EXHIBIT 8 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 715
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., AND SPRINT CORP.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00377-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., AND SPRINT CORP.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-17)

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Headwater 

Research LLC (“Headwater”) responds to Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint Corp. 

(collectively, “Defendants” or “T-Mobile”), as follows:

Headwater’s responses are based on information known and available to it at the time of 

these responses. Headwater’s investigation in this matter is ongoing. Further, because all 

information and documents that are possibly within the scope of the Interrogatories may have yet 

to be located and/or identified, the development of Headwater’s contentions with respect to its 

claims and defenses is ongoing. Therefore, these responses and objections, while based on 

diligent factual exploration by Headwater and its counsel, reflect only Headwater’s current state 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 716
2

of knowledge, understanding and belief with regard to the matters about which inquiry has been 

made. Headwater reserves the right to assert additional objections to the Interrogatories and to 

modify and supplement its responses pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Headwater’s responses to these Interrogatories are not to be construed as admissions that 

any of the requested information exists or that any contention or assumption contained in the 

Interrogatories, whether implicit or explicit, is correct.

By making any responses, Headwater does not concede that the information given is 

properly discoverable or admissible, and Headwater reserves its right to object to the 

introduction of these responses into evidence for any purpose.

Headwater is willing and prepared to discuss definitions of vague, ambiguous, or 

otherwise objectionable terms, as well as the appropriate discoverable scope of each 

interrogatory in light of the objections contained herein.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

These General Objections are incorporated into the specific responses below.

1. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they attempt to 

impose an obligation on Headwater different from or greater than that required by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas, the Court’s Standing 

Orders, and any other Order entered in this action, and any agreements between the parties.

2. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they request 

information related to patents or patent claims that have not been asserted, and thus are 

irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 717
3

3. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they request the 

disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, 

common interest privilege, joint defense privilege, mediation privilege, or any other privilege or 

immunity. Headwater hereby asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes 

privileged and protected information from its responses to the Interrogatories. Unless explicitly 

stated, any disclosure of such privileged or protected documents is inadvertent and should not be 

construed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other 

applicable privilege, protection or doctrine. 

4. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they are neither relevant 

to any claim or defense in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.

5. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories as unduly vague and overly broad to 

the extent that they fail to identify the information sought with reasonable particularity, thereby 

requiring Headwater to resort to conjecture and speculation as to what information is sought.

6. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they request 

confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that is not relevant to this action including 

without limitation confidential business information, proprietary and/or competitively sensitive 

information or trade secrets. If necessary and at the appropriate time, if such information is 

responsive and its production is otherwise unobjectionable, Headwater will provide it subject to 

the Protective Order governing this case or, if necessary, will seek additional protections from 

the Court. 

7. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that 

Headwater is not permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality obligations, Protective Orders, 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 718
4

or agreements with third and/or nonparties. Headwater will not provide such information without 

the consent of the relevant party or a court order.

8. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 

from an individual or entity outside of Headwater’s control. Headwater cannot reasonably 

respond to such Interrogatories, and objects to them as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. 

Headwater further objects to the extent these Interrogatories would require it to produce or 

disclose information that is publicly available or that is as readily identifiable and accessible to 

Defendants as to Headwater. Headwater shall conduct a reasonably calculated search of 

reasonably available sources within its possession, custody and control, in conformity with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas, and this 

Court’s orders.

9. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are unreasonably 

cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive. 

10. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are speculative, 

lack foundation, or improperly assume the existence of hypothetical facts that are incorrect or 

unknown to Headwater.

11. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they assume facts not 

in evidence. 

12. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for purely 

legal conclusions and/or the rendering of expert opinions. 

13. To the extent these Interrogatories seek discovery of information within the scope 

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), Headwater objects to these Interrogatories as premature and improper 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 719
5

discovery of expert opinion. 

14. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), Headwater states that it 

will not search sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible 

regardless of whether those sources may contain electronically stored information responsive to 

these Interrogatories. However, Headwater reserves the right to supplement its responses in the 

event that other potentially responsive information becomes known. To the extent these 

Interrogatories seek different data or data in configurations different from those for which such 

databases are configured, Headwater will not search or attempt to produce information from such 

databases because it believes they are “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or 

cost” as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).

15. Headwater objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek “all” information 

about a topic; such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unlikely to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. 

16. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 

or documents already in the possession of or are more readily available to Defendants, in the 

public domain, or equally available to Defendants as they are to Headwater.

17. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 

not within Headwater’s possession, custody, or control.

18. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information 

that is cumulative of information sought by other discovery requests or duplicative of disclosures 

already provided by Headwater.

19. Headwater objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they contain multiple 

subparts asserted as individual interrogatories. Each subpart counts towards the limit on 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 720
6

Interrogatories that Defendants are permitted to propound.

20. By responding to Defendants’ Interrogatories, Headwater does not waive any 

objection that may be applicable to: (a) the use, for any purpose, by Headwater of any 

information produced; (b) the admissibility, relevance, or materiality of any such information to 

any issue in this case; or (c) the competency or authenticity of any such information.

21. Headwater objects to Defendants’ definitions of “Headwater Research LLC,” 

“Headwater,” “Plaintiff,” “you,” and “your” as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, and/or seeking documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case because 

of its inclusion of... Headwater further objects to these definitions to the extent they seek 

information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. In 

responding to these Requests, Headwater understands these terms to refer to the plaintiff in this 

action, Headwater Research LLC.

22. Headwater objects to the definition of “Patent Family” as vague, overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, speculative, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.

23. Headwater objects to the definition of “Related Patents and Applications” as 

vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, speculative, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence.

24. Headwater objects to the definition of the terms “Infringe” and “Infringement” 

as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Headwater will interpret the term using its legal, common 

and ordinary meaning. 

25. Headwater objects to the definition of “Headwater and Related Entities” as vague, 

overbroad, unduly burdensome, speculative, and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 721
7

discovery of admissible evidence.

26. Headwater objects to the definitions of the term “Person” because it makes each 

request that references a person vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome 

Headwater will interpret this term using its common and ordinary meaning.

27. Headwater objects to the definition of the term “Document” as overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Headwater will interpret this term consistent with its 

obligations pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this District and any 

applicable Court orders.

28. Headwater objects to the definition of the term “Communication” as overbroad 

and unduly burdensome. Accordingly, Headwater will interpret this term consistent with its 

obligations pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this District and any 

applicable Court orders.

29. Headwater objects to the definition of the term “Prior Art” as overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. Headwater will interpret the term using its legal, common and ordinary 

meaning.

30. Headwater objects to the definition of the terms “and” and “or” as overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. Headwater will interpret these terms using its common and ordinary 

meaning.

31. Headwater objects to Defendants’ Instructions as overbroad, unduly burdensome 

and calling for a legal conclusion. Headwater will provide responses and produce documents, 

subject to its objections consistent with applicable statues, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the rules of this District and any court orders.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 722
8

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

Separately for each Asserted Claim, identify and describe all facts related to when the 

claimed invention, in whole or in part, was publicly disclosed, demonstrated, used, sold, given 

away, or offered for sale (and if offered for sale, under what terms).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Separately for each Asserted Claim, identify the earliest priority date to which You 

contend that Asserted Claim is entitled, including a description of the circumstances of any 

conception and reduction to practice of that Asserted Claim, an identification of the date(s) of 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 723
9

conception and any alleged reduction to practice (either actual or constructive), a description 

of any and all diligence from conception to any alleged reduction to practice, an identification 

of each Person involved, each Person’s role, the subject matter to which each Person 

contributed, and the data and places of such contributions, and describe in detail any evidence 

that corroborates any such conception and alleged reduction to practice.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple subparts.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including the provisional applications to which the Asserted Patents claim priority. Each of the 

asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are supported by adequate written description in those 

applications. Further, Defendants have not identified to Headwater any basis to contend that any 

of the Asserted Patents are not entitled to any particular priority date. To the extent Defendants 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 724
10

articulate any such contention, Headwater reserves its right to supplement this response as 

permitted by the Court’s rules, procedures, and the schedule in this case.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

Identify all documents, things, and events known to You that may constitute Prior Art 

or that were identified to You as Prior Art to any claim of the Asserted Patents or any 

Counterpart and, for each such item of Prior Art, the date You first became aware of that Prior 

Art, the circumstances under which You acquired this knowledge, and the identity of all 

Persons known to You to have knowledge of that Prior Art. For purposes of this Interrogatory, 

the relevant Prior Art date for the Asserted Patents is April 13, 2015.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, and as 

seeking irrelevant information, with respect to its identification of “the relevant Prior Art date for 

the Asserted Patents is April 13, 2015.” Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the 

extent that it seeks information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally 

accessible to Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to 

this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s 

possession, custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature 

and calling for improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further 

objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 725
11

marshal any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or 

deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including references cited in the Asserted Patents and their file histories, references discussed in 

IPR2023-1157, IPR2023-1226, IPR2023-1250, IPR2023-1253, IPR2023-1336, IPR2023-1337, 

IPR2023-1360, IPR2023-1361, IPR2023-1362, IPR2023-1462, IPR2024-0003, IPR2024-0010, 

and references identified in invalidity contentions served by Defendants, Verizon, and AT&T—

all of which are publicly accessible and/or already in the possession of Defendants.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

Separately for each Asserted Claim, identify and describe all facts that support or 

contradict any secondary considerations of non-obviousness (also referred to as “objective 

indicia of non-obviousness”), including without limitation any alleged long felt but unfulfilled 

need, failure of others, commercial success, commercial acquiescence, licensing, professional 

approval, lack of contemporaneous invention, copying, and laudatory statements by others, 

and nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence of secondary indicia, 

including without limitation an identification of any supporting documents.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 726
12

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Headwater also objects to this interrogatory as premature, particularly to the extent it seeks

information that is more properly the subject of expert discovery, which has not yet commenced. 

Indeed, “this Court has consistently recognized that answers to contention interrogatories change 

over time as theories of liability and non-infringement crystallize” and “[t]hus, answers to such 

interrogatories are often best left until the close of discovery.” Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., 2017 WL 9937763 at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2017); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic 

Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from the following Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including HW379-00000001-HW379-00006975. Headwater incorporates by reference its 

Complaints, infringement contentions, and responses to Interrogatory No. 9. Responsive 

information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Defendants’ possession, 

custody, or control.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 727
13

Identify and describe in detail each instance in which You (or any other Person such as 

a broker) offered to license, sell, assign, or otherwise convey any permissions under or rights 

to the Asserted Patents or any Counterpart, or in which a third party requested to license, 

purchase, or otherwise obtain rights to the Asserted Patents or any Counterpart, describe any 

discussions or negotiations thereto, and identify for each such instance the Persons involved. 

To the extent any such instances culminated in the execution of any such agreement 

(“Agreement or License”) relating to any Asserted Patent or any Counterpart, describe the 

parties to such Agreement or License, the terms of such Agreement or License (including 

technological and economic terms), and the details of any licensing rates or payments 

discussed, calculated, and/or paid. To the extent that such instances did not culminate in the 

execution of an Agreement or License relating to the Asserted Patents or any Counterpart, 

describe the parties, the terms of such offered or demanded (including technological and 

economic terms), and the details of any licensing rates or payments discussed, calculated, 

and/or contemplated.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple subparts. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows:

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 728
14

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including: HW379-00000001-HW379-00006975; HW379-00016595-HW379-00016615; 

HW379-00016948-HW379-00016963. Responsive information may also be ascertained from 

documents and information in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

For each Asserted Patent, describe in detail Headwater’s method of calculating 

damages, whether as lost profits, a reasonably royalty, or otherwise, including but not limited 

to the identification of any applicable hypothetical negotiation dates; the smallest saleable 

patent- practicing unit for each Asserted Claim; whether or not Headwater contends the entire 

market value rule is applicable and, if so, the justification for applying it; any applicable 

royalty rate and royalty base; the availability or non-availability of non-infringing alternatives; 

any licenses on which Headwater may rely; all facts on which Headwater will rely to apportion 

the value of the patented features of the Accused Products from any unpatented features; all 

facts on which Headwater will rely to determine any incremental value that Headwater 

contends the subject matter claimed in each of the Asserted Patents add to the Accused 

Products; and all other facts on which Headwater will rely as relevant to calculating damages 

for the alleged use of the Asserted Claims, and identify all documents or things that refer or 

relate to the subject matter of this Interrogatory.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 729
15

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Headwater also objects to this interrogatory as premature, particularly to the extent it seeks

information that is more properly the subject of expert discovery, which has not yet commenced. 

Indeed, “this Court has consistently recognized that answers to contention interrogatories change 

over time as theories of liability and non-infringement crystallize” and “[t]hus, answers to such 

interrogatories are often best left until the close of discovery.” Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., 2017 WL 9937763 at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2017); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic 

Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including: HW379-00000001-HW379-00006975; HW379-00016595-HW379-00016615; 

HW379-00016948-HW379-00016963. Responsive information may also be ascertained from 

documents and information in Defendants’ possession, custody, or control.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7

Identify all Persons or entities who hold a direct or indirect financial interest relating 

to, in whole or in part, either any Asserted Patent and/or this litigation, including a description 

of the nature of the financial interest, an identification of all agreements and draft agreements 

with said Person or entity relating to the Asserted Patents, patent applications, licenses, 

assignments, or this lawsuit, and the relationship of said Person or entity with Headwater (or 

any of its predecessors). Your answer should include (but not necessarily be limited to) a 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 730
16

description of any funding, financial contribution, or payments made to You for purposes of 

this litigation or any other litigation involving the Asserted Patents, and how any money 

collected from this litigation or any other litigation involving the Asserted Patents has been or 

will be distributed, and a description of the rights and obligations of such Person or entity 

related to the Asserted Patents.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple subparts. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce. 

Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Defendants’

possession, custody, or control.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 731
17

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

For each product You allege infringes, describe the circumstances under which 

Headwater first became aware of the product’s alleged infringement, including, but not limited 

to, the date(s) upon which Headwater first became aware of the product; the date upon which 

Headwater first became aware that the product allegedly infringed any claim of the Asserted 

Patents; any investigations, reverse engineering, analyses, tests, or studies done on the product 

by or on behalf of Headwater with respect to possible infringement of any claim of the 

Asserted Patents, including without limitation to the date, procedures, and results of such 

analyses, tests, or studies; and an identification of all persons involved in any such analyses, 

tests, or studies and any documents or things that refer or relate to the subject matter of this 

interrogatory.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple subparts. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 732
18

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

Identify and describe in detail all factual bases for Your contention that Defendants 

induce other Persons to infringe any Asserted Claim, including, but not limited to: the date on 

which You contend Defendants first learned of the Asserted Patents; the identity of the other 

Persons that were allegedly induced by Defendants to infringe each such claim; each act of 

Defendants that allegedly encouraged infringement of each such claim by such Persons; all 

facts supporting Your contention that Defendants knew that such acts constituted patent 

infringement; all facts supporting Your contention that such acts actually resulted in direct 

patent infringement; and all facts in support of Your contention that Defendants possessed 

specific intent to encourage the alleged infringement.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal all of its proof or any proof 

it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Headwater incorporates by reference its Complaints and infringement contentions. Headwater 

further responds that the patented technologies which are the subject of this lawsuit are well 

known to Defendants. In April of 2010, ItsOn entered into an NDA with Sprint (now T-Mobile). 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 733
19

Under that NDA, ItsOn and Sprint’s product development and engineering teams discussed 

implementing Headwater’s patented technological solutions to solve Sprint’s data demand 

problems. Over the next several years, ItsOn and Sprint continued sharing confidential 

information under NDA discussing how the Headwater/ItsOn unique and unconventional 

technological solutions would provide Sprint and its customers with an improved user experience 

on the Sprint network, while lowering costs for both Sprint and its users.

In 2013, ItsOn and Sprint began implementing use cases of Headwater’s technologies in 

connection with Sprint’s network, including roaming controls, background controls, data 

offloading, family device management, as well as on-demand data purchasing functionalities. 

Each of these features make use of technologies developed by Headwater and protected by 

patents issued to Headwater.

Between 2013-2016, ItsOn worked with Sprint and Samsung USA, also under NDA, to 

implement Headwater-patented technology directly into Samsung’s devices.

As part of the ItsOn, Sprint, and Samsung relationship, ItsOn software implementing 

Headwater’s patented inventions was installed on numerous end-user wireless devices sold by 

Sprint, including Samsung devices.

Sprint mandated that Android handset manufactures, including Samsung, integrate 

ItsOn’s software into device operating systems and kernels.

ItsOn and Samsung held frequent, in-depth meetings to discuss engineering details and 

implement ItsOn’s solutions into Samsung’s software builds.

Headwater’s patents were disclosed to Sprint in various meetings and through various 

presentations. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 734
20

As part of this work, ItsOn installed its confidential and proprietary software onto 

Samsung devices, granting Samsung executives and engineering teams root and debug access—

under NDA—for testing and implementation. 

More than a dozen different models of Samsung devices operating on the Sprint network 

were enabled with ItsOn solutions implementing Headwater’s patented technologies.

By the end of 2015, millions of Sprint devices (including Samsung devices) were running 

the ItsOn application, which included Headwater’s intellectual property.

The ItsOn application included a link to http://www.itsoninc.com/patent-notices, which 

provided notice of Headwater’s patents licensed by ItsOn.

But what began as a mutual undertaking abruptly became a losing proposition for ItsOn 

and Headwater.

In early October 2015, Sprint personnel indicated to ItsOn team members that Samsung 

planned to implement the Headwater/ItsOn proprietary technology in Samsung’s own device 

software without further involvement from ItsOn.

On October 9, 2015, Samsung USA unexpectedly announced to ItsOn that Samsung 

Korea would be taking over negotiations with ItsOn going forward.

On October 20, 2015, Samsung personnel requested that ItsOn provide its proprietary and 

confidential “roaming control policy”—its source code—to Samsung. 

This “roaming control policy” was the subject of the Roaming Reduction project and 

included functionality implicated in other projects undertaken by Sprint and ItsOn, including 

Project RuST.

The “roaming control policy” technology is protected by Headwater’s issued patents.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 735
21

Shortly after requesting ItsOn’s “roaming control policy,” Samsung Korea cut off the 

ItsOn implementation project, leaving ItsOn in the dark about Sprint’s and Samsung’s plans to 

implement Headwater’s technology.

Approximately one week later on October 27, 2015, Sprint purported to terminate the 

Sprint/ItsOn MSA.

On October 29, 2015, ItsOn team members met with Sprint personnel to discuss the 

Sprint and ItsOn relationship going forward, and the ramifications of Sprint’s and Samsung’s 

apparent plans to implement Headwater’s patent-protected technologies in Samsung’s devices.

ItsOn and Sprint continued to work together into 2016 to implement Headwater’s 

patented technologies into Sprint devices, including Samsung’s phones and tablets.

Over the next several years, Sprint released new devices with features and functionalities 

that help device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and customers save data, reduce power 

consumption, and stay connected. These new features and functionalities were the subject of the 

Sprint, Samsung, and ItsOn relationship, use information learned from ItsOn, and infringe 

Headwater’s Asserted Patents.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10

Describe in detail any analysis, determination, or calculation of the value of the 

Asserted Patents or any Counterpart (whether on the basis of an individual patent or as part of 

a group of patents that may or may not include patents other than the Asserted Patents or any 

Counterpart, including but not limited to Headwater’s entire patent portfolio) or attempt 

thereof by You or on Your behalf (for example, brokers), including but not limited to 

identifying the facts analyzed or considered, the person(s) involved in the analysis, 

determination, or calculation, any results of the analysis, determination, or calculation, and any 

communication of such results to others.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 736
22

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including HW379-00000001-HW379-00006975; HW379-00016595-HW379-00016615; 

HW379-00016948-HW379-00016963.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11

Describe in detail Headwater’s (including any predecessor company’s) management, 

organizational, and corporate structure and history, including but not limited to the date of 

formation, scope of business operations, identity of officers, employees, and any of its 

management or leadership teams at any time since the entity’s formation and each position held 

by each such Person and the roles and responsibilities in each such position, the range of time 

when each such position was held, and the financial interests held by any such Person in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 737
23

entity at any point until the present.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as compound and containing multiple subparts. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12

Describe all facts and circumstances relating to your compliance (or lack thereof) with 

35 U.S.C. § 287 with respect to the Asserted Patents, including stating whether You, any prior 

owners of the Asserted Patents, and/or any licensees of the Asserted Patents have complied 

with 35 U.S.C. § 287, identifying all products made or sold by You or a licensee that practice 

any claim of an Asserted Patent, identifying all products made or sold by You or a licensee 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 738
24

that have been marked with an Asserted Patent, identifying the dates over which the products 

have been marked, identifying all documents showing any such markings, identifying all 

efforts or steps taken by You to ensure that any licensees of the Asserted Patents have 

complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287, and identifying people knowledgeable of any such compliance 

or non-compliance.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Headwater is not aware of any unmarked products that practice the patents-in-suit sold in the 

United States. Headwater has engaged in reasonable efforts to mark articles which may practice 

its issued patents, including, for example, requiring its licensee, ItsOn, to mark ItsOn articles 

with the patent numbers of Headwater’s issued patents practiced by said articles. For example, 

the ItsOn application included a link to http://www.itsoninc.com/patent-notices, which provided 

notice of Headwater’s patents. Consistent with these efforts, Section 3.7 of the Amended and 

Restated License Agreement between Headwater and ItsOn, effective July 31, 2017, provided 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 739
25

that: “Licensee shall mark each Licensed Product it licenses or distributes pursuant to this 

Agreement in accordance with Section 287 of Title 35 of the United States Code, and/or 

any other applicable patent statutes or regulations in the country or countries of 

manufacture, sale, distribution, or license thereof, indicating the issued HWR Patents that would, 

in the absence of the license, be infringed by such Licensed Product or the making, using, selling 

or importing thereof.” Further, numerous devices designed and manufactured by Samsung for 

sale within the United States (e.g., through Sprint) were specifically marked with Headwater 

patent numbers through Samsung’s inclusion of the ItsOn application in those devices.

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce. 

Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Defendants’

possession, custody, or control.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 13

Identify and describe in detail all factual bases for Your contention that Defendants’ 

infringement has been willful.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 740
26

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal all of its proof or any proof 

it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Headwater incorporates by reference its Complaints, infringement contentions, and responses to 

Interrogatory No. 9.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14

Identify and describe in detail all communications with any Third Parties relating to 

any of Your lawsuits relating to patent infringement, and/or relating to the patents or their 

family members.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 741
27

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce. 

Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Defendants’

possession, custody, or control. 

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15

Describe in detail the complete history of ItsOn’s efforts to develop its technology 

and/or work with T-Mobile or any Third Parties to commercialize it.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal all of its proof or any proof 

it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 28 of 34 PageID #: 742
28

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Headwater incorporates by reference its Complaints, infringement contentions, and responses to 

Interrogatory No. 9.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

Identify and describe in detail all ItsOn products that embody or practice the Asserted 

Claims, including each Asserted Claim the product embodies or practices.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this 

interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce. 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 29 of 34 PageID #: 743
29

Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Defendants’ 

possession, custody, or control. Headwater incorporates by reference its responses to 

Interrogatory No. 9.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17

Identify and describe in detail the content and timing of every contribution by each 

Named Inventor or other individual who contributed to any claim of any Asserted Patent.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Headwater objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected 

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable 

privilege or protection. Headwater further objects that this Interrogatory is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks 

information in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or that is equally accessible to 

Defendants from public sources or from third parties. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of Headwater’s possession, 

custody, and control. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as premature and calling for 

improper discovery of expert opinion. Headwater further objects to this Interrogatory as 

requiring the determination of predicate legal conclusions. Headwater further objects to this 

Interrogatory as premature to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to marshal any proof it 

intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Headwater responds as follows: 

In the Fall of 2008, Greg Raleigh founded Headwater Partners I LLC and assumed the role of its 

Managing Director. In around the middle of 2008, Dr. Raleigh and Headwater began meeting 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 30 of 34 PageID #: 744
30

with various handset manufacturers, wireless carriers, and electronics retailers to discuss possible 

business opportunities. Some of these discussions involved providing wireless capabilities for 

mobile devices. For example, Dr. Raleigh held a number of discussions with Best Buy about 

these wireless services, including a meeting with Best Buy executives in late September 2008. 

Best Buy informed Dr. Raleigh that it was interested in obtaining Dr. Raleigh’s services to, 

among other things, help Best Buy create a branded MVNO service strategy for mobile devices.

As a part of Headwater’s negotiations with Best Buy in the Fall of 2008 for Dr. Raleigh’s 

services in developing a branded MVNO, Dr. Raleigh concluded that a conventional, centralized 

equipment MVNO approach would not work well for the things that carriers, OEMs, and 

distributors wanted to do to compete in the marketplace. Named inventors Dr. Raleigh, James 

Lavine, and Alireza Raissinia conceived of the inventions of the ’541, ’543, and ’613 Patents as 

a solution to improving the conventional, centralized MVNO approach used by MVNO 

operators, which included the use of non-centralized device-assisted services, bandwidth usage 

notifications, bandwidth shaping and management techniques, and ambient services for mobile 

devices. Various features of the claimed inventions of the ’541, ’543, and ’613 Patents were 

conceived of and reduced to practice by the named inventors between Fall 2008 and the filing of 

U.S. Patent Provisional Application 61/206,354 (“’354 Application”) to which these patents 

claim priority. Pursuant to Rule 33(d), information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of 

this interrogatory may be ascertained from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, 

including technical and other documentation reflecting Headwater’s designs and inventions 

during this time period relating to the ’541, ’543, and ’613 Patents.

Between Fall 2008 and the filing of the ’354 Application, as part of the work discussed 

above, Dr. Raleigh also conceived of the inventions of the ’042 Patent, including mechanisms for 

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 31 of 34 PageID #: 745
31

determining that a particular service policy setting of a mobile device needs to be modified, 

protecting that policy setting, and sending to the mobile device configuration information that 

assists in modifying or allowing modifications to that policy setting. Pursuant to Rule 33(d), 

information responsive to the non-objectionable aspects of this interrogatory may be ascertained 

from documents Headwater has produced or will produce, including technical and other 

documentation reflecting Headwater’s designs and inventions during this time period relating to 

the ’042 Patent.

Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or 

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 32 of 34 PageID #: 746
32

Dated: March 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Email: mfenster@raklaw.com

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Brian Ledahl

CA State Bar No. 186579

Email: bledahl@raklaw.com

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

Email: bwang@raklaw.com

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Email: nrubin@raklaw.com

Kristopher Davis

CA State Bar No. 329627

Email: kdavis@raklaw.com

James S. Tsuei

CA State Bar No. 285530

Email: jtsuei@raklaw.com

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

Email: pwang@raklaw.com

Amy Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

Email: ahayden@raklaw.com

James Milkey

CA State Bar No. 281283

Email: jmilkey@raklaw.com

Jason M. Wietholter

CA State Bar No. 337139

Email: jwietholter@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 33 of 34 PageID #: 747
1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on March 4, 2024, all counsel of record who are deemed to 

have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic 

mail.

/s/ Marc Fenster_______

Marc Fenster

Case 2:23-cv-00379-JRG-RSP Document 58-7 Filed 04/30/24 Page 34 of 34 PageID #: 748