IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S

OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 3189
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

II. OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED PATENTS ......................................................................... 2

III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’733 PATENT ......................................................................... 3

A. “device agents” (’733 patent, claims 1, 30)............................................................ 3

1. The ’733 patent claims and specification provide 

reasonable certainty to a POSITA............................................................... 5

2. Samsung’s indefiniteness assertion is unsupported and 

overlooks both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.................................... 6

B. “wherein the particular device agent is configured to assist in 

presenting a notification through the user interface, the notification 

based on the message content” (’733 patent, claim 19).......................................... 9

IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’117 PATENT ....................................................................... 10

A. “device messaging agents” (’117 patent, claim 1)................................................ 10

B. “at least one of the devices having a network stack in 

communication with the device messaging agent, wherein the 

secure connection between the network message server and that 

device is terminated within the network stack” (’117 patent, claim 

13) ......................................................................................................................... 11

V. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’192 PATENT ....................................................................... 12

A. “software components” (’192 patent, claims 1, 15).............................................. 12

B. “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt of a 

transmission on the respective secure message link from the device 

link agent of the given one of the wireless end-user devices, or a 

response generated to a transmission received from that device link 

agent” (’192 patent, claim 11) .............................................................................. 13

C. “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt of a 

particular network element message from one of the network 

elements” (’192 patent, claim 13)......................................................................... 14

VI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 15

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 3190
ii

TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Ex.* Description Abbreviation

1 U.S. Patent No. 8,406,733 (Dkt. 31-1) ’733 patent

2 U.S. Patent No. 9,198,117 (Dkt. 31-2) ’117 patent

3 U.S. Patent No. 9,615,192 (Dkt. 31-3) ’192 patent

4 Samsung’s Patent Rule 4-2 Identification of Claim Constructions 

and Extrinsic Evidence (Mar. 28, 2024)

Samsung CC

Disclosure

5 Samsung’s Amended Patent Rule 4-2 Identification of Claim 

Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence (Apr. 29, 2024)

Samsung Am.

CC Disclosure

6 Declaration of Don Turnbull, Ph.D. (Apr. 29, 2024) Turnbull Decl.

7 Deposition Transcript of Don Turnbull, Ph.D. (May 28, 2024) Turnbull Dep.

8 Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms (10th ed., 2009), 

definition of “agent” (SAM-HW-2_00215498)

Computer 

Terms Dict.

9 U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2006/0218395 (Ex. 9 to Turnbull Dep.) ’395 application

10 Samsung SDS Enterprise Mobility Management Installation 

Guide (Jan. 2023) (HW103-00082010)

Samsung

EMM Guide

11 U.S. Patent No. 9,800,708 (HW103-00082269) ’708 patent

12 U.S. Patent No. 10,506,090 (HW103-00082218) ’090 patent

13 Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

9,198,117, Paper 2, IPR2024-00003 (Nov. 17, 2023)

Samsung ’117

IPR Petition 

14 Institution Decision in Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

9,198,117, Paper 8, IPR2024-00003 (May 22, 2024)

’117 IPR

Inst. Decision

15 Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

9,615,192, Paper 2, IPR2024-00010 (Nov. 17, 2023)

Samsung ’192

IPR Petition

16 Institution Decision in Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

9,615,192, Paper 7, IPR2024-00010 (May 23, 2024)

’192 IPR

Inst. Decision

17 Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

8,406,733, Paper 4, IPR2024-00341 (Jan. 23, 2024)

Samsung ’773

IPR Petition 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3191
iii

Ex.* Description Abbreviation

18 Samsung’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 

8,406,733, Paper 4, IPR2024-00342 (Jan. 23, 2024)

Samsung ’773

IPR Petition 2

* All exhibits attached to the concurrently filed declaration of James S. Tsuei.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 3192
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC submits this opening claim construction brief to address 

seven terms in three asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,406,733 (“’733 patent”), 9,198,117 (“’117 

patent), and 9,615,192 (“’192 patent”). Samsung does not propose any constructions and asserts 

that all seven terms are indefinite. But it falls far short of proving indefiniteness by clear and 

convincing evidence. At the outset, Headwater highlights two aspects of Samsung’s conduct that 

demonstrate its improper, litigation-driven approach to claim construction.

Indiscriminate Indefiniteness Assertions

Samsung P.R. 4-2 disclosure of proposed constructions and extrinsic evidence identified 

27 terms for three patents and asserted that all 27 terms were indefinite. Samsung CC Disclosure 

(Mar. 28, 2024). Samsung amended its P.R. 4-2 disclosure a month later but continued to assert 

indefiniteness for all 27 terms. Samsung Am. CC Disclosure (Apr. 29, 2024). It wasn’t until the 

day the JCCC was submitted that Samsung limited itself to seven terms. See Dkt. 91.

Further, Samsung’s P.R. 4-2 disclosure shows the lack of evidence behind its assertions. 

Across the 27 terms, Samsung identifies only one piece of extrinsic evidence (a few dictionary 

definitions of the word “agent”). Thus, the only purported “evidence” Samsung offers is a 

declaration by its expert, Dr. Turnbull. But even a cursory review of the declaration shows it is 

insufficient. The declaration is entirely conclusory and, for many terms, is limited to a few 

sentences of vague observations. This does not—and cannot—meet Samsung’s burden to prove 

indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Further, as discussed throughout this brief, 

Samsung’s expert repeatedly made admissions that undermine Samsung’s arguments.

Inconsistent Positions in IPRs

Samsung’s indefiniteness assertions are also undermined by its inconsistent positions in 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 3193
2

IPRs. Samsung filed four IPR petitions on the three asserted patents. See ’117 Petition; ’192 

Petition; ’773 Petition 1; ’773 Petition 2. In those IPRs, Samsung and its experts had no

understanding the claim language or allegedly mapping it to the prior art, including for the seven 

terms it now contends are indefinite. See, e.g., ’117 Pet. at 35-56 (applying “device messaging 

agent” and “terminated within the network stack” to prior art); ’192 Pet. at 12 (applying “software 

components”); ’773 Pet. at 28-30 (applying “device agents”), 59-62 (applying “configured to 

assist”). The Board instituted IPR on the ’192 patent but denied institution on the ’117 patent. And 

in those decisions, the Board (like Samsung) did not remotely suggest that any terms might be 

indefinite. ’192 ID; ’117 ID. Samsung’s shifting-sands approach to understanding the claims 

should be rejected and provide further evidence the terms are not indefinite.

II. OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED PATENTS

The asserted ’773, ’117, and ’192 patents are directed to systems and methods for 

improving how mobile devices communicate with servers over the Internet. They each claim 

priority to the same February 2009 patent application. They generally relate to aspects of how

wireless devices send/receive messages or how network servers can efficiently transmit messages 

to wireless devices. All three patents largely share the same specification.

The ’733 patent is directed to “Devices and methods for receiving control-plane 

communications from a network element over a secure service control link.” ’733 patent at 

Abstract. Control-plane communications include messages involving “supervision” and control of 

functionality on an end-user device. Id. at 37:36-47 Such communications can be used, for 

example, to manage a “device based network service policy implementation” on a mobile device. 

Id. at 11:21-29. The ’733 patent teaches that mobile devices may receive encrypted agent messages 

from a “service control link element,” which message the mobile device can then decode and pass 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 3194
3

on to a “device agent” on the device that is the intended recipient of the message. See id. at 89:21-

45. Such “secure messages” are those which “can only be decoded or observed by the agents they 

are intended for,” which helps to secure those messages “against monitoring, eavesdropping, or 

compromise of the agent communication system.” Id. at 41:62-42:21.

The ’117 patent is directed to “mobile end-user devices” which each contain “a device 

messaging agent that securely communicates with a network message server over a wireless 

network.” ’117 patent, at Abstract. Like with the ’733 patent, the ’117 patent teaches systems and 

methods to ensure that messages are correctly delivered to an “end-user device” and to the correct 

“device messaging agent” and “software process” on the device.. This is done, for example, by 

including in those messages “application data and an indication of a device an application on the 

device to which the application data should be delivered.” Id. 

The ’192 patent is directed to a “message link server” that maintains “secure message 

links” with “device link agents on each of a plurality of wireless end-user devices.” ’192 patent, at 

Abstract. The ’192 patent teaches systems and methods in which network elements send messages

“targeted” to “specific software components” on end-user devices. Some messages may not have 

“time-critical messaging needs,” in which case the message link server uses a “message buffering 

system” that “buffers messages targeted to each device until one of several triggers occur.” Id. The 

patent further describes “software components” on the end-user devices that are authorized to 

receive messages “via a device link agent on that device.” Id. at cl. 1.

III. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’733 PATENT

A. “device agents” (’733 patent, claims 1, 30)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 3195
4

Claims 1 of 30 the ’733 patent recite the term “device agents” as follows:

• Claim 1: “An end-user device comprising . . . a plurality of device agents

communicatively coupled to the service control device link agent through an agent 

communication bus, each of the plurality of device agents identifiable by an 

associated device agent identifier” (all emphasis in brief added unless noted).

• Claim 30: “A method performed by an end-user device, the method comprising . . .

obtaining a decrypted agent message . . . comprising a particular agent identifier 

and message content for delivery to a particular device agent of a plurality of device 

agents on the end-user device, each of the plurality of device agents identifiable by 

an associated device agent identifier and communicatively coupled to the service 

control device link agent through an agent communication bus”

As an initial matter, Samsung does not dispute that the term “agent” is a known term in the 

art and has a plain meaning. Turnbull Dep. at 54:7-10 (“Q: the term ‘agent’ has a plain and ordinary 

meaning? A. I think so, yes, especially based on the context of the body of the patent, yes.”).

According to Samsung’s expert, agent means “software that performs certain functions behalf of 

another element.” Turnbull Decl. ¶ 33 (citing Computer Terms Dict. (“agent: a piece of software 

that performs a service for someone, usually silently and automatically. For example, an agent 

might run on a CLIENT computer to keep the SERVER informed of its needs.”)). Samsung’s 

expert also agrees that “device” is a well-understood term. See Turnbull Dep. at 57:24-58:1 (“Q:

would the word ‘device’ itself have a plain and ordinary meaning? A. I would say so.”).

Samsung’s entire argument is that “device agent” is indefinite, allegedly because (1) the 

term is “not known in the art,” and (2) “it is unclear how adding the prefix ‘device’ affects [the 

term’s] scope relative to the term ‘agent.” Turnbull Decl. ¶ 35. But Samsung’s expert admitted that 

the word “device” modifies the word “agent.” Id.; Turnbull Dep. at 71:1-4. He also admitted that

“device agent” is narrower than “agent.” Id. at 71:23-72:4.

These admissions resolve any purported ambiguity. A device agent is simply an “agent” 

on the “device” (the “end-user device” recited in the claims). The claim language and specification 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 3196
5

of the ’733 patent confirm this. Samsung’s arguments are unsupported and ignore both the intrinsic 

and extrinsic evidence. It cannot prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.

1. The ’733 patent claims and specification provide reasonable 

certainty to a POSITA.

The claim language surrounding the term “device agents” provides reasonable certainty as 

to claim scope. For example, claims 1 and 30 of the ’733 patent recite a “end-user device” that 

comprises (or includes) “a plurality of device agents.” This structure alone informs a POSITA that 

the “agents” are on the end-user device—and hence are “device agents.” Nothing in the claim 

language is ambiguous, and a POSITA would know what an “agent” is (as Samsung’s expert 

agreed) and what the “device” is. Claims 1 and 30 further recite that the “device agents” are 

“coupled to the service control device link agent through an agent communication bus” and must 

also receive “message content” that is delivered to it “over the agent communication bus.” Claim

26, which depends on claim 1, requires at least one of the plurality of “device agents” to be 

“software.” These limitations further inform a POSITA and describe, for example, the location, 

connections, and functions of the recited “device agents.”

The specification provides additional guidance. For example, Fig. 16 of the ’733 patent

(highlighted below) is a “functional diagram illustrating a device based service processor 115 and 

a service controller 122. This figure shows the “internal functional diagram of device” (100), 

within contains various elements, including “policy control agent” (1692), “service monitor agent” 

(1696), “application interface agent” (1693), and “policy implementation agent” (1690). Each of

the identified agents are shown internal to the device—i.e., located on the device. The agents are 

not, for instance, on the illustrated “service controller” (which is external to and separate from the 

device) to which the “device” (100) is connected via the Internet.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 3197
6

This also confirmed by Figs. 17-21, which each depict and label a plurality of such “agents” 

as being “Inside Device.” The written description associated with Figs. 16-21 (among other 

embodiments) supports the same understanding. See, e.g., ’733 patent at 37:15-17 (describing Fig. 

16 as showing “certain divisions and functional breakouts for device agents as an illustrative 

implementation”). The foregoing examples from the specification confirm to a POSITA that the 

term “device agents” in the claims carries its ordinary English meaning: agents on the device.

2. Samsung’s indefiniteness assertion is unsupported and 

overlooks both the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.

The crux of Samsung’s indefiniteness argument is that the term “device agents” is allegedly 

“not known in the art.” Turnbull Decl. ¶ 35. Although that is not even the test for indefiniteness, it 

is wrong. Samsung’s expert opinion is also entirely conclusory and lacks supporting evidence. See 

Turnbull Dep. at 60:8-61:15. In making his assertion, Samsung’s expert overlooked highly relevant 

teachings of the specification. For example, he discusses Fig. 16 and acknowledges that the 

depicted “agents” could be device agents. See Turnbull Decl. ¶ 40. But he failed to mention

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 3198
7

anywhere in his declaration that Fig. 16 expressly discloses the agents as within a box labeled 

“Internal Functional Diagram of a Device.” See Turnbull Dep. at 75:11-16. 

Likewise, Samsung’s expert could not defend his assertion that the term “device agents” is 

not known in the art. He testified that he was not aware of (and had not considered) various intrinsic 

and extrinsic evidence that use the term, including (1) prior art references cited on the ’733 patent,

(2) Samsung’s own technical documents, and (3) Samsung’s own patents. Id. at 61:16-62:5. A 

brief overview of this evidence (which Samsung’s expert implied did not exist) confirms that

Samsung’s expert opinions are unreliable and wrong.

First is the ’395 application, which is cited on the face of the ’733 patent and constitutes 

intrinsic evidence. See ’733 patent at p. 3 (citing US Patent Appl. Pub. 2006/0218395). The ’395

application is entitled “Device Agent” and teaches “device agents and methods,” with the “device 

agent” having “device agent logic” that is “configured to monitor device activities and to enforce 

the policies on the device activities.” ’395 application at [0012]. Like the ’733 patent, the “device 

agent” of the ’396 application is located on the device and performs functions related to the device. 

The ’395 application and ’733 patent are in the same field; both teach ways that a “device agent” 

on a wireless device (e.g., a cell phone) can be used execute logic related to the device’s 

functionality. See id. at [0005] (“Device agents and methods are disclosed. In some embodiments, 

the method comprises monitoring, at an access device (e.g., a wireless device. Such as a mobile 

telephone), at least a subset of device activity.”), [0006].

The ’395 application is but one example in the intrinsic record that contradicts Samsung’s 

assertion that that “device agents” is an unknown term in the art. And the failure of Samsung’s 

expert to consider it (or any other reference cited in the ’733 patent) further undermines his 

opinions. See Turnbull Dep. 61:22-62:5 (“Q: Are you aware of any prior art cited in the asserted 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 3199
8

patents that use the term ‘device agent’? . . . A: No, no, nothing comes to mind.”), 16:25-17:7 (“Q:

Did you consider any prior art references in forming your opinions on the asserted patents? A: I 

don’t recall doing that. Q: Did you review any prior art references in offering your opinions in 

your declaration? A: I don't recall doing that either.”).

Second are Samsung’s documents discussing its own products and services, including the

accused products in this case. For example, Samsung’s public documentation for its Knox Manage 

system, uses “Device Agents” to refer to agents that are on devices:

Samsung EMM Guide at 2 (highlighted and cropped).

Third are Samsung’s own patents, which also show that “device agent” was a term known 

in the art. For example, Samsung’s ’708 patent has a similar priority date as the ’733 patent and 

teaches a “device agent” that is installed on a device. Fig. 1 shows a “device agent” located on

computer 100. See ’708 patent at Fig. 1, 7:32-39 (computer 100 is an example of an “electronic 

device” in which “device agent 110” is installed). Similarly, Samsung’s ’090 patent discusses its 

teachings using the term “device agent” in the same manner. See ’090 patent at 7:38-53.

The above evidence contradicts Samsung’s expert assertion that “device agents” is not a 

known term either at the priority date of the ’733 patent or even today. See Turnbull Dep. 59:21-

60:8. And it confirms that Samsung cannot prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that “device 

agents” would not be understood by a POSITA with reasonable certainty.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 3200
9

B. “wherein the particular device agent is configured to assist in 

presenting a notification through the user interface, the notification 

based on the message content” (’733 patent, claim 19)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Samsung contends that this term in claim 19 of the ’733 patent is indefinite because of the

word “assist.” According to Samsung’s expert, “it is not clear how a POSITA would have 

determined whether a particular component ‘assist[s]’ in “presenting a notification.” Turnbull 

Decl. ¶ 42. He provides no other evidence or explanation beyond this conclusory sentence. This 

opinion is not credible. “Assist” is an ordinary English word with a readily ascertainable meaning

from general purpose dictionaries. There is no evidence that the ’733 patent uses “assist” in a 

different or specialized way. Indeed, Samsung never articulates a different meaning or why it 

would be ambiguous as used in claim 19. And in his deposition, Samsung’s expert essentially 

conceded that the term was not indefinite (Turnbull Dep. at 88:23-89:9):

Q: So I’m trying to understand why you find it difficult to determine whether 

or not a component assists in a process. And my question to you is: If we’re 

following this process of presenting a notification through the source code,

for example, why would a person of skill not be able to determine 

whether a component assists in that process? 

A: I think a person of skill if they had all the source code could do that, has 

a higher chance of being able to figure that out based on this language in 

the claim and in the patent.

Thus, Samsung’s expert testified that a POSITA would be able to determine whether a component, 

such as an agent, “assisted” in the process of “presenting a notification.” He could not give any

examples where it could not be determined with reasonable certainty. This shows that Samsung 

cannot prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 3201
10

IV. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’117 PATENT

A. “device messaging agents” (’117 patent, claim 1)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Claim 1 of the ’117 patent cites “a plurality of device messaging agents, each executable 

on a respective one of a plurality of mobile end-user devices configured to exchange Internet data 

via a data connection to a wireless network.” Samsung contends that “device messaging agents” 

is indefinite for the same reasons as “device agents” in the ’733 patent. See Turnbull Decl. ¶ 44.

To the extent Samsung makes any distinct arguments for “device messaging agents,” it is that “the 

specification does not use such a term,” and the word “messaging” in the term “does not render its 

meaning any more ascertainable.” Id.

Samsung’s argument failsfor same reasons its argument for “device agents” fails: it ignores 

the structure of the claims, the teachings of the specification, and relevant intrinsic and extrinsic 

evidence. See supra § IV.A. The ’117 patent shares a common specification with the ’733 patent. 

Thus, the specification’s teachings of “device agent” above would likewise inform the meaning of 

“device messaging agent.” The addition of the modifier “messaging” makes the term more definite

and further specifies that the agent is involved in messaging.

Further, the ’117 patent uses the term “device messaging agent” four times in its Abstract.

And notably, the structure of claim 1 provides a POSITA with reasonable certainty as to claim

scope. It requires not only each “device messaging agent” be “executable” on a “mobile end-user 

device” (which informs a POSITA it would be located on the device), but it also requires that 

“device messaging agents” be “located on the device” that “receive the Internet data messages.” 

Id. Each of these limitations—recited in claim 1 itself—inform a POSITA about the scope of 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 3202
11

“device messaging agent” with reasonable certainty.

B. “at least one of the devices having a network stack in communication 

with the device messaging agent, wherein the secure connection 

between the network message server and that device is terminated 

within the network stack” (’117 patent, claim 13)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Samsung’s expert agrees that: (1) “network stack” is a well-understood term; (2) any pair 

of networking devices would have a network stack, and (3) the ’117 patent describes and uses

network stacks in the standard way. See Turnbull Decl. ¶ 46; Turnbull Dep. at 102:22-104:21. His

only argument is that “a POSITA would not be reasonably certain about whether a given 

‘connection’ ‘terminates’ within the network stack.” Id. ¶ 47. And his only example of alleged 

uncertainty is it would be unclear whether a connection terminates “within” or “outside” the 

application layer of the network stack. Id. This fails. Although his assertion is wrong, it is also 

irrelevant. As Samsung’s expert conceded, the claim describes a connection terminated “within 

the network stack”—not within a particular layer of the network stack (e.g., the application layer).

Turnbull Dep. at 110:14-111:3 (“Q: [the claim] doesn’t require that the connection be terminated 

within a particular layer? A: That’s not what is says”).

As to what claim actually requires, Samsung’s expert could not articulate any ambiguity 

between terminating “within” the network stack versus “outside” of it. To the contrary, he testified 

that a POSITA would understand that a secure connection could be terminated within the network

stack. See Turnbull Dep. at 117:3–14 (“Q: Do you agree that a secured connection in the context 

of the patent can be terminated within the network stack? A. I think that's what the patent is

claiming it can do, yes. Q. Okay. Do you agree that in the abstract, a secured connection can be 

terminated within a network stack? A. Hypothetically in the possibilities of what you could do 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 3203
12

with software, I guess you could.”). Thus, a POSITA would understand claim 13’s requirement 

that “the secure connection . . . is terminated within the network stack.” There is no evidence, 

much less clear and convincing evidence, to the contrary.

Samsung’s indefiniteness position is also contrary to its representations to the PTAB. In its

IPR challenging claim 13 of the ’117 patent, Samsung and its expert (Dr. Traynor) asserted that “a 

POSITA would have recognized or found obvious that connections between a server and a client 

would have been “terminated within the network stack” because this was well known in the art 

by the Critical Date (e.g., as in an HTTPS or IPsec connection, described above).” Samsung ’117 

Petition at 49-50 (emphasis in original). Samsung and its expert thus had no problem understanding 

this term in the IPR and even asserted it was “well known in the art.” This further undermines 

Samsung’s position before this district court that the term is suddenly indefinite.

V. DISPUTED TERMS FOR ’192 PATENT

A. “software components” (’192 patent, claims 1, 15)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Samsung wrongly identifies “software components” in isolation and omits the surrounding 

claim language that should be included in the term to be construed. For example, claims 1 and 15

of the ’192 patent recite: “each of the wireless end-user devices comprising multiple software 

components authorized to receive and process data from secure message link messages received 

via a device link agent on that device. Thus, the claims are specifically about “software 

components” that are: (1) on a wireless end-user device and (2) authorized to receive/process data 

from secure messages received via a device link agent on the device. And Samsung provides no 

evidence or opinion that the longer phrase, as recited in the claims, is indefinite.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 3204
13

Even as to the term “software components,” Samsung’s expert agreesit has a plain meaning 

and would be understood by a POSITA. Turnbull Decl. ¶ 49. It means “some component of 

software” (and is further limited by the claim language). Id. Samsung’s only argument is that it is 

allegedly unclear “whether ‘software components’ encompass ‘device [link] agents’” or “whether 

software components’ and ‘device agents’ must be different things.” Id. ¶ 50.

But the claim language itself resolves any purported ambiguity. Claims 1 and 15 recite 

software components that “receive and process data from . . . messages received via a device link 

agent.” This shows that “software components” and “a device link agent” are not exactly the same 

thing and do not perform exactly the same functions in the system. Beyond that, the terms carry 

their plain meaning, and there is no inconsistency in either the claims or specification. For example, 

that “software components” is software does not preclude “a device link agent” from being 

implemented in software. Samsung’s expert references certain statements in the specification but 

none of it is inconsistent. Turnbull Decl. ¶¶ 51-52. His argument, to the extent understandable, is 

contrived and seeks to manufacture confusion where none exists.

B. “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt of a 

transmission on the respective secure message link from the device link 

agent of the given one of the wireless end-user devices, or a response 

generated to a transmission received from that device link agent” (’192

patent, claim 11)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Samsung asserts this term is indefinite for two alleged reasons: (1) a POSITA would not 

know whether “claim 11 refers to the same ‘asynchronous event’ trigger recited by claim 1 or 

something different,” and (2) “it is unclear how a ‘response generated to a transmission’ would be 

effectively different from the transmission itself.” Turnbull Decl. ¶ 54. Both reasons (to the extent 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 3205
14

understandable) fail to establish indefiniteness. 

The first reason fails because the claims provide reasonable certainty to a POSITA as to 

scope. Claim 1 requires a “plurality of message delivery triggers” and that, “for at least one of the 

message delivery triggers, the trigger is an occurrence of an asynchronous event.” ’192 patent, cl. 

1. Claim 11, in turn, simply requires “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt 

of a transmission” or a “response generated to a transmission received.” Thus, one of the “plurality 

of message delivery triggers” of claim 1 must meet the limitations of claim 11. Samsung provides 

no explanation why POSITA would be confused whether the “trigger” in claim 11 could be the 

“asynchronous event”—and the claim language itself make clear they need not be the same. 

The second reason is wholly unexplained beyond a conclusory assertion that something is 

“unclear.” See Turnbull Decl. ¶ 54. Regardless, it fails. A “response generated to a transmission” 

is on its face different from a “transmission itself,” as Samsung’s expert effectively conceded in 

deposition. Turnbull Dep. at 133:8-135:3. No reasonable ambiguity was articulated.

C. “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt of a 

particular network element message from one of the network elements” 

(’192 patent, claim 13)

Headwater’s Proposal Samsung’s Proposal

Not indefinite; plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Samsung contends this term is indefinite because of the word “particular.” According to 

Samsung’s expert, a POSITA would not know whether a given “network element message” is a 

“particular” one as recited in claim 13. Turnbull Decl. ¶ 56. But in deposition, he agreed with the

common dictionary definition of “particular” as “being one unit or element among others.” See

Turnbull Dep. at 128:2-8; Merriam-Webster Dictionary (particular: “3 b: being one unit or element 

among others”) (available online at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/particular).

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 3206
15

Samsung’s expert did not imply any other understanding in the context of the ’192 patent.

And based on the normal English meaning of the word “particular,” Samsung expert 

essentially conceded that a POSITA would understand the meaning of the claim term and it would 

not be indefinite (Turnbull Dep. 128:12-25):

Q: What would your meaning of “particular” be in normal English, if you have 

one? 

A: I don’t know. That’s a good question. Maybe something that’s distinguished 

in comparison to something else. It’s -- you know, “particular” is a pretty 

good word I think we all have an idea of what it means certainly in context.

Yeah, I think that’s fine just to use it that way, especially since that’s how 

it’s referred to. “Particular network element message,” I think that gives me 

some context that it’s not any network element message, it's a particular 

type of one or a particular one.

Thus, Samsung’s expert testified that the term “particular network element message” refers to not 

just any network element message but a “particular one.” This shows that the term has a readily 

ascertainable meaning to a POSITA. There is no basis to find indefiniteness.

VI. CONCLUSION

Samsung contends that all seven disputed terms are indefinite. For the foregoing reasons, 

and because Samsung fails prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence for any term, 

the Court should find that the terms are not indefinite.

Dated: May 30, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

mfenster@raklaw.com

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Brian Ledahl

CA State Bar No. 186579

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 3207
16

bledahl@raklaw.com

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

bwang@raklaw.com

Dale Chang

CA State Bar No. 248657

dchang@raklaw.com

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

pkroeger@raklaw.com

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

nrubin@raklaw.com

Kristopher Davis

CA State Bar No. 329627

kdavis@raklaw.com

James S. Tsuei

CA State Bar No. 285530

jtsuei@raklaw.com

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

pwang@raklaw.com

Amy Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

ahayden@raklaw.com

Jason M. Wietholter

CA State Bar No. 337139

jwietholter@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 3208
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that counsel of record who to have consented to electronic service are being 

served on May 30, 2024, with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 05/30/24 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 3209