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-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY TO HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE MOTOROLA E815

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:

19718
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE E815 INVALIDATES THE

‘733 PATENT. 1

II. SAMSUNG IS NOT ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN INVALIDITY DEFENSE

BASED ON THE E815. 2

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:

19719
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Cimline, Inc. v. Crafco, Inc.,

413 F. App’x 240 (Fed. Cir. 2011).................................................................................. 1, 2

Fiber Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Applied Optical Sys., Inc.,

No. 2:06-CV-473, 2009 WL 3571350 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2009)......................................... 1

General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum LLC,

No. 2:20-CV-00007-RWS, 2021 WL 5154085 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2021)............................ 2

Lionra Techs. Ltd. v. Fortinet, Inc.,

No. 2:22-CV-0322-JRG-RSP, 2024 WL 3055977 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024)....................... 2

Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,

No. SACV1201861JGBDFMX, 2015 WL 4744394 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) ..................... 2

Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,

616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................................... 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:

19720
3

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Term

Defendants or 

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

Plaintiff or 

Headwater Headwater Research LLC 

‘733 patent U.S. Patent No. 8,406,733

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:

19721
1

I. THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE E815 INVALIDATES THE 

‘733 PATENT.

Headwater repeats the same unavailing argument that summary judgment is appropriate 

simply because the MMS feature at issue (application data transport) was “optional.” Headwater 

ignores the evidence that the E815 had the ability to transport application-specific data, and this 

evidence raises a factual dispute that cannot be resolved by summary judgment. The E815 

supported MMS and allowed users to download applications and access data services—the very 

use cases that the application data transport feature was created to support. Dkt. 208-2, ¶ 286; Dkt. 

208-3 at 223. 

Headwater does not credibly offer any ways in which the E815 could transport data to a 

specific application other than via MMS. Headwater states that “a banking app can communicate 

directly with the bank provider’s server” but provides no evidence that the E815 could employ 

such a technique. The portions of Mr. de la Iglesia’s report cited by Headwater are in a section 

that address a different reference (Lee) for a different patent (‘117 patent) and say nothing about 

using a direct connection, rather than MMS, to transport application data. See Dkt. 234-2, ¶¶ 248-

240. Headwater, at most, raises a dispute of fact. 

Headwater argues that Samsung’s obviousness theory is waived because it was not in Dr. 

Foster’s report. But expert opinion is not required to establish obviousness. See Cimline, Inc. v. 

Crafco, Inc., 413 F. App’x 240, 246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“expert reports ... are not required when the 

underlying factual considerations are resolved by resort to common sense.”); Wyers v. Master Lock 

Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“legal determination of obviousness may include 

recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense, in lieu of expert testimony”); Fiber Sys. Int’l, Inc. 

v. Applied Optical Sys., Inc., No. 2:06-CV-473, 2009 WL 3571350, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 

2009). Headwater attempts to distinguish Samsung’s cases on the basis that this case involves 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:

19722
2

“complex software and server communications technology.” Dkt. 234 at 2 n.1. But the inquiry 

here is simply whether the E815—which was released after the adoption of the MMS standard, 

supported the MMS standard, and allowed users to access data and download applications—could 

use an MMS feature that was readily available. A jury does not require expert testimony to 

understand that, if modified to use the MMS feature at issue, the E815 could receive data for 

applications through existing messaging systems and eliminate the need for an additional 

communication interface. See Dkt. 179-5 at 730 (“As messaging is flourishing in mobile 

communication, there is a demand to use available messaging systems for transporting data 

between wireless applications.”). These are “factual considerations” that can be “resolved by 

resort to common sense,” and expert opinion is not required. See Cimline,, 413 F. App’x at 246.

II. SAMSUNG IS NOT ESTOPPED FROM RAISING AN INVALIDITY DEFENSE 

BASED ON THE E815.

Headwater argues that Samsung is estopped from relying on TS-23.140 publication 

regardless of whether the E815 is cumulative of TS-23.140. This Court has held the opposite: 

“IPR estoppel does not apply to device art, even when that device art is cumulative of patents and 

printed publications that were or could have been asserted in prior IPR.” Lionra Techs. Ltd. v. 

Fortinet, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-0322-JRG-RSP, 2024 WL 3055977, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024). 

This ends the inquiry given that E815 was not and could not be asserted in an IPR. 

Even if a “cumulative” analysis applied, the extent to which the system art is described by 

the printed publication must be considered. See General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum 

LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00007-RWS, 2021 WL 5154085, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2021) (refusing to 

apply IPR estoppel where the system reference was “not described by the printed publication” 

from the IPR); see also Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC, No. 

SACV1201861JGBDFMX, 2015 WL 4744394, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (estoppel does not 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:

19723
3

apply when “the physical machine itself discloses features claimed in the [patent at issue] that are 

not included in the instruction manual, and it is therefore a superior and separate reference”). 

Contrary to Headwater’s argument, the E815 is not cumulative of TS-23.140. Headwater 

argues that TS-23.140 is not the exclusive source because Samsung argued in the IPR that TS23.140 discloses an “end-user device,” “modem,” and “memory.” Dkt. 234 at 5. But the fact that 

TS-23.140 discloses these limitations does not undermine that, here, Samsung relies on the 

hardware configurations of the E815, namely that it is “a digital dual band phone supporting both 

the 800 MHz CDMA and 1900 MHz PCS bands,” had 40 megabytes of memory, and was capable 

of running a plurality of applications downloaded from the Internet. Dkt. 208-2, ¶¶ 283, 285, 302; 

Dkt. 208-3. These disclosures are not in TS-23.140 and could not be raised for PTAB’s 

consideration. Indeed, Headwater’s argument against how the E815 makes the application data 

transport feature obvious, confirms that the E815 discloses something in addition to what is in TS 

23.140.

Because the E815-based invalidity theory was not and could not have been raised in the 

IPR, Samsung is not estopped from asserting the E815 as a prior art reference in this litigation.

Dated: November 20, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Kevin Jang 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:

19724
4

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 

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

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:

19725
5

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

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

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:

19726
6

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

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

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID

#: 19727
7

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 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID

#: 19728
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served 

on counsel of record for Plaintiff via electronic mail on November 20, 2024.

/s/ Kevin Jang

Kevin Jang

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 261 Filed 11/20/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID

#: 19729