Exhibit A

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 6013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH, LLC, ( CAUSE NO. 2:23-CV-103-JRG

 )

Plaintiff, (

 )

vs. (

 ) 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ( 

et al., ) MARSHALL, TEXAS

 ( JULY 11, 2024

Defendants. ) 1:30 P.M.

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

MARKMAN HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

______________________________________________________________

SHAWN McROBERTS, RMR, CRR

100 E. HOUSTON STREET

MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670

(903) 923-8546

shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov

Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 6014
means 'device agents' can be read to include apps, and we know 

that's not the case. And this demonstrates why the term is 

indefinite, because it has no meaning that would cabin it, at 

least the way Headwater argues it, to exclude applications. 

Now, Your Honor, I understand that negative constructions 

are not always favored, and I see that to -- I understand why 

that's the case. But in this situation a dispute -- a claim 

construction dispute has been raised because we believe the 

claim is indefinite and we believe their interpretation 

further renders it indefinite, and that's the only reason I'm 

raising this to you now, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You know, there can be broad terms that 

have some overlap that still have a definite meaning, and one 

of my problems with your request for a construction that 

excludes applications is the lack of any definition of 

applications. 

MR. YANG: Oh, okay. Sorry, Your Honor. I didn't 

realize that that was an issue. 

So 'applications', we believe, should be given its plain 

and ordinary meaning. Now, by that, in the context of this 

patent and mobile devices are things that a user can download 

from the App Store, they can interface with, and they perform 

their own functions--right?--so a gaming app, internet browser 

app that you download, antivirus software app that you 

download. And we believe it gets the normal plain and 

Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 6015
unclear. So yes, it's not a term of degree, but the term 

itself also has boundary issues, and that's why I think the 

same logic or the same legal principles underlying the cases 

that you have -- the case that you had in the Techiya case 

underlied this case as well. So you have to look at the 

specification, see what it discloses, if you're going to try 

to save the term from indefiniteness. 

THE COURT: I understand that it looks like trying 

to save a term from indefiniteness, but what it actually is is 

trying to determine the scope of the term and -- anyway, I'm 

reluctant to say that just because two terms are used in the 

same specification, that they can't have any overlap. And, 

you know, 'applications' are a broad term. 'Device agent' is 

also a broad term. The fact that both terms appear means that 

they're not identical, or at least certainly supports that 

argument, but it doesn't mean that there can't be some overlap 

between them. 

MR. YANG: Your Honor, that's an interesting point, 

and I think, you know, perhaps a way to resolve this is this 

may be what I think Your Honor is suggesting--a factual 

determination ultimately--right?-you know, whether something 

is a device agent, whether it is not an application, whether 

there's overlap on that particular thing we're looking at that 

makes it both. Right? 

So one possibility -- and I think that's a fair thing, 

Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 6016
Excuse me, Your Honor, I just want to get back to -- I 

went the wrong direction.

So on 'applications', we have three main problems with 

their construction. One, it's procedurally improper. We went 

into this in the briefing, but it's clearly waived. It was 

raised for the first time on page 13 of their response brief. 

I think it is also legally incorrect. And I think 

counsel even admitted, you know, the necessity to have 

lexicography or disclaimer, and especially when we're talking 

about negative limitation, and there's no attempt in either 

the argument or the briefing to meet, like, that standard. 

And third, Your Honor, we do have a problem factually 

with it--right?--which is we have the plain and ordinary 

meaning of 'agent' or 'device agent'. That's in Your Honor's 

tentative. It's also on this slide reflected in Doctor 

Turnbull's declaration and dictionary definitions. And then 

the question is, is there lexicography or disclaimer that 

removes something from that. I think legally there's no case 

for that. 

And just factually we don't know what they mean by 

'application'. I think for the first time there was some 

argument about applications downloaded from an app store or 

typically downloaded. I mean, we don't know what that means, 

and that creates all sorts of issues that would confuse things 

and we think are unsupported and both are broad terms. 

Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 6017
'Application' is not a claim term for the '733 Patent, it's 

not explained, defined, so I think any sort of negative 

limitation would be unjustified.

And if we look at the plain and ordinary meaning of 

'agent', there could be some overlap. Maybe the entirety of a 

device agent is not co-extensive with, you know, a third-party 

application downloaded from the app store, but when we just 

have the claim term of a device agent, there could be some 

overlap or parts of applications or parts of applications in 

conjunction with other software that we think makes it -- any 

sort of negative construction inappropriate. 

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Wang, are you reading 'device 

agent' to cover what is ordinarily understood as an 

application in the way that Samsung has been describing it 

today? 

MR. PHILIP WANG: I don't believe we are, Your 

Honor. And I think what I said is what I just 

explained--right?--which is that there is software -- in our 

infringement contentions we talk about the operating system, 

software that performs these functions, and I think we put 

'and/or applications', and that we think that that is 

appropriate. If there is software, it could have some overlap 

with parts of applications or parts of functionality.

And to the extent there is a valid argument that they 

have, this seems to be an argument -- a factual dispute over 

Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR

Federal Official Court Reporter

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 150-1 Filed 09/24/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6018