EXHIBIT 7 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 2203
Fish & Richardson P.C.

1180 Peachtree Street, NE

21st Floor

Atlanta, GA 30309

404 892 5005 main

404 892 5002 fax

Thad C. Kodish

Managing Principal

TKodish@fr.com

404 724 2792 direct

VIA EMAIL

November 22, 2023

Reza Mirzaie

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

RE: Headwater Research, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics 

Co. Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Headwater Research LLC’s Disclosure 

of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions

Counsel: 

I write regarding deficiencies in Headwater’s infringement contentions served on 

September 28, 2023. Headwater’s contentions fail to adequately disclose discernable infringement 

theories for multiple asserted claim elements across the patents-in-suit. Headwater must promptly 

address the deficiencies detailed below and serve proper infringement contentions that comply 

with the Patent Local Rules to avoid any further prejudice to Samsung. Please confirm that 

Headwater will do so no later than November 28, 2023.

I. Headwater’s Failure to Adequately Disclose Its Infringement Theories to Samsung

Headwater’s contentions fail to comply with the disclosure requirements of P.R. 3-1, which 

requires Headwater to provide “[a] chart identifying specifically where each element of each 

asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” In this District, the “Patent Rules 

demonstrate high expectations as to plaintiffs’ preparedness before bringing suit” and require 

plaintiffs to “set forth ‘particular theories of infringement with sufficient specificity to provide 

defendants with notice of infringement beyond that which is provided by the mere language of the 

patent [claims] themselves.’” Connectel, LLC v. Cisco Sys, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 526, 527-28 (E.D. 

Tex. 2005) (citing STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 754, 755 (E.D. Tex. 

2004)) (“[M]ore than a perfunctory submission is required. Plaintiffs . . . must explain with great 

detail their theories of infringement.”). Headwater’s infringement contentions fail to provide the 

required specificity to provide notice of how Headwater believes the accused products meet several 

of the asserted claim limitations, thereby rendering them impossible to decipher. 

As a preliminary matter, Headwater’s infringement contentions cobble together screen 

shots without identifying what it is accusing in the screen shots for each claim limitation, much 

less explaining how the screen shots demonstrate that each claim element is present in each 

Accused Instrumentality. Worse yet, in many instances, Headwater removed the explanations it 

had added to address the defects identified in Samsung’s first motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 28), 

rendering the contentions even more vague and deficient than what it pled in the First Amended 

Complaint. Compare, e.g., Dkt. No. 31-4 at 12-13, 24 with Ex. A to Infr. Conts. re ’733 Patent

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2204
November 22, 2023

Page 2

(the “’733 Chart”) at 12, 23. As Headwater has affirmatively removed those explanations from its 

infringement contentions, our understanding is that Headwater will no longer assert these theories. 

The theories Headwater retracted are reproduced in Appendix A to this letter.

As discussed in more detail below, Headwater fails for many limitations to identify what 

aspect of the accused products and systems it contends satisfies that limitation. That approach 

does not satisfy the standards of this district. See, e.g., Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes 

Inc., No. 15-724, 2016 WL 3407688, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2016) (“It is not a defendant’s job 

to assume how a plaintiff believes each claim element is met or to assume how a plaintiff alleges 

the Accused Instrumentality infringes.”); EON Corp. IP Holdgs v. Sensus USA, Inc., No. 9-116, 

2010 WL 346218, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2010) (finding block quote excerpts and string cites of 

product specifications and reports to be “insufficient to satisfy the notice function intended by 

P.R.3-1 infringement contentions”); Nat’l Oilwell Varco L.P. v. Auto-Dril, Inc., No. 09-85, 2010 

WL 11553254, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2010) (finding that patentee’s use of advertising brochures 

and website screenshots of the accused products failed to satisfy the notice requirement of P.R. 3-

1(c) “because it does not indicate where in the [accused product] the asserted elements are found 

or describe [the patentee’s] theories of how the [accused product] meets each claim element”); 

Rapid Completions, 2016 WL 3407688, at *5 (“[The patentee’s] inclusion of diagrams, 

screenshots from Defendants’ documents, and links to videos, does not automatically show that its 

infringement contentions are compliant with the rules. Supporting evidence in the form of block 

quotations from defendant’s documents or screen shots of defendant’s documents is generally 

insufficient to satisfy the notice function intended by P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions.”).

Additionally, specific examples of Headwater’s deficiencies with respect to each asserted 

patent are detailed below.

1. U.S. Patent No. 8,406,733

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify where the accused products comprise “a 

modem for enabling communication with a network system over a service control link 

provided by the network system over a wireless access network, the service control link 

secured by an encryption protocol and configured to support control-plane communications 

between the network system and a service control device link agent on the end-user 

device.” For example:

▪ Headwater’s infringement chart reproduces the same explanations and evidence as 

it did in the first amended complaint, except that Headwater has removed language 

regarding the “service control link” and “control-plane communications” terms that 

it had added to overcome the deficiencies identified in Samsung’s motion to 

dismiss. Compare ’733 Chart at 12 with ECF No. 31-4 at 12-13. As a result, 

Headwater’s contentions do not meet the requirements of P.R. 3-1 for at least the 

same reasons discussed in Samsung’s motions to dismiss. ECF No. 28 at 5-7. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 2205
November 22, 2023

Page 3

▪ Headwater does not identify what it accuses as a “service control device link agent” 

and “a service control link” in the evidence cited. 

▪ Headwater does not identify what constitutes a “service control link” in the 

evidence it cites in the chart. Headwater is also silent as to how the “service control 

link [is] provided by the network system over a wireless access network.” 

Headwater merely states that the “wireless access network” limitation is met by “a 

wi-fi network and/or a cellular network.” ‘733 Chart at 2. 

▪ Relatedly, Headwater has failed to explain how a service control link would be 

“secured by an encryption protocol and configured to support control-plane 

communications,” because Headwater’s chart is silent on what the “encryption 

protocol” is or how it secures a “service control link.” For example, for the FCM 

functionality, Headwater points to a screenshot indicating that the Android 

Transport Layer uses point-to-point encryption. ’733 Chart at 7. But Headwater’s 

chart is silent on what the “encryption protocol” is or how it secures a “service 

control link.” 

▪ Headwater fails to identify what the “control-plane communications” are in the 

evidence cited. Indeed, other than in the initial recitation of the claim limitation, 

Headwater never once uses the term “control-plane communication.” 

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify how the accused products comprise “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.” For example:

▪ Headwater’s infringement chart reproduces the same explanations and evidence as 

it did in the first amended complaint, except that Headwater has removed language 

regarding the “service control device link agents” and “agent communication bus” 

terms it had added to overcome the deficiencies identified in Samsung’s motion to 

dismiss. Compare ‘733 Chart at 23 with ECF No. 31-4 at 24. As a result, 

Headwater’s contentions do not meet the requirements of P.R. 3-1 for at least the 

same reasons discussed in Samsung’s motions to dismiss. ECF No. 28 at 5-7. 

▪ Nowhere in its chart does Headwater identify what it is accusing as the “device 

agents,” the “agent communication bus,” or the “associated device agent identifier.” 

Headwater thus necessarily also fails to disclose its theory as to how the device 

agents are “communicatively coupled to the service control device link through an 

agent communication bus.”

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose how the accused products comprise

“memory configured to store an encryption key, the encryption key shared between the 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 2206
November 22, 2023

Page 4

service control device link agent and a service control server link element of the network 

system.” For example:

▪ Headwater does not identify “an encryption key,” “a service control device link 

agent,” and “a service control server link element” in the cited evidence. Indeed, 

other than in the initial recitation of the claim limitation, Headwater never once

uses the term “service control server link element” in its chart. 

▪ Headwater fails to disclose its theory as to how the “memory . . . store[s] an 

encryption key” and how “the encryption key [is] shared between the service 

control device link agent and a service control server link element.” 

▪ Headwater provides no notice of how the encryption limitation is met. Headwater 

cites public materials that refer to, for example, the Knox platform encryption, 

secure Wi-Fi, and Android Transport Layer point-to-point encryption. It must 

identify where the claim elements in 1[c] exist in this evidence. Further, to the 

extent Headwater contends encryption in Android Transport Layer meets this 

limitation, Headwater must identify which infringement theory (Galaxy phones and 

tablets, devices that use Knox, and Tizen devices) such encryption is even relevant 

to.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater’s contentions fail to disclose its theory as to how “the 

service control device link agent is configured to: receive, over the service control link, an 

encrypted agent message from the service control server link element.” 

▪ Not only does Headwater fail to identify what it accuses as an “encrypted agent 

message,” but it also fails to explain how said message is received over the “service 

control link.” Headwater asserts that the accused devices receive messages “from 

a server” and that Samsung’s “push messaging servers” communicate with the 

“Samsung Push Service software” on the end user devices. See ’733 Chart at 35, 

38, 45-47. But Headwater fails to explicitly identify where the evidence shows that 

these messages are encrypted or the “service control link” on which these messages 

are received. It is also not clear what Samsung’s push messaging servers and 

Samsung Push Service software is. Please explain where this is described in 

Headwater’s infringement contentions.

▪ Further, Headwater asserts that applications in user devices cause notifications to 

be sent to user devices via Samsung’s push messaging servers and identifies “Shop 

Samsung” and “Galaxy Store,” but Headwater does not explain which of the three 

infringement theories it asserts (i.e., Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets generally, 

Samsung’s Tizen based devices, and devices operating in Samsung Knox 

ecosystem) such an assertion relates to. 

▪

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 2207
November 22, 2023

Page 5

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify how the accused products, “using the 

encryption key, obtain a decrypted agent message, the decrypted agent message comprising 

a particular agent identifier and message content for delivery to a particular device agent 

of the plurality of device agents, the particular agent identifier identifying the particular 

device agent, the message content from a particular server of a plurality of servers 

communicatively coupled to the service control server link element.” 

▪ Because Headwater has failed to identify the “service control device link agent,” it 

necessarily fails to explain how said “service control device link agent” performs 

decryption as claimed.

▪ Headwater does not identify what it is pointing to in the cited evidence for the 

“particular agent identifier” and “message content,” which are the claimed 

components of a “decrypted agent message.” 

▪ Headwater fails to identify what it is pointing to for the “message content from a 

particular server of a plurality of servers communicatively coupled to the service 

control server link element” limitation.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose its theory as to how the accused products,

“based on the particular agent identifier, deliver the message content to the particular 

device agent over the agent communication bus,” because Headwater has failed to identify 

the “service control device link agent” or the “agent communication bus” in its chart. 

2. U.S. Patent No. 9,198,117

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify “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” with respect to the 

Samsung Knox Manage ecosystem and the Tizen Push service.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify “a network message server supporting a 

plurality of secure Internet data connections, each secure Internet data connection between 

the network message server and a respective one of the mobile end-user devices via a 

device data connection to a wireless network.” For example:

▪ For each accused “device messaging agent,” Headwater must identify a 

corresponding “network messaging server” that transmits “Internet data messages” 

to that particular accused “device messaging agent.” For the “device messaging 

agent” limitation, Headwater identifies several different features, including “the 

FCM client app.” ’117 Chart at 7. However, Headwater fails to identify a 

corresponding “network message server” that transmits messages to the accused 

FCM client app. As a result, even if the FCM client app constituted a “device 

messaging agent,” Headwater’s infringement theory would fail because Headwater 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 2208
November 22, 2023

Page 6

did not identify any “network message server” that communicates with the FCM 

client app. Notably, this is the same deficiency Samsung identified in its motion to

dismiss (Dkt. 40 at 10-11; Dkt. 42 at 1-2), but Headwater made no attempt to 

address it in its infringement contentions.

▪ Headwater does not disclose its theory as to what constitutes the “plurality of secure 

Internet connections,” and thus necessarily also fails to identify a network message 

server that supports said plurality of secure Internet data connections.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify a “network message server configured to 

receive, from each of a plurality of network application servers, multiple requests to 

transmit application data, each such request indicating a corresponding one of the mobile 

end-user devices and one of a plurality of applications.” Headwater does not identify any 

requests that indicate both a corresponding mobile end-user device and an application.

Headwater also fails to identify a “network message server” that receives such requests 

from “network application servers.”

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify a “network message server to generate 

corresponding Internet data messages based on the requests, each such message containing 

at least one application identifier for an indicated application and application data 

corresponding to one of the requests.” Because Headwater does not identify the “multiple 

requests to transmit application data,” Headwater necessarily fails to identify how any 

claimed “network message server” can generate corresponding Internet data messages 

based on said requests. At least with respect to the Samsung Knox Manage ecosystem, 

Headwater also provides no evidence to identify a message transmitted within said system 

that contains at least one application identifier for an indicated application and application 

data corresponding to one of the requests.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify a “network message server [configured] 

to transmit each of the generated Internet data messages to the device messaging agent 

based on the device indicated in the corresponding request, using the corresponding secure 

Internet data connection for the device indicated in the corresponding request.” Headwater 

fails to explain how the generated Internet data messages can be transmitted from an 

alleged network message server to the device messaging agents using the secure Internet 

data connection, since the device messaging agents and the secure Internet data connection 

are unidentified. To the extent that Headwater contends that the FCM client app constitutes 

a “device messaging agent,” Headwater further fails to identify a “network message server” 

that communicates with the FCM client app. Further, the claim requires that the network 

message server is configured for several functions, including receiving requests from 

network application servers, generating corresponding Internet data messages based on the 

requests, and transmitting the corresponding Internet data messages to a device messaging 

agent based on the data in the request. Headwater provides no evidence to demonstrate 

that the “Samsung’s push messaging servers” and the “Samsung Knox servers managing 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 2209
November 22, 2023

Page 7

those phones and devices [enrolled in the Samsung Knox MDM platform]” perform all 

three above-described functions. 

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify “each device messaging agent, when 

executing, [is configured] to receive the Internet data messages from the secure Internet 

data connection corresponding to the device executing the device messaging agent.” As 

explained above, the device messaging agents and the secure Internet data connection 

remain unidentified, and, to the extent that Headwater contends that the FCM client app 

constitutes a “device messaging agent,” Headwater has failed to identify a “network 

message server” that communicates with the FCM client app.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify how the accused network system “for 

each received message, map[s] the application identifier in the message to a software 

process corresponding to the application identifier, and forward[s] the application data in 

the message to the software process via a secure interprocess communication service.” 

Headwater does not identify in its chart how any accused “application identifiers” are 

mapped to a “software process.” Headwater also cites no evidence to identify the accused 

“secure interprocess communication service.”

3. U.S. Patent No. 9,615,192

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose how the accused “network link server”

comprises “a transport services stack to maintain a respective secure message link through 

an Internet network between the message link server and a respective device link agent on 

each of a plurality of wireless end-user devices, 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.” Headwater 

does not identify what in the “Samsung push messaging servers” and the “Knox servers” 

constitutes the claimed transport stack. Headwater further fails to identify how a

“respective secure message link” is maintained between the “message link server” and a 

“device link agent” on a “wireless end-user device[].” Additionally, Headwater fails to 

identify what constitutes the “device link agent” on an end-user device, and also fails to 

identify the “multiple software components [on an end-user device] authorized to receive 

and process data from secure message link messages received via a device link agent on 

that device.”

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose how the accused “message link server” 

comprises “an interface to a network to receive network element messages from a plurality 

of network elements, the received network element messages comprising respective 

message content and requests for delivery of the respective message content to respective 

wireless end-user devices, the respective message content including data for, and an 

identification of, a respective one of the authorized software components.” Headwater 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 2210
November 22, 2023

Page 8

does not identify any such interface to meet this limitation. Headwater thus necessarily 

does not identify any “network element messages” to be received at said interface.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater does not disclose its theory as to how the accused 

“message link server” comprises “a message buffer system including a memory and logic.” 

Headwater does not point to any particular component of the accused “Samsung push 

messaging servers” and “Knox servers” as meeting the claimed “memory” and “logic.”

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose its theory as to how the accused “message 

link server” comprises a “memory” that “buffer[s] content from the received network 

element messages for which delivery is requested to a given one of the wireless end-user 

devices.” As explained above, Headwater has failed to identify a “memory,” and, even if 

Headwater has adequately accused a “memory,” Headwater has failed to identify a 

“memory” that has buffering capabilities to meet this claim limitation.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to disclose its theory as to how the accused “message 

link server” comprises a “logic” that “determine[s] when one of a plurality of message 

delivery triggers for the given one of the wireless end-user devices has occurred, wherein 

for at least some of the received network element messages, the receipt of such a message 

by the message buffer system is not a message delivery trigger, and for at least one of the 

message delivery triggers, the trigger is an occurrence of an asynchronous event with timecritical messaging needs.” As explained above, Headwater has failed to identify a “logic,” 

and, even if Headwater has adequately accused a “logic,” Headwater has failed to identify 

a “logic” that has trigger determination capabilities to meet this claim limitation. 

Headwater also fails to identify what it accuses as the claimed “message delivery triggers.” 

Headwater further fails to identify where the accused “logic” determines that “the receipt 

of [a network element message] by the message buffer system” is not a trigger.” Headwater 

additionally fails to identify what constitutes “an asynchronous event with time-critical 

messaging needs,” and how said asynchronous event constitutes a trigger.

• At least as to claim 1, Headwater fails to identify how the accused “message link server” 

comprises “logic further to supply one or more messages comprising the buffered content 

to the transport services stack for delivery on the secure message link maintained between 

the transport services stack and a device link agent on the given one of the wireless enduser devices” “upon determining that one of the message delivery triggers has occurred.” 

As explained above, Headwater has failed to identify a “logic,” and, even if Headwater has 

adequately accused a “logic,” Headwater has failed to identify a “logic” that supplies 

messages comprising the buffered content to meet this claim limitation. Further, 

Headwater fails to disclose its theory as to how this claim limitation is met, because the 

“secure message link,” the “transport services stack,” the “device link agent,” and the 

“message delivery triggers” are all unidentified. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 2211
November 22, 2023

Page 9

4. Dependent Claims1

With respect to the dependent claims, the majority of Headwater’s contentions rely on 

generic cross references to independent claims and fail to disclose Headwater’s infringement 

theories or even explain what portions of the cross-referenced disclosure are supposedly 

applicable. See, e.g., ’733 Chart, at cls. 2-5, 7-14, 19, 21-24, 26, 29; Ex. B to Infr. Conts. re ’117

Patent, at cls. 2, 4-6, 9-14, 16-18; Ex. C to Infr. Conts. re ’192 Patent, at cls. 3-9, 11-13. 

As a non-limiting example, Headwater’s contentions for claim 17 of the ’117 Patent recite 

that the Accused Products satisfy the requirement of “wherein the transmission trigger is the 

expiration of a periodic timer.” Yet, Headwater only cites its support for claims 1 and 16, which 

have no similar requirements, and then states that the “transmission trigger may be a time period 

of inactivity,” thus leaving Samsung to guess at Headwater’s infringement theory with respect to 

elements within this asserted claim. Headwater’s contentions across most asserted dependent 

claims follow this same pattern. As a whole, Headwater’s broad cross references lack any 

mappings between claim elements and supposed support and thus fail to explain with particularity 

or specificity Headwater’s infringement theories for these claims, further prejudicing Samsung’s 

ability to prepare its defenses. See, e.g., Connectel,, 391 F. Supp. 2d at 527-28. 

Headwater’s contentions also fail to demonstrate how each claim element is present in the 

accused instrumentalities. For the ’733 patent, many dependent claims recite limitations 

concerning the type of a “particular server” or “message content,” but Headwater only proffers 

conclusory allegations without any support. For example, with respect to claim 2, which recites 

that “the particular server” comprises a different type of a server (e.g., “a service usage history 

server, a policy management server, an access control integrity server, a network traffic analysis 

server, a beta test server, a service download control server, a billing event server, an activation 

server, a transaction server, an authentication server, or a content management server”.), 

Headwater states that the FCM servers receive message content from servers that include, 

“depending on the use case, any of the specific types of servers listed in this limitation.” ’733 

Chart at 75. Problematically, Headwater does not identify a single instance of such “use case,” let 

alone an instance of a particular server that meets any of the claimed servers. For claims 3 and 4,

which recite that the message content comprises “information associated with a service usage” 

(claim 3) and that “information associated with the service usage comprises information about one 

or more of a service usage value, a projected service usage value, a service usage plan limit, a 

projected service usage overage, a projected service cost overage, a service plan period time 

duration, a service plan time remaining before end of period, and a service overage” (claim 4), 

Headwater simply repeats the claim language and states, without any support, that the FCM servers 

“receive[] message content comprising information associated with service usage.” Id. at 75-76. 

1 On page 2 of Headwater’s cover pleading for its infringement contentions, Headwater asserts 

claim 6 of the ’733 Patent, but provides no claim chart for claim 6 in Exhibit A. Headwater

confirmed via email on October 31, 2023, that Headwater is not asserting claim 6 of the ’733 

Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:

2212
November 22, 2023

Page 10

For claim 5, which recites that “the message content is based, at least in part, on a user preference,”

Headwater speculates the functionalities of the FCM servers. See id. at 77 (“The end user device 

may have particular settings and options (selection of which is a user preference) for enabling 

receipt of push messages for certain applications.”) (emphasis added). For claim 9, which recites 

that “the message content comprises an agent instruction, a setting value, an agent configuration, 

or a software update,” Headwater asserts without support that messages received via FCM servers 

“comprise instructions to the Firebase SDK on the user device to display notifications (i.e., an 

‘agent instruction’).” Id. at 79. Headwater does not explain what the alleged notifications are or 

how the unidentified notifications constitute an “agent instruction.” For claims 11 and 12, which 

recite that the message content comprises “information associated with a service policy” (claim 

11) or “service usage accounting information” (claim 12), Headwater asserts without support that 

message content received via FCM comprise information associated with service policies/service 

usage. Id. at 81-82. Headwater does not even explain what the alleged “information” is or how it 

constitutes “service policy” or “service usage accounting information” is. Worse, for claims 8, 10, 

14, 19, 22, and 29, Headwater’s contentions are silent on FCM. 

Additionally, Headwater’s contentions for claim 4 of the ’192 Patent recite that the accused 

instrumentalities satisfy the requirement of “wherein the device link agent executes in a secure 

execution environment on at least one of the devices, and at least one of the software components 

executes outside of the secure execution environment on that device.” Headwater points to the 

Secure Folder partition (the Knox Secure Folder), and then states that “[a]pplications stored in the 

Secure Folder partition are managed separately with respect to push notifications” from 

applications stored outside of the Secure Folder partition. Nevertheless, Headwater fails to identify 

any device link agent that executes within the Secure Folder partition, thus leaving Samsung to 

guess at Headwater’s infringement theory with respect to elements within this asserted claim. 

II. Headwater’s Contentions Fail to Provide the Disclosures Required by the Patent 

Rules

P.R. 3-1(d) requires that Headwater’s contentions disclose “[w]hether each element of each 

asserted claim is claimed to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the 

Accused Instrumentality.” Headwater, instead, purports to include a mere reservation of rights to 

later assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). Such a reservation of rights 

is improper. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-134, 2017 WL 2869331, at 

*2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that its “boilerplate reservation [of the 

doctrine of equivalents] provides adequate notice under the Local Rules”); Eolas Techs. Inc. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01038, 2016 WL 7666160, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) (striking 

“boilerplate” doctrine of equivalents infringement contention and holding that “Plaintiff’s 

boilerplate language also does not reserve any special right for Plaintiff to assert DOE contentions 

at a time of its choosing”); see also Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-cv-1015, 2017 WL 

2267283, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2017) (ruling that “a blanket or boilerplate statement (not tied 

to any particular claim element) such as ‘any element not literally met is met by the doctrine of 

equivalents’” is not sufficient to survive a motion to strike). Samsung thus understands that 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:

2213
November 22, 2023

Page 11

Headwater has no theories of infringement under DOE and no plans to assert any such theories 

later in the case. 

P.R. 3-1(f) requires that “[i]f a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the 

right to rely, for any purpose, on the assertion that its own apparatus, product, device, process, 

method, act, or other instrumentality practices the claimed invention, the party must identify, 

separately for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or 

other instrumentality that incorporates or reflects that particular claim.” Headwater’s contentions 

merely contend that “ItsOn software may incorporate or reflect [unidentified] claims of the 

Asserted Patents...,” followed by a reservation of rights to later supplement its contentions based 

on Headwater’s further discovery and investigation. This is improper. If Headwater intended to 

rely on an assertion that software developed by its related entity, ItsOn, practiced any claims, it 

should have all the information it needs at this stage to properly disclose such intended reliance in 

accordance with the Patent Rules. Headwater failed to do so. If Headwater has no ItsOn code that 

it intends to produce in this case, it should confirm that it does not intend to rely on ItsOn software 

in stating its claim for infringement.

P.R. 3-2(b) requires that Headwater produce, at this time, “documents evidencing the 

conception, reduction to practice (‘RTP’), design, and development of each claimed invention.” 

Headwater produced no such documents but appears to improperly reserve the rights to do so later. 

Headwater had ample opportunity to diligently search for any such documents in order to produce 

them by the infringement contentions deadline. Samsung understands that Headwater has no such 

documents and will not rely in this case on any documents evidencing earlier conception/RTP.

III. Identification of Accused Instrumentalities

Our review of the identified Accused Instrumentalities across the Asserted Patents 

indicates that Headwater is accusing the same products across all Asserted Patents. Please let us 

know if we have misread your disclosure. 

Headwater improperly attempts to extend its identification of Accused Instrumentalities to 

other “similar” products. It was Headwater’s obligation to identify with specificity in its 

infringement contentions the Accused Instrumentalities it plans to target in this case. P.R. 3-1(b). 

Samsung understands that the complete list of Accused Instrumentalities is comprised of those 

specifically identified in Headwater’s contentions. If Headwater intended to accuse additional 

publicly-known products, it could have named them. 

IV. Conclusion

The foregoing are only exemplary deficiencies in Headwater’s contentions. Such 

deficiencies fail to give Samsung adequate notice and prejudice Samsung’s ability to timely 

develop its defenses, including invalidity contentions under P.R. 3-3 and to identify potential claim 

construction disputes. Samsung reserves the right to identify additional deficiencies in 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:

2214
November 22, 2023

Page 12

Headwater’s contentions as the case develops and Samsung continues to consider Headwater’s 

infringement allegations. Samsung also reserves the rights to strike or preclude evidence or 

assertions later introduced by Headwater. Headwater must promptly amend its contentions to 

include the necessary specificity to bring Headwater’s contentions in compliance with the 

District’s Patent Local Rules and avoid further prejudice to Samsung. 

Please confirm that Headwater will amend its contentions no later than November 28, 2023, 

to address these deficiencies.

Regards, 

Thad C. Kodish

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:

2215
November 22, 2023

Page 13

Appendix A – Theories Headwater Dropped in its Infringement Contentions

’733 Patent

• “As a further example, the communications link Samsung Knox Manage servers or Knox 

MDM platform and devices being managed by such servers or MDM platform, for example 

including the Knox workspace devices, Android devices, iOS devices, Chrome OS devices, 

and Windows devices illustrated above, comprise a ‘service control link.’ Data and 

messages transmitted over the secure control link between the Samsung Knox Manage 

servers or Knox MDM platform and managed devices is encrypted, and commands and 

notifications transmitted from such servers to devices are ‘agent messages.’” Compare 

’733 Chart at 12 with ECF No. 31-4 at 12-13.

• “As a further example, the communications link between Samsung's Tizen servers and 

Tizen OS devices, and Firebase messaging servers and Samsung's Android devices, 

comprises a ‘service control link.’ Notifications, data, and messages transmitted over these 

service control links from such servers to devices are encrypted, as illustrated above, and 

are ‘agent messages.’” Id.

• “As a further example, Samsung's Knox MDM platform, Knox Manage servers and Tizen 

servers are all examples of servers which provide control plane communications and which 

are service control server link elements, including because they control, manage, and apply 

service policies to user devices to which they are connected.” Id.

• “As a further example, devices managed by Samsung Knox Manage or the Knox MDM 

platform are managed by software including specific end-user device applications and 

software, such as the Knox Manage (KM) agent on such devices (see, e.g., 

https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knox-manage/enroll-a-single-device.htm).” Id.

• “As a further illustration, the service control device link agents on Samsung's devices are 

coupled to various other device agents within the device by way of the Android operating 

system through an agent communication bus. That communication structure allows for 

intercommunication between agents in the device, and enables the service control device 

link agents to send messages to (and control) behavior of other components within the 

system. The communications bus connecting device agents to the service control device 

link agents need not be internal to the device, and the communications channel between 

Samsung Knox and MDM servers and managed devices is an example of such a 

communications bus.” Compare ’733 Chart at 23 with ECF No. 31-4 at 24.

’117 Patent:

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:

2216
November 22, 2023

Page 14

• “As a further example, the communications links between Samsung Knox Manage servers 

or Knox MDM platform and devices being managed by such servers or MDM platform, 

for example including the Knox workspace devices, Android devices, iOS devices, Chrome 

OS devices, and Windows devices illustrated above, comprise secure Internet data 

connections, in that the connections are secure (insofar as they are encrypted per 

Samsung’s requirements) and used to transmit information over the Internet. As a further 

example, the communications link between Samsung’s Tizen servers and Tizen OS 

devices, and Firebase messaging servers and Samsung’s Android devices, comprises a 

secure Internet data connections. Like with commands and messages sent between Knox 

servers and Knox-managed devices, notifications, data, and messages transmitted over 

these communications links in the Tizen and Firebase messaging framework may be 

encrypted, as illustrated above. See, e.g.,

(https://docs.tizen.org/application/native/guides/messaging/push/#security (“ret =

push_service_get_notification_data(noti, &data); /* Decrypt app data here if it is encrypted 

*/”)).” Compare ECF No. 31-5 at 31-32 with ’117 Chart at 33.

• “Each Tizen, Android, and Knox-managed device has an operating system (Tizen OS, 

Android OS, etc.) in which applications and software agents on the device are able to 

communicate with one another through the use of a communications bus or “a secure 

interprocess communication service.” In the case of Android (and Knox-managed) devices, 

that service may be provided by the Android API; in Tizen devices, it may be provided by 

the Tizen API used by applications in the Tizen OS (e.g., ethe mobile and wearable 

Application APIs, see, e.g., https://docs.tizen.org/application/native/index). Messages 

received by the push service running on Tizen and Android devices, for example, 

communicate with other applications on the device, including sending notifications to 

applications that were received via the push service. Likewise, with Knox, messages sent 

to Knox agents from Knox servers may be authenticated by the user device and passed on 

to relevant application on the device or, if the application is not installed, causes an 

application to be installed (see, e.g, https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knoxmanage/

add-applications-intro.htm, https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knoxmanage/assigninternal- applications.htm).” Compare ECF No. 31-5 at 80 with ’117 Chart 

at 82.

’192 Patent:

• “As a further example, the communications link Samsung Knox Manage servers or Knox 

MDM platform and devices being managed by such servers or MDM platform, for example 

including the Knox workspace devices, Android devices, iOS devices, Chrome OS devices, 

and Windows devices illustrated above, comprise a “service control link.” Data and 

messages transmitted over the secure message link between the Samsung Knox Manage 

servers or Knox MDM platform and managed devices are encrypted, and commands and 

notifications transmitted from such servers to devices are messages.” Compare ECF No. 

31-6 at 11-12 with ’192 Chart at 12-13.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:

2217
November 22, 2023

Page 15

• “As a further example, the communications link between Samsung’s Tizen servers and 

Tizen OS devices, and Firebase messaging servers and Samsung’s Android devices, 

comprises a “service message link.” Notifications, data, and messages transmitted over 

these service control links from such servers to devices are encrypted, as illustrated above, 

and are messages.” Compare ECF No. 31-6 at 12 with ’192 Chart at 12-13.

• “As a further example, the App Servers communicating with Tizen and Firebase 

notification servers (each a network element) send messages such as notifications (network 

element messages comprising respective message content and request for delivery of the 

respective message content), which are routed through Samsung’s Tizen and Knox servers 

and Google’s Firebase messaging servers. Alternatively, administrator devices 

communicating with Knox MDM and Knox Manage servers to manage and control devices 

in the Knox device group are also network elements which send to the Knox servers 

messages that comprise message content and requests for delivery of the message content 

down to the managed devices. Such messages can be device commands transmitted from 

the administrator devices to managed devices via Knox servers (e.g., 

https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knox-manage/send-commands-todevices. htm) or 

readable notifications. Alternatively, each of the managed devices in a Knox MDM group 

can also comprise network elements sending messages and requests for delivery of

message content, for example when agents on the managed device monitor and trigger 

alerts to be sent to administrator devices via Knox MDM servers ( e.g.,

https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knox-manage/configure-alerts.htm). In each 

example, such messages include data for, and identification of, a respective one of the 

authorized software components (e.g., the application to which the notification and 

message is delivered, whether it is the Knox Agent on the devices, the Knox Manage 

application on the administrator device, or the particular application on the Tizen device 

receiving a notification).” Compare ECF No. 31-6 at 18-19 with ’192 Chart at 20-21.

• “As a further example, Samsung’s Tizen servers and Knox servers are able to deliver 

commands and messages to devices (such as Tizen OS smartwatches and televisions), 

Knox-managed devices, and Knox administrator devices when an asynchronous event with 

time-critical messaging needs is detected within the network. Such events include, for 

example, the detection of specific events monitored by software at a device (e.g.,

https://docs.samsungknox.com/admin/knox-manage/configure-alerts.htm, and purchase or

billing transactions initiated by one device). As another example, an asynchronous event 

with time-critical messaging needs may be the detection of a device as having been 

connected to the Internet, Knox servers, or Tizen servers, in which case messages intended 

for that device are delivered to the device at that point. Compare ECF No. 31-6 at 49-50 

with ’192 Chart at 50.

• “As a further example, Samsung’s Tizen and Knox products utilize communication layers

comprising a transport services stack at the servers and devices to which the servers are

connected. As one example, the secure control link between Knox servers and KnoxCase 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:

2218
November 22, 2023

Page 16

managed devices communicate through specific software residing on both Knox servers 

(Knox Manage software) and Knox-managed devices (e.g., Knox agent at the devices) 

which receives, decrpyts and decodes, interprets, and executes commands or messages 

from other elements in the system. Likewise, with Samsung’s Tizen devices, specific 

software within both Tizen OS and Tizen’s push messaging servers operate in a similar 

fashion.” Compare ECF No. 31-6 at 60 with ’192 Chart at 60.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 75-8 Filed 02/15/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:

2219