Defendants’ Markman Presentation

July 11, 2024

1

Headwater Research LLC v. 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Case: 2:23-CV-00103-JRG-RSP 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 49 PageID #:

4885
U.S. Patent No. 

9,615,192

’192

Message Link Server 

with Plural Message 

Delivery Triggers

Filed on July 15, 2016

Asserted Patents at Issue

2

U.S. Patent No. 

9,198,117

’117

Network System with Common 

Secure Wireless Message Service 

Serving Multiple Applications on 

Multiple Wireless Devices

Filed on March 24, 2015

U.S. Patent No. 

8,406,733

’733

Automated Device 

Provisioning and 

Activation

Filed on May 1, 2012

D94-2 Ex. 1 D94-3 Ex. 2 D94-4 Ex. 3

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 49 PageID #:

4886
Summary of Disputed Claim Terms

3

Patent Term Claims

ʼ733 “device agents” 1, 19, 26, 30

ʼ733

“wherein the particular device agent is configured to assist in presenting 

a notification through the user interface, the notification based on the 

message content”

19

’117 “device messaging agents” 1, 4, 5, 6, 

12, 13, 14, 18

’192 “software components” 1, 4, 15

’192 “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is the receipt of a 

particular network element message from one of the network elements” 13

1

2

3

4

5

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 49 PageID #:

4887
The ʼ733 Patent

4

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 4 of 49 PageID #:

4888
5

’733 Patent, Claims 1, 19, 26, 30

“device agents”

1

Headwater’s Proposed Construction Samsung’s Proposed Construction

Not indefinite; 

plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., agent on 

the device 

Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 5 of 49 PageID #:

4889
6

’733 Patent, Claim 1

’733 1 “device agents”

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 6 of 49 PageID #:

4890
7

The Language Of Claim 1 Fails To Helps With Indefiniteness 

’733 1 “device agents”

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1

Headwater alleges that “[t]hese limitations further inform a POSITA and describe, for example, the location, connections, 

and functions of the recited ‘device agents.’” Headwater Opening, EFC No. 94 at 5. 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 7 of 49 PageID #:

4891
8

The Language Of Claim 1 Fails To Helps With Indefiniteness 

’733 1 “device agents”

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

But...

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 8 of 49 PageID #:

4892
The Language Of Claim 1 Fails To Helps With Indefiniteness 

’733 1 “device agents” 9

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Fig. 16

Other components are also connected to the “agent communication bus.”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 9 of 49 PageID #:

4893
10

Headwater’s Construction—An Agent On The Device—Further Proves Indefiniteness

’733 1 “device agents” 10

The agent is already on the device but Headwater admits that “[h]ere, ‘device’ narrows the plain meaning of ‘agent,’” 

and “device agent” does not mean “exactly the same thing as ‘agent.’” Headwater Reply, EFC No. 99 at 4, 5. 

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 10 of 49 PageID #:

4894
11

Headwater’s Construction—An Agent On The Device—Is Inconsistent With The Claim

’733 1 “device agents” 11

The “service control device link agent” is also on the device but is not a “device agent”

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 11 of 49 PageID #:

4895
12

Headwater’s Construction—An Agent On The Device—Contradicts the Specification

’733 1 “device agents” 12

Headwater alleges that the “specification of the ’733 patent confirm[s]” that the device agent is on the device. 

Headwater Opening, EFC No. 94 at 5. But Figure 13 Shows External Device Agents...

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at 31:27-39

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Fig. 13 (annotated)

Device agents are components 

of service processor 115

Device 100

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 12 of 49 PageID #:

4896
RESERVED

’733 1 “device agents” 13

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 13 of 49 PageID #:

4897
Headwater Cannot Simply Combine "Device" and "Agent"

’733 1 “device agents” 14

“Network Commerce also agrees that a definition of the term ‘download 

component’ as a whole does not exist, but invites the court to combine 

individual dictionary definitions of ‘download’ and ‘component.’ Under 

that construction, any part of a system involved in the transfer of data 

from one computer to another would be a download component. 

This is not a tenable theory in light of the specification.”

Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,422 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(emphasis added)

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 14 of 49 PageID #:

4898
Headwater Cannot Simply Combine "Device" and "Agent"

’733 1 “device agents” 15

“[S]imply combining the definitions of ‘cardiac’ and ‘function’ results in a broad, 

vague definition that is untenable in light of the specification.”

Tehrani v. Polar Electro, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80037, at *18-19 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2007) 

(emphasis added)

“3Shape’s approach of construction by combining ordinary dictionary definitions 

of ‘focal’ and ‘plane’ is generally disfavored and, more importantly, is not how a 

POSA would understand the term at issue here.”

Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape, 2021 WL 2320139, at *12 (D. Del. June 7, 2021) (emphasis added)

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 15 of 49 PageID #:

4899
“Device Agents”

16

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Fig. 16

’733 1 “device agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 16 of 49 PageID #:

4900
“Device Agents”

17

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Fig. 29

’733 1 “device agents”

“BREW® (Binary Runtime 

Environment for Wireless from 

Qualcomm® Inc.), Symbian OS 

(from Symbian Software Ltd) 

and Apple iPhone 3G App Store 

(from Apple Inc.)” D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 

Patent) at 8:47-50.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 17 of 49 PageID #:

4901
“Flattened” Network Architecture

18

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at 11:35-58

’733

’733 1 “device agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 18 of 49 PageID #:

4902
“Flattened” Network Architecture

19

Hierarchical Network Architecture Flattened Network Architecture

Core

Distribution

Access

’733 1 “device agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 19 of 49 PageID #:

4903
“Device Agent” Creates a Prohibited “Zone of Uncertainty” for Infringement

’733 1 “device agents” 20

D96-5 Ex. D (Headwater Infringement Chart) at 14

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 20 of 49 PageID #:

4904
“Device Agents”

21

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Fig. 16

’733 1 “device agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 21 of 49 PageID #:

4905
Nautilus: Definiteness Check Prevents Patentees From Expanding Scope

’733 1 “device agents” 22

“[A] patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is 

claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them. 

Otherwise there would be a zone of uncertainty which enterprise and 

experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims. And 

absent a meaningful definiteness check, we are told, patent applicants 

face powerful incentives to inject ambiguity into their claims.”

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014) (emphasis added)

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 22 of 49 PageID #:

4906
Stanton Techiya v. Samsung, Case No. 2:21-CV-00413-JRG-RSP (2023)

’733 1 “device agents” 23

“Because ‘natural sounding . . . to the user’ is subjective and the intrinsic record 

provides no objective standard by which a skilled artisan can determine what is, 

and what is not, a ‘natural sounding voice,’ this term is indefinite.”

Id. at 31

“Regarding method Claims 1 and 7, the Court construes ‘proximate to the 

earphone device’ as ‘included in the earphone device.’ The only disclosed 

embodiment of an earphone device ‘includes’ the ASM as part of the device.... 

Although courts normally do not limit claim scope to only the disclosed 

embodiments, consistent description of the invention as a whole can be limiting. 

See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....” 

Id. at 35 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 23 of 49 PageID #:

4907
“Agent” Terms Have Been Found Indefinite

24

Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Protect Am., Inc.,

No. 1-14-CV-134-LY, 2015 WL 4937464, at *7–8 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2015)

’733 1 “device agents”

4. “Intelligent agent”

[’363 and ’077 Patents]

[indefinite]

5. “Software agent”

[’363 and ’077 Patents]

[indefinite]

6. “Mobile agent”

[’363 and ’077 Patents]

[indefinite]

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 24 of 49 PageID #:

4908
The ’395 Application Undermines Headwater’s Construction

’733 1 “device agents” 25

U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2006/0218395

D94-10 Ex. 9 (’395 Pat. Appl.) at Fig. 2

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 25 of 49 PageID #:

4909
Samsung EMM Guide Shows Applications Are Not Device Agents

’733 1 “device agents” 26

D96-7 Ex. F (EMM Guide) at p. 98

D96-7 Ex. F (EMM Guide) at p. 159

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 26 of 49 PageID #:

4910
’090 Patent Undermines Headwater’s Construction

’733 1 “device agents” 27

D94-13 Ex. 12 (’090 Patent) at Fig. 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 27 of 49 PageID #:

4911
28

’733 Patent, Claim 19

“wherein the particular device agent is configured to assist in presenting a notification 

through the user interface, the notification based on the message content”

2

Headwater’s Proposed Construction Samsung’s Proposed Construction

Not indefinite; 

plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 28 of 49 PageID #:

4912
29

’733 Patent, Claim 19

’733 2 “wherein the particular device agent is configured ...”

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 19

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 29 of 49 PageID #:

4913
The ʼ117 Patent

30

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 30 of 49 PageID #:

4914
31

’117 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18

“device messaging agents”

3

Whether the term “messaging” renders the “device . . . agent” term definite

DISPUTE

Headwater’s Proposed Construction Samsung’s Proposed Construction

Not indefinite; 

plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 31 of 49 PageID #:

4915
32

’117 Patent, Claim 1

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

D94-3 Ex. 2 (’117 Patent) at Claim 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 32 of 49 PageID #:

4916
33

The ’117 Patent’s “Device Messaging Agent” Clashes With the ’733 Patent’s “Device Agents” 

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

’733 Patent at Claim 1 ’117 Patent at Claim 1

Service control 

server link element

Service control 

device link agent

Device 

agent

Software 

process

D94-2 Ex. 1 (’733 Patent) at Claim 1 D94-3 Ex. 2 (’117 Patent) at Claim 1

“Device agents” receive message content “Device messaging agents” forward messages to processes

Device 

messaging agent

Network 

message server

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 33 of 49 PageID #:

4917
34

The Original Specification Does Not Disclose Any “Device Messaging Agents”

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

D94-3 Ex. 2 (’117 Patent) at Fig. 16

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 34 of 49 PageID #:

4918
35

Only the Patent’s Abstract, as Amended Six Years After the Priority Date, 

Uses “Device Messaging Agents”

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

’117 Patent File History, March 25, 2015 Amendment

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 35 of 49 PageID #:

4919
36

RESERVED

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 36 of 49 PageID #:

4920
37

RESERVED

’117 3 “device messaging agents”

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 37 of 49 PageID #:

4921
The ʼ192 Patent

38

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 38 of 49 PageID #:

4922
39

’192 Patent, Claims 1, 4, 15

“software components”

4

Whether a POSITA would be reasonably certain about the scope of “software components” 

in the context of the ’192 patent.

DISPUTE

Headwater’s Proposed Construction Samsung’s Proposed Construction

Not indefinite; 

plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 39 of 49 PageID #:

4923
40

’192 Patent, Claim 1

’192 4 “software components”

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at Claim 1

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 40 of 49 PageID #:

4924
41

The Specification Generally Distinguishes Software Components From Device Agents

’192 4 “software components”

Device 

Agents

Software 

Components

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 43:31-37

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 92:21-23

If “device agents” is indefinite, 

“software components” 

are also indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 41 of 49 PageID #:

4925
42

The Specification Generally Distinguishes Software Components From Device Agents

’192 4 “software components”

Device 

Agents

Software 

Components

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 48:31-38

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 46:32-38

If “device agents” is indefinite, 

“software components” 

are also indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 42 of 49 PageID #:

4926
43

The Specification Generally Distinguishes Software Components From Device Agents

’192 4 “software components”

D94-4 Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at Fig. 16

Device 

Agents

Software 

Components

If “device agents” is indefinite, 

“software components” 

are also indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 43 of 49 PageID #:

4927
44

But a Few Passages Treat Device Agents and Software Components as Overlapping

’192 4 “software components”

“components” are examples of “agents”

Device Agents/

Software 

Components

Device 

Agents

Software 

Components

“agents” can be implemented as 

“software components” 

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 28:23-26

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 69:54-56

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 44 of 49 PageID #:

4928
45

’192 Patent, Claim 13

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

particular network element message from one of the network elements”

5

Whether a POSITA would be reasonably certain as to 

the scope of “particular network element message”

DISPUTE

Headwater’s Proposed Construction Samsung’s Proposed Construction

Not indefinite; 

plain and ordinary meaning Indefinite

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 45 of 49 PageID #:

4929
46

’192 Patent, Claim 13

’192 5 “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is ...”

’192 Patent at Claim 13

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 46 of 49 PageID #:

4930
47

The Basic Definition of “Particular”—One of Many—Is Not Disputed

’192 5 “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is ...” 47

POSITA would know “particular network element message” 

in the claims means “not any network element message, it’s 

a particular type of one or a particular one.” 

Turnbull Dep. at 128:12-25

Don Turnbull, Ph.D. | Technical Expert for Samsung

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 47 of 49 PageID #:

4931
48

But a “Particular” Message Being One of Many Does Not Provide a POSITA With Certainty

’192 5 “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is ...”

Message Message

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 48 of 49 PageID #:

4932
49

Specification Provides No Clear Discussion of What Constitutes a “Particular” Message

’192 5 “wherein one of the message delivery triggers is ...”

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at Fig. 16

D94-4, Ex. 3 (’192 Patent) at 70:1-13

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 108-1 Filed 07/11/24 Page 49 of 49 PageID #:

4933