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 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OF NO POST-SUIT WILLFULNESS

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:

17120
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................ 1

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................. 1

A. Willfulness Allegations in Headwater’s Complaint are Predicated on PreSuit Copying Narrative ........................................................................................... 1

B. Headwater’s Interrogatory No. 11 Response Initially Based Willful 

Infringement on an (Incorrect) Pre-Suit Copying Narrative................................... 2

C. Headwater Later Backed Away from this Pre-Suit Copying Narrative as 

the Bases for its Pre-Suit Willfulness Allegations.................................................. 3

D. Then, Following Motion Practice, Headwater Changed its Willfulness 

Theory to Pre-Suit Willfulness based on Willful Blindness................................... 4

E. Then, Last Night, Headwater Dropped Pre-Suit Willfulness ................................. 5

IV. GOVERNING LAW........................................................................................................... 5

A. Summary Judgment ................................................................................................ 5

B. Willful Infringement ............................................................................................... 6

V. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 6

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:

17121
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s)

Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,

No. 9-13-CV-102, 2015 WL 11110643 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2015) ..........................................6

BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. and Indus. Rsch. Org.,

28 F.4th 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................6

Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,

989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)....................................................................................................6

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317 (1986)...................................................................................................................5

Dillon v. Rogers,

596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................5

Jones v. Lowndes Cnty.,

678 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................6

Provisur Techs., Inc. v. Weber, Inc.,

No. 2023-1438, 2024 WL 4363502 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2024).................................................6, 7

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,

829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:

17122
iv

EXHIBIT INDEX AND NOTES

Exhibit Description

1 Excerpts from Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC’s Fifth (Sixth) Supplemental 

Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-14), 

dated September 24, 2024

2 Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ 

First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-2)

3 Excerpts from the Deposition of Gregory Raleigh, taken June 14, 2024

4 Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ 

Second Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 3-5)

5 Excerpts from the Deposition of Gregory Raleigh, taken Nov. 15, 2023

6 Excerpts from the Deposition of Gregory Raleigh, taken March 7, 2024

7 Excerpts from the Deposition of Gregory Raleigh, taken March 8, 2024

8 Excerpts from the Deposition of Gregory Raleigh, taken Sept. 10, 2024

9 Email between counsel, dated Oct. 24-25, 2024

* Emphasis added unless otherwise noted. 

Abbreviations/Definitions

• ROG 11: Samsung’s Interrogatory No. 11 

• Headwater Research LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00422 (E.D. 

Tex.) (hereinafter “HW1”)

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:

17123
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Samsung is entitled to summary judgment on post-suit willfulness because Headwater fails 

to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to its post-suit 

willfulness claim: that Samsung had specific intent to infringe the three Asserted Patents1after 

Headwater filed the Complaint in March 2023. Throughout this case, Headwater continued to 

(incorrectly) allege pre-suit willfulness (based on Samsung’s alleged copying of ItsOn technology 

practicing the Asserted Patents); not post-suit willfulness. In fact, Headwater failed to disclose 

any bases for this claim during discovery. Therefore, there are no disputed material facts as to 

Samsung’s alleged post-suit willfulness. To permit any contrary argument at trial―when 

Headwater repeatedly failed to disclose its bases for this claim (on which it bears the burden of 

proof)―would unduly prejudice Samsung.

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Whether the Court should grant summary judgment of no post-suit willful infringement 

where there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Samsung’s post-suit conduct was not 

intentional or deliberate infringement?

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

A. Willfulness Allegations in Headwater’s Complaint are Predicated on Pre-Suit 

Copying Narrative

1. Headwater filed its initial Complaint in this case on March 3, 2023. Dkt. 1. 

2. Headwater filed its First Amended Complaint on July 24, 2023. Dkt. 31.

3. The willfulness allegations in Headwater’s First Amended Complaint are 

predicated on the theory that Samsung received “notice of the asserted patents” via its exposure to 

1 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,406,733 (“the ’733 patent”), 9,198,117 (“the ’117 patent”), and 9,615,192 (“the 

’192 patent”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:

17124
2

ItsOn software that implemented “Headwater-patented technology.” Id., ¶¶ 16-36, 56, 60, 64, 70, 

74, 79, 85, 89, 94.

4. Headwater: (i) bases its willfulness claims on the “installation of the ItsOn software 

and solutions into [Samsung’s] operating systems, source code, and kernels in 2013-2016.” Id., ¶¶ 

64, 79, 94; and (ii) claims Samsung knew of/was willfully blind to its alleged infringement because 

this “ItsOn software installed on [Samsung] phones and tablets in 2013-2016 included a patent 

marking notice.” Id., ¶¶ 64, 79.

B. Headwater’s Interrogatory No. 11 Response Initially Based Willful 

Infringement on an (Incorrect) Pre-Suit Copying Narrative 

5. Samsung served, inter alia, Integratory No. 11 seeking the “factual and legal basis 

and supporting evidence for” Headwater’s willfulness allegation. Ex. 1 at 62. 

6. Headwater served three responses to Interrogatory No. 11: initial response on 

November 27, 2023 (Initial Response); first supplemental response on May 17, 2024; and second

(and final) supplemental response on September 24, 2024 (Final Response). Ex. 1.

2

 

7. In its Initial Response, Headwater gave the following purported bases for willful 

infringement:

3

i. That the ItsOn technology installed on Samsung devices from 2013-2016 practiced 

(“implemented”) the Asserted Patents. Ex. 1, ROG 11 Resp. at 63-66.

ii. Samsung had notice of the Asserted Patents via the marking website (also called 

the virtual marking page), that listed the Asserted Patents and 

 Id. 

2 Headwater’s interrogatory response incorrectly states that it served five responses to ROG 11

(initial and four supplements). Ex. 1. It did not. See id. Headwater’s response also incorrectly 

states that it served a “Third Supplemental Response” on “2/9/2024.” It did not. 

3 Headwater’s ROG 11 response also made claims about 

 neither of which are at issue in this 

case (the are at issue in HW1). Ex. 1, ROG 11 Resp. paras. 2-4.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:

17125
3

iii. Headwater gave Samsung notice of the Asserted Patents

Id. 

C. Headwater Later Backed Away from this Pre-Suit Copying Narrative as the 

Bases for its Pre-Suit Willfulness Allegations 

8. Headwater later admitted that the ItsOn Technology did not practice the Asserted 

Patents.

i. Ex. 2 (HW December 6, 2023 Resp. to RFAs) at RFA 1 (Headwater admits that 

). 

ii. Ex. 3 (Raleigh 6/14/2024 Dep. Tr.) at 197:11-19, 201:01-06, 202:13-203:25, 215:9-

18 (Dr. Raleigh—the sole named inventor of the Asserted Patents, former ItsOn 

CEO, and founder and managing board member at Headwater—

). 

iii. Id. at 201:07-202:12 (Dr. Raleigh testified that 

. 

9. Headwater later admitted that the ItsOn marking website never listed any of the 

Asserted Patents.

i. Ex. 4 (HW February 26, 2024 Resp. to RFA Nos. 3-5) (Headwater admitted 

that―for each Asserted Patent―

ii. Ex. 3 (Raleigh 6/14/2024 Dep. Tr.) at 202:13-203:25 (Dr. Raleigh testified that the 

).

10. Headwater later admitted that it did not otherwise give Samsung notice of the 

Asserted Patents, but only directed Samsung to the ItsOn marking website that did not contain the 

Asserted Patents.

i. Ex. 2 (HW December 6, 2023 Resp. to RFAs) at RFA No. 2 (Headwater admitted

that 

ii. HW1, Dkt. 364 at 25 (“Headwater stipulates that it did not directly identify to 

Samsung, by patent number, any specific Headwater patent prior to the filing of 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:

17126
4

[the 422 Case].”). 

iii. Ex. 5 (Raleigh 11/2023 Dep. Tr.) at 157:6-158:2; 169:3-20; 179:17-180:3; Ex. 6 

(Raleigh 3/7/24 Dep. Tr.) at 124:25-131:8; Ex. 7 (Raleigh 3/8/24 Dep. Tr.) at 

370:13-19; Ex. 8 (Raleigh 9/10/24 Dep. Tr.) at 106:14-25 (Dr. Raleigh repeatedly 

testifying that 

.).4

D. Then, Following Motion Practice, Headwater Changed its Willfulness Theory 

to Pre-Suit Willfulness based on Willful Blindness

11. In July 2024, given Headwater’s admissions that: (1) the Asserted Patents never 

appeared on the ItsOn marking website (2) the ItsOn software did not practice the Asserted Patents; 

and (3) Headwater is not aware of Samsung ever receiving actual pre-suit notice of the Asserted 

Patents, Samsung asked Headwater to drop pre-suit willfulness or correct its Interrogatory No. 11 

response (as all bases alleged therein, UMF Nos. 8-10, supra, were now moot/incorrect). Dkt. 

134-04 (7/17/24 Letter from Samsung to Headwater).

12. For the next two months, Samsung repeatedly sought Headwater’s substantive 

response and/or position on this issue, which Headwater refused to provide. See Dkt. 134 (MTC 

Corrected ROG 11 Resp.) at §I.E. (outlining efforts). 

13. On September 10, 2024, Samsung filed a Motion to Compel Headwater to serve a 

corrected response to Interrogatory No. 11. Dkt. 134. 

14. Headwater then served its Final Response to Interrogatory No. 11 on September 

24, 2024 (after the close of fact discovery), amending its prior response (the Initial Response, 

served November 27, 2023) as follows: 

, 

4 To be clear, 

(which factual dispute is irrelevant for the present summary judgment motion since Headwater 

dropped pre-suit willfulness).

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:

17127
5

Ex. 1, HW Final ROG 11 Resp., at 68; see also Dkt. 151 (Opp. to MTC).

15. Headwater’s willfulness allegations in its Final Response are directed to pre-suit 

willfulness based on willful blindness. 

16. Headwater’s Final Response does not mention post-suit willfulness. 

17. Headwater’s Final Response does not disclose Headwater’s bases for claiming 

post-suit willful infringement. 

E. Then, Last Night, Headwater Dropped Pre-Suit Willfulness 

18. On October 24, 2024―three months after Samsung asked Headwater to drop presuit willfulness for lack of merit, and one month after Headwater served its Final Response to 

Interrogatory No. 11 maintaining pre-suit willfulness based on willful blindness (which likewise

lacked merit)―Headwater dropped pre-suit willfulness in this case. Ex. 9. 

19. Headwater maintains post-suit willfulness, but as of the time of filing on October 

25, 2024, did not articulate a basis therefore (or respond to requests for the same). Id.

IV. GOVERNING LAW

A. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper where a movant “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

Put differently, summary judgment is proper “against a party who fails to make a showing 

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must “construe all facts and inferences in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:

17128
6

2010) (cleaned up). That said, a non-movant’s “conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, 

improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation” will not preclude 

summary judgment. Jones v. Lowndes Cnty., 678 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).

B. Willful Infringement 

Headwater bears the burden of proving willful infringement. Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest 

Labs, Inc., No. 9-13-CV-102, 2015 WL 11110643, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2015). To establish 

willful infringement, the patentee must show that the accused infringer had both: (1) knowledge 

of the asserted patent; and (2) a specific intent to infringe during the at-issue time period. E.g., 

Provisur Techs., Inc. v. Weber, Inc., No. 2023-1438, 2024 WL 4363502, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 

2024); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “knowledge 

of the asserted patent and evidence of infringement is necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding 

of willfulness.” Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Rather, 

the patentee must establish that the infringement was deliberate or intentional. Provisur, 2024 WL 

4363502, at *5.

Therefore, as to post-suit willfulness, a patentee must show that: (1) the accused infringer 

knew of the asserted patents post-suit (i.e., by virtue of the complaint); and (2) that the accused 

infringer’s post-suit conduct rises to the level of deliberate or intentional infringement. The second 

factor―post-suit conduct―is at issue in the present motion. 

V. ARGUMENT

Headwater―even having corrected its willfulness position after motion practice (Dkts. 134 

& 151)―fails to disclose any basis for its claim that Samsung intentionally or deliberately 

infringed the Asserted Patents post-suit. 

To establish post-suit willfulness, Headwater must show that Samsung “had a specific 

intent to infringe” the Asserted Patents after Headwater filed its Complaint. BASF Plant Sci., LP 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID

#: 17129
7

v. Commonwealth Sci. and Indus. Rsch. Org., 28 F.4th 1247, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2022). But 

Headwater has not articulated any basis or identified any evidence that such intentional post-suit 

infringement occurred. 

This evidentiary dearth simply cannot create an issue of disputed material fact for a jury as 

to Samsung’s post-suit conduct. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court’s 

denial of an accused infringer’s willfulness JMOL where the patentee presented evidence that the 

accused infringer used a “patent matrix that tracked patents” in related technologies―“including 

the asserted patents”―and rated the patents “for further evaluation.” Provisur, 2024 WL 4363502, 

at *5. The Federal Circuit found this evidence was sufficient to establish knowledge of the asserted 

patents, but “insufficient as a matter of law” to “establish deliberate or intentional 

infringement”―i.e., the high standard set for willful conduct. Id. Here, Headwater’s Final 

Response to Interrogatory No. 11 provides no bases or evidence for post-suit willfulness. 

This deficiency is not excusable. Headwater’s response to Interrogatory No. 11 was the 

subject of intense scrutiny between the parties for the last three months, culminating in Samsung 

seeking to compel a correct response to this discovery request. This forced Headwater to serve its 

latest Interrogatory No. 11 response just one month ago, after discovery closed. And still―after 

all this―Headwater’s response does not offer a single allegation or fact to support a claim that 

Samsung has “deliberately or intentionally infringed” this Asserted Patents since the March 2023 

Complaint. Headwater’s utter failure here definitively negates any alleged “factual dispute” as to 

post-suit conduct.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID

#: 17130
8

VI. CONCLUSION 

Based on the evidence on which Headwater relies for its willfulness allegations, no 

reasonable jury could find that Samsung had a specific intent to infringe the Asserted Patents postsuit. Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for summary 

judgment as to post-suit willfulness. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID

#: 17131
9

Dated: October 25, 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 

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 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID

#: 17132
10

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 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID

#: 17133
11

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

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID

#: 17134
12

Telephone: (415) 875-6600

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 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID

#: 17135
13

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 October 25, 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/ Thad C. Kodish

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 227 Filed 11/12/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID

#: 17136