Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Green Revolution Cooling v. Riot Platforms | Patent Lawsuit 6:24-cv-00152

Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v. Riot Platforms, Inc.

6:24-cv-00152 W.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 22 Mar 2024 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 4 May 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US10123463B2US9992914B2
Case no.
6:24-cv-00152
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Alan D Albright
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
22 Mar 2024 – 4 May 2026
Duration
773 days
Basis of termination
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Products & marks
GRC’s immersion cooling with safe coolants (ICEraQ, ICEtank, HashRaQ, and HashTank) · Rockdale and Corsicana Facilities · immersion cooling facilities
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:24-cv-00152, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10123463B2 Active App. US13/057881

Liquid submerged, horizontal computer server rack and systems and method of cooling such a server rack

Apparatus, systems, and methods for efficiently cooling computing devices having heat-generating electronic components, such as, for example, independently operable servers, immersed in a dielectric liquid coolant in a tank.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
6 Nov 2018
Earliest priority
11 Aug 2008
Est. expiry
7 Apr 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
F28D15/00H05K7/20G06F1/20
Prosecution counsel
THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC
Examiner
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
US10123463B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10123463B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9992914B2 Active App. US14/667091

Commmonly submersed servers with velocity augmentation and partial recirculation in tank

An apparatus for holding and cooling rack-mountable servers having heat-producing electronic components includes a tank, a volume of dielectric liquid coolant in the tank, mounting members that hold rack-mountable servers in the tank, one or more pumps, fluid velocity augmentations devices, and a liquid-to-liquid or liquid-to-refrigerant heat exchanger outside of the tank. The mounting members hold the rack-mountable servers in a vertical orientation within the tank such that the servers are commonly submersed in the volume of the dielectric liquid coolant. When a pump is operated to move the dielectric liquid coolant vertically across the heat producing components of the rack-mountable servers, a circuit is formed in which a first portion of heated dielectric liquid coolant is moved vertically upward across the heat producing components and then downward outside of the rack mountable servers in a passage external to the rack-mountable servers, while a second portion of heated dielectric liquid coolant flows out of the tank and through the liquid-to-liquid or liquid-to-refrigerant heat exchanger.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
5 Jun 2018
Earliest priority
10 Aug 2009
Est. expiry
9 Dec 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H05K7/20G06F1/20F28D15/00
Prosecution counsel
THE MARBURY LAW GROUP, PLLC
Examiner
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
US9992914B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9992914B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Green Revolution Cooling, Inc.

Core tech
F28D15/00H05K7/20G06F1/20
Counsel
Aimee M. Housinger · Alyssa Ortiz Johnston · Ashley N. Moore · Catherine Taylor · Joseph William Shaneyfelt · Leif Henry Olson · Peter S. Wahby · Phillip M. Aurentz · Sarah-Michelle Stearns · Stephen M. Ullmer · Steven Ray Laxton · Zachary H. Ellis
Firm
Greenberg Traurig PA, International Capital, LLC
Defendant

Riot Platforms, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Amy E. Simpson · Cole Wright Browndorf · Deron R. Dacus · Grant J. Thomas · Jasmine Michelle Tobias · Jonathan Presvelis · Joseph E. Thomas · Justin S. Cohen · Michael Charles Smith · Morgan Delabar · Robert Kumar Jain · Robert S. Hill · Sadie Mlika · William Howard Oliver III. · William J. Kolegraff
Firm
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Holland & Knight LLP, Scheef & Stone, LLP, The Dacus Firm PC, Thomas Whitelaw & Kolegraff LLP

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“This action came before the Court for a trial by jury commencing on April 9, 2026 between Plaintiff Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. (“GRC”) and Defendants Riot Platforms, Inc., Riot Corsicana, LLC, and Whinstone US, Inc. (collectively, “Riot”). On April 17, 2026, before submitting the case to the jury, the Court granted judgment as a matter of law that Riot does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,123,463, and that Riot’s Rhodium systems do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,992,914. The remaining issues have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict of April 17, 2026 (Dkt. 306). In accordance with the Court’s order and the jury verdict, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Riot and against GRC. 2. Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,914 is not infringed by Riot; 3. All claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,123,463 are not infringed by Riot; 4. Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,914 is not invalid; and 5. No damages are awarded to GRC. Case 6:24-cv-00152-ADA Document 314 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 2 6. Any and all motions not previously ruled upon by the Court are DENIED AS MOOT. 7. This case is CLOSED for administrative purposes only. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to enter any post-judgment orders as necessary. This FINAL JUDGMENT starts the time for filing an appeal.”

Case 6:24-cv-00152 · W.D. Tex. · closed 4 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:24-cv-00152?

6:24-cv-00152 is a patent infringement action brought by Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. against Riot Platforms, Inc., filed on 22 Mar 2024 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 4 May 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 6:24-cv-00152?

US10123463B2 (“Liquid submerged, horizontal computer server rack and systems and method of cooling such a server rack”), assigned to GREEN REVOLUTION COOLING, INC., currently active; US9992914B2 (“Commmonly submersed servers with velocity augmentation and partial recirculation in tank”), assigned to GREEN REVOLUTION COOLING, INC., currently active. The record also lists GRC’s immersion cooling with safe coolants (ICEraQ, ICEtank, HashRaQ, and HashTank), Rockdale and Corsicana Facilities and immersion cooling facilities.

How was case 6:24-cv-00152 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “This action came before the Court for a trial by jury commencing on April 9, 2026 between Plaintiff Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. (“GRC”) and Defendants Riot Platforms, Inc., Riot Corsicana, LLC, and Whinstone US, Inc. (collectively, “Riot”). On April 17, 2026, before submitting the case to the jury, the Court granted judgment as a matter of law that Riot does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,123,463, and that Riot’s Rhodium systems do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,992,914. The remaining issues have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict of April 17, 2026 (Dkt. 306). In accordance with

What does judgment on the merits mean?

A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.

How long did case 6:24-cv-00152 take?

773 calendar days, from filing on 22 Mar 2024 to closure on 4 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:24-cv-00152?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Aimee M. Housinger, Alyssa Ortiz Johnston, Ashley N. Moore, Catherine Taylor, Joseph William Shaneyfelt, Leif Henry Olson, Peter S. Wahby, Phillip M. Aurentz, Sarah-Michelle Stearns, Stephen M. Ullmer, Steven Ray Laxton and Zachary H. Ellis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Green Revolution Cooling. Amy E. Simpson, Cole Wright Browndorf, Deron R. Dacus, Grant J. Thomas, Jasmine Michelle Tobias, Jonathan Presvelis, Joseph E. Thomas, Justin S. Cohen, Michael Charles Smith, Morgan Delabar, Robert Kumar Jain, Robert S. Hill, Sadie Mlika, William Howard Oliver III. and William J. Kolegraff appear for defendant Riot Platforms.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:24-cv-00152 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:24-cv-00152 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.