EXHIBIT 10 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1256
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 2-18)

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

Research LLC (“Headwater”) responds to Defendants Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless, Verizon Corporate Services Group, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or “Verizon”)

Second Set of Requests for Interrogatories (the “Requests”) as follows:

Headwater’s search for information is ongoing. Headwater reserves the right to rely on 

facts, documents, or other evidence that may develop or come to Headwater’s attention at a later 

time. Headwater’s responses are based on information presently known to Headwater and are set 

forth without prejudice to Headwater’s right to assert additional objections and/or supplementary 

responses should Headwater discover additional documents, information or grounds for 

objections. Headwater reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses to the Requests at 

any time prior to the trial in this action.

Specific objections to each Request are made on an individual basis in Headwater’s 

responses below. In addition to the specific objections, Headwater makes certain general 

Headwater Research LLC, 

 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 

Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00352-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 1257
2

objections (the “General Objections”) to the Requests. These General Objections are hereby 

incorporated by reference into the specific response made to each separate Request. For 

particular emphasis, Headwater has, from time to time, expressly included one or more of the 

General Objections as specific objections in the responses below. Headwater’s response to each 

individual Request is submitted without prejudice to, and without in any respect waiving, any 

General Objections not expressly set forth in that response. Accordingly, the inclusion in any 

response below of any specific objection to a specific Request is neither intended as, nor shall in 

any way be deemed, waiver of any General Objection or of any other specific objection made.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The following responses, while based on diligent investigation by Headwater, are 

necessarily supported only by those facts and writings presently and specifically known and

readily available. Headwater has not completed theirinvestigation of all facts related to the subject

matter of this action or discovery. Headwater expressly reserves their right (a) to object on any 

ground to the Requests; (b) to revise, correct, supplement or clarify any responses and answers at 

any later date; or (c) to produce at any stage of the proceedings, including at the hearing, 

evidence of facts or information that Headwater may later recall or discover; and nothing herein

should be construed as a waiver thereof. By providing responsive information, Headwater does 

not concede that any such information is admissible. Further, Headwater does not waive any 

objection, whether or not asserted here, to the use or admissibility of such information and 

documents during these proceedings, including objections as to competence, authenticity,

relevance, materiality, and admissibility.

Moreover, no incidental or implied admissions are intended by the answers below. The 

fact that Headwater has answered or objected to all or part of a Request should not be construed 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 1258
3

as an admission that Headwater accepts or admits the existence of any purported facts set forth or 

assumed by such Request or that Headwater has waived any part of any objection to the Request.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

The following objections apply to and are incorporated into each and every one of the

following answers and objections, and failure to repeat an objection in an answer to a specific

Request shall not be deemed a waiver of these general objections:

1. Headwater objects to these Requests 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 will not 

produce privileged and protected information in response to these Requests. Unless explicitly 

stated, any production of privileged or protected information 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. 

2. Headwater objects to the Requests, including Verizon’s Definitions and 

Instructions, to the extent they attempt to impose any obligations on Headwater beyond and/or 

inconsistent with those set forth in the District’s local rules, the Court’s rules and orders, and 

the schedule issued in this case.

3. Headwater objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is 

not within the present possession, custody or control of Headwater. Headwater will use 

reasonable diligence to locate information that are within its possession, custody and control.

4. Headwater objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek information or 

documents already in the possession of or more readily available to Verizon, in the public 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 1259
4

domain, or equally available to Verizon as they are to Headwater.

5. Headwater objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for the premature 

disclosure of expert discovery, such as undisclosed expert opinions or work product.

6. Headwater objects to these Requests to the extent that they assume facts not in 

evidence. 

7. Headwater objects to the Definitions and Instructions as unduly burdensome. 

Headwater will comply with its obligations pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and applicable local rules, if any. 

8. Headwater objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for a legal 

conclusion.

9. Headwater objects to the Requests to the extent that they are not limited in 

temporal scope.

10. Headwater objects to these Requests 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. To the extent these Requests seek discovery of information within the scope of 

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

discovery of expert opinion. 

12. 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 Requests. However, Headwater reserves the right to supplement its responses as 

additional information about other potentially responsive information from other sources that 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 1260
5

are not reasonably accessible becomes known. 

13. Headwater objects to the Requests to the extent they seek “all” information in 

relation to a topic; such Requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and unlikely to lead to 

the discovery of admissible evidence. 

14. Headwater further objects to the Requests to the extent they are compound and 

contain multiple subparts.

15. By responding to Verizon’s Requests, Headwater does not waive any objection 

that may be applicable to: (a) the use, for any purpose, by Verizon of any information provided; 

(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. 

16. Headwater objects to the definitions of “you,” “Headwater,” 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... In responding to these 

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

Research LLC.

17. 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.

18. Headwater objects to Verizon’s 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.

OBJECTION AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 1261
6

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

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. 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. 

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 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 1262
7

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

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 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. 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 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 1263
8

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 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, Verizon has 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 Verizon articulates 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. 4:

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 Patent 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. 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 as vague and ambiguous, and as 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 1264
9

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 

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 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 Defendant’s invalidity contentions.

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:

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 nonCase 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 10 of 41 PageID #:

1265
10

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. 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 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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 11 of 41 PageID #:

1266
11

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 or will produce, including 

HW352-00000001-HW352-00006975. Responsive information may also be ascertained from 

documents and information in Verizon’s 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:

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”1) 

relating to the 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.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 12 of 41 PageID #:

1267
12

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 

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 or will produce, including: 

HW352-00000001-HW352-00006975; HW352-00007375-HW352-00007395; HW352-

00007728-HW352-00007743. Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents 

and information in Verizon’s possession, custody, or control. Headwater incorporates its 

infringement contentions and its response to Interrogatory No. 14.

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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 13 of 41 PageID #:

1268
13

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

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 patentpracticing 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. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 14 of 41 PageID #:

1269
14

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 or will produce, including: 

HW352-00000001-HW352-00006975; HW352-00007375-HW352-00007395; HW352-

00007728-HW352-00007743. Responsive information may also be ascertained from documents 

and information in Verizon’s 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. 8:

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

relating to, in whole or in part, either 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 15 of 41 PageID #:

1270
15

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 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. 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 or will produce. Responsive 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 16 of 41 PageID #:

1271
16

information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Verizon’s 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. 9:

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. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 17 of 41 PageID #:

1272
17

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 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. 10:

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. 10

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 18 of 41 PageID #:

1273
18

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:

Defendants have knowingly and intentionally induced and contributed to infringement of the 

’541 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, Defendants have had 

knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’541 patent and the infringing nature of the Accused 

Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software included a patent marking notice which 

listed the ’541 patent and patents in the same family as the ’541 patent. Similarly, Defendants 

have had knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’541 patent and the infringing nature of the 

Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and among ItsOn, Headwater, 

and Verizon discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, including pending patent 

applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the ’541 patent) and issued 

patents (including the ’541 patent), during the product development, technological, and 

marketing team meetings in 2009-2013. See, e.g., Headwater’s Response to Interrogatory No. 14.

Additionally, Verizon has cited this specification in at least one other Verizon patent, which 

issued after the ’541 patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 19 of 41 PageID #:

1274
19

Despite this knowledge of the ’541 patent, Defendants have continued to actively 

encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways 

that directly infringe the ’541 patent. These acts include providing information and instructions 

on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education, and instructions to 

its customers; and providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers. Defendants have done 

so knowing and intending that their customers would commit these infringing acts. Defendants 

have also continued to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused 

Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’541 patent, thereby specifically intending for 

and inducing their customers to infringe the ’541 patent through the customers’ normal and 

customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Defendants have also knowingly and intentionally induced and contributed to 

infringement of the ’543 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, 

Defendants have had knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’543 patent and the infringing 

nature of the Accused Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software included a patent 

marking notice which listed the ’543 patent and patents in the same family as the ’543 patent. 

Similarly, Defendants have had knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’543 patent and the 

infringing nature of the Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and 

among ItsOn, Headwater, and Verizon discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, 

including pending patent applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the 

’543 patent) during the product development, technological, and marketing team meetings in 

2009-2013. See, e.g., Headwater’s Response to Interrogatory No. 14. Additionally, on 

information and belief, Verizon has cited this specification in at least one other Verizon patent, 

which issued after the ’543 patent. And Verizon’s U.S. Patent No. 9,167,374, which issued in 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 20 of 41 PageID #:

1275
20

2015, cites U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0089727 to Gregory G. Raleigh et al. 

which had previously issued as the asserted ’543 patent.

Despite this knowledge of the ’543 patent, Defendants have continued to actively 

encourage and instruct their customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways 

that directly infringe the ’543 patent. These acts include providing information and instructions 

on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education, and instructions to 

its customers; and providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers. Defendants have done 

so knowing and intending that their customers will commit these infringing acts. Defendants 

have also continued to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused 

Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’543 patent, thereby specifically intending for 

and inducing their customers to infringe the ’543 patent through the customers’ normal and 

customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Defendants have also knowingly and intentionally induced and contributed to 

infringement of the ’042 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, 

Defendants have had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’042 patent and the infringing 

nature of the Accused Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software included a patent 

marking notice which listed patents in the same family as the ’042 patent. Similarly, Defendants 

have had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’042 patent and the infringing nature of the 

Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and among ItsOn, Headwater, 

and Verizon discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, including pending patent 

applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the ’042 patent) during the 

product development, technological, and marketing team meetings in 2009-2013. See, e.g., 

Headwater’s Response to Interrogatory No. 14. Additionally, on information and belief, Verizon 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 21 of 41 PageID #:

1276
21

has cited this specification in at least one other Verizon patent, which issued after the ’042 patent 

was issued.

Despite this knowledge of the ’042 patent, Defendants have continued to actively 

encourage and instruct their customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways 

that directly infringe the ’042 patent. These acts include providing information and instructions 

on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education, and instructions to 

its customers; and providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers. Defendants have done 

so knowing and intending that their customers will commit these infringing acts. Defendants 

have also continued to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused 

Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’042 patent, thereby specifically intending for 

and inducing their customers to infringe the ’042 patent through the customers’ normal and 

customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.

Defendants have also knowingly and intentionally induced and contributed to 

infringement of the ’613 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, 

Defendants have had knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’613 patent and the infringing 

nature of the Accused Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software included a patent 

marking notice which listed patents in the same family as the ’613 patent. Similarly, Defendants 

have had knowledge of or were willfully blind to the ’613 patent and the infringing nature of the 

Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and among ItsOn, Headwater, 

and Verizon discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, including pending patent 

applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the ’613 patent) during the 

product development, technological, and marketing team meetings in 2009-2013. See, e.g., 

Headwater’s Response to Interrogatory No. 14. Additionally, on information and belief, Verizon 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 22 of 41 PageID #:

1277
22

has cited this specification in at least one other Verizon patent, which issued after the 

’613 patent.

106. Despite this knowledge of the ’613 patent, Defendants have continued to actively 

encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways 

that directly infringe the ’613 patent. These acts include providing information and instructions 

on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education, and instructions to 

its customers; and providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers. Defendants have done 

so knowing and intending that their customers would commit these infringing acts. Defendants 

have also continued to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused 

Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’613 patent, thereby specifically intending for 

and inducing their customers to infringe the ’613 patent through the customers’ normal and 

customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.

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

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

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

custody, or control. Headwater incorporates its infringement contentions and its response to 

Interrogatory No. 14.

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 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, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 23 of 41 PageID #:

1278
23

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. 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 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 or will produce, including 

HW352-00000001-HW352-00006975; HW352-00007375-HW352-00007395; HW352-

00007728-HW352-00007743.

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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 24 of 41 PageID #:

1279
24

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

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 entity 

at any point until the present.

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 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 25 of 41 PageID #:

1280
25

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 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. 13:

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 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. 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 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 26 of 41 PageID #:

1281
26

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 

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 or will produce. Responsive 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 27 of 41 PageID #:

1282
27

information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Verizon’s 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. 14:

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

infringement has been willful.

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 

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: 

The patented technologies which are the subject of this lawsuit are well known to Defendants. 

On or about June 30, 2009, Headwater entered into an NDA with Verizon. On or about July 1, 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 28 of 41 PageID #:

1283
28

2009, Headwater provided detailed presentations under the NDA to Verizon personnel including 

Kyle Malady, Verizon’s then VP of Technology Product Development, divulging how 

Headwater’s and ItsOn’s technological solutions could solve Verizon’s data demand problems 

while simultaneously opening up new revenue channels for Verizon. These presentations 

included comprehensive feature roadmaps, prototype timelines, and financial projections 

discussing how ItsOn’s software and Headwater’s unique portfolio of intellectual property would 

benefit Verizon and its customers.

In August 2009, Mr. Malady asked Headwater to present to Verizon executives a trial 

plan for Headwater/ItsOn to demonstrate its technology to Verizon. On or around August 31, 

2009, Headwater gave a presentation describing the ItsOn platform as well as a trial plan to 

Verizon executives. The functionality and solutions presented to Verizon led the parties to 

consider consummating an exclusive deal between Headwater/ItsOn and Verizon, under which 

Headwater/ItsOn would scale and implement its technological solutions to assist Verizon with 

data demand and increase Verizon’s revenue streams.

In October 2009, Headwater presented Verizon with a Detailed Patent Brief, providing 

detailed descriptions of Headwater’s patent filings relating to the technological solutions 

Headwater and ItsOn had been discussing with Verizon, including disclosures related to the 

Asserted Patents. Verizon and Headwater continued to discuss how Headwater’s and ItsOn’s 

capabilities and offerings could benefit Verizon and its customers.

In October 2009, Thomas Russell—Verizon’s then Director of Marketing—prepared and 

presented a Pilot Objectives presentation for a Verizon/ItsOn pilot project. This presentation 

detailed product demonstrations and technical testing milestones for implementing the 

Headwater and ItsOn intellectual property and software.

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 29 of 41 PageID #:

1284
29

In October 2009, Verizon personnel prepared and presented an Opportunity for 

Partnership Between ItsOn and Verizon Wireless. Verizon’s presentation identified its need for 

the Headwater/ItsOn solutions, how those solutions could be implemented, and what benefits 

those solutions would bring to Verizon and its customers. After these presentations and other 

significant and detailed technical meetings between ItsOn and Verizon, Verizon indicated that it 

would be integrating the ItsOn solutions to help manage devices and data usage on Verizon’s 

network.

In 2010, Verizon and ItsOn entered into a Software License, Evaluation Trial, and 

Application Programming Interfaces Development Agreement. Under the agreement, Verizon 

paid ItsOn over $4 million for a license to evaluate ItsOn data usage management software and 

APIs. Verizon also invested millions into the equity of Headwater and ItsOn. As a result, 

Headwater and ItsOn shared additional detailed technical information covered by Headwater’s 

pending patents with Verizon’s product, IT, technology, and marketing teams.

By May 2011, Headwater and ItsOn had developed a Verizon-specific prototype platform 

and held field trials for Verizon to evaluate the platform and validate its capabilities, including 

functionality covered by the Asserted Patents. The platform software included a splash page with 

a notice stating that the platform technologies were covered by several Headwater patents and a 

link to ItsOn’s virtual marking webpage. Each of the asserted ’541, ’543, and ’042 patents was 

added to that webpage after issuance.

In June 2011, Headwater provided an Updated Detailed Patent Brief to Verizon 

personnel, including Edward Diaz, Executive Director of Product Development & Integration, 

and Louis Chan, Director of Core Network Services. It provided additional detailed descriptions 

of Headwater’s patent filings relating to the technological solutions Headwater and ItsOn had 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 30 of 41 PageID #:

1285
30

been disclosing to Verizon, including disclosures related to the Asserted Patents. For example, 

the presentation notified Verizon that Headwater was obtaining patent protection on: 

“Application/Content Aware Service Access Control” where “server controls service plan 

network access policies that are securely enforced on a networked device” and “service plan 

policies can be modified based on: amount of service used [and/or] one or more applications”; 

“Device Assisted QoS” where “device assists in providing QoS differentiated services via secure 

policy enforcement on device capable of classifying device access network activity by 

application, OS function, website, content type and applying appropriate QoS policy”; 

mechanisms for applying “a differential background service policy that prevents background 

services not being interacted with by the user” based on “the state of user action with a given 

application”; and “access control” that is “varied according to user interaction state” and “is 

applied to one or more specific applications.”

Despite acknowledging that Headwater’s and ItsOn’s technological solutions would 

benefit Verizon and its customers—including by helping to reduce data usage and network 

congestion, extend battery life by decreasing power consumption, and provide additional revenue 

channels—Verizon ultimately decided to walk away from the opportunity.

It was not until 2013 that Headwater and ItsOn began to better understand why. In 

October 2013, Thomas Russell filed a whistleblower complaint against Verizon. The complaint 

alleged that Verizon retaliated against Mr. Russell for reporting “illegal and unethical business 

practices” by Verizon, including “unethical behavior in dealing with [ItsOn]” and 

“misappropriation of intellectual property (shared by ItsOn under an NDA) in violation of New 

Jersey and federal law.” See Complaint, Ex. 1, Thomas Russell vs. Cellco Partnership d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless, Dkt. No. L-1331-13 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 31 of 41 PageID #:

1286
31

Division, September 30, 2013) (the “Whistleblower Complaint”).

As a result of the filing of the Whistleblower Complaint, Headwater and ItsOn learned 

about alleged unethical business practices and illegal activities by Verizon related to 

Headwater’s and ItsOn’s confidential and proprietary intellectual property. Id. at 3. For example, 

Headwater and ItsOn learned that Verizon’s Product and IT teams allegedly “reverse-engineered 

the functionality shown by ItsOn.” Id.

Headwater and ItsOn also learned that Verizon allegedly claimed ownership of the 

technical solutions and offerings that Headwater and ItsOn had shared with Verizon’s product, 

technical, IT, and marketing teams, and had inserted those concepts into Verizon’s own internal 

presentations and talking points under the guise of Verizon’s “Advanced Data Services 

Platform.” Id. at 3-4. Headwater and ItsOn also learned that these concerns (and others) were 

shared with Verizon’s General Counsel and other Verizon senior leadership and that “several 

senior leaders” within Verizon allegedly recommended that Verizon “should continue the 

evaluation and trial work with ItsOn.” Id. at 4. Verizon nevertheless chose to discontinue its 

work with Headwater and ItsOn.

In January 2016, Verizon subsidiary Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc. filed U.S. Patent 

Application No. 14/996,543. It included claims directed to selectively blocking or permitting 

application traffic based on whether it is foreground or background traffic, e.g.:

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 32 of 41 PageID #:

1287
32

In February 2017, a Notice of References Cited was issued to the Verizon subsidiary 

regarding its patent application. The notice identified U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 

2011/0314145 to Gregory G. Raleigh et al. which had issued as the asserted ’541 patent on 

November 19, 2013.

Over the next several years, Verizon sold devices and provided services which included 

features and functionalities that were the subject of the Verizon, Headwater, and ItsOn 

relationship, with technology Verizon learned from ItsOn, and which infringe Headwater’s 

Asserted Patents.

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

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

information may also be ascertained from documents and information in Verizon’s 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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 33 of 41 PageID #:

1288
33

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

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. 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 

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 or will produce. Responsive 

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

custody, or control. Headwater incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 14.

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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 34 of 41 PageID #:

1289
34

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

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

work with Verizon or any Third Parties to commercialize it.

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 or will produce. Responsive 

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

custody, or control. Headwater incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 14.

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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 35 of 41 PageID #:

1290
35

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

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. 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: 

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

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

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

custody, or control. Headwater incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 14.

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

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 36 of 41 PageID #:

1291
36

supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

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. 18

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 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 37 of 41 PageID #:

1292
37

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 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 

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), 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 38 of 41 PageID #:

1293
38

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

from documents Headwater has 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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 39 of 41 PageID #:

1294
39

Dated: January 8, 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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 40 of 41 PageID #:

1295
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on January 8, 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-00352-JRG-RSP Document 63-9 Filed 05/01/24 Page 41 of 41 PageID #:

1296