Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. filed Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foris DAX, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00864, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on September 22, 2026, and demand a jury. The case is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Lead counsel on the signature block is Khue V. Hoang of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, with Claire Abernathy Henry of Miller Fair Henry PLLC in Longview as of counsel.

The parties and the forum

The complaint describes Malikie as an Irish entity and the successor to a patent portfolio from BlackBerry Ltd., formerly Research In Motion Ltd., and from Certicom. It describes Key Patent Innovations Ltd. as an Irish entity and the beneficiary of a trust under which Malikie owns and asserts the patents. Both list registered offices at The Glasshouses GH2, 92 Georges Street Lower, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin. Foris DAX, Inc. is described as a Delaware corporation doing business as Crypto.com, with a principal place of business and North America headquarters at 110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500, Tyler, Texas 75702. The complaint says that in Foris DAX Inc. v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 6:24-cv-00373 (E.D. Tex.), Foris DAX pleaded that it is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Tyler. Foris DAX Asia Pte. Ltd. is described as a Singapore company, and Foris Holdings KY Limited as a Cayman Islands exempted company and the top-level holding company.

The complaint alleges venue over Foris DAX under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) because that defendant resides in the district and has a regular and established place of business in Tyler, and venue over the two foreign defendants under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). It also says the action is properly assigned to the Tyler Division. The complaint's caption names the Marshall Division, and the case was docketed there as No. 2:26-cv-00864.

Patents and asserted claims

  • U.S. Patent 8,806,197, Accelerated Verification of Digital Signatures and Public Keys, issued August 12, 2014. Inventors named in the complaint include Scott A. Vanstone, Daniel R. Brown, Adrian Antipa, and Robert Gallant. At least claim 1. Google Patents lists the patent as expired, with an adjusted expiration of May 4, 2026, and lists Malikie Innovations Ltd. as the current assignee.
  • U.S. Patent 8,532,286, System and Method for Reducing the Computation and Storage Requirements for a Montgomery-Style Reduction, issued September 10, 2013. At least claim 1. The complaint says the patent continues in force. Google Patents lists it as active, with an adjusted expiration of August 11, 2031, and Malikie as the current assignee.
  • U.S. Patent 8,331,557, Power Analysis Attack Countermeasure for the ECDSA, issued December 11, 2012. At least claim 1. The complaint says the patent continues in force. Google Patents lists it as active and lists Malikie as the current assignee.
  • U.S. Patent 9,143,323, Securing a Link Between Two Devices, issued September 22, 2015, from an application filed April 4, 2005. Inventors named in the complaint are Michael K. Brown, Herb Little, Michael S. Brown, Neil Adams, Michael McCallum, and Dinah Davis. At least claim 1. The complaint says the patent continues in force. Google Patents lists it as active, with an adjusted expiration of September 28, 2033, and Malikie as the current assignee.

Google Patents' legal events for the '286 patent record a request for reexamination filed January 5, 2026. The complaint does not mention it. This page has not confirmed whether the USPTO has ordered reexamination.

Each count says the defendants have infringed one or more claims, including at least claim 1, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The claim charts are Exhibits 5 through 8. This page relies on Exhibit 5, the chart for the '197 patent, and did not review the other three. A separate analysis on this site covers Malikie's September 9, 2026 Western District of Texas suits against Antpool and ViaBTC. Those cases name different defendants. The Antpool write-up identifies U.S. Patent 8,532,286 as one patent asserted there. This page does not repeat those mining-pool allegations.

What the asserted claims cover

The summaries below restate issued claim 1 of each patent, as published on Google Patents. They are not findings that Crypto.com practices any claim. The complaint's discussion of the '197 patent says claim 1 includes sending the digital signature and the indicator to a verifier. Issued claim 1 has no sending step, and Malikie's own chart for the '197 patent, Exhibit 5, sets out claim 1 without one.

Claim 1 of the '197 patent covers a method of generating a digital signature of a message. By operation of a cryptographic module comprising one or more processors, the method generates a digital signature comprising a first signature component and a second signature component. The first signature component is based on a first coordinate of an elliptic curve point representing an ephemeral public key. The method also generates, for use with the digital signature, an indicator to identify which value of a plurality of values recoverable from the first signature component is the ephemeral public key.

Claim 1 of the '286 patent covers a method for performing, on a cryptographic apparatus, a Montgomery-style reduction in a cryptographic operation. The method obtains an operand for the cryptographic operation, computes a modified operand, and outputs the modified operand. The computation uses a reduction value, instead of a modulus used in performing a standard Montgomery reduction, to perform a replacement of a least significant word of the operand, rather than a cancellation of that word. The reduction value is a function of the modulus.

Claim 1 of the '557 patent covers a method of publishing a signature related to a message in a manner that counters power analysis attacks, after a private cryptographic key and a base point on a given elliptic curve have been selected, the base point having a prime order. A processing device receives the message, obtains a hash of the message, selects a random integer, and obtains a non-zero first element of the signature based on the base point and the random integer. It obtains a non-zero second element based on the random integer, the hash, the first element, the private cryptographic key, and a modular inverse of the random integer. Obtaining the second element involves determining a first modular multiplication product of the private cryptographic key and the modular inverse of the random integer, and determining a second modular multiplication product of that first product and a modular multiple of the first element. The processing device publishes the first and second elements.

Claim 1 of the '323 patent covers a method for securing a communication link between a first device and a second device. The method generates a first cryptographic key and a second cryptographic key, hashes packets communicated between the devices over the communication link to create a hash result, and hashes the first cryptographic key, the second cryptographic key, and the hash result to generate a third cryptographic key to be used to secure the communication link.

Accused products

For the '197, '286, and '557 patents, the complaint accuses the Crypto.com App, the Crypto.com Exchange and Exchange app, the Crypto.com Onchain app (formerly DeFi Wallet), the Crypto.com Pay for Business app, Crypto.com's servers, Crypto.com's stablecoin settlement systems, and the Cronos POS Chain, Cronos EVM, and Cronos zkEVM Bridge, together with devices and software used to sign, send, transfer, transmit, spend, or verify cryptocurrency and stablecoin transactions. The listed examples include a digital wallet, a hot wallet, a cold wallet, a warm wallet, a hardware wallet, a hardware security module, and an embedded device. The '323 count focuses on hardware and software that establishes and secures communication links, including servers that terminate Transport Layer Security connections with users, institutional customers, and market makers, and servers hosting the website and the REST, WebSocket, and FIX interfaces. The complaint alleges that no one responded to a July 25, 2025 letter.

Notice and the relief requested

The complaint alleges that on July 25, 2025, Malikie sent a letter to the Chief Legal Officer of Foris DAX Asia Pte Ltd. giving notice of the asserted patents and of infringement of Malikie's patents, including the '197 and '286 patents, and inviting licensing discussions. The '197 and '286 counts allege notice since at least that date. The '197 count is pleaded as past infringement and alleges that the past infringement has been willful. The '286 count alleges continuing direct infringement and that the infringement has been willful. The '557 and '323 counts allege notice since at least the filing of the complaint, and they allege continuing direct infringement. They do not use the word willful.

The prayer asks the court to find that the defendants have infringed the asserted patents and will continue to infringe the '286, '557, and '323 patents unless enjoined. It asks for a willfulness finding on the '197 and '286 patents, past damages on each asserted patent, present and future damages on the '286, '557, and '323 patents, enhanced damages under section 284, and an injunction or ongoing royalties on those three patents. It does not ask to enjoin infringement of the '197 patent. Paragraph 64 alleges that the defendants continue to infringe the '197, '286, and '323 patents, a list that includes the '197 patent and omits the '557 patent.

Why it matters

The complaint puts Crypto.com's exchange, wallet, and Cronos stack in Marshall on four Certicom and BlackBerry patents, while the pleading itself says the case belongs in Tyler because Foris DAX's North America headquarters is there. One of the four patents expired in May 2026 on the Google Patents record, and the prayer treats that patent differently from the other three. Expect the early fight to include where the case is heard, and which patents are still in force.

What to watch next

Watch for any motion directed at division assignment or venue, the defendants' response to the July 25, 2025 letter allegations, and whether Malikie treats the '197 patent as expired in a later filing.