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.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP

SAMSUNG’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO HEADWATER’S 

MOTION TO AMEND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER (DKT. NO. 132)

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 5919
1

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. 

(collectively, “Samsung”) hereby submit this sur-reply to correct a number of false statements in 

Headwater’s Reply (Dkt. 137), which Headwater mischaracterizes as “major developments” 

taking place since September 8, 2024 (four days ago) that purportedly require yet another extension 

to the already agreed-upon DCO schedule. Reply at 1; Dkt. 133-1 at 4–5.

First, Headwater misstates that the parties’ agreement on the latest amended schedule 

(Dkts. 130, 131) was “express[ly] condition[ed]” on Samsung offering Mr. Song for deposition 

the week of September 9th. See Dkt. 133-1 at 4–5. Headwater stated it “could” agree to take Mr. 

Song’s deposition this week (on September 11, 12, or 13). Dkt. 133-1 at 4. Even assuming 

Headwater’s suggested deposition dates for Mr. Song constituted a firm proposal, Samsung’s 

email response does not contain any acceptance. Id. at 3. Nor does Headwater’s email reflect that 

its agreement to the proposed schedule was “condition[ed]” on deposing Mr. Song this week. Id.

at 4. The parties’ positions have not changed and there has been no “major development.” 

Second, with respect to the scheduling of depositions of both Mr. Song and Mr. Kolotouros, 

neither Mr. Song nor Mr. Kolotouros had an agreed-upon deposition date on September 9th when 

Headwater agreed to the current schedule. This did not change by September 10th when 

Headwater filed its motion.

1

 Again, no “major development.” Incredibly, Headwater took 1.5

months to produce Headwater founder and CEO, Greg Raleigh for his 30(b)(1) deposition (noticed 

by Samsung on May 1, 2024; deposed on June 14, 2024), yet now complains that Samsung has 

not immediately made available for deposition two witnesses whose names were not uttered during 

the entire case until Headwater subpoenaed/noticed these individuals with only two weeks left in 

1 Consistent with Headwater’s discovery strategy, Headwater requested that Samsung be prepared 

to discuss deposition scheduling for Mr. Song and Mr. Kolotouros on the parties’ September 10 

meet-and-confer less than one hour before the meet-and-confer was set to begin.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 5920
2

the already-extended discovery period. Only Headwater is to blame for waiting until the end of 

fact discovery to subpoena Mr. Kolotouros and notice Mr. Song—conduct that has led to 

Headwater now manufacturing “development[s]” in an attempt to excuse its welching on the 

parties’ agreed-upon schedule. See Opp. at 1.

Third, Headwater cannot credibly claim that Samsung’s recent 

document production justifies reneging on its scheduling agreement. As 

explained in Samsung’s opposition, Samsung began producing documents during Mr. Jwa’s 

August 26-27 deposition at Headwater’s request and produced more in response to Headwater’s 

already filed motion to compel (Dkt. 122). Opp. at 2–3. Headwater fails to explain why mooting 

at least part of its motion to compel justifies a blank check to file yet more motions to compel. 

The deadline for motions to compel is also unrelated to whether the parties can “meaningfully 

meet and confer” about Headwater’s recent request for additional deposition time with Mr. Jwa to 

question him about these documents. See Reply at 3–4. 

In addition, the relevance of the at-issue documents remains anything but clear. 

Samsung has repeatedly asked Headwater to amend its infringement contentions to describe with 

specificity its infringement theories and Headwater has refused. Up until Mr. Jwa’s August 26th

deposition, Headwater’s theory—as best Samsung could understand it—focused on

 and Firebase Cloud Messaging (“FCM”), not —which offers no push 

services independent from and FCM.

2

2 Based on this understanding, Samsung produced voluminous documentation, including and 

FCM user guides and specifications. It is unreasonable to expect Samsung to produce user guides 

and specifications for unaccused features merely because they make passing reference to or 

FCM. See Reply at 3.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 5921
3

Indeed, Headwater’s undisclosed interest in represents a shift in its infringement 

theory and is the result of Headwater’s sluggish approach to fact discovery. Headwater waited

eight months to raise any issues regarding the completeness of Samsung’s production. See Dkt. 

122 at 1-2 (referencing Headwater’s Document Requests served November 14, 2023 and 

Headwater’s follow-up letter served July 16, 2024). Headwater further waited until the waning 

days of fact discovery to notice depositions, resulting in Samsung's 30(b)(6) designees sitting for 

deposition in the last two weeks of August, less than a month before the then-close of fact 

discovery. Despite Headwater’s lack of diligence, Samsung has done its best to accommodate 

Headwater’s iterations of eleventh-hour document requests spurred by Headwater’s latest untimely 

theory of infringement relating to . Neither Headwater’s failure to diligently pursue discovery 

nor Samsung’s accommodation of Headwater’s requests constitute “major development[s]” 

requiring modification of the DCO. If anything, Samsung’s accommodation of Headwater’s 

requests obviates the need for modification. 

For the reasons set forth above and in Samsung’s opposition, there is no good cause to 

modify the DCO to extend the deadline for motions to compel from the current deadline.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 5922
4

Dated: September 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Thad C. Kodish

Ruffin B. Cordell

TX Bar No. 04820550

Michael J. McKeon

DC Bar No. 459780

mckeon@fr.com

Jared Hartzman (pro hac vice forthcoming)

DC Bar No. 1034255

hartzman@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1000 Maine Avenue, SW, Ste 1000

Washington, D.C. 20024

Telephone: (202) 783-5070

Facsimile: (202) 783-2331

Thad C. Kodish

GA Bar No. 427603

tkodish@fr.com

Benjamin K. Thompson

GA Bar No. 633211 

bthompson@fr.com

Jonathan B. Bright

GA Bar No. 256953 

jbright@fr.com

Christopher O. Green

GA Bar No. 037617

cgreen@fr.com

Noah C. Graubart

GA Bar No. 141862

graubart@fr.com

Sara C. Fish

GA Bar No. 873853

sfish@fr.com

Nicholas A. Gallo (pro hac vice forthcoming)

GA Bar No. 546590

gallo@fr.com

Steffen C. Lake (pro hac vice forthcoming)

GA Bar No. 512272

lake@fr.com

Vivian C. Keller (pro hac vice)

GA Bar No. 651500

keller@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1180 Peachtree St. NE, Fl. 21

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5923
5

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: (404) 892-5005

Facsimile: (404) 892-5002

Leonard E. Davis

TX Bar No. 05521600

ldavis@fr.com

Andria Rae Crisler

TX Bar No. 24093792

crisler@fr.com

Thomas H. Reger II

Texas Bar No. 24032992

reger@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (214)747-5070

Facsimile: (214) 747-2091

John-Paul R. Fryckman (pro hac vice)

CA Bar No. 317591

John W. Thornburgh

CA Bar No. 154627

thornburgh@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12860 El Camino Real, Ste. 400

San Diego, CA 92130

Telephone: (858) 678-5070

Facsimile: (858) 678-5099

Katherine D. Prescott (pro hac vice)

CA Bar No. 215496

prescott@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

500 Arguello Street

Suite 400

Redwood City, CA 94063

Telephone: (650) 839-5180

Facsimile: (650) 839-5071

Kyle J. Fleming (pro hac vice)

NY Bar No. 5855499

kfleming@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

7 Times Square, 20th Floor,

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: (212) 765-5070

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 5924
6

Facsimile: (212) 258-2291

Melissa R. Smith

State Bar No. 24001351

Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Andrew Thompson (“Tom”) Gorham

State Bar No. 24012715

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

102 N. College, Suite 800

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

Michael E. Jones 

State Bar No. 10929400 

mikejones@potterminton.com 

Shaun W. Hassett 

State Bar No. 24074372 

shaunhassett@potterminton.com 

POTTER MINTON, P.C. 

102 N. College Ave., Suite 900 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Telephone: (903) 597-8311 

Facsimile: (903) 593-0846

Lance Lin Yang

CA. Bar No. 260705

Lanceyang@quinnemanuel.com

Kevin (Gyushik) Jang

CA Bar No. 337747

kevinjang@quinnemanuel.com

Sean S. Pak

CA Bar No. 219032

seanpak@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 5925
7

Jon Bentley Hyland

Texas Bar No. 24046131

jhyland@hilgersgraben.com

Grant K. Schmidt

Texas Bar No. 24084579

gschmidt@hilgersgraben.com

HILGERS GRABEN PLLC

7859 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 335

Dallas, Texas 75230

Telephone: (972) 645-3097

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 5926
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants met and conferred at 2:30 p.m. CT on

September 10, 2024, in compliance with the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h). 

Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant corresponded by email, wherein counsel for 

Defendants informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendants opposed Plaintiff’s instant motion.

/s/ Thad C. Kodish

Thad C. Kodish

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

I certify that the following document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the 

Protective Order entered in this case.

/s/ Thad C. Kodish

Thad C. Kodish

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed 

electronically with the Clerk of the Court of the Eastern District of Texas using the ECF System 

under seal on September 12, 2024 and served plaintiff with a copy via electronic mail.

/s/ Thad C. Kodish

Thad C. Kodish

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 143 Filed 09/17/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 5927