IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HEADWATER’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S 

OBJECTIONS TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 5993
1

Samsung’s objections (“Objs.,” Dkt. 126) to Judge Payne’s claim construction order (“CC 

Order,” Dkt. 118) lack merit and should be overruled. Samsung largely repeats its brief, without 

addressing any of Headwater’s reply brief (Dkt. 99), the discussion at the hearing, or the findings 

and analysis of the CC Order. The order is correct and should be adopted in its entirety.

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

In asserting indefiniteness, the only alleged ambiguity Samsung argued is whether “device 

agent” means: (a) exactly the same thing as “agent” or (b) something narrower. Dkt. 96 at 8-9. But 

Headwater and the Court answered that question: a “device agent” is an agent on the device (the 

“end-user device” recited in claim 1). CC Order at 11, 13. Neither Samsung nor its expert have 

ever showed that this understanding is unreasonable or inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence.1

Accordingly, “device agents” is not indefinite.

Given that a device agent is an agent on the device, the Court further construed “agent” to 

mean “a piece of software that performs certain functions for other software.” This is the plain 

meaning of agent, as confirmed by Samsung’s own expert and multiple technical dictionaries cited 

in his declaration. CC Order at 11. Samsung cannot disavow its own evidence and does not assert 

that the Court’s construction is not the plain meaning.

Lacking any proper basis to object, Samsung makes five drive-by assertions of error. Objs. 

at 1–3. None have merit. Headwater addresses each in turn.

First, Samsung argues that “the ’733 Patent does not provide any guidance to save ‘device 

agent’ from indefiniteness.” Objs. at 1. But this turns the burden to prove indefiniteness on its 

head. Samsung appears to assume that “device agents” is indefinite, and then argues that parts of 

1 At the hearing, Samsung argued for the first time that “an agent on the device” is inconsistent 

with Figure 13 based on mischaracterizing the figure. Both Headwater and the Court debunked 

that argument. CC Order at 13. Samsung wisely abandons that argument in its objections.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 5994
2

the intrinsic evidence do not (in isolation) expressly define the term. But Samsung failed to identify

a genuine ambiguity in the first place. Based on the term itself, as well as the claims and 

specification of the ’733 patent, a “device agent” is simply an agent on the device. CC Order at 11, 

13. This easily answers Samsung’s purported questions. A “device agent” does not mean the same 

thing as “agent.” And the prefix “device” specifies the location of the agent.

Second, Samsung alternatively argues that “device agent” should be construed to exclude 

applications. Objs. at 2. But courts do not import limitations into the claims—especially negative

limitations—absent lexicography or disclaimer. And neither Samsung nor its expert have ever 

asserted disclaimer here. Dkt. 99 at 6. Samsung’s only argument is that Fig. 16 shows “apps” in a 

separate box from “agents.” Obj. at 2. But that doesn’t support imposing a negative limitation as a 

matter of claim construction. Indeed, the Court found that even if “device agents” and “apps” have 

different meanings, those meanings are not mutually exclusive. CC Order at 13.

Third, Samsung argues the Court committed clear error by finding that the term “agent” 

has a plain meaning and relying on that plain meaning. Objs. at 2. This is nonsensical. Without 

any substantive discussion, Samsung string cites a few cases concerning different terms in different 

patents that don’t support indefiniteness of “device agents” in the ’733 patent in this case. For 

example, they involved completely unrelated two-word phases (such as “magnetic fuzz”). They 

also involved phrases that were “coined,” changed the meaning of individual words, or otherwise 

created a clear ambiguity in claim scope that could not be resolved. Headwater distinguished each 

of those cases in reply (Dkt. 99 at 4–5), Samsung didn’t further argue them at the hearing.

Samsung also argues that “device agent might also mean an agent for a device[.]” Obj. at 

3. But Samsung never provided any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence for this interpretation, and its 

own expert never proposed it. And the Court correctly rejected this interpretation based on the 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 5995
3

intrinsic evidence alone. CC Order at 11 (“But nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that 

interpretation. . . . Thus, Samsung’s alternative interpretation runs counter to the invention’s 

purpose as described by Samsung and is not supported by the specification.”).

Fourth, Samsung argues that “agents on the device” is duplicative of the claim language.

Objs. at 3. But no rule of construction requires each word of a claim to have independent or

different meanings. Nor is that a proper argument for indefiniteness. To the contrary, claims often

use terms with overlapping or reinforcing meanings, and this makes the claim more definite, not

less so. See Bell & Howell Doc. Mgmt. Prod. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 707, (Fed. Cir. 1997)

(“defining a state of affairs with multiple terms should help, rather than hinder, understanding”—

finding terms to be “mutually reinforcing definitions rather than being superfluous”).

Fifth, argues for indefiniteness because “Headwater provides no reasoning for why a 

downloadable app could not be a device agent, but might include a device agent.” Objs. at 3. To 

the extent this argument is understandable, it fails. The Court construed “device agent” to mean “a 

piece of software on the end-user device that performs functions for other software.” As the Court 

found, and based on the construction itself, device agents and apps are not mutually exclusive and 

can be overlapping. Samsung’s apparent objection is that the construction is too broad. But that is 

not the test for indefiniteness. At most, it would show that “device agent” carries the full scope of 

its plain meaning. But the alleged breadth of a claim term (in isolation) is not a basis for 

indefiniteness. See BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(legal error to infer indefiniteness because “breadth is not indefiniteness”).

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

Samsung’s objections for “device messaging agents” (’117 patent, claim 1) fail for at least 

the same reasons as its objections for “device agents” (’733 patent, claims 1 & 30). At the claim 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 5996
4

construction hearing, Samsung did not present a separate argument for the “device messaging 

agents” term. Thus, it appeared to concede that if “device agents” is not indefinite, “device 

messaging agents” is not indefinite either. Samsung now makes two drive-by assertions of error.

Objs. at 4-5. None have merit and Headwater addresses them in turn.

First, Samsung argues that the claims of the ’117 patent “leave open the question whether 

[‘device messaging agents’] adopts the meaning of an ‘agent’ and, if so, how its prefixes modify 

the meaning of that term[.]” Objs. at 4. This is the same fallacious argument it made for “device 

agents.” Again, Samsung fails to identify any genuine ambiguity. Based on the term itself, as well 

as the claims and specification of the ’117 patent, a “device messaging agent” is simply an agent 

on the device that performs messaging functions. The Court considered and expressly rejected any

ambiguity as to how the prefixes modify the term. CC Order at 16 (“Ultimately, however, there is 

no dispute about what an ‘agent’ is, that ‘agents’ perform different functions, and that ‘messaging’ 

is one of those functions. ‘Device’ and ‘messaging’ are simply modifiers of ‘agent’).

Second, Samsung argues that “the Court erred by discounting” Samsung’s arguments about 

the prosecution history of the related ’353 Application. Obj. at 4. As an initial matter, the Court 

considered Samsung’s arguments, and it is unclear how it could have erred by “discounting” (i.e., 

not being persuaded by) them. Samsung does not even include the prosecution statements it relies 

on, much less explain how they establish indefiniteness. This is because Samsung’s argument does 

not withstand scrutiny. In the prosecution history of the related ’353 Application, the Applicant 

explained that “device messaging agents” includes but is not limited to “service control device 

link” in an exemplary embodiment of Figure 18. The additional explanation makes the term 

“device messaging agents” more definite, not less so.

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5997
5

The Court addressed Samsung’s argument based on the prosecution history and found it 

“not persuasive.” CC Order at 15. Indeed, the Court conducted its own review of the ’353 

Application’s prosecution history and concluded that it “sees nothing in the applicant’s response 

inconsistent with the idea that a ‘device messaging agent’ is a ‘device agent’ for messaging.” Id.

(emphasis added). That puts an end to the matter.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung’s objections to the CC Order lack merit and should be 

overruled. Samsung’s objections fail to identify any factual or legal error in the Court’s detailed 

findings and analysis. The CC Order should be adopted in its entirety.

Dated: September 20, 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

bledahl@raklaw.com

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

bwang@raklaw.com

Adam Hoffman

CA State Bar No. 218740

ahoffman@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

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 5998
6

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

James Milkey

CA State Bar No. 281283

jmilkey@raklaw.com

James Pickens

CA State Bar No. 307474

jpickens@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

Andrea L. Fair

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 

1507 Bill Owens Parkway 

Longview, Texas 75604 

Telephone: 903-757-6400 

andrea@wsfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 5999
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

served on September 20, 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 148 Filed 09/20/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 6000