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 OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 2235
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

II. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 1 

III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2 

A. The R&R Erred In Holding That Samsung’s Arguments Are Based On Claim 

Construction ................................................................................................................................ 2 

1. The ’733 Patent ................................................................................................................ 2 

2. The ’192 Patent ................................................................................................................ 4 

3. The ’117 Patent ................................................................................................................ 6 

B. The R&R Erred By Failing To Provide Sufficient Analysis Or Explanation ...................... 7 

IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2236
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Cases Page(s) 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4 

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

631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................7 

Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., 

2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. 2018) .....................................................................................3, 7 

Glob. Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP, 

No. 6:10-cv-671-LED-JDL, 2012 WL 1903903 (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2012) .............................4 

Ortiz & Assocs. Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 

No. 6:21-CV-01178-ADA, 2023 WL 2904583 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023) .............................2 

Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. Alkami Tech., Inc., 

No. 2:16-CV-1032-JRG, 2017 WL 8727249 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017) .................................1 

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................1 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 .............................................................................................................................1 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 2237
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On August 8, 2024, Samsung moved to dismiss Headwater’s First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) for failure to state a plausible claim of infringement because Headwater’s FAC does not 

sufficiently put Samsung on notice as to what is accused of infringement. On March 5, 2024, 

Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Samsung’s 

motion. Dkt. 78 (“R&R”). Samsung respectfully objects to the R&R for several reasons. As an 

initial matter, the R&R is based on an outdated legal standard. Form 18 was abrogated in 2015, 

and “[n]ow, to state a claim for direct infringement, a plaintiff must explicitly plead facts to 

plausibly support the assertion that a defendant” infringes. See Plano Encryption Techs., LLC v. 

Alkami Tech., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-1032-JRG, 2017 WL 8727249, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017). 

In addition, for many disputes, the R&R dismissed Samsung’s arguments as premised on claim 

construction issues that are premature at this stage. But none of Samsung’s arguments were 

premised on claim construction. See, e.g., supra §§ (III)(A)(1)(b), (III)(A)(3)(b). And the R&R 

found that several of Headwater’s allegations were adequate, but provided insufficient or no 

reasoning supporting those findings. 

Accordingly, the Court should reject the R&R and grant Samsung’s motion to dismiss. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

A district judge “must consider timely objections [to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation] and modify or set aside any part of that order that is clearly erroneous or contrary 

to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 2238
2 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The R&R Erred In Holding That Samsung’s Arguments Are Based On Claim 

Construction 

The R&R erred by (a) improperly dismissing Samsung’s arguments as claim constructionbased or (b) allowing Headwater to proceed based only on “exemplary charting.” Samsung’s 

arguments are not premised on claim construction arguments; Samsung simply identified claimed 

elements that Headwater failed to allege. The overarching problem is that the FAC fails to identify 

what is being accused as meeting various claim limitations. Further, characterizing Headwater’s 

allegations as “exemplary charting” is inaccurate and unsupported by the caselaw on which the 

R&R relies. 

1. The ’733 Patent 

(a) “control-plane communications” 

Samsung argued that the FAC fails to allege that “Firebase messaging servers” provide 

“control-plane communications.” Dkt. 40 at 6-7. While alleging that various other accused 

functionalities, such as “Samsung’s Knox MDM platform, Knox Manage servers and Tizen 

servers,” are “all examples of servers which provide control plane communications,” Headwater 

did not make similar allegations for the Firebase messaging servers. See Dkt. 31-4 at 12-13. 

The R&R erred in rejecting Samsung’s arguments as “a disagreement as to application of 

the claims to the accused products which are appropriate for the claim construction and summary 

judgment stage.” R&R at 4. Under the plain language of the claims, Headwater must allege that 

the accused functionalities include a “service control link” and that the “service control link” is 

configured to provide a “control-plane communications.” No claim construction is required to 

reach this conclusion, and the R&R does not provide any explanation to the contrary. See Ortiz & 

Assocs. Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-01178-ADA, 2023 WL 2904583, at *4 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 2239
3 

(W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023) (“Because no claim construction is required to determine that Ortiz 

fails to plausibly suggest the accused product meets each limitation of the asserted claim, Ortiz has 

failed to plead a cause of action and its claims should be dismissed.”). Headwater simply omitted 

this element from its allegations. 

The R&R also erred in rejecting Samsung’s argument on the basis that Headwater’s claim 

chart purportedly “engage[s] in permissible exemplary charting.” R&R at 4. The FAC does not 

state that its infringement allegations against the other accused functionalities are representative 

of its theory against Firebase messaging servers. Indeed, the FAC is silent about how Firebase 

messaging servers allegedly provide “control-plane communications.” The R&R improperly 

assumes they are representative. The R&R’s reliance on Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., 2018 

WL 6981828, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 2018), is misplaced because Chapterhouse addressed the 

sufficiency of charting an exemplary claim, not charting exemplary products. 

(b) “service device link agent” and “service control server link 

element” 

The R&R likewise erred in finding that Samsung’s argument regarding the “service device 

link agent” and “service control server link element” limitations is a claim construction dispute 

“not appropriate at this stage.” R&R at 5. Claim 1 of the ’733 patent requires a “service control 

device link agent” configured to receive, from a “service control server link element,” an 

“encrypted agent message” and requires decryption of the message using an “encrypted key” 

“shared between” the “service control device link agent” and “service control server link element.” 

Dkt. 1-1 (’733 patent) at 163:60-164:2 (limitations 1[c]-[e]). These are express claim limitations, 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 2240
4 

and Headwater must prove that all are present in an accused device for it to infringe, regardless of 

claim construction. 

The R&R states that Headwater’s “examples” that purportedly “address the ‘encryption 

key’ limitation” highlight that Samsung’s arguments are based on claim construction. R&R at 5. 

Not so. “[A] party may not rely on vague, conclusory language or simply mimic the language of 

the claims.” Glob. Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP, No. 6:10-cv-671-LED-JDL, 2012 WL 

1903903, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2012). This is exactly what Headwater’s “examples” do: they 

merely parrot the claim language. See, e.g., Dkt. 31-4 at 24 (“Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets 

include memory that stores an encryption key that is shared between the agent and the network 

system”), see also id. at 29, 33. The R&R erred in giving undue weight to these “[t]hreadbare 

recitals.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678 (2009). 

2. The ’192 Patent 

(a) “secure message link” 

The R&R also erred in trivializing Samsung’s arguments as merely relating to naming 

conventions. R&R at 5. The FAC asserts that a “secure message link” exists between servers and 

devices in the Knox, Tizen, and Firebase “ecosystems” without specifically identifying what that 

link is—much less explaining how it is allegedly “secure.” See Dkt. 42 at 6. While the FAC 

reproduces screenshots associated with Samsung’s Tizen and Knox (and none associated with 

Firebase messaging), the surrounding prose merely repeats claim language. See Dkt. 31-6 at 4-11 

(referencing “software components,” “secure message link,” “service control link”). Samsung 

thus lacks notice as to what actually is accused. 

The R&R’s prediction that “discovery will likely rectify Samsung’s perceived deficiency” 

has not panned out. See R&R at 6. Seven months have passed since Samsung’s motion to dismiss, 

and four months have passed since Samsung’s production of code and technical documentation. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 2241
5 

See L.P.R. 3-4(a). Yet the operative infringement contentions still shed no additional light. See 

Ex. 1 (2023-09-28 Inf. Cont. Ex. C) at 6-12. While Headwater purported1 to serve supplemental 

infringement contentions, those continue to lack any specific identification of a “secure message 

link.” See Ex. 2 (2023-12-15 Inf. Cont. ’192 patent) at 6-13. 

(b) “network element messages comprising respective message 

content and requests for delivery of the respective message 

content” 

The R&R provides no analysis supporting its finding that this limitation has been 

sufficiently pled. R&R at 6. Instead, it merely asserts this is so based on its “review of the claim 

charts” and its notice that Samsung’s reply in support of the motion to dismiss did not address this 

limitation. See id. But Headwater’s opposition to Samsung’s motion confirms that the FAC 

identifies no specific “messages”; it baldly asserts that certain servers receive “messages” that 

“comprise content and delivery requests,” parroting claim language without identifying what those 

messages are. See Dkt. 42 at 6-8. 

(c) “transport services stack” 

The R&R erred in finding that the FAC provides adequate notice of what is being accused 

of infringing the required “transport services stack” limitation. R&R at 6. The R&R notes that 

the FAC references “specific software . . . which receives, decrptys [sic] and decodes, interprets, 

and executes commands or messages from other elements in the system.” Id. (citing Dkt. 31-6 at 

60). But computing devices like servers run software that perform myriad functions. Alleging 

that these products have “software” or “communication software” that perform miscellaneous 

generic functions common to servers (e.g. “receiving” versus “decoding” versus “executing” 

1

 Headwater failed to seek leave to serve these contentions, as required by L.P.R. 3-6(b)), so they 

are not operative under the Court’s Rules. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 2242
6 

messages) conceals what specifically is accused of constituting the claimed “transport services 

stack.”2 

3. The ’117 Patent 

(a) Firebase Cloud Messaging (“FCM”) Functionality 

Claim 1 recites a “device messaging agent” that receives “Internet data messages” from a 

“network messaging server.” While the FAC identifies “the FCM client app” as the “device 

messaging agent,” it fails to identify a corresponding “network message server” from which the 

accused FCM client app receives “Internet data messages.” Dkt. 31-5 at 4-18. As a result, even 

if the FCM client app constituted a “device messaging agent,” Headwater’s infringement 

allegations are incomplete and do not provide the required notice. The R&R erred in dismissing 

Samsung’s arguments as “claim construction arguments.” R&R at 8. This is clear error, because 

the claim’s plain language requires a “device messaging agent” receiving messages from a 

“network messaging server.” 

(b) “secure Internet data connections” 

The R&R erred in dismissing Samsung’s argument regarding the “secure Internet data 

connections” limitations as premature claim construction. R&R at 8. The “Internet data 

connections” being “secure” is an express limitation of claim 1. Whether this limitation, as 

interpreted by Headwater, can read onto the accused products depends on what Headwater 

contends are these connections. Yet the FAC fails to do this and instead alleges that this limitation 

is met through unidentified encryption done “per Samsung’s requirements” and messages that 

2

 Headwater’s purported supplemental infringement contentions further confirm this 

ambiguity by adding for the first time that “hardware . . . responsible for communicating data” is 

also accused. See supra n. 1; see Ex. 2 (2023-12-15 Inf. Cont. ’192 patent) at 58. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 2243
7 

“may be encrypted.” Dkt. 31-5 at 30-31. Neither statement identifies what is being accused as 

“secure Internet data connections.” 

(c) “a secure interprocess communication service” 

The R&R further erred in finding that Samsung’s position regarding “a secure interprocess 

communication service” limitation is a claim construction argument “based on contested readings 

of the claim language.” R&R at 8. As with the preceding limitation, the problem is that the FAC 

fails to identify what is being accused as the relevant limitation (here, “a secure interprocess 

communication service”). See Dkt. 40 at 12; Dkt. 43 at 3. Claim construction is thus not relevant 

to the adequacy of the complaint. 

B. The R&R Erred By Failing To Provide Sufficient Analysis Or Explanation 

The R&R erred by failing to explain why it rejected Samsung’s arguments. For the ’117 

patent, Headwater’s position that “Samsung push messaging servers” include “Firebase messaging 

servers” contradicts its admission that Firebase messaging servers are Google’s servers, not 

Samsung’s. Dkt. 43 at 2. Samsung also explained that such an allegation would be self-defeating 

because Headwater does not allege any facts to show that Samsung controls or directs the Google 

servers. Id; see Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1287 

(Fed. Cir. 2011); Chapterhouse, 2018 WL 6981828, at *4. 

The R&R dismissed this argument without any explanation, simply stating that the Court 

is not “convinced that the Amended Complaint engages in improper vicarious liability assertions 

for a single limitation such that dismissal would be proper at this time.” R&R at 8. This conclusory 

finding was clearly erroneous. “[V]icarious liability arises when one party controls or directs the 

actions of another to perform one or more steps of the method.” Centillion Data Sys., 631 F.3d at 

1287. Headwater’s failure to allege vicarious liability, regardless of whether it is for a “single 

limitation” or many limitations, is thus fatal to Headwater’s infringement theory. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 2244
8 

For the ’733 patent, Samsung argued that the FAC lumps together allegations for the 

“control-plane communications” and “service control server link elements” limitations in one 

conclusory statement. Dkt. 31-4 at 13 (Knox and Tizen servers provide “control-plane 

communications” and are “service control server link elements” “because they control, manage, 

and apply service policies to user devices to which they are connected”). The R&R rejected this 

argument, summarily stating that “[t]he Court is not convinced that Samsung is devoid of notice 

as they rely on Plaintiff’s identification of functionality to argue that distinct limitations cannot be 

met by the same functionality.” R&R at 4. The problem with Headwater’s allegation, however, 

is that it prevents Samsung from discerning Headwater’s basis for each limitation. That Headwater 

identified a particular functionality for both limitations does not remedy this defect. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Samsung respectfully asks that the Court grant Samsung’s motion to dismiss. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 2245
9 

Dated: March 19, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Jonathan B. Bright 

 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 

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 

GA Bar No. 546590 

gallo@fr.com 

Steffen Lake (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

GA Bar No. 512272 

lake@fr.com 

Vivian C. Keller (admitted pro hac vice) 

GA Bar No. 651500 

keller@fr.com 

Noah C. Graubart 

GA Bar No. 141862 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree St. NE, Fl. 21 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 892-5005 

Facsimile: (404) 892-5002 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 2246
10 

Leonard E. Davis 

TX Bar No. 05521600 

ldavis@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 

Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Harry Lee Gillam , Jr 

gil@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

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 

Tel: (903) 597-8311 

Fax: (903) 593-0846 

Lance Lin Yang 

Lanceyang@quinnemanuel.com 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,

LLP – LA 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 USA 

Tel: (213) 443-3000 

Fax: (213) 443-3100 

Jon Bentley Hyland 

Texas Bar No. 24046131 

jhyland@hilgersgraben.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 2247
11 

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 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 2248
12 

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 March 19, 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/ Jonathan B. Bright 

 Jonathan B. Bright 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 79 Filed 03/19/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 2249