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 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION 

TO STRIKE EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN E. DELL (DKT. NO. 186) 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:

18957
EXHIBIT INDEX AND NOTES 

Exhibit Description 

15 Excerpts of the deposition transcript of Erik de la Iglesia, taken October 29, 2024 

16 Excerpts of the deposition transcript of Dr. Andreas Groehn, taken October 18, 

2024 

17 Excerpts of the deposition transcript of Gregory Raleigh, Ph.D., taken June 14, 

2024 

* Emphasis added unless otherwise noted. 

Abbreviations/Definitions 

FCM Firebase Cloud Messaging 

MADA Mobile Application Distribution Agreement 

WADA Watch Application Distribution Agreement 

RSA Revenue Sharing Agreement 

ROIC Return on Invested Capital 

EMVR Entire Market Value Rule 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:

18958
1 

Headwater, as “the proponent” of Mr. Dell’s testimony, has not “demonstrate[d] to the 

court that it is more likely than not that” his testimony is reliable and “reflects a reliable application 

of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. 

A. Mr. Dell’s Apportionment Does Not Isolate the Incremental Benefit 

Nothing in the combination of Mr. Dell’s separate apportionment steps suffices to properly 

apportion to the incremental benefit of the asserted patents. Headwater’s opposition argues all of 

Mr. Dell’s apportionment steps add up to adequate apportionment, but tries to hide the key failure 

in his analysis: Mr. Dell relies on Mr. de la Iglesia’s calculations that are not tailored to centralized 

push servers that “provided this combination of security, timeliness, application-specific 

communication, and battery savings.” Dkt. 206 at 3. Instead, Headwater’s experts have cherry 

picked only one portion of this alleged benefit (“battery savings”). Battery savings of a centralized 

push notification server does not represent the actual isolated footprint of the asserted patents 

because centralized push servers existed before the asserted patents and those earlier servers 

provided some degree of battery savings. Dkt. 211-2 (Foster Opening Rpt.) ¶¶75-78; see also Ex. 

15 (de la Iglesia Dep.) Vol. 1 at 251:15-252:5 (agreeing “it was known that applications could be 

deployed in a -- in a push configuration or to utilize -- to utilize application server pushes with a -

- with a kept-alive control connection”). Therefore, despite acknowledging that the proper 

footprint of the asserted patents’ invention should be much more narrowly limited to only 

centralized push servers “provid[ing] this combination of security, timeliness, application-specific 

communication, and battery savings,” Dkt. 206 at 3 (emphasis added), Headwater admits that Mr. 

de la Iglesia’s calculations ignore many aspects of the alleged invention’s benefits. Headwater 

does not dispute that Mr. de la Iglesia’s analysis was only “able to determine the specific battery 

savings” as compared to a non-centralized push/pull approach, Dkt. 206 at 3, and that Dr. Groehn 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:

18959
2 

likewise only “estimate[s] the dollar value to Samsung of this battery savings.” Id.1 Therefore, 

Mr. Dell’s apportionment, which relies primarily on Mr. de la Iglesia to apportion to the 

incremental benefit of the asserted patents, only adjusts for general battery savings irrespective of 

security, timeliness, and application-specific communications. This is not “evidence tending to 

separate or apportion ... the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented 

features,” Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc., 84 F.4th 963, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2023), nor “carefully tie[d] 

proof of damages to the claimed invention’s footprint in the market place.” VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco 

Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Headwater waves its hands at a second “extensive separate analysis” by Mr. Dell arguing 

that this “separate analysis” is what accounts for these other specific benefits of the asserted patents 

(“security, timeliness, and application-specific communications”). But, Mr. Dell discusses only 

Samsung’s use of push notifications in its marketing efforts, conflating push notifications generally 

with the specific incremental benefits of the asserted patents. Dkt. 206 at 3 (citing Dell Rpt. ¶¶ 

250-260). Push notifications are not “the features and functionalities enabled by the Patents at 

Issue” as Mr. Dell states. Dkt. 186-1 (Dell Rep.) ¶ 252. Dr. Raleigh admitted he did not invent 

push notifications, and Mr. de la Iglesia agrees push notifications were known prior art. Ex. 17 

(Raleigh Dep. 6/14/24) at 31:5-22; Ex. 15 (de la Iglesia Dep.) Vol. 1 at 241:20-25. Mr. Dell also 

appears to concede that the incremental benefits of the asserted patents are different from, and 

smaller than, his discussion of push notifications, saying that the “economic benefits discussed are 

driven by the push notification feature which is facilitated by the Patents at Issue.” Dkt. 186-1 ¶ 

260 (emphasis added). Nothing in Mr. Dell’s discussion of Samsung marketing use of push 

1

 Dr. Groehn admits his analysis was conducted for another case, Ex. 16 (Groehn Dep.) at 49:5-

17, and was not tailored to benefits offered by the asserted patents here, contrary to Headwater’s 

argument. Dkt. 206 at 3-4. Dr. Groehn’s analysis (if admissible) only relates to battery savings 

divorced from all other aspects of the alleged benefits. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:

18960
3 

notifications explains whether or how such push notifications were specifically providing Samsung 

with any of the additional alleged incremental benefits otherwise missing from Mr. Dell’s analysis, 

“security, timeliness, and application-specific communications.” Therefore, Mr. Dell’s analysis 

of Samsung’s marketing materials mentioning push notifications (Dkt. 186-1 ¶¶ 250-260) does not

attempt to isolate the value of any benefits of the allegedly infringing system that were not 

previously available in centralized push prior art systems. 

The remaining steps of Mr. Dell’s apportionment are independently flawed, as described 

in Samsung’s opening brief. In particular, Mr. Dell’s use of Samsung’s ROIC remains unreliable 

and unhelpful because Mr. Dell used public information to estimate Samsung’s ROIC, without 

confirming with any actual Samsung-produced data, let alone financials tailored to any relevant 

subsidiary or business unit within Samsung. Dkt. 186-1, Dell Rpt., Attach. 12 (citing 

https://www.gurufocus.com/term/roic/SSNLF). He offers no authentication or corroboration of 

the calculations he took from www.gurufocus.com. Nor does Headwater have any evidence 

indicating Samsung had previously used or was likely to use ROIC measurements during patent 

license negotiations or that use was customary in this industry for patent licenses. Dkt. 206-7, 

WAPP Tech Ltd., Dkt. 399, at * 10 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021) (“The Federal Circuit has upheld profit 

splits based on custom in the industry and history of prior licenses, both of which seem analogous 

to ROIC, which is a customary rate of return on investments. Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1210.”). Mr. 

Dell has not apportioned his damages calculations to the footprint of the asserted patent. Mr. Dell 

then fails to apply any further reasonably tailored apportionment to accused smartwatches. 

B. Opinions About the Non Arms-Length Agreements Should Be Excluded 

The Agreement was never an arms-length transaction, thus it is not appropriate for 

use for the hypothetical negotiation, which “is an arms-length negotiation between a willing 

licensor and a willing licensee.” Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. CV 16-638-RGA, 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:

18961
4 

2019 WL 1352767, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2019) (emphasis added). The Court has held 

 Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Elecs. 

Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00422-JRG-RSP, 2024 WL 1808601 at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024)). 

Headwater’s attempt to distinguish 

 who the Court has likewise 

already found shared a close working relationship. Id.

”). 

In addition to not being arms-length, Mr. Dell does not use the Agreement. 

Headwater argues Mr. Dell “does rely on,” D.I. 206 at 10, the licenses because he observes in one 

paragraph that “Headwater would enter the hypothetical negotiation informed by these royalty 

rates.” Dkt. 186-1 (Dell Rep) at ¶338. Nowhere does Mr. Dell use the or royalty rates 

from these agreements in his calculations. Permitting Mr. Dell 

to tell the jury about 

would only be unduly prejudicial and not tied to this case. See Albritton v. 

Acclarent, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03340-M, 2020 WL 11627275, at *20 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2020) 

(excluding prejudicial evidence of company-wide purchase price, full portfolio that included single 

patent in suit, noting “there is only a tenuous connection between ... purchase price and the value 

of the ’412 Patent’s technology.... The risk of unfair prejudice from this evidence substantially 

outweighs any probative value” (citing LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d 51, 78 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). 

C. Mr. Dell Does Not Connect The Agreements to The Accused Features 

As noted, Samsung moves to exclude all opinions from Mr. Dell regarding the Samsung-

, and s, in both his opening and supplemental reports. Despite having 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:

18962
5 

two opportunities to opine on these agreements and substantial additional (irrelevant) discovery, 

Mr. Dell still fails to connect these agreements in any admissible way to the alleged infringement 

. Headwater claims these agreements become relevant because Mr. 

Dell meaninglessly jammed discussion of them into various Georgia-Pacific factors. Labeling his 

discussion as relevant to certain GP factors does not make it so. Nothing in these agreements, 

payments, or negotiations relates directly to any discussed or perceived value of the accused 

feature. . Dkt. 186-

12 at 83:2-24. Headwater pursued extensive discovery on these agreements, yet now that Samsung 

has provided it, Headwater wants to ignore the proof that they were irrelevant all along. 

Headwater’s brief now tries to present the agreements effectively as an improper 

form of the EMVR that will prejudicially skew the damages horizon. Headwater admits the 

agreements (which themselves cover 

) cover a 

.” Dkt. 206 at 13. But, Headwater goes on to claim that 

all of the revenue exchanged in relation to 

. Or, at least, Headwater plainly 

hopes the jury will make this incorrect assumption. Headwater’s attempt to mislead and prejudice 

the jury with large dollar figures relating to these agreements should be struck for the same reasons 

this Court excluded evidence in Finesse Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC. No. 2:21-cv00316-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 17875791, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022) (granting motion strike 

references to total revenues “skews the damages horizon for the jury.” (citing Uniloc USA, Inc. v. 

Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:

18963
6 

Dated: November 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/Thomas H. Reger II 

 Ruffin B. Cordell 

TX Bar No. 04820550 

Michael J. McKeon 

DC Bar No. 459780 

mckeon@fr.com 

Jared Hartzman 

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 

Katherine H. Reardon 

NY Bar No. 5196910 

reardon@fr.com 

Nicholas A. Gallo 

GA Bar No. 546590 

gallo@fr.com 

Vivian C. Keller (pro hac vice) 

GA Bar No. 651500 

keller@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:

18964
7 

1180 Peachtree St. NE, Fl. 21 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:

18965
8 

Telephone: (212) 765-5070 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID

#: 18966
9 

Brady Huynh (admitted pro hac vice) 

CA Bar No. 339441 

bradyhuynh@quinnemanuel.com 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &

SULLIVAN, LLP 

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 801-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 

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.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID

#: 18967
10 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on November 12, 2024. As of this date, all 

counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this 

document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). 

/s/ Sara C. Fish 

Sara C. Fish 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 250 Filed 11/20/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID

#: 18968