Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)
Infringement action filed 12 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 15 Jun 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Case no.
- 7:25-cv-00222
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 12 May 2025 – 15 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 399 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- The Bitcoin protocol ,bitcoin mining equipment (including, for example, hardware and software for digital asset mining, including mining rigs, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), computers, nodes, miners, and software applications) and wallets (including hardware and software that functions as a bitcoin wallet)
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method and apparatus for performing finite field calculations
In general terms, the invention provides a finite field engine and methods for operating on elements in a finite field. The finite field engine provides finite field sub-engines suitable for any finite field size requiring a fixed number of machine words. The engine reuses these engines, along with some general purpose component or specific component providing modular reduction associated with the exact reduction (polynomial or prime) of a specific finite field. The engine has wordsized suitable code capable of adding, subtracting, multiplying, squaring, or inverting finite field elements, as long as the elements are representable in no more than the given number of words. The wordsized code produces unreduced values. Specific reduction is then applied to the unreduced value, as is suitable for the specific finite field. In this way, fast engines can be produced for many specific finite fields, without duplicating the bulk of the engine instructions (program).
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 13 May 2008
- Earliest priority
- 31 Dec 2001
- Est. expiry
- 31 May 2024
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90015820 · EPR · filed by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP LLP
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LAMBERT, ROBERT J.
- Classification
- H04L9/00G06F7/72G06F17/10H04L12/22
- Prosecution counsel
- Botos Churchill IP Law LLP
- Examiner
- REVAK, CHRISTOPHER
Accelerated verification of digital signatures and public keys
Accelerated computation of combinations of group operations in a finite field is provided by arranging for at least one of the operands to have a relatively small bit length. In a elliptic curve group, verification that a value representative of a point R corresponds the sum of two other points uG and vG is obtained by deriving integers w,z of reduced bit length and so that v=w/z. The verification equality R=uG+vQ may then be computed as −zR+(uz mod n) G+wQ=O with z and w of reduced bit length. This is beneficial in digital signature verification where increased verification can be attained.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 22 Jul 2014
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2005
- Est. expiry
- 18 Jan 2026
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90015818 · EPR · filed by Anish R. Desai
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- STRUIK, MARINUS · BROWN, DANIEL R. · VANSTONE, SCOTT A. · GALLANT, ROBERT P. · ANTIPA, ADRIAN · LAMBERT, ROBERT J.
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L9/30
- Prosecution counsel
- Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
- Examiner
- PARTHASARATHY, PRAMILA
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US10284370B2Accelerated verification of digital signatures and public keys
- US8666062B2Method and apparatus for performing finite field calculations
- US8532286B2System and method for reducing the computation and storage requirements for a montgomery-style reduction
- US7372961B2Method of public key generation
Parties of record
Malikie Innovations Ltd.
- Core tech
- H04L9/00G06F7/72G06F17/10H04L12/22
- Counsel
- Christine E. Lehman · Courtland L. Reichman · Khue V. Hoang · Mark D. Siegmund · Matthew G. Berkowitz · Michael M. Polka · Patrick R. Colsher · Philip J. Eklem
- Firm
- Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.)
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Anish R. Desai · Catherine Nyarady · Christopher Pepe · Elizabeth S. Weiswasser · Eric Cole Westerhold · Ian Anthony Moore · Priyata Patel · Robert Pierce Earle · Stephen Burbank · Steven J. Wingard · Thomas Macchio · Tom Yu · W. Sutton Ansley
- Firm
- Dechert LLP, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 98) filed June 15, 2026. The Plaintiff agrees and stipulates that all claims for relief asserted against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action upon filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The Plaintiff has done so. “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). The request to dismiss all claims against Defendants is hereby GRANTED. The Court therefore ORDERS that the Clerk of Court CLOSE this action. Each party shall bear and pay their respecti”
Case 7:25-cv-00222 · W.D. Tex. · closed 15 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 7:25-cv-00222?
7:25-cv-00222 is a patent infringement action brought by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.), filed on 12 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 15 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 7:25-cv-00222?
US7372960B2 (“Method and apparatus for performing finite field calculations”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED, currently inactive; US8788827B2 (“Accelerated verification of digital signatures and public keys”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED, currently inactive; US10284370B2 (“Accelerated verification of digital signatures and public keys”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED; US8666062B2 (“Method and apparatus for performing finite field calculations”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED; US8532286B2 (“System and method for reducing the computation and storage requirements for a montgomery-style reduction”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED; US7372961B2 (“Method of public key generation”), assigned to MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LIMITED. The record also lists The Bitcoin protocol ,bitcoin mining equipment (including, for example, hardware and software for digital asset mining, including mining rigs, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), computers, nodes, miners, and software applications) and wallets (including hardware and software that functions as a bitcoin wallet).
How was case 7:25-cv-00222 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (Doc. 98) filed June 15, 2026. The Plaintiff agrees and stipulates that all claims for relief asserted against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action upon filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The Plaintiff has done so. “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church,
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 7:25-cv-00222 take?
399 calendar days, from filing on 12 May 2025 to closure on 15 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 7:25-cv-00222?
Christine E. Lehman, Courtland L. Reichman, Khue V. Hoang, Mark D. Siegmund, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Michael M. Polka, Patrick R. Colsher and Philip J. Eklem are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Malikie Innovations. Anish R. Desai, Catherine Nyarady, Christopher Pepe, Elizabeth S. Weiswasser, Eric Cole Westerhold, Ian Anthony Moore, Priyata Patel, Robert Pierce Earle, Stephen Burbank, Steven J. Wingard, Thomas Macchio, Tom Yu and W. Sutton Ansley appear for defendant MARA Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.).
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 7:25-cv-00222 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.