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 OPPOSITION TO HEADWATER’S 

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

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 5910
1

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

(collectively, Samsung) oppose Plaintiff’s Tuesday, September 10 request that the Court further 

amend the DCO to extend the deadline to file motions to compel. At Plaintiff’s request, on 

Monday, September 9, Samsung agreed to modify the fact and expert discovery deadlines. See 

Dkt. 133-1 (Ex. 1 to Davis Decl.) at 1; Dkt. 130.

1

 Samsung conditioned modification of these 

deadlines on maintaining the September 10 deadline for motions to compel. Dkt. 133-1 at 3-4. 

Less than 24 hours later, Plaintiff is reneging on that agreement and seeking to extend the deadline 

for motions to compel. Nothing changed in those 24 hours that creates good cause for Plaintiff’s 

requested extension. Samsung requests that Headwater’s attempt to use this time to inundate the 

Court and parties with unwarranted and belated motion practice be denied. 

I. DEPOSITIONS REGARDING GOOGLE-SAMSUNG AGREEMENTS

Plaintiff has already filed a motion to compel production of certain Google-Samsung 

Agreements, including a Revenue Sharing Agreement (“RSA”) (Dkt. 122 at 4-6) and the parties 

dispute the relevancy of the RSA. Citations in Plaintiff’s motion to compel Google-Samsung 

Agreement show that it has long been public knowledge that James Kolotouros and SeungHo Song 

were involved in the RSA. See generally id. at Exs. 9–11. Nonetheless, Plaintiff chose not to 

subpoena Mr. Kolotouros and notice Mr. Song until August 28—13 days before the then-scheduled 

close of fact discovery and well after the original close of fact discovery. Third party Mr.

Kolotouros agreed for Fish to accept service on his behalf, alleviating Headwater of the need to 

formally serve him. Plaintiff then refused to provide Mr. Kolotouros the courtesy of an extension 

of time to respond to the subpoena. As set forth in Mr. Kolotouros’ objections served the morning 

of September 9, there are complicating third-party confidentiality issues surrounding any 

1 Samsung has already twice previously in this case agreed to Headwater’s requests to modify 

and extend the schedule.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 5911
2

deposition of Mr. Kolotouros given that he is a former Google employee and a current nonDefendant Samsung Research America employee. While Headwater suggested that Mr. Song 

might be deposed September 11, 12 or 13, Samsung did not agree to these dates. Dkt. 133-1 at 4. 

Nothing changed concerning these depositions from the time the parties jointly agreed to a motion 

to compel deadline of September 9 to the following day when Plaintiff filed this motion. 

II. THE PARTIES’ RECENT DOCUMENT PRODUCTIONS 

As to be expected, the parties have both continued to produce documents throughout fact 

discovery. For example, with Dr. Raleigh’s deposition scheduled for September 10, on Friday, 

September 6, Plaintiff produced over 100 emails and other documents between Dr. Raleigh 

. These documents were responsive to requests from the -422 matter, not 

just this case, and have been subject to extensive discussion between the parties. In contrast, 

Samsung’s recent production of documents has been in response to follow up requests Plaintiff 

made after August depositions and recent shifts in Plaintiff’s infringement and damages theories, 

as well as in attempt to minimize the disputes before the Court in the Plaintiff’s prematurely filed 

Motion to Compel (Dkt. 122).

Samsung’s recent production of data concerning the number of push notifications sent and 

the Google-Samsung MADA cannot be a surprise to Plaintiff or justify its changed position on the 

deadline for motions to compel from September 9 to September 10. Plaintiff had filed a motion to 

compel these very documents on September 3. Dkt. 122 at 4-6 (seeking production of MADA); 

Dkt 122 at 6-7 (seeking extent of use data for push notifications). Plaintiff cannot use what it 

expected to receive in response to its motion to compel to now justify an extension of the deadline 

of the motion to compel. 

Nor can Samsung’s recent production of additional documents from Mr. Jwa be a surprise 

to Plaintiff or justify a changed position on the deadline for motions to compel from September 9 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 5912
3

to September 10. Plaintiff requested these documents at Mr. Jwa’s August 26-27 deposition and 

Samsung produced them thereafter. During the meet and confer on September 10, Plaintiff could 

not specify how many additional hours it was seeking with Mr. Jwa.

III. THE PARTIES’ MEET AND CONFER 

After agreeing, on September 9, in the joint submission to the Court (Dkt. 130) that the 

deadline for motion to compel should be September 10, during a September 10 meet and confer 

scheduled for other purposes, Plaintiff raised for the first time an extension of the deadline to move 

to compel. Even when it made the request, Plaintiff could not specify how long of an extension it 

sought.

IV. LOCAL COUNSEL AVAILABILITY

Samsung’s local counsel was available to meet and confer at both 2pm CT and at 5pm CT 

on September 10. Samsung’s lead counsel was available at these times as well. Plaintiff counsel 

only made itself available at 2:30 CT, and on less than an hour’s notice.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, there is no good cause to modify the DCO to extend the 

deadline for motions to compel from the deadline of September 10, 2024 to which the parties just 

agreed on September 9, 2024. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 5913
4

Dated: September 11, 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 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5914
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 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 5915
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

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 5916
7

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

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 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 5917
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 11, 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 142 Filed 09/17/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 5918