IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

 Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DKT. 40)

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1811
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

-i

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

II. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE 

’117 PATENT...................................................................................................................1

A. Headwater Identifies Samsung’s Use Of Google Firebase 

Cloud Messaging ..................................................................................................1

B. “Secure Internet Data Connections” .....................................................................2

C. “A Secure Interprocess Communication Service” ................................................2

III. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE 

’733 PATENT...................................................................................................................3

A. “Control-Plane Communications” ........................................................................3

B. “Service Control Device Link Agent” And “Service Control 

Server Link Element” ...........................................................................................4

IV. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE 

’192 PATENT...................................................................................................................5

A. “Secure Message Link”.........................................................................................5

B. “Transport Services Stack” ...................................................................................5

V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................5

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1812
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

iiCASES

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007).......................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,

4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... 1, 2

Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc.,

631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................... 2

In re Bill of Lading,

681 F.3d at 1339 ............................................................................................................... 5

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,

2019 WL 2959568 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019).................................................................. 5

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc.,

2016 WL 7042236 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016).................................................................. 5

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. PNC Bank N.A.,

No. 2:21-CV-00246-JRG, 2022 WL 739521 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 

2022) ................................................................................................................................. 3

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1813
- 1 -

I. INTRODUCTION1

Samsung admits that Headwater’s FAC provides notice of the activities Headwater accuses 

of infringing its patents. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Indeed, Samsung 

acknowledges that the law does not require an element-by-element analysis, but instead requires 

that “a complaint must identify ‘what activity . . . is being accused of infringement.’” Dkt. No. 43 

at 1 (“Reply”) (citing Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). 

Here, Samsung does not dispute that Headwater identified the activity accused of infringement in 

its FAC. Instead, Samsung attempts to raise claim construction disputes and factual disagreements 

with the contents of Headwater’s FAC—neither of which warrant dismissing Headwater’s 

complaint. Headwater’s FAC plainly identifies the accused instrumentalities and provides detailed 

infringement charts putting Samsung on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement.

Nothing more is required, and Samsung’s motion should be denied.

II. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’117 PATENT

Samsung does not dispute that Headwater identified and pled infringement by Samsung 

Knox and Tizen servers. Dkt. No. 40 (“Motion”) at 1, 6-7. Samsung identifies no authority to 

support dismissing Headwater’s complaint even though Samsung itself acknowledges at least these 

two well-pled theories of infringement. On this basis alone, Samsung’s motion should be denied.

A. Headwater Identifies Samsung’s Use of Google Firebase Cloud Messaging

Samsung instead argues that Samsung’s use of Google Firebase Cloud Messaging requires

some showing of “[v]icarious liability.” Reply at 2. But this is irrelevant because Headwater does 

1 While Samsung’s Motion lacks merit and should be denied, Samsung does not dispute that if 

the Court finds that the Amended Complaint falls short of its pleading requirements, Headwater 

should be allowed to amend its pleading to remedy its allegations with respect to the whichever 

issue(s) the Court deems appropriate. Resp. at 20.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1814
- 2 -

not allege that Samsung directly infringes through divided infringement. Thus, this issue is not 

ripe for dismissal at this stage and, in any event, fails. Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest 

Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (a party “uses” a claimed system when 

it “put[s] the invention into service, i.e., control[s] the system as a whole and obtain[s] benefit 

from it.”). While Samsung asserts that “Headwater does not allege that Samsung controls or 

directs the Google servers” (Reply at 2), this ignores Headwater’s FAC, clearly pleading that 

“Defendants direct and control use of the Accused Instrumentalities,” including Samsung Knox 

and Tizen servers, as well as Google Firebase Cloud Messaging, identified in Headwater’s “[c]hart 

setting forth a description of Defendants’ infringement claim 1 of the ’117 patent.” Dkt. No. 31 at 

17 (citing Dkt. No. 31-5).

Samsung’s complaints with respect to specific claim language similarly ring hollow, 

demonstrating that Samsung’s motion should be denied.

B. “secure Internet data connections”

Samsung reiterates its argument that Headwater supposedly needed to identify the 

“encryption ‘requirement’ set by Samsung or any specific encryption protocol.’” Reply at 3. Yet, 

this is not required by the law as Headwater explained in its Response. Resp. at 18. Regardless, 

Samsung admits that Headwater’s FAC includes allegations regarding “encryption” in connection 

with “how third party application developers design their applications. See Dkt. 31-5 at 30-31.” 

Reply at 3 (quoting Headwater’s claim chart identifying “exemplary application code stating: 

‘Decrypt app data here if it is encrypted’”). 

C. “a secure interprocess communication service”

Samsung acknowledges that Headwater’s FAC fairly notifies Samsung “that the Android 

API and Tizen API” provide this limitation in the form of a “client-server architecture.” Reply at 

3. This is all the law requires. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544; Bot M8 LLC, 4 F.4th at 1352. Any factual 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1815
- 3 -

disagreement about a patentee’s application of claim language to an accused system is not a basis 

to dismiss a count or complaint under Twombly. Resp. at 18-19. 

III. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’733 PATENT

A. “control-plane communications”

While Samsung argues that “[t]he FAC does not allege that ‘Firebase messaging servers’

provide ‘control plane communications,’” Samsung admits Headwater included allegations in its 

FAC which “illustrate[] control-plane communications from server (‘[Firebase Cloud Messaging]

backend’) to user devices (‘SDC on device’).” Reply at 3. Indeed, Samsung further admits the

FAC “illustrates how messages are communicated.” Id. This alone demonstrates that Headwater 

has met its burden under Twombly. See also Resp. at 12-14. Samsung thus resorts to a claim 

construction argument about what “constitutes ‘control-plane’ communications.” Id. However, as 

Headwater explained, a claim construction dispute is not a pleading deficiency. Resp. at 14 (citing

United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 2:21-CV-00246-JRG, 2022 WL 739521, at *2 

(E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2022) (Gilstrap, J.) (“the Court is unwilling to engage in, what is effectively, 

claim construction at this early stage”)).

Samsung next argues that “[t]he FAC lumps the two limitations together and provides a 

single reason in support” and that “[b]ased on this alone, one cannot plausibly infer that the servers 

both support ‘control-plane communications’ and do so through ‘service control server link 

element.’” Reply at 4. Samsung’s argument defies common sense given that the same evidence or 

reason can support multiple arguments or inferences about one or more issues.

Finally, Samsung asserts that it is “incorrect that the FAC ‘provides fair notice that the 

identified message for controlling user devices are ‘control-plane communications’” because 

Headwater purportedly “does not cite where such a message is identified.” Reply at 4 (citing Dkt. 

31-4 at 13). Yet, the very portion of the claim chart Samsung cites identifies “[n]otifications, data, 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1816
- 4 -

and messages transmitted over these service control links from such servers to devices are 

encrypted, as illustrated above, and are ‘agent messages.’” Dkt. No. 31-4 at 13.

B. “service control device link agent” and “service control server link element”

Samsung identifies no authority to support dismissing Headwater’s complaint which 

Samsung itself acknowledges contains at least these two well-pled theories of infringement based 

on Samsung Knox and Tizen server accused instrumentalities. On this basis alone, Samsung’s 

motion should be denied.

Regarding the allegations on Firebase messaging servers, Samsung acknowledges that 

“‘service control server link elements’ are simply ‘servers in the server/client architecture.’”

Samsung nevertheless argues that “such an allegation was not in the FAC.” Reply at 4. However, 

Headwater’s FAC clearly identifies “Samsung’s Knox MDM platform, Knox Manage servers and 

Tizen servers are all examples of servers which provide control plane communications and which 

are service control server link elements.” Dkt. No. 31-4 at 13. And Samsung acknowledges that 

servers, such as Firebase messaging servers, are “service control server link elements” which 

constitute servers in the server/client architecture. Resp. at 14-15. The FAC therefore does not 

leave Samsung “to speculate how Firebase messaging servers—or any other server—would 

allegedly include a ‘service control server link element’” (Reply at 4), because Samsung’s own 

admissions show the FAC adequately put Samsung on notice as required by Twombly.

Finally, the FAC pleads facts sufficient to put Samsung on notice of Headwater’s 

infringement allegations regarding storing of an “encryption key.” Resp. at 15-16. Indeed, 

Samsung itself admits that “the FAC identifies ‘Samsung user devices as those having memory 

storing the encryption key of the claims and that such keys are shared between client and server.’” 

Dkt. 42 at 15 (citing Dkt. 31-4, at 24, 29, and 33). While Samsung improperly raises a new 

argument that these are “[t]hreadbare recitals,” as discussed above, they are more than adequate to 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1817
- 5 -

place Samsung on notice, which is all that is required under Twombly.

2

IV. HEADWATER ADEQUATELY PLED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’192 PATENT

A. “secure message link”

Samsung admits that “client devices can communicate with certain servers” (Reply at 5) 

and does not dispute that Headwater specifically identified “secure message links” of the Accused 

Instrumentalities by name. Resp. at 16-17. Samsung instead purports to create an improper 

pleading standard by comparing the accused server to a preferred embodiment and raising a 

purported claim construction issue. Reply at 5 (citing the ’192 specification). This is improper and 

provides no basis for dismissal. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Avaya Inc., 2016 WL 7042236, at *3 (E.D. 

Tex. May 13, 2016). 

B. “transport services stack”

Samsung ignores Headwater’s allegations which specifically identify examples of 

communications software in the accused instrumentalities, including, but not limited to “Tizen 

Push Server and a device link agent (e.g., Tizen App and/or Push Service)” and “Knox servers 

(Knox Manage software) and Knox-managed devices (e.g., Knox agent at the devices).” Dkt. No. 

31-6 at 5, 8, 59. Headwater is not required to “prove its case at the pleading stage.” In re Bill of 

Lading, 681 F.3d at 1339.

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons above, the Samsung’s Motion should be denied.

2 “It is black-letter law that arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived ‘as a 

matter of litigation fairness and procedure.’” Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 

2019 WL 2959568, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019) (citation omitted)).

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1818
- 6 -

Date: September 7, 2023 /s/ Jason M. Wietholter

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Brian Ledahl

CA State Bar No. 186579

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Kristopher Davis

CA State Bar No. 329627

James S. Tsuei

CA State Bar No. 285530

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

Amy Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

James Milkey

CA State Bar No. 281283

Jason M. Wietholter

CA State Bar No. 337139

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rak_headwater@raklaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1819
- 1 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. I further 

certify that all counsel of record were served a complete and accurate copy of the document via 

email on this day.

Dated: September 7, 2023 /s/ Jason M. Wietholter

Jason M. Wietholter

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 09/07/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1820