seed value\u2026.\u201d\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Court should overrule Defendant\u2019s objections.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\nDated: April 8, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Philip J. Eklem\n Philip J. Eklem\n REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n 1909 K Street NW, Suite 800\n Washington DC, 20006\n Tel: (202) 894-7310\n peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Khue V. Hoang\n Patrick Colsher\n REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n 650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\n New York, NY 10019\n Tel: (212) 381-1965\n khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\n pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Matthew G. Berkowitz\n Michael M. Polka\n Michael Caulkins\n REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n Tel: (650) 623-1401\n mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mpolka@reichmanjorgensen.com\n mcaulkins@reichmanjorgensen.com\n\n Of Counsel:\n\n Mark D. Siegmund, TX Bar No. 24117055\n Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Facsimile: (866) 627-3509\n Email: msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n Malikie Innovations, Ltd. and\n Key Patent Innovations, Ltd.\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 87 Filed 04/08/26 Page 15 of 15\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 April 8, 2026.\n\n /s/ Mark D. Siegmund\n Mark D. Siegmund\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-04-09T05:37:16.478160-07:00","document_number":"87","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036267068","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-08T15:02:38.949924-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-08T15:02:38.957444-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-08","time_filed":"16:51:48","entry_number":87,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":266,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458731664/","id":458731664,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473741720/","id":473741720,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/86/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-03-26T16:04:00.151923-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-28T03:11:06.178784-07:00","sha1":"190527910cb1138d7a33cef2a7c01a7d13a2fc04","page_count":17,"file_size":232528,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.86.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.86.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and\nKey Patent Innovations Ltd.,\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v.\n Case No. 7:25-cv-00222\nMARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital\nHoldings, Inc.)\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANT\u2019S OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER\n OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\nI. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1\nII. DISPUTED TERMS ................................................................................................................. 1\n A. \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d (\u2019286 Patent) ............................................................... 1\n B. \u201cperform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand\u201d (\u2019286 Patent) ...... 2\n C. \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d (\u2019286 Patent) ............................................................. 5\n D. \u201cfinite field operation\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) ...................................................... 5\n E. \u201creduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) .................................................................. 6\n F. \u201cunreduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent) .............................................................. 6\n G. \u201cthe electronic message omits a public key of a signer\u201d (\u2019370 Patent) ....................... 6\n H. \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Q represents the public key of the\n signer\u201d (\u2019827 Patent) ..................................................................................................... 7\n I. \u201crandom number generator\u201d (\u2019961 Patent) ................................................................... 9\n J. \u201cseed\u201d (\u2019961 Patent) .................................................................................................... 10\n K. \u201cThe method of claim 1 wherein if said output is rejected, said output is incremented\n by a deterministic function and a hash function is performed on said incremented\n output to produce a new output; a determination being made as to whether said new\n output is acceptable as a key.\u201d .................................................................................... 10\nIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 12\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nBASF Agro B.V. v. Makhteshim Agan of N. Am., Inc.,\n 519 Fed. Appx. 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 11\n\nBrookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,\n 334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................ 10\n\nCorning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,\n 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .............................................................................................................. 1\n\nC.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,\n 388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................ 8\n\nGeneral Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,\n 179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................................. 1\n\nMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,\n 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................................. 4\n\nMonsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,\n 503 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................................ 10\n\nO2 Micro Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,\n 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................... 3, 8\n\nStatutes\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112(4) ...................................................................................................................................... 11\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ..................................................................................................................................... 1\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. (\u201cMARA\u201d) respectfully\n\nsubmits these objections to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s March 12, 2026 Claim Construction Order and\n\nMemorandum of Support Thereof (Dkt. No. 80, the \u201cOrder\u201d) regarding the disputed terms of\n\nUnited States Patent Nos. 7,372,960, 7,372,961, 8,532,286, 8,666,062, 8,788,827, and 10,284,370.\n\nII. DISPUTED TERMS\n\n A. \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d (\u2019286 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n This term is limiting and means \u201creduction that This term appears only in the preamble and is not\n proceeds by clearing the least significant portions limiting.\n of an unreduced operand and leaving the\n remainder in the more significant portions\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nis incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term is not\n\nlimiting. See Dkt. No. 52 at 10-11; Dkt. No. 59 at 1-3.\n\n The Order determined that \u201cMontgomery-style reduction\u201d is not limiting because the\n\npreamble \u201cis [not] essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body,\u201d and only \u201cstates\n\nthe intended use or purpose of the invention.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 15-16. However, whether the\n\npreamble is not limiting because it only states an intended use or purpose \u201ccan be resolved only\n\non review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually\n\ninvented and intended to encompass by the claim.\u201d Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec.\n\nU.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also General Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co.,\n\nLtd., 179 F.3d 1350, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Corning, 868 F.2d at 1257). Here, the\n\nspecification and prosecution history clearly and repeatedly assert that the purported invention is\n\ndirected to a particular improvement to Montgomery-style reduction, not a general improvement\n\nto any type of reduction. Dkt. No. 52 at 10-11. Notably, the Order did not address or analyze the\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\n\nspecification or prosecution history to determine what the inventors actually invented and intended\n\nto encompass by the claim, as required by Federal Circuit law. Dkt. No. 80 at 16. For this reason\n\nalone, the Order should be modified and MARA\u2019s construction that this term is limiting should be\n\nadopted.\n\n The Order further determined that \u201cthe claim body recites a structurally complete\n\ninvention\u201d and \u201c[t]here is nothing in the preamble that helps a POSITA understand the steps in the\n\nbody of the claim.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 16-17. However, \u201cMontgomery style reduction\u201d describes how\n\nthe claimed method must proceed\u2014by reducing from below instead of reducing from above. Dkt.\n\nNo. 59 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 53 at 7 (admitting that the specification describes Montgomery\n\nreduction as \u201creduc[ing] from below.\u201d). Under the construction adopted by the Order, the claim\n\nbody does not reflect what was purportedly invented, 1 which as Plaintiffs concede, is \u201can\n\n\u2018alternative way\u2019 or \u2018modification\u2019 of conventional Montgomery-style reduction.\u201d Dkt. No. 53 at\n\n6.\n\n B. \u201cperform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand\u201d (\u2019286\n Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201cadd a modular equivalent of the operand\u2019s least Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n significant word to the more significant words of\n the operand such that the result can be shifted\n down to drop the least significant word\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term should\n\nbe accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. See Dkt. No. 52 at 11-14; Dkt. No. 59 at 3-6.\n\n\n\n1\n Because the Order also does not adopt MARA\u2019s proposed construction for \u201cperform a\nreplacement of a least significant word of the operand,\u201d none of the claim limitations as construed\nreflect what was purportedly invented (i.e., a Montgomery-style reduction), which \u201creduces from\nbelow.\u201d\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\n The Order held that the presumption that this term should be accorded its plain and ordinary\n\nmeaning should apply for several reasons. First, the Order found that \u201cthe defendant does not\n\nexpressly allege lexicography or disclaimer.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 22; see also id. at 24 (\u201c[T]he\n\ndefendant has not shown that the patentee used [\u201creplacement\u201d] in a manner that is inconsistent\n\nwith [the plain] meaning.\u201d). However, MARA demonstrated that the term \u201creplacement\u201d was not\n\npreviously used in the art and instead was a term the inventors used to characterize their method\n\nof Montgomery-style reduction. Dkt. No. 52 at 12 (citing Dkt. No. 52-A \u00b6\u00b6 51-54). In other\n\nwords, the term \u201creplacement\u201d in the context of the \u2019286 Patent claims did not have a known plain\n\nand ordinary meaning and thus requires construction. Indeed, Plaintiffs likewise acknowledged\n\nthat the term did not have a known plain and ordinary meaning and accordingly proposed a specific\n\nconstruction.2 See Dkt. 53 at 8. The Order\u2019s \u201cplain-and-ordinary meaning\u201d determination fails to\n\nresolve a material dispute between the parties concerning the meaning of the term \u201creplacement.\u201d\n\nO2 Micro Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (\u201cWhen\n\nthe parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the\n\njury, must resolve that dispute.\u201d).\n\n Second, the Order found that \u201cdefendant\u2019s proposed construction improperly limits the\n\nclaim term to an embodiment\u201d described in the specification, \u201cwhere the modular equivalent of a0\n\n(i.e., a0\u00d7n\u2019\u00d72w) is added to the remaining words.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 23. This is incorrect. As\n\nexplained in MARA\u2019s reply brief, both experts agree that MARA\u2019s proposed construction does\n\nnot limit the claim scope to a particular embodiment and instead covers multiple alternative ways\n\nof performing a Montgomery-style reduction replacement that are described in the specification.\n\n\n\n2\n Similarly, while the term \u201ccancellation\u201d has a known meaning in general, the parties agreed\nthat \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d has a more specific meaning in the context of the \u2019286\nPatent, as reflected in the Order. See Dkt. No. 80 at 69.\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\nDkt. No. 59 at 5; see Dkt. No. 59-A \u00b6\u00b6 6-17 (explaining the alternative methods). Specifically,\n\nMalikie\u2019s expert opined in his declaration that the embodiment in the specification describes using\n\na shifted version of the reduction value. Dkt. No. 53-1 at \u00b6 73; see also Dkt. No. 59-B at 49:6-10\n\n(confirming the same). Then, during deposition, Malikie\u2019s expert conceded that MARA\u2019s\n\nconstruction is not \u201climited to using shifted reduction value.\u201d Dkt. No. 59-B at 49:21-50:1; see\n\nalso id. at 52:25-53:7 (\u201cMARA's construction says modular equivalent, and that includes the\n\nshifted reduction value. It might also include other things.\u201d).\n\n Relatedly, the Order found that because Claim 2 \u201cexpressly recites that the reduction value\n\nmay be a shifted version of n\u2019\u201d and \u201cClaim 1 is broader than dependent Claim 2,\u201d \u201cClaim 1 is not\n\nlimited to using a shifted version of the reduction value, as required by the defendant\u2019s proposed\n\nconstruction.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 22-23. However, MARA\u2019s proposed construction does not limit\n\nClaim 1 to using a shifted version of the reduction value. Dkt. No. 59 at 5 (citing Dkt. No. 59-A\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 6-11). MARA\u2019s expert explained, and Plaintiffs\u2019 expert did not dispute, that reduction values\n\nother than the shifted or signed versions of n\u2019 may be used and fall within the scope of MARA\u2019s\n\nproposed construction. Dkt. No. 59-A \u00b6\u00b6 8-9.\n\n Third, the Order found that \u201cthe defendant\u2019s construction improperly rewrites the claim\n\nlanguage\u201d because \u201cClaim 1 only requires any reduction value as opposed to a particular reduction\n\nvalue.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 23; see also id. at 24 (determining that MARA\u2019s proposed construction\n\n\u201cimproperly proposes a specific way of \u2018performing a replacement of a least significant word.\u2019\u201d).\n\nHowever, \u201c[c]laims must be read in view of the specification.\u201d Markman v. Westview Instruments,\n\nInc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the specification is clear that performing a\n\n\u201creplacement\u201d in the context of the claims requires replacing the LSW with its modular equivalent.\n\nSee also Dkt. No. 59 at 3-5 (explaining that replacing the LSW with a value that is not its modular\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\nequivalent \u201cwould not result in reduction\u201d). Accordingly, MARA\u2019s construction does not\n\nimproperly limit the claims as the Order determined, but instead reflects the fact that the \u2019286\n\nPatent is directed to a specific way of performing a Montgomery-style reduction, which Plaintiffs\n\nadmit the claims are directed to. Dkt. No. 53 at 6 (\u201c[T]he claimed method is an \u2018alternative way\u2019\n\nor \u2018modification\u2019 of conventional Montgomery-style reduction\u201d).\n\n C. \u201cperform a cancellation thereof\u201d (\u2019286 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201cadd a multiple of the modulus to the operand \u201cadd a multiple of the modulus to the operand to\n such that the least significant word of the result is zero out the least significant word of the operand\u201d\n zero and the result can be shifted down to drop\n the least significant word\u201d\n\n MARA does not object to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n D. \u201cfinite field operation\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201coperation where each operand is a finite field \u201can operation in a finite field\u201d\n element\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s construction that this term should be\n\nconstrued to mean \u201can operation in a finite field.\u201d See Dkt. No. 52 at 16-18; Dkt. No. 59 at 7-8.\n\n The Parties\u2019 dispute is clear: Plaintiffs argue that a \u201cfinite field operation\u201d includes elliptic\n\ncurve operations, which are operations on elliptic curve points. In contrast, MARA contends that\n\n\u201cfinite field operations\u201d are operations on finite field elements. MARA\u2019s construction is consistent\n\nwith the intended purpose set forth in the preambles of the asserted claims (claim 1 of the \u2018062\n\nPatent; claim 3 of the \u2019960 Patent), which state that the claimed method is \u201cperforming a finite\n\nfield operation on elements of a finite field.\u201d MARA\u2019s construction is also supported by the\n\nspecifications of the \u2018062 and \u2018960 Patents, which make clear that \u201cfinite field operations\u201d are\n\ndistinct from \u201celliptic curve operations.\u201d See e.g., \u2019062 Patent at Fig. 4, 6:54-56 (\u201cThe protocols\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\n210 are configured to treat the elliptic curve operations and finite field operations abstractly\u201d);\n\nsee also Dkt. No. 59 at 7-8.\n\n The Order nonetheless determined that the claimed \u201cfinite field operation\u201d does not\n\n\u201cexclude[] operations on elliptic curve points\u201d because \u201celliptic curve operations involve\n\nconducting finite field operations.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 32. That an elliptic curve operation can involve\n\nconducting a finite field operation does not mean that the opposite is true (i.e., that finite field\n\noperations include elliptic curve operations). See Dkt. No. 53-A at \u00b6\u00b6 67-69. Accordingly, the\n\nOrder\u2019s finding that \u201celliptic curve operations involve conducting finite field operations\u201d is not\n\nrelevant to the meaning of \u201cfinite field operations\u201d and does not support the recommended\n\nconstruction.\n\n E. \u201creduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n No construction needed. Plain and ordinary Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n meaning\n\n MARA does not object to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n F. \u201cunreduced result\u201d (\u2019062 Patent; \u2019960 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201cresult without any reduction to a specific finite \u201cresult without any reduction to a specific finite\n field or wordsize reduction\u201d field or wordsize reduction\u201d\n\n MARA does not object to the Magistrate Judge\u2019s construction of this term.\n\n G. \u201cthe electronic message omits a public key of a signer\u201d (\u2019370 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201cthe electronic message does not include any Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n representation of the public key of the signer\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term should\n\nbe accorded its plain-and-ordinary meaning. See Dkt. No. 52 at 25-26; Dkt. No. 59 at 10-11.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\n The Order contains several erroneous determinations that warrant adopting MARA\u2019s\n\nproposed construction. First, the Order determined that MARA \u201cdoes not identify any disclosure\n\nin the specification\u201d for its interpretation. Dkt. No. 80 at 43. But MARA explained that \u201cthe\n\nspecification confirms that the purpose of the specific equation is to be able to recover the public\n\nkey Q from only the signature\u201d such that including a representation of the public key would be\n\ninconsistent with the purpose of the claimed method. Dkt. No. 52 at 25. Second, the Order\n\ndetermined that \u201cthe specification expressly describes that a \u2018compact version\u2019 of public key Q\n\ncould be communicated instead of public key Q. \u2019370 Patent at 16:22\u201327. [And] because \u2018compact\n\nversion\u2019 of public key Q is a representation of public key Q, the defendant\u2019s proposed construction\n\nimproperly excludes this embodiment.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 43. As previously explained, however,\n\nthe cited embodiment is not relevant to the claims, which are directed to recovering the public key\n\nQ using a specific recovery equation, not recovering Q from a compact version of Q sent with the\n\nmessage. Dkt. No. 59 at 14. Third, the Order determined that \u201cunder the defendant\u2019s proposed\n\nconstruction, signature (r, s) would have to be omitted as it is a representation of a public key,\n\nwhich would vitiate the claim language that requires receiving signature (r, s),\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 44.\n\nThis is incorrect. As set forth in MARA\u2019s briefing, the claim language explicitly states that the\n\nsignature (r,s) is sent with the message and therefore cannot be omitted. As such, the signature\n\n(r,s) is clearly not a representation of the public key Q. Dkt. No. 59 at 14.\n\n H. \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Q represents the public key of\n the signer\u201d (\u2019827 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201cverifying that the second elliptic curve point Q Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n represents the second elliptic curve point Q\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term should\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\nbe accorded its plain-and-ordinary meaning. See Dkt. No. 52 at 26-27; Dkt. No. 59 at 12.\n\n MARA\u2019s proposed construction accurately reflects the plain and ordinary meaning of claim\n\n2 because the antecedent basis for \u201cthe public key of the signer\u201d in claim 2 is \u201cthe second elliptic\n\ncurve point Q.\u201d Dkt. No. 52 at 26-27. The Order, relying on C.R. Bard., nonetheless determined\n\nthat \u201ceven if the defendant\u2019s proposed construction accurately reflects the meaning of this claim\n\nterm, it is unnecessary to \u2018import\u2019 language from Claim 1 into Claim 2.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 47 (citing\n\nC.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). But C.R. Bard is\n\ninapposite. There, the court \u201cquestion[ed] the need to consult a dictionary to determine the\n\nmeaning of such well-known terms.\u201d 388 F.3d at 863 (emphasis added). MARA is not consulting\n\na dictionary to determine the meaning of well-known terms, but instead proposed a construction\n\nthat reflects the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 2 in the context of claim 1 from which it\n\ndepends.\n\n The Order\u2019s \u201cplain-and-ordinary meaning\u201d determination also fails to resolve a material\n\ndispute between the parties concerning what is required to perform the \u201cverifying\u201d step of claim\n\n2. O2 Micro Int\u2019l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)\n\n(\u201cWhen the parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court,\n\nnot the jury, must resolve that dispute.\u201d). As noted above, MARA\u2019s construction reflects its\n\nunderstanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 2 as written. In contrast, Plaintiffs\n\nasserted in their claim construction briefing that the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 2 requires\n\n\u201cverifying that the computed Q represents the assigned value of the public key Q.\u201d Dkt. 65 at 11.\n\nAs such, adopting the Order\u2019s plain and ordinary meaning construction fails to provide\n\nclarification on the plain and ordinary definition.3\n\n\n3\n There is no support in the plain language of the claims or the specification for Plaintiffs\u2019\ninterpretation of the plain and ordinary meaning.\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\n I. \u201crandom number generator\u201d (\u2019961 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201ca system or algorithm that generates a random \u201ca system or algorithm that generates values\n value\u201d according to a uniform random probability\n distribution\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s construction that this term should be\n\nconstrued to mean \u201ca system or algorithm that generates values according to a uniform random\n\nprobability distribution.\u201d See Dkt. No. 52 at 28-32; Dkt. No. 59 at 12-15.\n\n The Parties\u2019 dispute is clear: Plaintiffs argue that the term should include the generation of\n\npseudorandom numbers; whereas Defendant argues that the term, construed in the context of\n\ncryptography, refers to the generation of random, unpredictable numbers. See Dkt. No. 59 at 12.\n\nThe Order improperly concluded that the \u201cmeaning of \u2018random number generator\u2019 includes\n\npseudorandom number generators.\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 54. Notably, the Order failed to give proper\n\nweight to the intrinsic record, which clearly distinguishes between \u201crandom number generators\u201d\n\nand \u201cdeterministic functions\u201d (i.e., pseudorandom number generators). See e.g., Dkt. No. 52 at\n\n29-30.\n\n Instead, the Order gave undue weight and/or misinterpreted the extrinsic evidence. First,\n\nthe Order relied on the Handbook of Applied Cryptography\u2019s statement that \u201crandom numbers\u201d\n\ninclude \u201cpseudorandom numbers which are unpredictable to an adversary,\u201d but incorrectly\n\nconcluded that \u201cPRNGs can have unpredictable outputs\u201d even if they do not use truly random\n\nseeds. Dkt. No. 80 at 55, 57; see also Dkt. No. 59 at 12-15 (explaining that PRNGs output\n\npredictable values unless they use a truly random input seed). Second, the Order relied on portions\n\nof a textbook edited by MARA\u2019s expert that was published in 2009, which is eight years after the\n\nfiling of the application that became the \u2019961 Patent. Dkt. No. 80 at 55-56 (citing Dkt. No. 53. Ex.\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\n12). This was erroneous because evidence used for claim construction must be contemporaneous\n\nwith the time of invention. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1299\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2003) (refusing to consider dictionary and treatise evidence regarding ordinary meaning\n\nbecause the sources were not contemporaneous).\n\n J. \u201cseed\u201d (\u2019961 Patent)\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n \u201ca random value that is used as the starting value Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n for a cryptographic key generation function\u201d\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term should\n\nbe accorded its \u201cplain and ordinary meaning,\u201d \u201cinclude[ing] pseudorandom numbers.\u201d See Dkt.\n\nNo. 52 at 32-33; Dkt. No. 59 at 15-16.\n\n Like the dispute discussed above with respect to the term \u201crandom number generator,\u201d the\n\nParties\u2019 dispute whether the term \u201cseed\u201d includes pseudorandom numbers. Thus, the Order\u2019s\n\nconstruction of the term \u201cseed\u201d should be modified for substantially the same reasons discussed\n\nabove for \u201crandom number generator.\u201d\n\n K. \u201cThe method of claim 1 wherein if said output is rejected, said output is\n incremented by a deterministic function and a hash function is performed on\n said incremented output to produce a new output; a determination being made\n as to whether said new output is acceptable as a key.\u201d\n\n MARA\u2019s Proposed Construction Magistrate Judge\u2019s Recommendation\n Indefinite. Plain-and-ordinary meaning.\n\n For the reasons set forth in its prior briefing (including the evidence cited therein), which\n\nare incorporated by reference, MARA objects to the Order\u2019s determination that this term is not\n\nindefinite. See Dkt. No. 52 at 33-35; Dkt. No. 59 at 16-17.\n\n Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and therefore requires performing all the steps of claim 1\n\nin addition to the steps in claim 7. Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 503 F.3d 1352, 1359\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112(4). As MARA explained, a POSITA would not know\n\nwith reasonable certainty how to perform claim 1\u2019s limitation of \u201crepeating said method\u201d in\n\nconjunction with performing the additional method steps in claim 7 if output H(SV) is rejected.4\n\nSee Dkt. No. 52 at 34. The Order\u2019s conclusion that claim 7 was nevertheless not indefinite was\n\npremised solely on its determination that the \u201cdeterministic function\u201d recited in claim 7 is a\n\n\u201cparticular\u201d application of an \u201cRNG\u201d that narrows the scope of claim 1, as opposed to being an\n\nadditional step that must be performed. Dkt. No. 80 at 68. There is, however, no support in the\n\nintrinsic record to support the Order\u2019s conclusion in this regard. See Dkt. 52-8 at Fig. 3 (illustrating\n\n\u201cOutput RNG\u201d as distinct from \u201cIncrement\u201d using a deterministic function). Notably, the Order\n\ndoes not cite any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, to support its determination that a \u201cdeterministic\n\nfunction\u201d is a particular type of RNG.5 Dkt. No. 80 at 67-68.\n\n In addition to lacking support in the intrinsic record, the Order\u2019s determination that the\n\n\u201cdeterministic function\u201d in claim 7 is a particular application of an \u201cRNG\u201d in claim 1 is\n\ninconsistent with the basis for the Order\u2019s recommended construction of \u201crandom number\n\ngenerator.\u201d Specifically, in support of the \u201crandom number generator\u201d construction, the Order\n\ndetermined that \u201cClaim 7 does not use \u2018deterministic\u2019 to describe a type of \u2018random number\n\ngenerator,\u2019 but rather to describe another \u2018function.\u2019\u201d Dkt. No. 80 at 56 (emphasis added). Yet\n\nto support the determination that claim 7 is not indefinite, the Order asserted the exact opposite\u2014\n\n\n4\n Plaintiffs did not dispute in claim construction briefing that claim 7 is indefinite if the claim\nrequires \u201crepeating said method\u201d of claim 1 and performing the additional steps of claim 7, as\nMARA contends.\n5\n Plaintiffs likewise failed to identify intrinsic evidence to support its interpretation, and instead\nrelied on expert testimony. Dkt. 53 at 33; Dkt. 65 at 16-17. But expert testimony cannot support\na construction that is inconsistent with the intrinsic record. BASF Agro B.V. v. Makhteshim Agan\nof N. Am., Inc., 519 Fed. Appx. 1008, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (\u201cExtrinsic evidence cannot vary the\nterms of the claims or otherwise contradict the intrinsic record. Even testimony from a qualified\nexpert has little probative value if it is inconsistent with the intrinsic record.\u201d).\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\nthat a \u201cdeterministic function\u201d is a type of \u201crandom number generator.\u201d Id. at 68 (\u201cClaim 7\n\nrequires using a particular RNG (\u201cdeterministic function\u201d)\u2026.\u201d). To the extent the Order correctly\n\nconstrued the term \u201crandom number generator,\u201d the basis for its construction for claim 7 is\n\nincorrect and should be reversed. Accordingly, the recommended construction for claim 7 should\n\nbe modified and claim 7 should be held to be indefinite.\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n\n MARA respectfully requests that the court sustain its objections to the Order for the terms\n\naddressed in Sections II.A-B, II.D, and II.G-K above and adopt MARA\u2019s proposed constructions.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\nDated: March 26, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser\n Catherine Nyarady\n Tom Yu\n Thomas Macchio\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n 1285 Sixth Avenue\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000\n\n Christopher M. Pepe\n W. Sutton Ansley\n Eric C. Westerhold\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP\n 2001 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n Telephone: (202) 223-7300\n\n Steve Wingard\n State Bar No. 00788694\n swingard@scottdoug.com\n Robert P. Earle\n State Bar No. 241245566\n rearle@scottdoug.com\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672\n sburbank@scottdoug.com\n Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400\n Austin, TX 78701-3234\n Telephone: (512) 495-6300\n Facsimile: (512) 495-6399\n\n Counsel for Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 86 Filed 03/26/26 Page 17 of 17\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\nDEFENDANT\u2019S OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER\n\nOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on\n\nMarch 26, 2026.\n\n\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady 1\n Catherine Nyarady\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-03-27T06:09:00.556527-07:00","document_number":"86","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036180701","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Objection","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-26T16:04:00.111947-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-26T16:04:00.125866-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-26","time_filed":"17:33:05","entry_number":86,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":263,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458398063/","id":458398063,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473400558/","id":473400558,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/85/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-03-24T14:21:25.221462-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-26T02:39:15.167005-07:00","sha1":"76ab5d68ed939d68c121adff3817f6e781935355","page_count":35,"file_size":228277,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.85.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.85.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 35\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 CASE NO. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MARA HOLDINGS, INC. (F/K/A\n MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n DEFENDANT MARA\u2019S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT\n FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. (\u201cMARA\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d) files this Answer to Plaintiffs\n\nMalikie Innovations LTD., and Key Patent Innovations LTD. (collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d)\u2019 First\n\nAmended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the \u201cFirst Amended Complaint\u201d or \u201cFAC\u201d). Dkt.\n\nNo. 36. In addition, MARA hereby asserts counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-\n\ninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,788,827 (the \u201c\u2019827 Patent\u201d); 10,284,370 (the\n\n\u201c\u2019370 Patent\u201d); 8,666,062 (the \u2019062 Patent\u201d); 7,372,960 (the \u201c\u2019960 patent\u201d); 7,372,961 (the \u201c\u2019961\n\npatent\u201d); and 8,532,286 (the \u201c\u2019286 Patent\u201d) (collectively, the \u201cAsserted Patents\u201d).\n\n THE PARTIES\n\n 1. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 2. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 3. MARA admits that it is a Nevada corporation. MARA has a principle place of business\n\nlocated at 1010 S Federal Hwy., Suite 2700, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. MARA admits that\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 35\n\n\n\nit maintains facilities in Texas, including within this district, and in other states. MARA also\n\nadmits that it owns and operates the website located at www.mara.com.\n\n NATURE OF THE ACTION\n\n 4. MARA admits that Plaintiffs filed an action for alleged patent infringement against\n\nMARA pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code.\n\n 5. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 5, including that this case centers on\n\nground-breaking innovations in elliptic curve cryptography and any allegation that Bitcoin\n\nincorporates technology covered by the Asserted Patents or that MARA infringes any valid and\n\nenforceable claim of the Asserted Patents.\n\n 6. MARA denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages or injunctive relief. MARA\n\nis without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies them.\n\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 ALLEGED FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS\n\n 7. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 8. MARA admits that Bitcoin is one of the first and most well-known cryptocurrencies,\n\nand further admits that there are many other cryptocurrencies to date including Ethereum, Tether,\n\nand Solana. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 9. MARA denies that Bitcoin uses cryptographic technology covered by any of the\n\nAsserted Patents. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\ntruth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 10. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 35\n\n\n\n 11. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 12. MARA admits that a digital signature is a cryptographic tool for verifying the\n\nauthenticity of digital data and its integrity. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient\n\nto form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the FAC and,\n\ntherefore, denies them.\n\n 13. MARA admits that the acronym \u201cECC\u201d stands for elliptic curve cryptography. MARA\n\nis without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 13 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 14. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 15. MARA admits that Bitcoin uses the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm\n\n(\u201cECDSA\u201d) with parameters known as \u201csecp256k1.\u201d MARA further admits that secp256k1 is\n\ndefined in a Standards for Efficient Cryptography (SEC) specification titled \u201cSEC 2:\n\nRecommended Elliptic Curve Domain Parameters\u201d (Version 2.0, Jan. 2010). MARA further\n\nadmits that Dan Brown is listed as a co-inventor on the face of the \u2019827 Patent, the \u2019370 Patent,\n\nand the \u2019961 Patents. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as\n\nto the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 16. MARA admits that Plaintiffs contend that Certicom founded the SECG in 1998.\n\nMARA further admits that secg.org states that the purpose of SECG is \u201cto develop commercial\n\nstandards that facilitate the adoption of efficient cryptography and interoperability across a wide\n\nrange of computing platforms.\u201d MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a\n\nbelief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the FAC and, therefore, denies\n\nthem.\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 35\n\n\n\n 17. MARA admits that Plaintiffs contend that Certicom drove a standards effort for ECC.\n\nMARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the\n\nremaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 18. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 19. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 20. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 21. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 22. MARA admits that the reference implementation of the Bitcoin protocol is known as\n\n\u201cBitcoin Core.\u201d MARA further admits that Bitcoin Core includes code for using ECDSA with\n\nsecp256k1. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them\n\n 23. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.\n\n 24. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 25. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 26. MARA admits that the term \u201ccryptocurrency,\u201d or \u201ccrypto\u201d can refer to digital money.\n\nMARA further admits that Bitcoin uses \u201cblockchain\u201d technology. MARA is without knowledge\n\nor information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n26 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 5 of 35\n\n\n\n 27. MARA admits that cryptocurrencies can rely on concepts from cryptography and\n\ncomputer science. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to\n\nthe truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 28. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 29. MARA admits that a cryptocurrency transaction can generally involve several steps to\n\ntransfer crypto from the sender\u2019s digital wallet to the receiver\u2019s digital wallet, and can include the\n\ncreation of a digital signature to authorize the transaction. MARA is without knowledge or\n\ninformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29\n\nof the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 30. MARA admits that a cryptocurrency \u201cwallet\u201d can be software used to store\n\ncryptographic keys that enable interaction with a blockchain network and the execution of\n\ncryptocurrency transactions, or hardware, such as a USB drive wallet. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph\n\n30 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 31. MARA admits that private keys and public keys can be used in cryptocurrency\n\ntransactions and are used in asymmetric cryptography. MARA is without knowledge or\n\ninformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31\n\nof the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 32. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 33. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 34. MARA admits that Bitcoin utilizes \u201cblockchain\u201d technology, which is a distributed\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 6 of 35\n\n\n\ndatabase containing a ledger that records previous transactions. MARA is without knowledge or\n\ninformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34\n\nof the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 35. MARA admits that a blockchain network can include a number of distributed\n\ncomputers called \u201cnodes,\u201d and that valid transactions are collected into a \u201cblock\u201d with a unique\n\nhash value. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 36. MARA admits that each new block in the Bitcoin blockchain depends on the\n\ninformation from all previous blocks. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to\n\nform a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 of the FAC and, therefore,\n\ndenies them.\n\n 37. MARA admits that Bitcoin uses a \u201cproof of work\u201d consensus mechanism, in which\n\n\u201cminers\u201d race to solve a cryptographic math problem for determining a hash value associated with\n\na particular block of transactions. MARA further admits that the miner who solves the problem\n\nfor the new block is rewarded with compensation. MARA is without knowledge or information\n\nsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 37 of the FAC\n\nand, therefore, denies them.\n\n 38. MARA admits that it operates multiple mining facilities in the United States that utilize\n\nBitcoin miners. To the extent Paragraph 38 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits\n\nonly that such materials exist, but denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any\n\nallegation that MARA\u2019s activities are infringing or otherwise improper.\n\n 39. MARA admits that it operates bitcoin mining facilities in Texas. To the extent\n\nParagraph 39 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such materials exist,\n\nbut denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that MARA\u2019s activities\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 7 of 35\n\n\n\nare infringing or otherwise improper.\n\n 40. MARA admits that Paragraph 40 of the FAC quotes from MARA\u2019s 2025 10-K.\n\n 41. MARA admits that Paragraph 41 of the FAC quotes from MARA\u2019s 2025 10-K. To the\n\nextent Paragraph 41 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such\n\nmaterials exist, but denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that\n\nMARA\u2019s activities are infringing or otherwise improper.\n\n 42. MARA admits that it has engaged in bitcoin mining activities since 2018 and continues\n\nto do so. MARA admits that the excerpted quotes are from MARA\u2019s 2025 10-K. To the extent\n\nParagraph 42 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such materials exist,\n\nbut denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that MARA\u2019s activities\n\nare infringing or otherwise improper.\n\n 43. MARA denies that it generates and has generated digital signatures, including those\n\nconsistent with the Bitcoin protocol using ECDSA and secp256k1. To the extent Paragraph 43\n\nrelies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such materials exist, but denies\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that MARA\u2019s activities are\n\ninfringing or otherwise improper.\n\n 44. MARA admits that Paragraph 44 of the FAC quotes from MARA\u2019s 2025 10-K. To the\n\nextent Paragraph 44 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such\n\nmaterials exist, but denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that\n\nMARA\u2019s activities are infringing or otherwise improper. MARA denies that it regularly transfers\n\ndigital assets to or from other entities, including vendors, consultants, and service providers and\n\ndenies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 of the FAC.\n\n 45. MARA denies that it began engaging in the foregoing infringing activities years after\n\nCerticom and Blackberry invented and received patents covering the ECC technologies at issue in\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 8 of 35\n\n\n\nthis action. MARA denies that it has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted Patents.\n\nMARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the\n\nremaining allegations in Paragraph 45 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 46. MARA denies that the accused activities constitute important components of MARA\u2019s\n\ncore business, its \u201cmajor\u201d or \u201ccentral\u201d operations, and its general source of revenue. To the extent\n\nParagraph 46 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only that such materials exist,\n\nbut denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation that MARA\u2019s activities\n\nare infringing or otherwise improper.\n\n PATENTS IN SUIT\n\n 47. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 48. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 49. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n The \u201cAccelerated Verification Patents\u201d (\u2019827, \u2019370)\n\n 50. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 51. MARA admits that Exhibit 1 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019827 Patent. MARA admits that the cover page of the \u2019827 Patent, entitled\n\n\u201cAccelerated Verification of Digital Signatures and Public Keys,\u201d states that it was issued on July\n\n22, 2014 and also states that the application for the \u2019827 Patent was filed on September 14, 2012.\n\nMARA further admits that the \u2019827 Patent purports to claim the benefit of priority to the\n\nprovisional application filed on January 18, 2005. MARA is without knowledge or information\n\nsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 of the FAC\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 9 of 35\n\n\n\nand, therefore, denies them.\n\n 52. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 53. MARA admits that Exhibit 2 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019370 Patent. MARA admits that the cover page of the \u2019370 Patent, entitled\n\n\u201cAccelerated Verification of Digital Signatures and Public Keys,\u201d states that it was issued on May\n\n7, 2019 and also states that the application for the \u2019370 Patent was filed on June 27, 2014 as a\n\ncontinuation of the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a\n\nbelief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53 of the FAC and, therefore, denies\n\nthem.\n\n 54. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 55. MARA admits that the \u2019827 Patent and \u2019370 Patent share the same title. MARA is\n\nwithout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 55 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 56. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 57. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 58. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 59. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 59 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 10 of 35\n\n\n\n 60. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 60 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 61. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 61 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 62. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 62 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 63. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 63 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 64. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 64 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 65. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 65 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 66. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019827 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 66 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 67. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 68. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 11 of 35\n\n\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n The \u201cFinite Field Engine Patents\u201d (\u2019960 and \u2019062)\n\n 69. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 70. MARA admits that Exhibit 3 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019960 Patent. MARA admits that the cover page of the \u2019960 Patent, entitled\n\n\u201cMethod and Apparatus for Performing Finite Field Calculations,\u201d states that it was issued on May\n\n13, 2008 and also states that the application for the \u2019960 Patent was filed on January 29, 2002.\n\nMARA further admits that the \u2019960 Patent purports to claim the benefit of priority to the\n\nprovisional applications filed on December 31, 2001. MARA is without knowledge or information\n\nsufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 70 of the FAC\n\nand, therefore, denies them.\n\n 71. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 72. MARA admits that Exhibit 4 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019062 Patent. MARA admits that the cover page of the \u2019062 Patent, entitled\n\n\u201cMethod and Apparatus for Performing Finite Field Calculations,\u201d states that it was issued on\n\nMarch 4, 2014 and also states that the application for the \u2019062 Patent was filed on April 11, 2008\n\nas a continuation of the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to\n\nform a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 72 of the FAC and, therefore,\n\ndenies them.\n\n 73. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 74. MARA admits that the \u2019960 Patent and \u2019062 Patent share the same title. MARA is\n\nwithout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 12 of 35\n\n\n\nallegations in Paragraph 74 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 75. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 76. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 76 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 77. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 77 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 78. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 78 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 79. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 79 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 80. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 80 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 81. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 81 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 82. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 82 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 13 of 35\n\n\n\n 83. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 84. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 84 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 85. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019960 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 85 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n The \u201cEphemeral Key Generation\u201d Patent (\u2019961)\n\n 86. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 87. MARA admits that Exhibit 5 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019961 Patent. MARA admits that the cover page of the \u2019961 Patent, entitled\n\n\u201cMethod of Public Key Generation,\u201d states that it was issued on May 13, 2008 and also states that\n\nthe application for the \u2019961 Patent was filed on December 26, 2001. MARA is without knowledge\n\nor information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n87 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 88. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 89. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 90. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 90 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 91. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\n 13\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 14 of 35\n\n\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 91 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 92. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 92 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 93. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 93 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 94. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 94 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 95. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019961 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 95 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 96. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 96 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 97. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n The \u201cImproved Modular Reduction\u201d Patent (\u2019286)\n\n 98. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 99. MARA admits that Exhibit 6 to the FAC is what Plaintiffs purport to be a true and\n\ncorrect copy of the \u2019286 Patent. MARA admits that cover page of the \u2019286 Patent, entitled \u201cSystem\n\nand Method for Reducing the Computation and Storage Requirements for a Montgomery-Style\n\nReduction,\u201d states that it was issued on September 10, 2013 and also states that the application for\n\n 14\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 15 of 35\n\n\n\nthe \u2019286 Patent was filed on July 19, 2010. MARA further admits that the \u2019286 Patent purports to\n\nclaim the benefit of priority to the provisional applications filed on July 17, 2009. MARA is\n\nwithout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 99 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 100. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 101. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 102. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 102 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 103. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 103 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 104. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 104 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 105. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 105 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 106. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 106 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 107. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\n 15\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 16 of 35\n\n\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 107 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 108. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 108 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 109. MARA admits that the quoted language appears in the \u2019286 Patent. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 109 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 110. MARA denies that it received a letter from Malikie on or about March 28, 2025.\n\nMARA admits that it received a letter dated April 18, 2025 from Malikie, which identified the\n\nAsserted Patents and other patents. Plaintiffs then promptly brought suit on May 12, 2025, less\n\nthan a month after MARA received Malikie\u2019s letter, prior to any response from MARA. MARA\n\nis without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 110 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 111. MARA denies that it refused to respond to Malikie\u2019s attempt to engage in licensing\n\ndiscussions. MARA further denies that it has engaged in unauthorized use of Malikie\u2019s patents\n\nand denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any compensation or an injunction. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 111 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 112. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 113. MARA admits that this is a civil action arising under the patent laws of the United\n\nStates and that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Except as expressly admitted, MARA\n\ndenies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 113 of the FAC.\n\n 114. MARA admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it, but denies that MARA\n\n 16\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 17 of 35\n\n\n\nhas infringed Plaintiffs\u2019 patents or engaged in any improper conduct in the State of Texas giving\n\nrise to the claims asserted in this action. Except as expressly admitted, MARA denies any\n\nremaining allegations in Paragraph 114 of the FAC.\n\n 115. MARA admits that it operates a bitcoin mining facility in Texas, including McCamey,\n\nTexas, which is in this Judicial District. MARA further admits that it owns and/or operates bitcoin\n\nmining facilities in Garden City, Texas, Granbury, Texas, Hansford County, Texas, and Hearne,\n\nTexas. To the extent Paragraph 115 relies on publicly available documents, MARA admits only\n\nthat such materials exist, but denies Plaintiffs\u2019 characterization of those materials or any allegation\n\nthat MARA\u2019s activities are infringing or otherwise improper. MARA denies any remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 115 of the FAC.\n\n 116. MARA admits that it is a member of the Texas Blockchain Council. MARA is without\n\nknowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in\n\nParagraph 116 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 117. MARA denies that it has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted Patents.\n\nParagraph 117 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required./ To the extent a\n\nresponse is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 117 of the FAC.\n\n 118. MARA admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it. MARA denies any\n\nremaining allegations in Paragraph 118 of the FAC.\n\n 119. MARA admits that venue is proper in this District. MARA denies any remaining\n\nallegations in Paragraph 119 of the FAC.\n\n 120. MARA admits that it owns and operates bitcoin mining facilities in McCamey, Texas\n\nand Hearne, Texas. MARA denies that it has infringed and continues to infringe the Asserted\n\nPatents. The remainder of Paragraph 120 contains conclusions of law to which no response is\n\nrequired. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the remaining allegations\n\n 17\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 18 of 35\n\n\n\nin Paragraph 120 of the FAC.\n\n CLAIMS FOR INFRINGEMENT\n\n FIRST CLAIM\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019827 Patent)\n\n 121. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 122. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 122 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 123. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 123 of the FAC.\n\n 124. Paragraph 124 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 124 of the FAC,\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 7 to the FAC.\n\n 125. Paragraph 125 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 125 of the FAC.\n\n\n SECOND CLAIM\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019370 Patent)\n\n 126. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 127. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 127 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 128. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 128 of the FAC.\n\n 129. Paragraph 129 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 129 of the FAC,\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 8 to the FAC.\n\n 130. Paragraph 130 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 130 of the FAC.\n\n THIRD CLAIM\n\n 18\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 19 of 35\n\n\n\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019960 Patent)\n\n 131. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 132. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 132 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 133. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 133 of the FAC.\n\n 134. Paragraph 134 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 134 of the FAC,\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 9 to the FAC.\n\n FOURTH CLAIM\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019062 Patent)\n\n 135. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 136. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 136 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 137. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 137 of the FAC.\n\n 138. Paragraph 138 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 138 of the FAC,\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 10 to the FAC.\n\n FIFTH CLAIM\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019961 Patent)\n\n 139. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 140. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 140 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 141. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 141 of the FAC.\n\n 142. Paragraph 142 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 142 of the FAC,\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 20 of 35\n\n\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 11 to the FAC.\n\n SIXTH CLAIM\n (Alleged Infringement of the \u2019286 Patent)\n\n 143. MARA incorporates its responses from the preceding paragraphs herein.\n\n 144. MARA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth\n\nof the allegations in Paragraph 144 of the FAC and, therefore, denies them.\n\n 145. MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 145 of the FAC.\n\n 146. Paragraph 146 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 146 of the FAC,\n\nincluding any allegations contained in Exhibit 12 to the FAC.\n\n 147. Paragraph 147 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the\n\nextent a response is deemed necessary, MARA denies the allegations in Paragraph 147 of the FAC.\n\n ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n 148. MARA denies that it has infringed or will continue to infringe any of the Asserted\n\nPatents. MARA further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever, including\n\ndamages, enhanced damages, attorneys\u2019 fees, costs, or injunctive relief. MARA further denies that\n\nPlaintiffs are entitled to any other or further relief, including under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285. MARA denies\n\nany remaining allegations in Plaintiffs\u2019 Prayer for Relief and further denies that Plaintiffs are\n\nentitled to any relief.\n\n ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n\n Defendant is not required to provide a response to Plaintiffs\u2019 demand for a jury trial.\n\n GENERAL DENIAL\n\n Except as expressly admitted herein, MARA denies each and every allegation contained in\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 First Amended Complaint.\n\n AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n\n 20\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 21 of 35\n\n\n\n 149. Without assuming any burden other than those imposed by operation of law, and\n\nwithout admitting that it bears the burden of proof with respect to any of the following, MARA\n\nalleges as follows based on facts presently known to it, while reserving the right to add additional\n\ndefenses based on facts learned during discovery or otherwise.\n\n FIRST DEFENSE\n (Failure to State a Claim)\n\n 150. The FAC fails to state a claim against MARA upon which relief can be granted.\n\n SECOND DEFENSE\n (Non-Infringement)\n\n 151. MARA has not infringed, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement,\n\nincluding the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents,\n\nincluding the \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents.\n\n THIRD DEFENSE\n (Invalidity)\n\n 152. The Asserted Patents, including the \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents and\n\neach asserted claim, are invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 35 of the\n\nUnited States Code, including at least \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.\n\n FOURTH DEFENSE\n (Equitable Doctrines)\n\n 153. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are barred, in whole or in part by estoppel, including without\n\nlimitation equitable estoppel and prosecution history estoppel.\n\n FIFTH DEFENSE\n (Lack of Standing and/or Ownership)\n\n 154. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs lack standing to\n\nbring any claims and/or lack ownership of the Asserted Patents.\n\n SIXTH DEFENSE\n (Limitation on Damages)\n\n 155. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims for damages are limited to a FRAND royalty due to the FRAND\n 21\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 22 of 35\n\n\n\nencumbrance imparted on the Asserted Patents by Certicom\u2019s FRAND commitment to SECG.\n\n SEVENTH DEFENSE\n (Time Limitation on Damages)\n\n 156. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 286.\n\n EIGTH DEFENSE\n (Government Use Bar)\n\n 157. To the extent Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are based on products allegedly used or manufactured\n\nby or for the United States without a license from Plaintiffs or lawful right to use or manufacture\n\nthe same, Plaintiffs\u2019 claims are barred, in whole or in part, by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498.\n\n NINTH DEFENSE\n (No Equitable Relief)\n\n 158. Plaintiffs are not entitled to equitable relief, including their request for injunctive relief,\n\nat least because Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits, they have not suffered an\n\nirreparable injury, they have an adequate remedy at law, the balance of the hardships weighs\n\nagainst granting such relief, and/or the public interest would be disserved by granting such relief.\n\n RESERVATION OF RIGHTS\n\n 159. MARA expressly reserve the right to assert any additional legal or equitable defenses\n\nto which they may be entitled, including all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States, and any other defenses that presently\n\nexist or may become available as a result of discovery or further factual investigation in this action.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 23 of 35\n\n\n\n DEFENDANT\u2019S COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n 160. For its counterclaims against Counterclaim Defendant Malikie Innovations LTD. and\n\nKey Patent Innovations LTD. (\u201cCounterclaim Defendants\u201d), Counterclaim Plaintiff MARA\n\nHoldings, Inc. (\u201cCounterclaim Plaintiff\u201d or \u201cMARA\u201d) alleges as follows:\n\n THE PARTIES\n\n 161. Counterclaim Plaintiff MARA Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing\n\nunder the laws of the State of Nevada, with a principal place of business located at 1010 S Federal\n\nHwy., Suite 2700, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009.\n\n 162. Upon information and belief, and based solely on Paragraph 1 of the First Amended\n\nComplaint (\u201cFAC\u201d) as pleaded by Counterclaim Defendants, Malikie Innovations LTD.\n\n(\u201cMalikie\u201d) is an entity organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with registered offices at\n\nThe Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin A96 VR66, Ireland.\n\n 163. Upon information and belief, and based solely on Paragraph 2 of the FAC as pleaded\n\nby Counterclaim Defendants, Key Patent Innovations LTD. (\u201cKPI\u201d) is an entity organized and\n\nexisting under the laws of Ireland, with registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges\n\nStreet Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin A96 VR66, Ireland.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 164. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim Defendants because they\n\nconsented to the exercise of such jurisdiction by filing their Complaint and subsequently their FAC\n\nfor patent infringement against MARA in this Court.\n\n 165. This Court has subject\u2011matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to the\n\nDeclaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201 and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States,\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1338(a).\n\n 166. By asserting claims for patent infringement against MARA in this Court, Counterclaim\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 24 of 35\n\n\n\n Defendants have also consented to venue as to these counterclaims.\n\n 167. In their FAC, Counterclaim Defendants allege that MARA infringes the \u2019827, \u2019370,\n\n \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents (collectively, the \u201cAsserted Patents\u201d).\n\n 168. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n Asserted Patents, either directly or under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n 169. Accordingly, based at least on the allegations set forth in Counterclaim Defendants\u2019\n\n FAC, an immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between MARA and Counterclaim\n\n Defendants regarding whether MARA infringes the Asserted Patents.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n 170. Counterclaim Defendants brought suit against MARA for purported infringement of\n\n the \u2019827, \u2019370, \u2019062, \u2019960, \u2019961, and \u2019286 Patents on May 12, 2025.1 All but one of the Asserted\n\n Patents are expired: the \u2019286 Patent, which expires no later than August 11, 2031.2 The USPTO\n\n has granted requests for ex parte reexamination as to all of the Asserted Patents.3\n\n FIRST COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,827)\n\n 171. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-170 of\n\n these Counterclaims.\n\n 172. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n \u2019827 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\n equivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n \u2019827 Patent.\n\n 173. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\n\n\n1\n Dkt. No. 1.\n2\n Expiration dates of the Asserted Patents: \u2019961 Patent (7/12/2023); \u2019960 and \u2019062 Patents (5/31/2024); \u2019827 and \u2019370 Patents\n(1/18/2026); \u2019286 Patent (8/11/2031).\n3\n Dkt. 62 at 1; Dkt. 66, Dkt. 71, Dkt. 79.\n 24\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 25 of 35\n\n\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019827 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019827\n\nPatent.\n\n 174. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019827 Patent.\n\n SECOND COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,788,827)\n\n 175. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-174 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 176. Each and every claim of the \u2019827 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\nmore of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\nbut not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019827 Patent is\n\ninvalid for at least the reasons set forth in MARA\u2019s request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019827\n\nPatent.\n\n 177. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019827 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019827\n\nPatent.\n\n 178. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019827 Patent\n\ninvalid.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 26 of 35\n\n\n\n THIRD COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,284,370)\n\n 179. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-178 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 180. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n\u2019370 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\nequivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n\u2019370 Patent.\n\n 181. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019370 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019370\n\nPatent.\n\n 182. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019370 Patent.\n\n FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,284,370)\n\n 183. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 161-182 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 184. Each and every claim of the \u2019370 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\nmore of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\nbut not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019370 Patent is\n\ninvalid for at least the reasons set forth in MARA\u2019s request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019370\n\nPatent.\n\n 26\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 27 of 35\n\n\n\n 185. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019370 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019370\n\nPatent.\n\n 186. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019370 Patent\n\ninvalid.\n\n FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,666,062)\n\n 187. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 161-186 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 188. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n\u2019062 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\nequivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n\u2019062 Patent.\n\n 189. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019062 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019062\n\nPatent.\n\n 190. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019062 Patent.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 28 of 35\n\n\n\n SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,666,062)\n\n 191. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-190 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 192. Each and every claim of the \u2019062 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\nmore of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\nbut not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019062 Patent is\n\ninvalid for at least the reasons set forth in MARA\u2019s request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019062\n\nPatent.\n\n 193. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019062 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019062\n\nPatent.\n\n 194. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019062 Patent\n\ninvalid.\n\n SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,960)\n\n 195. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-194 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 196. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n\u2019960 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\nequivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n\u2019960 Patent.\n\n 197. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\n 28\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 29 of 35\n\n\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019960 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019960\n\nPatent.\n\n 198. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019960 Patent.\n\n EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,960)\n\n 199. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-198 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 200. Each and every claim of the \u2019960 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\nmore of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\nbut not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019960 Patent is\n\ninvalid for at least the reasons set forth in MARA\u2019s request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019960\n\nPatent.\n\n 201. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019960 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019960\n\nPatent.\n\n 202. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019960 Patent\n\ninvalid.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 30 of 35\n\n\n\n NINTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961)\n\n 203. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-202 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 204. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n\u2019961 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\nequivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n\u2019961 Patent.\n\n 205. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019961 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019961\n\nPatent.\n\n 206. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019961 Patent.\n\n TENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961)\n\n 207. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in 161-206 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 208. Each and every claim of the \u2019961 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\nmore of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\nbut not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019961 Patent is\n\ninvalid for at least the reasons set forth in MARA\u2019s request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019961\n\nPatent.\n\n 30\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 31 of 35\n\n\n\n 209. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019961 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019961\n\nPatent.\n\n 210. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019961 Patent\n\ninvalid.\n\n ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,286)\n\n 211. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-210 of its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 212. MARA has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n\u2019286 Patent, directly or indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of\n\nequivalents. MARA has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any claim of the\n\n\u2019286 Patent.\n\n 213. Absent a declaration of non-infringement, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\nwrongfully assert the \u2019286 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\ndeclaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\nCounterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019286\n\nPatent.\n\n 214. MARA thus seeks a judgment declaring that it does not infringe, directly or indirectly,\n\nunder any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable\n\nclaim of the \u2019286 Patent.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 32 of 35\n\n\n\n TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM\n (Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,532,286)\n\n 215. MARA incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 161-214 of its\n\n Counterclaims.\n\n 216. Each and every claim of the \u2019286 Patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or\n\n more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including,\n\n but not limited to, \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim of the \u2019286 Patent is\n\n invalid for at least the reasons set forth in the request for ex parte reexamination of the \u2019286 Patent\n\n that is currently pending before the USPTO.\n\n 217. Absent a declaration of invalidity, Counterclaim Defendants will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert the \u2019286 Patent against MARA, thereby causing MARA harm. A judicial\n\n declaration is necessary and appropriate to resolve the actual controversy between MARA and\n\n Counterclaim Defendants and to ascertain the parties\u2019 respective rights with respect to the \u2019286\n\n Patent.\n\n 218. MARA therefore seeks a judgment declaring each and every claim of the \u2019286 Patent\n\n invalid.\n\n PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff MARA Holdings, Inc. respectfully requests the\n\nfollowing relief:\n\n\n A. That the Court enter judgment in Counterclaim Plaintiff\u2019s favor;\n\n\n B. That Counterclaim Defendants\u2019 First Amended Complaint be dismissed in its entirety\n\n with prejudice, and that Counterclaim Defendants take nothing against Counterclaim\n\n Plaintiff;\n\n\n C. That judgment be entered finding that Counterclaim Plaintiff has not infringed and does\n 32\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 33 of 35\n\n\n\n not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or\n\n indirectly, under any theory of infringement, including the doctrine of equivalents;\n\n\nD. That judgment be entered finding the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents invalid\n\n for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with the\n\n requirements of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103, and/or 112;\n\n\nE. That the Court declare Counterclaim Plaintiff to be the prevailing party and this is an\n\n exceptional case, and award MARA its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees\n\n pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law;\n\n and\n\n\nF. That Counterclaim Plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems\n\n just and proper.\n\n DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n\nMARA respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 34 of 35\n\n\n\n\nDated: March 24, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady\n Catherine Nyarady\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser\n Ian A. Moore\n Tom Yu\n Thomas Macchio\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison\n LLP\n 1285 Sixth Avenue\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000\n\n Christopher M. Pepe\n W. Sutton Ansley\n Eric C. Westerhold\n Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison\n LLP\n 2001 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n Telephone: (202) 223-7300\n\n Steve Wingard\n State Bar No. 00788694\n swingard@scottdoug.com\n Robert P. Earle\n State Bar No. 241245566\n rearle@scottdoug.com\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672\n sburbank@scottdoug.com\n Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400\n Austin, TX 78701-3234\n Telephone: (512) 495-6300\n Facsimile: (512) 495-6399\n\n Counsel for Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 85 Filed 03/24/26 Page 35 of 35\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on the 24th of March, 2026, a true and correct\ncopy of the foregoing document was served to all counsel of record who are deemed to have\nconsented to electronic service via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system.\n\n /s/ Catherine Nyarady\n Catherine Nyarady\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-03-25T06:07:33.892971-07:00","document_number":"85","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036153205","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint AND Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-24T14:21:25.172758-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-24T14:21:25.185276-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-24","time_filed":"16:02:18","entry_number":85,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":232,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/458167086/","id":458167086,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/473164169/","id":473164169,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-03-23T08:03:28.922749-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T08:03:28.930197-07:00","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 Withdraw as Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-23T08:03:28.908011-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-23T08:03:28.908022-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-23","time_filed":"09:18:37","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457988474/","id":457988474,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472981128/","id":472981128,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/84/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-03-20T11:04:48.895813-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T11:04:48.904164-07:00","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":"84","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036131846","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-20T11:04:48.856806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-20T11:04:48.863895-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-20","time_filed":"12:50:55","entry_number":84,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":228,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457727741/","id":457727741,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/70243940/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472716131/","id":472716131,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/83/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-03-18T16:05:38.078993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-22T07:52:56.637378-07:00","sha1":"78c7d4d23ca6ceef78c21403d812e15f257fda41","page_count":3,"file_size":147271,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.83.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172841950.83.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\n MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD. AND KEY\n PATENT INNOVATIONS LTD,\n Case No. 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG\n Plaintiffs,\n\n vs\n\n MARA HOLDINGS, INC.\n\n Defendant.\n\n DEFENDANT\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW\n ATTORNEYS OF RECORD\n\nTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:\n\n Pursuant to Local Rule AT-3, Defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital\n\nHoldings, Inc.) (\u201cDefendant\u201d), hereby moves the Court to enter an Order removing Priyata Patel\n\nand Anish Desai as attorneys of record for Defendant and to terminate their representation of\n\nDefendant for all purposes in the above-captioned matter. Priyata Patel and Anish Desai are no\n\nlonger with PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP and have agreed to terminate their\n\nrepresentation of Defendant. The withdrawal of these attorneys will not delay the proceedings in\n\nthis matter. Defendant will continue to be represented by undersigned remaining counsel of record.\n\n The parties have conferred and Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.\n\n\n\n\n4917-0716-8152\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDated: March 18, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n\n By: /s/ Steve Wingard\n\n Steve Wingard\n State Bar No. 00788694\n swingard@scottdoug.com\n Stephen L. Burbank\n State Bar No. 24109672\n sburbank@scottdoug.com\n Robert P. Earle\n State Bar No. 241245566\n rearle@scottdoug.com\n SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP\n 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400\n Austin, TX 78701-3234\n (512) 495-6300 \u2013 Telephone\n (512) 495-6399 \u2013 Facsimile\n\n Elizabeth S. Weiswasser (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n Catherine Nyarady (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n Ian A. Moore (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n Tom Yu (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n Thomas Macchio\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON\n LLP\n 1285 Sixth Avenue\n New York, NY 10019\n Telephone: (212) 373-3000\n\n Christopher M. Pepe (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n W. Sutton Ansley (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n Eric C. Westerhold (admitted Pro Hac Vice)\n PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON\n LLP\n 2001 K Street NW\n Washington, DC 20006\n Telephone: (202) 223-7300\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT MARA\n HOLDINGS, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n4917-0716-8152\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00222-DC-DTG Document 83 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and\n\nPlaintiff does not oppose the requested relief.\n\n\n /s/ Steve Wingard\n Steve Wingard\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel\n\nof record via the CM/ECF electronic noticing system on this the 18th day of March, 2026.\n\n\n\n /s/ Steve Wingard\n Steve Wingard\n\n\n\n\n 3\n4917-0716-8152\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-03-19T07:37:52.579129-07:00","document_number":"83","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181036117096","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Withdraw As Attorney","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472795002/","id":472795002,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/70243940/83/1/malikie-innovations-ltd-v-mara-holdings-inc-fka-marathon-digital/","date_created":"2026-03-19T07:37:45.346218-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-19T07:37:45.346242-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":106392,"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":"83","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181036117097","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-18T16:05:38.041984-07:00","date_modified":"2026-03-18T16:05:38.052438-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-18","time_filed":"17:41:58","entry_number":83,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":226,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=70243940&page_size=40"}