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 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 876
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................2

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................3

IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3

A. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’733 Patent. ..............4

1. “service control link” .......................................................................5

2. “control-plane communications” .....................................................6

3. “service control device link agent” and “service control server link 

element” 7

4. “agent communication bus” .............................................................7

B. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’192 Patent ...............8

1. “secure message link” ......................................................................8

2. “network element messages comprising respective message 

content and requests for delivery of the respective message content” .....................9

3. “the trigger is an occurrence of an asynchronous event with timecritical messaging needs” .......................................................................................10

4. “transport services stack” ...............................................................10

C. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’117 Patent. ............11

1. Headwater’s Infringement Theory Regarding FCM Functionality is 

Facially Deficient. ..................................................................................................11

2. “secure Internet data connections” .................................................12

3. “a secure interprocess communication service” ............................13

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................13

 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 877
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................2 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................2 

Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., 

No. 2:18-CV-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ............................3, 4 

Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc., 

No. 6:17-CV-186 JRG-JDL, 2017 WL 9935521, (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) ...........................3 

Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC v. Regions Fin. Corp., 

No. 2:21-CV-00417-JRG, 2022 WL 798030 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2022) ..................................4 

Thomas v. Esper, Sec’y of the Army, 

No. 5:18-cv-110-RWS-CMC, 2019 WL 3026951 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2019) ..........................2 

VStream Techs., LLC v. PLR IP Holdings, LLC, 

No. 6:15-cv-974-JRG-JDL, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016)................................................3 

Other Authorities 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................2 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 878
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) alleges that Defendants Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively “Defendants” or 

“Samsung”) infringe three patents-in-suit.1 But Headwater proffers bare bones allegations that 

only contain screenshots of different sources and statements that, in many instances, merely repeat 

the asserted claim language, particularly with respect to the limitations identified in this motion. 

Such statements do not constitute a descriptive explanation of the screenshots that follow, and 

thereby fail to notify Defendants of Headwater’s infringement allegations. Headwater’s 

Complaint thus falls short of the Twombly/Iqbal standard. 

For U.S. Patent No. 8,406,733 (the “’733 patent”), Headwater’s Complaint glosses over 

several claim limitations, resulting in facially deficient allegations that, even if accepted as true, 

cannot establish infringement. For example, for the “service control link” element, Headwater’s 

Complaint mentions the term only when parroting the claim language and makes no factual 

allegation as to where in the accused devices such an element may be present. Headwater 

commits similar flaws with respect to at least four other claim elements. So too for U.S. Patent 

No. 9,615,192 (the “’192 patent”), wherein the Complaint fails to identify any “secure message 

link,” “network element messages,” and other claim elements in the accused functionalities. 

Finally, Headwater’s U.S. Patent No. 9,198,117 (the “’117 patent”) infringement 

allegations are also deficient. For example, while its claims require communications between a 

“device messaging agent” and a “network message server,” Headwater accuses a hodgepodge of 

disparate functionalities without actually showing that each alleged “agent” actually 

communicates with the alleged “servers.” For example, Headwater appears to accuse “the 

1

 Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“SDC”) has been dismissed from the case. See Dkt. No. 25. 

This motion is therefore filed solely on behalf of Defendants SEC and SEA. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 879
2 

Firebase Cloud Messaging client app” of being a “device messaging agent,” but Headwater fails 

to identify any corresponding “network message server” that communicates with this app. 

Moreover with respect to all accused functionalities, Headwater generally fails to identify 

limitations that enable these communications, such as “secure Internet data connections” and “a 

secure interprocess communication service.” Thus, on Headwater’s pleading, infringement 

cannot be plausibly inferred. 

For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that Headwater’s claims for 

infringement be dismissed as to the asserted patents.2

II. LEGAL STANDARDS 

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff 

must plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A 

claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678. A court must dismiss a claim if the facts alleged do not support a reasonable 

inference of liability, a standard that “asks for more than a sheer possibility” that the defendant 

engaged in wrongful acts. Id. Thus, a court need not “accept as true a legal conclusion couched 

as factual allegation,” id. (quotation omitted), nor allegations “that are conclusory in nature.” 

Thomas v. Esper, Sec’y of the Army, No. 5:18-cv-110-RWS-CMC, 2019 WL 3026951, at *2 (E.D. 

Tex. May 22, 2019) (citation omitted). A pleading with only “labels and conclusions” or “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

2

 These identified deficiencies in Headwater’s infringement theories are only exemplary. 

Defendants expect and reserve the right to identify more deficiencies as the case progresses. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 880
3 

A plaintiff must “provid[e] facts sufficient to create a plausible inference that each element 

of the claim is infringed by the accused products.” Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc., No. 6:17-

CV-186 JRG-JDL, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) (emphasis added). 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Headwater filed its Complaint on March 10, 2023, asserting infringement of the ’117, ’192, 

and ’733 patents. Dkt. 1. Headwater’s Complaint included three claim charts, each containing 

Headwater’s infringement allegations for claim 1 of each of the three asserted patents. Dkts. 1-

4 (’733 patent), 1-5 (’117 patent), 1-6 (’192 patent). Other than in the claim charts, Headwater’s 

Complaint does not set forth a description of where each claim limitation is purportedly found in 

the accused devices. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 63, 78, 93. 

IV. ARGUMENT 

Headwater’s Complaint fails to state a plausible claim of infringement. The “key to 

patent infringement is not just identifying [] products, but identifying how those products allegedly 

infringe the Asserted Patent claims.” See VStream Techs., LLC v. PLR IP Holdings, LLC, No. 

6:15-cv-974-JRG-JDL, slip op. at 7 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016) (emphasis added). In 

Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., for example, this Court dismissed a complaint that “[did] not 

contain materially more than [] bare bones allegations.” No. 2:18-CV-00300-JRG, 2018 WL 

6981828, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018). The Court explained that a conclusory statement 

parroting a claim limitation followed by “supporting” screenshots do not pass the Iqbal/Twombly

standard. Id. 

As in Chapterhouse, Headwater’s Complaint does not contain “materially more” than 

barebones allegations. While Headwater’s Complaint “breaks . . . exemplary claim[s] into 

individual elements with ‘supporting’ screenshots,” that alone is insufficient. Id. “While 

screenshots may be useful in laying out a plausible allegation of patent infringement, Plaintiff must 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 881
4 

further allege how the screenshots meet the text of the exemplary claim in order to lay out sufficient 

factual allegations which might permit the Court to find that the Iqbal/Twombly standard is met.” 

Id. (noting that additional explanation may be merited for patents covering “hardware and 

software” claims relative to “relatively simple” mechanical patents). Headwater fails to provide 

such allegations with respect to several limitations, doing no more than cobbling together 

screenshots of various sources, which in many instances are not even linked to the claim elements 

they purportedly illustrate. 

Headwater may argue that, in contrast to Chapterhouse, its Complaint includes “descriptive 

explanations of the screenshots” in its attached claim charts. See Liberty Peak Ventures, LLC v. 

Regions Fin. Corp., No. 2:21-CV-00417-JRG, 2022 WL 798030, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2022). 

That argument fails, however, as although Headwater’s charts provide some description for a 

subset of screenshots, they do so on a selective basis—leaving many claim terms unaddressed. 

The elements identified in this motion generally reflect such ignored limitations. Because 

infringement requires a showing of each element of an asserted claim, Headwater’s Complaint 

does not pass the Iqbal/Twombly standard. 

A. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’733 Patent. 

Headwater’s Complaint does not provide any evidence or explanation as to how the 

accused devices practice several limitations of the ’733 patent, namely (1) service control link, (2) 

control-plane communications, (3) service control device link agent, (4) service control server link 

element, and (5) agent communication bus. Indeed, aside from parroting the claim limitations, 

Headwater does not once mention these claim elements in its Complaint. The deficiencies with 

respect to each of the limitations is discussed in turn below. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 882
5 

1. “service control link” 

Claim 1 of the ’733 patent requires an end-user device to communicate with a network 

system “over a service control link provided by the network system over a wireless access 

network.” See ’733 patent at 163:49-50. The claim further requires the “service control link” 

be “secured by an encryption protocol” and “configured to support control-plane 

communications.” Id. at 163:50-52. The specification of the ’733 patent depicts a service 

control link 1653 in Fig. 16: 

Headwater’s claim chart does not identify a “service control link” in the accused devices. 

Headwater alleges that the “wireless access network” limitation is met by “a wi-fi network and/or 

a cellular network.” Dkt. 1-4 at 2-3 (“For example, the Galaxy S22 includes a plurality of 

wireless modems for communicating with a network system over a wi-fi network and/or a cellular 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 883
6 

network (a ‘wireless access network’).”); id. at 7-8 (same allegation for “Samsung’s Tizen based 

devices”). But Headwater completely ignores the “service control link” limitation. 

Headwater’s failure to identify a “service control link” continues in its discussion of a 

subsequent claim limitation (limitation 1[d]), which requires that the accused devices receive an 

“encrypted agent message” “over the service control link.” See ’733 patent at 163:65-67 

(limitation 1[d]). Without identifying any “service control link,” Headwater has similarly failed 

to identify that “an encrypted agent message” is received over the “service control link.” The 

closest allegation for this limitation is that the accused devices receive messages “from a server,” 

but Headwater does not provide any further detail. Dkt. 1-4 at 45, 50, 56. Thus, even when 

viewed in the light most favorable to Headwater, Headwater’s infringement allegations do not 

show that an encrypted agent message is received over a “service control link.” 

2. “control-plane communications” 

Claim 1 of the ’733 patent recites that a “service control link,” discussed above, is 

“configured to support control-plane communications.” ’733 patent at 163:51-52. But 

Headwater’s Complaint remains silent on what constitutes “control-plane communications” in the 

accused devices and fails to even allege that the accused devices engage in any type of “controlplane communications,” whether supported by a “service control link” or not. Headwater merely 

alleges that the “wireless access network” limitation is met by “a wi-fi network and/or a cellular 

network” (Dkt. 1-4 at 2-3, 7-8) but ignores the “control-plane communications” limitation. But 

such an allegation, even if true, does not establish that the communications include “control-plane 

communications.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 884
7 

3. “service control device link agent” and “service control server link 

element” 

Claim 1 of the ’733 patent requires that certain communications take place between a 

“service control device link agent” and a “service control server link element.” For example, 

the claim requires that the “control-plane communications” are received by a “service control 

device link agent,” see ’733 patent at 163:51-54 (limitation 1[a]), and that the “service control 

device link agent” is configured to receive an “encrypted agent message” from “service control 

server link element.” Id. at 163:64-67 (limitation 1[d]). 

Headwater’s Complaint ignores these claim requirements. Headwater contends, in broad 

strokes, that the accused “phones and tablets” communicate with a network system but does not 

identify a “service control device link agent” on such phones and tablets that receives such network 

communications. See, e.g., Dkt. 1-4 at 3 (“Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets use encryption 

protocols to secure communications between the device and the network system.”). Headwater’s 

allegations for the “service control server link element” do not fare any better. Headwater simply 

asserts that encrypted messages are received “from a server” and does not explain what a “service 

control server link element” is in such a server, let alone how a “service control server link 

element” sends an “encrypted agent message” to an end-user device. Id. at 33 (“Samsung Galaxy 

phones and tablets receive encrypted messages from a server.”); id. at 37 (“Samsung’s Tizen based 

devices receive encrypted messages from a server.”); id. at 44. 

4. “agent communication bus” 

Claim 1 of the ’733 patent recites “agent communication bus” twice, requiring that “device 

agents” are coupled to the “service control device link agent” “through an agent communication 

bus,” see ’733 patent at 163:55-59 (limitation 1[b]), and that a message from a server is delivered 

to a particular device agent “over the agent communication bus.” Id. at 164:10-12 (limitation 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 885
8 

1[f]). Headwater asserts that the accused devices “comprise multiple device agents which have 

an identifier” (Dkt. 1-4 at 13, 16, 21) and “deliver message content to particular device agents 

based on identifier.” Dkt. 1-4 at 57, 60, 67. Nowhere in the Complaint, however, does 

Headwater identify an “agent communication bus” that connects the alleged device agents and 

over which the alleged message content is delivered. Indeed, Headwater does not even mention 

the term “agent communication bus” in its chart other than when parroting the claim limitations. 

Id. at 13, 57. 

As a result, even if Headwater’s factual allegations are accepted as true, Headwater’s 

Complaint is insufficient to create a plausible inference of infringement of the ’733 patent by any 

accused device. 

B. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’192 Patent 

1. “secure message link” 

Claim 1 of the ’192 patent recites a “message link server” that comprises “a transport 

services stack to maintain a respective secure message link.” ’192 patent at 167:8-16. Although 

Headwater superficially identifies two examples of message link servers (i.e., the so-called 

“Samsung’s push messaging server” related to the “Tizen App” and the so-called “Samsung Knox 

server”), it fails to identify any “secure message link” maintained by those servers. Dkt. 1-6 at 

4-10. Headwater instead simply repeats the claim language and alleges that such a link exists 

without identifying what it is. See id. at 5, 8 (asserting, without identification, that there is a 

“secure message link” over which messages are sent). For example, Headwater’s Knox citations 

lack any prose explanation and instead graphically illustrate an unexplained blue dashed or 

arrowed line connecting consumer devices to a cloud designated “Samsung Knox Manage.” Id.

at 9-10. Even speculating Headwater is suggesting that blue line somehow indicates the existence 

of a “link,” it fails to explain what aspect constitutes a “secure message link.” Indeed, none of 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 886
9 

those words (“secure,” “message,” or “link”) appear on the reproduced graphic. Id. While the 

words “messages” and “secure” do appear on the source website for that graphic, it is unclear 

whether, and if so how, Headwater contends this source website evidences the existence of a 

“secure message link.” See https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knox-manage/welcome.htm. 

This source website instead indicates there are multiple components of Knox Manage, which only 

further obfuscates what about this functionality Headwater believes constitutes a secure message 

link. 

2. “network element messages comprising respective message content 

and requests for delivery of the respective message content” 

Claim 1 of the ’192 patent recites that the message link server can receive “network element 

messages comprising respective message content and requests for delivery” that are apparently 

sent by “network elements.” ’192 patent at 167:17-24. Headwater does not describe the alleged 

screenshot-based evidence of infringement in any meaningful way and instead essentially repeats 

the claim language. See Dkt. 1-6 at 11, 16 (claiming certain alleged servers “receive messages 

from a plurality of network elements (e.g. App servers) which comprise content and delivery 

requests to devices and software components”). As with the “secure message link” element 

discussed above, Headwater’s allegations with respect to Samsung Knox Manage are particularly 

deficient. Id. at 16-17. First, Headwater fails to identify what it contends constitutes network 

elements, alleging only that unidentified “App Servers”—which do not appear in the reproduced 

Knox Manage graphics—are examples of them. Further, having failed to identify what it 

contends are network elements, Headwater’s allegations lack any explanation regarding what 

constitutes “message content” or “requests for delivery” sent by these unidentified network 

elements—much less the recited components of that message content (“data for, and an 

identification of, a respective one of the authorized software components”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 887
10 

3. “the trigger is an occurrence of an asynchronous event with timecritical messaging needs” 

Claim 1 of the ’192 patent recites that the message link server has a “message buffer 

system” with “logic to determine when one of a plurality of message delivery triggers” occur, one 

of these triggers being “an occurrence of an asynchronous event with time-critical messaging 

needs.” ’192 patent at 167:24-38. While Headwater’s identification of “logic,” “message 

buffer system,” and “triggers” are generally deficient with respect to both the accused Tizen and 

Knox manage functionalities, Headwater’s allegations are especially deficient with respect to the 

“asynchronous event” trigger. Dkt. 1-6 at 38-47. With respect to Tizen, Headwater cites to 

Tizen documentation addressing the delivery mechanism for notifications, which depends on 

“whether the application is running.” Id. at 38-42. Yet Headwater fails to identify any of these 

conditions as constituting the recited trigger. Id. at 38 (explanatory prose referencing only 

“whether a delivery trigger that is not based on the receipt of the message has occurred”). 

Headwater’s allegations with respect to Knox Manage are even more deficient, vaguely refencing 

passages regarding updating “an existing device profile.” Again, Headwater’s explanatory prose 

fails to even mention the “asynchronous event” claim language. Id. at 42. 

The patent specification provides scant guidance regarding how Headwater contends this 

claim element is present. The sole passage tying “asynchronous” to “messaging” provides only 

the examples of “a transaction or service billing event” or “a user request.” ’192 patent at 38:50-

63. Headwater’s infringement allegations reference neither scenario. 

4. “transport services stack” 

Claim 1 of the ’192 patent recites “a transport services stack to maintain a respective secure 

message link . . . between the message link server and a respective device link agent on each . . . 

end-user device[].” ’192 patent at 167:9-12. The Complaint, however, identifies no such 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 888
11 

element in the prose allegedly characterizing the cited screenshot evidence. Dkt. 1-6 at 5, 8. 

Tellingly, with respect to the limitation that introduces this claim element ([1a]), the attached claim 

chart limits its focus to documentation that allegedly demonstrates the “secure message link” 

limitation, without any reference to the claimed “transport services stack.” Id.

C. Headwater Failed to Adequately Plead Infringement of The ’117 Patent. 

Despite asserting claims that require a “network system” that includes a server, Headwater 

fails to identify any alleged server—at least with respect to the accused Firebase Cloud Messaging 

functionality. Moreover, Headwater’s Complaint does not provide any evidence or explanation 

as to how the accused devices practice at least two limitations of the ’117 patent, namely (1) secure 

Internet data connections and (2) a secure interprocess communication service. Instead of 

describing how the Tizen, Knox, and Firebase Cloud Messaging functionalities meet these claim 

elements, Headwater instead generically cites to documentation with no further explanation. 

1. Headwater’s Infringement Theory Regarding FCM Functionality is 

Facially Deficient. 

Headwater’s infringement allegation for the ’117 patent is facially deficient. Claim 1 of 

the ’117 patent (the only claim charted by Headwater) recites a “network message server” and a 

“device messaging agent.” ’117 patent at 163:47, 51. Claim 1 requires “the network message 

server to generate corresponding Internet data messages” and “to transmit each of the generated 

Internet data messages to the device messaging agent.” Id. at 163:63-164:3. Claim 1 also 

requires “each device messaging agent, when executing, to receive the Internet data messages.” 

Id. at 164:7-8. Thus, for each accused “device messaging agent,” Headwater must also identify 

a corresponding “network messaging server” that transmits “Internet data messages” to that 

particular accused “device messaging agent.” For the “device messaging agent” limitation, 

Headwater identifies several different features, including “the FCM client app.” Dkt. 1-5 at 5-

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 889
12 

15. However, Headwater fails to identify a corresponding “network message server” that 

transmits messages to the accused FCM client app. As a result, even if the FCM client app 

constituted a “device messaging agent,” Headwater’s infringement theory would fail because 

Headwater did not identify any “network message server” that communicates with the FCM client 

app. Accordingly, Headwater’s infringement allegation should be dismissed. 

2. “secure Internet data connections” 

Claim 1 of the ’117 patent requires a network message server to “support[] a plurality of 

secure Internet data connections, each secure Internet data connection between the network 

message server and a respective one of the mobile end-user devices.” See ’117 patent at 163:51-

55. Each “secure Internet data connection” supports a particular device, enabling a device 

messaging agent located on a device to use its corresponding connection to receive “Internet data 

messages.” Id. at 163:1-10. 

Headwater’s Complaint entirely fails to identify “secure Internet data connections” in the 

accused devices. Headwater merely alleges that the Tizen and Knox Manage functionalities meet 

the “secure Internet data connections” limitation while simultaneously ignoring the substance of 

the limitation. With respect to Tizen, Headwater cites to documentation that references a 

“permanent connection between the device and the push server,” yet it does not explain what about 

this “permanent connection” constitutes the recited “secure” Internet data connection or how it 

contends there is a “plurality” of them. See Dkt. 1-5 at 23-28. Similarly, with respect to Knox 

Manage, Headwater relies on graphics that depict an unexplained blue dashed or arrowed line 

connecting consumer devices to a cloud designated “Samsung Knox Manage.” Id. at 28-30. 

Again, speculating that Headwater contends that blue line somehow indicates the existence of a 

“secure Internet data connection,” it fails to explain what aspect enables transmission of the recited 

“Internet data messages.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 890
13 

3. “a secure interprocess communication service” 

Claim 1 of the ’117 patent requires “each device messaging agent” to “map the application 

identifier in [each received] message to a software process corresponding to the application 

identifier, and forward the application data in the message to the software process via a secure 

interprocess communication service.” ’117 patent at 164:11-15. 

Headwater’s Complaint fails to identify “a secure interprocess communication service” in 

the accused devices. While Headwater cites to documentation associated with the Tizen, Knox, 

and Firebase Cloud Messaging functionalities with respect to the claim limitation containing this 

element ([1h]), it does not identify what aspect of those functionalities satisfies this particular 

element. It instead essentially repeats three times, without explanation, the surrounding claim 

language. Dkt. 1-5 at 68, 70, 76-77 (noting that Samsung devices “map[] the identifier in the 

message to a corresponding software process and forward the data to the application via a secure 

service”). 

V. CONCLUSION 

Because Headwater’s Complaint contains insufficient facts from which infringement can 

be plausibly inferred, Defendants respectfully request dismissal of Headwater’s infringement 

allegations against the asserted patents. 

Dated: July 10, 2023 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 891
14 

Joshua Carrigan (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

VA Bar No. 96911 

carrigan@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 

Nicholas A. Gallo (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

GA Bar No. 546590 

gallo@fr.com 

Steffen Lake (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

GA Bar No. 512272 

lake@fr.com 

Vivian C. Keller (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

GA Bar No. 651500 

keller@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree St. NE, Fl. 21 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 892-5005 

Facsimile: (404) 892-5002 

Leonard E. Davis 

TX Bar No. 05521600 

ldavid@fr.com 

Andria Rae Crisler 

TX Bar No. 24093792 

crisler@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214)747-5070 

Facsimile: (214) 747-2091 

Melissa R. Smith 

State Bar No. 24001351 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 892
15 

Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone: (903) 934-8450 

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 893
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been sent to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 

DATED: July 10, 2023 By /s/ Thad C. Kodish

 Thad C. Kodish 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 07/10/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 894