Exhibit A

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72-1 Filed 10/30/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2303
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00397-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T SERVICES, INC. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00398-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER

WHEREAS, the Court entered a Protective Order to protect Party and Non-Party 

confidential business information in the above-referenced action (“Action”) on December 27, 2023 

(Dkt. No. 43) (“Protective Order”); and

WHEREAS, Headwater Research LLC (“Plaintiff”); AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Mobility, LLC, and AT&T Corp. (collectively, “Defendants” and, together with Plaintiff, the 

“Parties”); and Google LLC (“Google” or “Non-Party”), a non-party to this action, may produce 

confidential source code belonging to Google (“Google Source Code”); and

WHEREAS the Parties and Google have agreed to provisions in addition to those contained 

in the Protective Order to protect against misuse or disclosure of such Google Source Code;

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72-1 Filed 10/30/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2304
2

THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and Google and ORDERED that, 

notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Protective Order (including without limitation 

Paragraph 10 thereof), any Google Source Code produced in connection with the above-captioned 

action shall be subject to the following restrictions:

1. Google Source Code will be made available at the offices of Google’s outside 

counsel (4 Embarcadero Ctr #3500, San Francisco, CA 94111) during normal 

business hours, which shall be 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

2. The receiving Party shall be permitted to make no more than 250 pages of printouts 

of source code material, all of which shall be designated, clearly labelled, and 

logged as laid out in § 10(j) of the Protective Order (Dkt. 43). The printouts shall 

include no more than 15 consecutive pages of source code material. No additional 

pages may be printed absent a showing of good cause.

3. The Parties agree that the name(s) and Curriculum Vitae(s) of all expert witnesses 

who will have access to Google Source Code will be disclosed in advance, such 

that Google may determine whether it has any objections to the expert(s).

4. If any document(s) containing Google Source Code appear on the exhibit list(s) of 

a Party, the Party is to give written notice by-email to Google’s outside counsel at 

the time the exhibit list(s) are exchanged.

5. If any document(s) containing Google Source Code are used in open court, 

including but limited to at a hearing or at trial, the Parties agree to use reasonable 

efforts to seal the courtroom and to use reasonable efforts to redact any related 

portions of the transcript(s)

6. The following software tools are pre-approved for the purposes of Google’s 

production of source code:

a. Understand (http://www.scitools.com)

b. Beyond Compare (http://www.scootersoftware.com)

c. Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com)

d. Notepad++ (https://notepad-plus-plus.org/download/v7.4.2.html)

e. PowerGrep (http://www.powergrep.com)

f. Microsoft Office (https://products.office.com/en-us/compare-allmicrosoft- office-products)

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72-1 Filed 10/30/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2305
3

2. All materials that contain or describe Google Source Code (“Google Source Code 

Material”) shall be destroyed or returned to Google pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the 

Protective Order. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Paragraph 23 of the 

Protective Order, outside counsel of record shall not maintain, for archival purposes 

or otherwise, any Google Source Code Material.

3. Any attorney representing a Party, whether in-house or outside counsel, and any 

person associated with a Party and who received Google’s Protected Material that 

is designated “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and/or 

“CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE 

CODE” (collectively “HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL”), who obtains, 

receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, in whole or in part, Google’s HIGHLY 

SENSITIVE MATERIAL under this Order shall not prepare, prosecute, supervise, 

or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any patent application pertaining to 

the fields of invention of the patents in suit (e.g., transmission of messages between 

a server and an application using encryption, network message servers, and 

message link servers) on behalf of the receiving Party or its acquirer, successor, 

predecessor, or other affiliate during the pendency of this Action and for one year 

after its conclusion, including any appeals. For purposes of this paragraph, 

“prosecution” includes any activity related to (i) the preparation or prosecution (for 

any person or entity) of patent applications, including among others reissue 

applications or (ii) directly or indirectly participating, drafting, amending, advising, 

or otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent claims. To ensure 

compliance with the purpose of this provision, each Party shall create an “Ethical 

Wall” between those persons with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL 

and any individuals who, on behalf of the Party or its acquirer, successor, 

predecessor, or other affiliate, prepare, prosecute, supervise or assist in the 

preparation or prosecution of any patent application pertaining to the technologies 

at issue. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision shall not preclude any person 

(including counsel or experts) who obtains, receives, or otherwise learns, in whole 

or in part, Google’s DESIGNATED MATERIAL under this Order from 

participating in or representing it in reexamination proceedings, Post-Grant Review 

proceedings, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or Covered Business Method 

Review proceedings involving the patents-in-suit provided that they do not advise 

on, consult on, prepare, draft, or edit any amendment to specifications or claims 

based on those proceedings, but would preclude participating in or representing it 

in reexamination proceedings, Post-Grant Review proceedings, Inter Partes Review 

proceedings, or Covered Business Method Review proceedings if they do advise 

on, consult on, prepare, draft, or edit any amendment to specifications or claims 

based on those proceedings.

SIGNED this day of , 2024.

ROY. PAYNE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 72-1 Filed 10/30/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2306