Exhibit 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:

6908
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00422-JRG-RSP

REPORT AND RECOMENDATION

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (Dkt. No. 236),

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Samsung’s Standing Defense 

(Dkt. No. 241), and Defendants’ Second Motion for Sanctions. (Dkt. No. 366)1

. The issue of 

standing is one for the Court, not the jury. See DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 

517 F.3d 1284, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As such, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the matter 

on July 25, 2024 and heard testimony from Dr. Raleigh and argument from both parties. Having 

considered the motions, the evidence presented, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Court finds 

that Headwater HAS standing.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff asserts a series of patents all identifying the same three inventors: Gregory 

Raleigh, James Lavine, and Alireza Raissinia. Drs. Raleigh and Raissinia were previously 

employed by Qualcomm and in the course of that employment signed an assignment agreement. 

1 The Court finds this last motion should be denied. The Court finds Headwater’s explanation for having not timely

found emails more than a decade ago convincing. Further, as provided below, the Court is convinced that neither the 

subject matter of the material Headwater produced late, nor the documents themselves materially alter the analysis 

on standing. As such the Court finds there is insufficient grounds to grant Samsung’s requested terminating 

sanctions. The Defendants’ Second Motion For Sanctions (Dkt. No. 366) is therefor DENIED.

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 40634 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:

6909
2

The Assignment Agreements provide all Inventions are assigned to Qualcomm and defines 

“Inventions” as:

“All inventions, discoveries, developments, formulae, processes, improvements, 

ideas and innovations, whether patentable or not ... made, conceived, reduced to 

practice, authored, or fixed in a tangible medium of expression by me, ... whether 

or not made, conceived, reduced to practice, authored, or fixed in a tangible medium 

of expression during working hours, which results from my work or association 

with the Company, or which results from or is aided by the use of the Company's 

equipment, supplies, facilities or trade secret information, or which is related to or 

coming within the scope of the Company's business, or related to the Company's 

products or any research, design, experimental or production work carried on by 

the Company.” (Dkt. No. 236-13.) 

The Assignment Agreements additionally provides: 

“I agree that an Invention disclosed by me to a third person or described in a patent 

application filed by me or in my behalf within one year following termination of 

my employment with the Company shall be presumed to be an Invention subject to 

the terms of this Agreement unless proved by me to have been conceived and first 

reduced to practice by me following the termination of my employment with the 

Company.” (Id. at ¶1.4.)

Dr. Raleigh left Qualcomm on September 19, 2008 and filed a provisional ’354 application 

on January 28, 2009 within one year of his departure. Plaintiff initially asserted that all patents 

claimed priority to this provisional but has since agreed that the priority date is May 25, 2010. Dr. 

Raissinia left Qualcomm in November 2009 and was listed as an inventor on the ’022 application 

filed May 25, 2010 within one year of his departure. 

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a). Any evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 

158–59 (1970)). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact. 

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “By its very terms, this standard provides that the 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 40635 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:

6910
3

mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise 

properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine 

[dispute] of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48. The substantive law identifies the 

material facts, and disputes over facts that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not defeat a motion 

for summary judgment. Id. at 248. A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” when the evidence 

is “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

“Where one co-owner possesses an undivided part of the entire patent, that joint owner 

must join all the other co-owners to establish standing. . . . Absent the voluntary joinder of all coowners of a patent, a co-owner acting alone will lack standing.” Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. 

Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d 1256, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A plaintiff’s failure to join a co-owner forestalls 

the plaintiff’s “ability to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for bringing an infringement suit.” 

AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Techs., Inc., 976 F.3d 1374, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Further, “a nonconsenting co-owner or coinventor can never be involuntarily joined in an infringement action . . 

. because ‘the right of a patent co-owner to impede an infringement suit brought by another coowner is a substantive right.’” Id. at 1378 (citing STC.UNM v. Intel Corp., 754 F.3d 940, 946 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014)). “The party bringing the action has the burden of establishing that it has standing to 

sue for infringement.” MHL TEK, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., 655 F.3d 1266, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants contend, and Plaintiff contests, that Drs. Raleigh and Raissinia assigned their 

interest in the asserted patentsto Qualcomm making Qualcomm a co-owner of each of the Asserted 

Patents. Defendants contend that by filing provisional applications within the one-year period after 

their employment with Qualcomm, Raleigh and Raissinia triggered the assignment agreement as 

to all the patents. Plaintiff contends that the one-year provision violates California law, that Dr. 

Raleigh conceived of the invention after leaving Qualcomm, and the patents are not within the 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 40636 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:

6911
4

scope of Qualcomm’s business.

A. ONE-YEAR PROVISION

California Labor Code §2870(a) provides: 

Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall 

assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her 

employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on 

his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or 

trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention 

to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research 

or development of the employer; or

(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

California Business and Professions Code §16600 provides “Except as provided in this 

chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, 

or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

Plaintiff contends under these provisions, the one-year provision is void. (Dkt. No. 287 at 

13-15.) Plaintiff points to Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 

2020), where it contends the Federal Circuit recently voided a similar provision. (Id.) 

Defendants contend first that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the validity of the 

agreement and second that the one-year provision is valid as it only creates a rebuttable 

presumption. (Dkt. No. 289 at 4-10.) Defendants contend because neither Qualcomm nor Drs. 

Raleigh and Raissinia are parties to this lawsuit, the agreement between those parties cannot be 

voided. (Id. at 4-6.) Defendants contend the parties to the agreement are indispensable parties when 

seeking to void an agreement. (Id. at 5-6.) Second, Defendants contend Federal Circuit case law 

actually supports the validity of the provision as it is only a rebuttable presumption. (Id. at 7-10.)

In applying §16600, the Ninth Circuit explained the crux of the statute was to determine 

whether the concerned language “imposes a restraint of a substantial character regardless of the 

form in which it is cast.” Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., 782 F.3d 1083, 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 40637 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:

6912
5

1091 (9th Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit applied this precedent to find that §16600 and §2870(a) 

invalidated an assignment provision that purported to “survive the discontinuance or termination 

of this Agreement for any reason.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045, 1048 

(Fed. Cir. 2020). In addition to Golden, the Federal Circuit cited Applied Materials, Inc. v. 

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equip. (Shanghai) Co., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1086 (N.D. Cal. 

2009), which Defendants contend is particularly relevant. Therein, the Northern District of 

California invalidated a similar one-year presumption provision in part because it was an unrebuttable presumption. Applied Materials, 630 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (“Notably, there is no express 

creation of the rebuttable presumption for which Plaintiff advocates.”). 

The Court finds that the one-year provision does not run afoul of either California statute. 

The provision does not create “restraint of a substantial character” as it is only a rebuttable

presumption. §2870(a) inherently endorses an assignment provision wherein the invention was 

“developed ... using the employer’s equipment ... [or r]elate[d] ... to the employer’s business ... 

or [r]esult[ed] from any work performed by the employee for the employer,” much like the 

Assignment Agreement here. As such, the effect of the one-year provision is to place the burden 

of proof on the employee, not to materially alter their positions. The Court cannot find the 

provision is a “restraint of a substantial character” on an employee’s engagement in lawful trade.

Indeed, the Northern District of California2 gave particular weight to whether a similar provision 

was rebuttable or not. 

As such, the Court finds that the burden here shifts between the parties before landing with 

2 The Court gives particular weight to California federal courts when applying California statutes. See 

Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “We give 

weight to decisions of federal courts that are ‘better schooled in’ the law of the particular State 

involved.”

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 40638 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:

6913
6

Headwater. First, “[t]he party bringing the action bears the burden of establishing that it has 

standing.” Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As the 

assignment to Headwater was appropriately recorded with the Patent Office, “this creates a 

presumption of validity as to the assignment and places the burden to rebut such a showing on 

[Samsung].” Mobile Equity Corp. v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:21-cv-0126-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 

4112237, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2022), Report and Recommendation adopted, No. 2022 WL 

4111857 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2022) (citing SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 

1328 (Fed. Cir. 2010).) To rebut this showing, Samsung points to the one-year presumption 

discussed above. This presumption places the burden back on Headwater.

That presumption, and thus Headwater’s burden to disprove, is that any invention disclosed 

by Dr. Raleigh in a patent application filed within one year of his departure is subject to the 

assignment agreement. As such, it is on Headwater to show either the disclosed invention is not 

“within the scope of the company’s business,” and thus not an “Invention” under the agreement, 

or that the invention was conceived and reduced to practice after Dr. Raleigh’s employment.

B. “WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMPANY’S BUSINESS”

Defendants contend that the invention is within the scope of Qualcomm’s business. 

Defendant points to Dr. Raleigh’s deposition testimony that “Qualcomm had been working in that 

area” and Qualcomm had “similar technologies” to Headwater. (Dkt. No. 236 at 13-14.) 

Defendants identify several patent filings by Qualcomm relating to saving power during wireless 

communications by selectively disabling functionality including one listing Dr. Raissinia as an 

inventor, similar to Headwater. (Id. at 14-15.) Defendants argue that all their contentions here are 

buttressed by the fact that Qualcomm has asserted ownership of the Asserted Patents. (Id. at 15-

16.)

Plaintiff criticizes Defendants’ contentions that the patents are within the scope of 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 40639 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:

6914
7

Qualcomm’s business in that it amounts to covering anything related to operating systems or 

connecting applications. (Dkt. No. 287.) 

The Court finds the invention is within the scope of Qualcomm’s business. Dr. Raleigh as 

an inventor and prior employee of Qualcomm is well positioned to understand Qualcomm’s 

business and compare it to the invention. Dr. Raleigh testified Qualcomm had been working in the 

area and had similar technologies. (Dkt. No. 236-20 at 44:4-20, 88:12-20.) Further, Dr. Raleigh 

seemed to believe at the time that an idea at least related to his invention was sufficiently related 

to Qualcomm’s business to pitch it to the CEO. While this was apparently unsuccessful, it 

demonstrates that Qualcomm’s business is not unrelated. Dr. Raissinia’s testimony is likewise 

highly material and supportive of the Court’s finding. He testified that he did work in power saving 

mechanisms for wireless communications at Qualcomm and was a named inventor on such a patent 

application while at Qualcomm. (Dkt. No. 236-11 at 34:10-38:5.) From this evidence, the Court 

finds that the invention is within the scope of Qualcomm’s business.

C. TIMING OF THE INVENTION

Headwater contends the invention was conceived and reduced to practice after Dr. 

Raleigh’s and Rassinia’s employment at Qualcomm. 

Chiefly, Dr. Raleigh points to a particular moment of conception, an “ah-ha moment,”

where he alleges he shifted his thinking from managing network use from the network side to the 

device side. Dr. Raleigh testified that as he was departing Qualcomm, he was preparing for his 

next endeavor, ItsOn. Dr. Raleigh testified that he had been courted by Best Buy to support an 

upcoming MVNO endeavor, though ItsOn’s precise role was not yet determined prior to Dr. 

Raleigh’s departure. Dr. Raleigh testified that he met with Best Buy and several vendors that Best 

Buy was evaluating around September 25, 2008. It was on the plane home that Dr. Raleigh

contends he conceived of the idea to shift from a network-side to a device-side solution. Dr. 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 40640 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:

6915
8

Raleigh testified that hearing from the various different vendors inspired him to find a better 

solution.

As part of Dr. Raleigh’s discussions with Best Buy, several slide presentations were 

exchanged detailing the evolving idea for ItsOn’s involvement with Best Buy’s MVNO. The first 

of these presentations was prepared by Best Buy some time before September 9, 2008 and reflects 

the discussions Dr. Raleigh and Best Buy had previously. The presentation reflects the intention 

that Best Buy would hire ItsOn to provide MVNE support for Best Buy’s MVNO 3 . The 

presentation does not detail the role of ItsOn but suggests ItsOn would work with Best Buy, the 

carriers, and device OEMs to provide effective MVNE services. The precise strategy for this was 

expressly yet to be determined.

The next presentation is dated September 24, 2008 and was given by Dr. Raleigh to Best 

Buy at the same meeting with vendors that Dr. Raleigh alleges inspired his conception. This 

presentation reiterates many of the points from the first presentation describing at a high-level Dr. 

Raleigh and the proposed role of ItsOn. However, the second presentation includes more detail. 

For instance, the second presentation describes a need for “vertical consumer solutions” pointing 

to Kindle’s network connectivity and the iPhone. The presentation describes the role of ItsOn as 

providing “low cost devices with stackable, cool, low cost consumer services to basic carrier 

contract plans” and improving the basic services for its customers. An “End to End Service 

Platform” is described to support many services, wireless operators, payment models, and device 

types as well as providing “Bandwidth utilization efficiency” including “Authentication, 

Authorization, [and] Access Control.” The “Service Platform Components” are described 

including “Device Design and Supply Chain Management” including collaborations with carriers, 

3 Broadly, an MVNO subcontracts from the carriers to provide network access to its own customers and an MVNE 

provides the customer service and other infrastructure to enable an MVNO to service its customers.

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 40641 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:

6916
9

chipset suppliers, and OEMs and providing multiple OS support for ItsOn CM, UIs, and portals 

and device management. Regarding the supply chain, the presentation describes a service 

developers kit that would be provided to OEMs to implement an ItsOn service platform including

a UI, connection manager, and an undescribed bandwidth management solution as well as several 

other features.

By the third presentation given about a month later on October 23, 2008, Dr. Raleigh had 

solidified his plan for ItsOn. While ItsOn was still intended to provide MVNE services, the unique 

focus of ItsOn was to “[t]ransform every device into a flexible WWAN service offering platform” 

including “[t]raffic control and billing flexibility necessary for less expensive device specific 

service plans.” Dr. Raleigh’s inventive concept was so solidified by this point as to include a 

description of “Protectable IP” described as “[d]evice side service implementation (traffic shaping, 

billing event collection, real time adaptive bandwidth control and traffic reporting filters) in a 

manner that is tamper proof.”

As to Qualcomm’s claim of ownership over the patents in suit, Dr. Raleigh testified, and 

several emails confirmed, that Qualcomm made several claims but did little to pursue them. During 

the early development of ItsOn, Dr. Raleigh sought various investments including from 

Qualcomm. During those discussions, Qualcomm suggested that to settle its claim, Qualcomm 

should be given additional equity in ItsOn in exchange for a release of its claim against Headwater. 

Dr. Raleigh testified that he responded to this suggestion very negatively and demanded that for 

any discussion to go forward, Qualcomm would need to drop its claim. Dr. Raleigh proposed and 

drafted a release agreement but it was never agreed to. 

Dr. Raleigh testified later that Qualcomm sought to purchase the patents outright and in 

the course of those negotiations told Dr. Raleigh that it had let the statute of limitations run on its 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 40642 Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:

6917
10

claim to ownership.4 Dr. Raleigh further testified that this deal ultimately fell through because he 

insisted on a higher price than offered.

Years later, Dr. Raleigh gave an interview in 2021 where he said “At Qualcomm ... I had 

this idea that ... the next step is operating systems technology to manage the way applications 

connect on these new smartphones ... I took it to the then CEO of Qualcomm, again too far afield, 

Qualcomm is a chipset company, too risky, too disruptive ... So I left Qualcomm to start 

Headwater, we developed that operating system technology, we distributed it to carriers, pitched 

it to OEMs, and its now in every smartphone on the planet.” (Dkt. No. 236 at 11-12.) At the 

hearing, Dr. Raleigh testified that these statements passing remarks and that he did not have the 

time to fully explain what occurred as he was merely a panel member and instructed to keep his 

statements brief. 

For his part, Dr. Raissinia, who returned to Qualcomm before this case was filed, did not 

testify at the hearing. Rather the parties submitted his deposition testimony on this issue. At his 

deposition, Dr. Raissinia testified he left Qualcomm more than a year after Dr. Raleigh, on 

December 1, 2009. He testified that once at Headwater he worked with Dr. Raleigh to refine the 

concepts in the patents collaboratively but could not provide greater specificity as to his 

contributions. He also testified that he never worked on this invention at Qualcomm, and never 

even collaborated or research with Dr. Raleigh at Qualcomm.

Samsung argues that that Headwater has failed to meet its burden of showing it owns the 

full rights to the Asserted Patents and thus has standing. Samsung contends this requires an

exacting showing of conception and that Dr. Raleigh’s testimony that he did not conceive of the 

invention at Qualcomm lacks corroboration. Beyond an insufficient showing, Samsung argues Dr. 

4 Headwater does not contend that its standing dispute is resolved by any statute of limitations having run. As such, 

the Court does not evaluate such and only considers this testimony to go to Qualcomm’s understanding.

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:

40643

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:

6918
11

Raleigh’s testimony should not be trusted. Samsung points to Dr. Raleigh’s 2021 interview where 

it contends he was providing an honest, disinterested, retelling of events whereas his current 

testimony is unreliable as influenced by his multi-million dollar interest in this action.

Plaintiff contends that even if it applied, the rebuttable presumption of the one-year 

provision is rebutted here. Plaintiff points to testimony of Drs. Raleigh and Raissinia that they did 

not conceive of the invention at Qualcomm, and Defendants’ interrogatory responses that they 

have no evidence otherwise. (Dkt. No. 241 at 4-6.) Plaintiff further highlights Samsung’s lack of 

evidence from Qualcomm, either that Qualcomm alleges an ownership interest or an affirmative 

showing that the invention was conceived at Qualcomm.

Plaintiff contends that the exclusion provision of paragraph 1.5 applies here because “no 

equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information” from Qualcomm were used, the 

invention “was developed entirely on [the inventors] own time,” and “d[id] not result from any 

work performed [] for the [Qualcomm.]” (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff points to the 2021 interview that 

Qualcomm was not interested in the idea Dr. Raleigh had because it was too far afield and not 

close enough to the technology they were involved with. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff further contends there 

is no evidence the invention was the result of work performed for Qualcomm. (Id.)

The Court finds that the operative question is whether Dr. Raleigh conceived of the 

invention underlying the patents while at Qualcomm. No party has focused on Dr. Raissinia and 

there does not seem to be any identifiable portion of the invention that can readily be attributed

back to his work at Qualcomm. Further, the Court finds Dr. Raissinia’s testimony that he did not 

conceive of the invention while at Qualcomm believable. As such, the Court’s analysis shall focus 

on Dr. Raleigh.

As an initial matter, the Court is not convinced that Headwater needs to make the exacting 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:

40644

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:

6919
12

conception showing with corroboration that Samsung claims. In Preston v. Marathon Oil Co., 684 

F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit explained that the same conception and 

corroboration requirements apply whether it is raised by contract or statute. However, there the 

employee sought to demonstrate that he conceived of his invention prior to his employment, not 

after as here. See id. The corroboration requirement simply does not mechanically work in the 

situation where the party without the burden is the one trying to prove an earlier conception date. 

Here, Headwater has no need to corroborate its latest conception date, the one supported by 

prosecution history filing, as it relies on no testimony. What Samsung wants Headwater to provide 

corroboration for is the lack of conception. Headwater would have to provide documentation that 

something novel was expressly not conceived of while Dr. Raleigh worked at Qualcomm. This is 

impractical, and the Court will not hold Headwater to such a standard.

However, the importance of some corroboration of an inventor’s conception testimony is 

well established in the jurisprudence. The Court will require Dr. Raleigh’s testimony regarding his 

“ah-ha moment” to be corroborated, but the Court does not expect this corroboration to 

demonstrate his exact moment of conception or a lack of prior conception.

Second, the Court finds that the key event to examine is when Dr. Raleigh shifted his 

thinking from a network side solution to a device side solution. Dr. Raleigh calls this his “ah-ha 

moment.” At the hearing Samsung did not contest the focus on this event and from the Court’s 

review of the patent documents this does appear to be the relevant point of novelty, or at least one 

description of it.

With that groundwork, the Court finds the broad strokes of Dr. Raleigh’s story is 

corroborated and credible. The Best Buy presentations demonstrate he was in talks with Best Buy 

prior to departing Qualcomm and that his role was initially vague but that it solidified over time. 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:

40645

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:

6920
13

What is less clear from the documents, and even from Dr. Raleigh himself, is precisely when his 

thinking shifted from a network side solution. It is clear from the presentations that Dr. Raleigh

had his “ah-ha moment” some time before October 23, 2008. That presentation specifically 

described “protectable IP” for a “device side service implementation” including “real time 

adaptive bandwidth control.” The Court finds this closely tracks what Dr. Raleigh calls his 

innovative shift.

What is less clear, is the showing around the two earlier presentations. Both presentations 

are allegedly before the “ah-ha moment” which Dr. Raleigh testified was he came back from the 

September 24-25, 2008 meeting. These presentations neither demonstrate that Dr. Raleigh was 

initially focused on a network side solution or that he had already shifted to a device side solution. 

However, while they do not expressly describe a device side implementation, they do reference 

work on devices. For instance, the September 24, 2008 presentation references developing an SDK 

for OEMs that would include a bandwidth management solution. This, in combination with Dr. 

Raleigh’s interview testimony that he brought his operating system solution to Qualcomm, raises 

the question whether Dr. Raleigh really had his “ah-ha moment” after the September 24-25, 2008 

meeting. As neither party effectively explored this point, the Court is left to weigh these questions 

against Dr. Raleigh’s credibility. 

The Court finds him credible on this point. While a certain reading of Dr. Raleigh’s 

interview testimony is inconsistent with his current testimony, the Court finds this is explainable 

as bluster. In context, Dr. Raleigh sought to make the point that large corporations were 

fundamentally not innovative. The Court does not find it hard to believe that when given only a 

minute or two to make his point, Dr. Raleigh glossed over the details of precisely what he brought

to Qualcomm’s CEO in order to make his larger point. Similarly, the Court does not find that the 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:

40646

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:

6921
14

September 24, 2008 presentation referencing an SDK involved with some unknown bandwidth 

management solution renders Dr. Raleigh’s testimony unworthy of belief. First, September 24, 

2008 was still after Dr. Raleigh left Qualcomm, though very shortly. Second, it is not clear what 

was meant by “a bandwidth management solution” in this instance. There is no doubt that a 

bandwidth management solution was needed, the question was where the fundamental 

discrimination decisions should be made. It is unclear from this short and unexplained reference 

what was meant and the testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearing did not elucidate the issue. 

As such, the Court falls back to the most credible and only testimony on the issue, that of Dr. 

Raleigh.

As such the Court findsthat Drs. Raleigh and Raissinia conceived of the relevant inventions 

after they left Qualcomm. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons provided above, the Court finds that Headwater has standing to bring this 

action and thus recommends that Headwater’s motion be GRANTED and Samsung’s motion be 

DENIED. 

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this report within 14 days bars that party from de novo review by 

the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except on grounds of 

plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted 

and adopted by the district court. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); see also Douglass v. United Servs. 

Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Any objection to this Report and 

Recommendation must be filed in ECF under the event “Objection to Report and Recommendation 

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:

40647

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:

6922
15

[cv, respoth]” or it may not be considered by the District Judge.

Case 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 399 Filed 08/02/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:

40648

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 175-1 Filed 10/25/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:

6923