FILED UNDER SEAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T 

MOBILITY, LLC, and AT&T CORP., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY DEMANDED 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T 

MOBILITY, LLC, and AT&T CORP., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC’S MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY MCKOOL SMITH AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 566
1

I. INTRODUCTION 

McKool Smith’s representation of Defendants AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility, LLC 

and AT&T Corp. (collectively, “AT&T”) constitutes a clear and unmitigable conflict of interest 

that requires disqualification. In 2019, plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) and thirdparty Inc. (“ began discussions regarding 

. To facilitate those discussions, Headwater 

entered into a non-disclosure agreement that expressly stated and Headwater have a 

common legal interest, and Headwater shared privileged and highly confidential materials in 

furtherance of that interest. McKool Smith represented through the entirety of the 

parties’ discussions, and thus had access to all of Headwater’s confidential common interest 

materials, including documents relating to the subject matter of this litigation, such as 

 McKool Smith also had 

several telephonic and in-person meetings with Headwater’s in-house counsel and Dr. Raleigh—

the primary inventor of the asserted patents and Headwater’s founder—regarding the same.

McKool Smith thus owed Headwater a duty of confidentiality not only under the terms of 

the NDA, but also under state and national ethical standards. McKool Smith violated 

that duty in undertaking its current representation of AT&T in this substantially related matter. 

Indeed, at least one of the attorneys that was directly involved in the /Headwater 

discussions and had access to Headwater’s privileged and confidential information—Kevin 

Hess—is counsel of record for AT&T in this case. It is simply impossible to have a fair trial in this 

case (and possibly in other related cases where defendants may be working together) if McKool 

Smith is allowed to continue its representation of AT&T. 

-

-

-

-

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 567
2 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Starting in 2019, Headwater Provided Privileged and Highly Confidential 

Information to Attorneys at McKool Smith Regarding Headwater’s Litigation 

Strategy, 

Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC is the owner of the two asserted patents in this case, 

U.S. Patent Nos. 8,589,541 (“’541 patent”) and 9,215,613 (“’613 patent”), which generally relate 

to wireless communications technology. Raleigh Decl. ¶¶ 4–8. In 2008, Dr. Gregory Raleigh—the 

primary inventor of the asserted patents—formed Headwater to develop mobile operating systems 

and cloud technology, which underpin the mobile phone and app industries. Id. Headwater owns 

numerous patents in this and related fields. Id. 

In 2013, Headwater had some limited discussions with attorneys at McKool Smith about 

potentially representing Headwater. Id. ¶ 9. In August 2017, Headwater’s general counsel James 

Harris again reached out to a principal at McKool Smith, Pierre Hubert, to potentially do business 

together in regards to licensing Headwater’s patent portfolio. The parties had a call on August 10, 

2017, and following that call Mr. Harris sent McKool confidential materials regarding 

Headwater’s . Those materials included information regarding 

Headwater’s potential and its plan for 

. See Ex. 1. Mr. Hubert later informed Mr. Harris that 

they would be unable to assist Headwater due to conflicts with some of the entities that Headwater 

considered as potential licensees, but left open the possibility or working with Headwater in the 

future on a subset of parties and patents. Headwater provided a list of exemplary patents for 

discussion, and Mr. Hubert continued to review Headwater’s patents and discuss them internally. 

See Ex. 2. Those discussions ultimately concluded in October 2017. Raleigh Decl. ¶ 10. 

In 2019, Headwater entered into discussions with regarding a potential - -

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 568
. Id. ,r 11. To facilitate those discussions, Headwater and 

-entered into a non-disclosme agreement, effective November 6, 2019 ('-

NDA"). Id. ,i,r 12-13 & Ex. 3. The first paragraph provides the purpose of the NDA: 

Ex. 3 ,r 1. The NDA fmiher provides that the party disclosing 

confidential information -) 

3-5. In addition, the NDA contains a common interest provision, which states, in pa1i: 

Id. ,r 7. 

Importantly, -was represented by McKool Smith during these discussions. 

McKool Smith was thus privy to all of the privileged and confidential Common Interest Materials 

shared by Headwater. Raleigh Deel ,r,r 14-22. 

In and arnund February through April 2020, attorneys from McKool Smith, on behalf of 

Headwater's general com1sel, and Dr. Raleigh had several in-person and telephonic 

meetings to discuss 

3 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 569
4 

. Raleigh Decl. ¶¶ 23–27 & Exs. 4–6. The parties also 

discussed . Id. As set forth in the complaint, 

Dr. Raleigh formed ItsOn to license and implement Headwater’s technology into software and 

services that expanded cellular service plan offerings and improved device and data management 

capabilities. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14. 

As part of these discussions, Headwater sent highly privileged and confidential information 

directly to counsel at McKool Smith. For example, on February 25, 2020, Mr. Harris 

sent Richard Kamprath of McKool Smith a 

See Ex. 7. On 

February 25 and 26, Headwater’s general counsel met with Mr. Kamprath and others at McKool 

Smith’s Dallas, Texas office to discuss details related to Headwater’s strategy regarding 

 Raleigh Decl. ¶ 26. And on the evening of February 

25, 2020, Mr. Kamprath and other attorneys at McKool Smith had a dinner meeting with 

Headwater’s general counsel continue their discussions. Id. ¶ 27 & Ex. 8. Notably, Kevin Hess 

who is counsel of record for AT&T in this case, attended this meeting. See id. 

To further facilitate the parties’ continuing discussions and due diligence 

process, Headwater created a private online data room in that allowed and its 

counsel at McKool Smith to access Headwater’s privileged and confidential information. Id. ¶ 28. 

This data room contained more than of data comprising approximately files, 

including files specifically related to Headwater’s licensing and litigation strategies, 

 with respect to specifically 

-

- -

- -

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 570
5 

AT&T.

2

 Raleigh Decl. ¶¶ 29–30 & Ex. 9. ’s access logs confirm that multiple McKool 

Smith attorneys and personnel accessed and downloaded documents from Headwater’s data 

room—including the 

—hundreds of times from February to April 2020. 

Id. ¶¶ 31–46 & Exs. 10, 19. 

On March 2 and 3, 2020, Mr. Kamprath of McKool Smith sent emails to Headwater general 

counsel Mr. Harris requesting certain documents relating to a potential litigation issue the parties 

had been discussing, including a third-party NDA and a memorandum prepared by outside counsel 

for Headwater regarding, Ex. 11. 

Mr. Kamprath also requested documents relating to certain , the 

 and certain 

communications between Headwater and . Id.

Notably, the subject of the parties’ email chain expressly stated that the discussions and materials 

relating to these issues were “confidential and subject to mutual interest protection.” Id. 

On March 16, 2020, Mr. Kamprath emailed Mr. Harris confirming that he had “review[ed] 

the documentation you have provided,” and requested a meeting with Dr. Raleigh to “ask further 

questions about Ex. 12. The parties confirmed 

the meeting for March 20, 2020, and Mr. Kamprath sent Headwater a list of documents for Dr. 

Raleigh to review and discuss at the meeting. Id. Mr. Kamprath also requested additional 

documentation regarding certain Headwater , as well as documents 

2 Headwater is willing to provide this document, as well as any other document in the data room, 

to the Court for in camera review. 

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 571
6 

describing the relationship between . Ex. 13. All of the 

requested documents were provided to McKool via Headwater’s data room. 

Over the next few weeks, the attorneys at McKool Smith continued their review and 

analysis of Headwater’s patents and confidential materials, and continued to ask Headwater 

targeted questions regarding potential litigation issues. For example, on April 2, 2020, Mr. 

Krampath, Mr. Harris, and Dr. Raleigh had a telephone conference to discuss 

. Raleigh Decl. ¶¶ 47–48 

& Exs. 15-16. 

The discussions between Headwater and ultimately came to an end and did not 

result in a purchase and sale agreement. Accordingly, Headwater’s counsel sent a letter requesting 

that and its attorneys destroy Headwater’s privileged and confidential information. Ex. 

17. On April 21, 2020, Ted Stevenson of McKool Smith “confirm[ed] that McKool Smith has 

destroyed all documents and tangible objects containing or representing Headwater confidential 

information, other than an archival copy kept in accordance with the law firm’s bona fide record 

retention policy, as provided for in the non-disclosure agreement.” Ex. 18. Mr. Stevenson further 

confirmed McKool’s agreement “to continue to treat these retained documents as confidential 

information,” and stated that the “individuals who have accessed Headwater’s confidential 

information are aware of the terms of the non-disclosure agreement signed by and 

will continue to refrain from disclosure or use of Headwater information.” Id.

B. Headwater Files Patent Infringement Complaints Against AT&T, and 

McKool Smith Enters Appearances on Behalf of AT&T Despite Clear Conflict 

of Interest 

On September 1, 2023, Headwater filed the complaint in this case asserting the ’541 and 

’613 patents against AT&T. Dkt. 1. AT&T answered on November 13, 2023. Dkt. 28. Notably, 

the signature block includes Kevin Hess of McKool Smith, who was involved in the 

-

-

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 572
7 

Headwater/ discussions detailed above. Id. Mr. Hess entered a notice of appearance on 

behalf of AT&T on November 20, 2023. Dkt. 31.3

On November 21, 2023, counsel for Headwater emailed AT&T’s counsel at McKool Smith 

advising of the conflict of interest arising from their prior representation of and their 

receipt of Headwater’s privileged and confidential information. On November 31, 2023, counsel 

for Headwater met and conferred with the McKool Smith attorneys regarding the conflict. Ledahl 

Decl. ¶ 16. During that conversation, McKool Smith conceded that the firm had not implemented 

any kind of ethical wall to screen the attorneys who were involved in the Headwater/ 

matter and had access to Headwater’s privileged and confidential information. Id. ¶ 17. Headwater 

requested that McKool Smith withdraw from their representation of AT&T, but they refused. 

Headwater thus informed them that it would be filing a motion to disqualify. McKool Smith 

subsequently offered to wall off the attorneys involved in the Headwater/ matter in 

exchange for Headwater’s agreement not to seek disqualification. Id. ¶ 19. But even assuming this 

were sufficient to avoid disqualification for such an egregious conflict of interest, by that time the 

damage had already been done, including because McKool Smith attorneys such as Mr. Hess who 

had access to Headwater’s privileged and confidential materials were already part of the McKool 

team adverse to Headwater in this matter. Headwater accordingly declined McKool Smith’s offer. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Federal Law and National Ethical Standards Regarding Conflicts of Interest 

Govern the Instant Motion to Disqualify 

The Fifth Circuit has made clear that the ethical standards regarding conflicts of interest 

must be “rigorously appl[ied],” and district courts are “obliged to take measures against unethical 

3 Headwater has another pending case against AT&T, No. 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP, which has 

been consolidated with this case. McKool is not listed as counsel of record in that case. 

-

-

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 573
8 

conduct occurring in connection with any proceeding before it.” In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 

605, 611 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original).4 And because “[m]otions to disqualify counsel in 

Texas federal courts implicate federal law,” courts are “not limited to the state’s ethical rules but 

may also consider national norms of professional conduct, including the ABA Model Rules and 

the Model Code.” Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Comcast Corp., No. CIV.A. 2:05CV443, 2007 WL 

470631, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2007) (citing In re Dresser Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 543 (5th 

Cir. 1992); In re Am. Airlines, 972 F.2d at 610); see also Hillman Grp., Inc. v. KeyMe, LLC, 439 

F. Supp. 3d 845, 851–52 (E.D. Tex. 2020) (“the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct ... 

are the national standards to consider in reviewing motions to disqualify”); Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 

Philips Lumileds Lighting Co., No. 2:07-CV-463-CE, 2009 WL 256831, at *2, *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 

6, 2009) (applying ABA Model Rules and “national ethical standards” to motion to disqualify). 

B. A Disqualifying Conflict of Interest May Arise Even Where There Was No 

Prior Direct Attorney-Client Relationship 

In relevant part, Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.09 states: “(a) Without prior consent, a lawyer 

who personally has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another 

person in a matter adverse to the former client ... if the representation in reasonable probability 

will involve a violation of Rule 1.05,” which imposes a duty of confidentiality, or “if it is the same 

or a substantially related matter.” Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:21-CV00413-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 16964746, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2022). Similarly, Rule 1.9 of the 

ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule states that “[a] lawyer who has formerly 

represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a 

4 All quotations cleaned up and emphases added unless otherwise specifically noted. 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 574
9 

substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests 

of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.” Id. 

While the foregoing rules pertain to former clients, a prior direct attorney-client 

relationship is not necessary to give rise to a disqualifying conflict of interest. Federal courts, 

including the Fifth Circuit, have applied the substantial relationship test to disqualify attorneys 

where the movant had a common interest with a former client. For example, the Fifth Circuit has 

explained that “[j]ust as an attorney would not be allowed to proceed against his former client in a 

cause of action substantially related to the matters in which he previously represented that client, 

an attorney should also not be allowed to proceed against a co-defendant of a former client wherein 

the subject matter of the present controversy is substantially related to the matters in which the 

attorney was previously involved, and wherein confidential exchanges of information took place 

between the various co-defendants in preparation of a joint defense.” Wilson P. Abraham Const. 

Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp., 559 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1977). In other words, disqualification is 

required where the attorney was “privy to confidential information” in a substantially related 

matter even where there was no prior “direct attorney-client relationship.” Id. 

Further, in Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 18-CV-05546-EMC, 2019 WL 

144589 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019), which is discussed further below, the court likewise found that 

the duty of confidentiality extends to non-clients under certain circumstances, and that “case law 

abounds with examples of orders disqualifying counsel that have not been the product of motions 

by present or former clients.” Id. at *4. “In short, courts have applied the regular substantial 

relationship test even where there was no prior attorney-client relationship.” Id. at *5 

(disqualifying counsel where former client shared a common legal interest with the plaintiff and 

they had exchanged privileged and confidential information related to that common interest). 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 575
10 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. McKool Smith’s Prior Representation of in a Substantially 

Related Matter Is a Clear Conflict of Interest 

The evidence conclusively establishes that (1) represented by McKool Smith, 

and Headwater had a common legal interest with respect to their discussions in 2019 and 2020, 

and (2) McKool Smith received and reviewed Headwater’s privileged and confidential common 

interest materials, including litigation materials and analysis relating to 

. This constitutes a conflict of interest that requires disqualification under the applicable law. 

1. Headwater and Shared a Common Legal Interest and 

McKool Smith Received Headwater’s Privileged and Highly 

Confidential Information in Furtherance of That Common Interest 

Confidential information shared between parties remains confidential where those parties 

possess a common legal interest. In re Whitcomb, 575 B.R. 169, 173 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) 

(citing In re Santa Fe Int’l. Corp., 272 F.3d 705, 710 (5th Cir. 2001)). “Confidentiality also extends 

to communications shared with other attorneys if done in order to further a common legal interest.” 

Id.; see also Diva Limousine, 2019 WL 144589, at *7 (“[T]he common interest privilege applies 

where (1) a communication is made by separate parties in the course of a matter of common legal 

interest; (2) the communication is designed to further that effort; and (3) the privilege has not been 

waived.”). “Although parties can memorialize a common interest agreement in writing, no written 

agreement is required for the common interest privilege to apply, since an agreement may be 

implied from conduct and situation, such as attorneys exchanging confidential communications 

from clients who have common interests in litigation.” Diva Limousine, 2019 WL 144589, at *7. 

Here, there can be no legitimate dispute that and Headwater shared a common 

legal interest with respect to their negotiations and discussions in 2019 and 2020. The 

NDA expressly states that that 

-

-

-

-

- -

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 576
11 

 their potential business relationship. Ex. 3 ¶ 7. The common interest provision further states 

that 

Id. The parties thus clearly intended that the 

protections afforded by the common interest doctrine should be applied broadly. The substance of 

the relationship further confirms the common legal interest between and Headwater. 

. Thus, Headwater and 

 had a common legal interest in the . 

There also can be no legitimate dispute that and its counsel at McKool Smith 

in fact received and reviewed Headwater’s privileged and confidential information in furtherance 

of the parties’ common interest. As set forth in detail above, starting in 2019, Mr. Krampath, Mr. 

Hess—who is counsel of record for AT&T in this case—and other McKool Smith attorneys and 

personnel met with Headwater’s general counsel several times to discuss Headwater’s 

. Those discussions included issues relating to 

. Raleigh Decl. ¶¶ 11–27 & Exs. 4–9. To facilitate those discussions, Headwater gave 

McKool Smith access to a data room containing over files, including 

, Headwater’s analyses 

regarding issues such as 

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 577
12 

Id. ¶¶ 28–46 & Exs. 10, 19. Many of these 

documents were specifically requested by Mr. Krampath, and he expressly confirmed that he 

reviewed the documentation provided by Headwater. Exs. 9–14. Further, the access logs 

show that McKool Smith attorneys and personnel accessed and downloaded Headwater’s 

documents hundreds of times. Exs. 10, 19. 

McKool Smith owed a duty of confidentiality with respect to Headwater’s common interest 

materials, and should not be permitted to use its knowledge regarding Headwater’s litigation 

strategy and theories against Headwater in this matter. See Diva Limousine, 2019 WL 144589, at 

*7 (holding that a “duty [of confidentiality] may be created where an attorney obtains ... 

information shared pursuant to a common interest agreement”). Indeed, Texas Disciplinary Rule 

1.09 forbids representation where there is either a “reasonable probability will involve a violation 

of Rule 1.05,” which imposes a duty of confidentiality, or “if it is the same or a substantially related 

matter.” Staton Techiya, 2022 WL 16964746, at *1; see also Diva Limousine, 2019 WL 144589, 

at *7 (“The substantial relationship test applies where an attorney is deemed to have a duty of 

confidentiality to a nonclient arising out of a past representation.”). McKool’s representation of 

AT&T fails on both counts. 

2. McKool’s Representation of in the Prior Discussions 

Regarding Headwater’s Patent Portfolio and Litigation Strategy Is

Substantially Related to the Subject Matter of this Case 

The Fifth Circuit has held that “the provision of legal advice on a substantially related 

matter by itself requires disqualification.” In re Am. Airlines, 972 F.2d at 619. This rule “serves 

not only to ensure the fairness of particular trials, but also to safeguard the integrity of the attorneyclient relationship.” Id. Further, “the subject matter does not need to be ‘relevant’ in the evidentiary 

sense to be ‘substantially related.’” Staton Techiya, 2022 WL 16964746, at *2. “It need only be 

akin to the present action in a way reasonable persons would understand as important to the issues 

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 578
13 

involved.” Id.; see also Diva Limousine, 2019 WL 144589, at *10 (“[C]ourts should not limit the 

comparison of the two representations to their precise legal and factual issues. The key inquiry is 

whether the nature of the former representation is such that confidential information material to 

the current dispute would normally have been imparted to the attorney.”).5

Here, it is clear that McKool Smith’s representation of in the prior discussions 

regarding prospective 

 is substantially related to the subject matter of this case. As 

discussed in detail above, those discussions pertained directly to Headwater’s 

. The parties also specifically discussed 

Headwater’s 

. Indeed, Headwater provided a confidential workproduct 

6 The access log indicates that this specific document was viewed by a McKool 

Smith at least on March 24, 2020. Ex. 19. One of the PowerPoint presentations provided to McKool 

Smith regarding Headwater’s specifically identifies issues related to AT&T, 

.

7 Raleigh Decl. ¶ 29. The parties also specifically discussed 

, which is discussed in the complaint and thus relevant to this case. See Dkt. 

1 ¶ 14; Raleigh Decl. ¶ 25; Exs. 4, 6. The parties also discussed Headwater’s 

5 Comment 4B to Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.09 similarly explains that the “substantially related” 

test “primarily involves situations where a lawyer could have acquired confidential information 

concerning a prior client that could be used either to that prior client’s disadvantage or for the 

advantage of the lawyer’s current client or some other person.” 

6 Headwater is willing to provide this document to the Court for in camera review. 

7 Headwater is willing to provide this document to the Court for in camera review. 

-

--

I 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 579
14 

. McKool Smith also had access to a privileged 

 Raleigh Decl. ¶23; Ex. 11. 

Any reasonable person would easily conclude that the prior discussions between 

 and Headwater are important to the issues involved in this case, and that McKool Smith 

acquired confidential information that could be used to Headwater’s disadvantage and/or the 

advantage of AT&T. The two matters are thus substantially related and McKool Smith’s of AT&T 

in a manner directly adverse to Headwater requires disqualification under all applicable rules. 

Indeed, in Diva Limousine, the court granted disqualification under similar circumstances 

where the attorney in question obtained the confidential information of the movant (Uber) pursuant 

to a common legal interest with a former client. Although the parties “never reduced their 

understanding to a formal written common interest agreement, they exchanged privileged 

information and attorney work product through communications that were often marked as 

privileged.” 2019 WL 144589, at *7. And like here, the conflicted attorney “engaged in regularlyscheduled telephone conferences with Uber during which counsel discussed legal strategy” and 

other issues. Id. at *11. Thus, while the attorney never had a direct attorney-client relationship with 

Uber, the court still found that the attorney’s representation in a substantially related matter 

required disqualification of the entire firm. Id. at *11–13. The same reasoning applies here. 

B. Disqualification of McKool Smith Is Necessary to Preserve the Integrity of the 

Judicial Process and to Avoid Irreparable Harm to Headwater 

The rules are clear. McKool Smith’s prior representation of in a substantially 

related matter, by itself, requires disqualification in order to ensure fairness of the trial. In re Am. 

Airlines, 972 F.2d at 619. No further analysis is necessary. However, it also bears noting that 

McKool Smith’s conflict of interest here is particularly egregious and its continued representation 

-

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 580
15 

of AT&T in this matter will irreparably harm Headwater for several additional reasons. As an 

initial matter, during the parties’ meet and confer, McKool Smith admitted that they did not make 

any attempt to screen the attorneys and personnel who had access to, and in fact accessed, 

Headwater’s privileged and confidential information. Ledahl Decl. ¶ 17. In fact, at least one of the 

attorneys who was directly involved in the prior /Headwater discussions, Kevin Hess, 

is counsel of record in this case. Apparently later realizing the severity of the situation, McKool 

Smith belatedly offered to screen the conflicted attorneys in exchange for Headwater’s agreement 

not to seek disqualification. Id. ¶ 19. But the damage has already been done. AT&T’s entire 

defense team has been tainted. And regardless, the Texas Disciplinary Rules make clear that 

screening is not a cure for such a conflict of interest. Rule 1.09(b) states that “when lawyers are or 

have become members of or associated with a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client 

if any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by paragraph (a).” 

Allowing McKool Smith to continue as counsel of record in this matter would not only 

irreparably harm Headwater with respect to this case, but could also taint Headwater’s other 

pending cases against Samsung, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Motorola. It is highly likely that these 

defendants will be working together with respect to common issues such as validity and claim 

construction. Certainly the McKool Smith attorneys representing AT&T in this case will be 

coordinating with the attorneys representing AT&T in the consolidated -398 case. Disqualification 

is necessary to preserve the integrity of these judicial processes and avoid substantial irreparable 

harm to Headwater. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the law firm McKool Smith should be disqualified from 

representing A&T in this case. 

-

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 581
16 

Dated: January 25, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Brian Ledahl 

Marc Fenster 

CA State Bar No. 181067 

Email: mfenster@raklaw.com 

Reza Mirzaie 

CA State Bar No. 246953 

Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com 

Brian Ledahl 

CA State Bar No. 186579 

Email: bledahl@raklaw.com 

Ben Wang 

CA State Bar No. 228712 

Email: bwang@raklaw.com 

Dale Chang 

CA State Bar No. 248657 

Email: dchang@raklaw.com 

Paul Kroeger 

CA State Bar No. 229074 

Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com 

Neil A. Rubin 

CA State Bar No. 250761 

Email: nrubin@raklaw.com 

Kristopher Davis 

CA State Bar No. 329627 

Email: kdavis@raklaw.com 

James S. Tsuei 

CA State Bar No. 285530 

Email: jtsuei@raklaw.com 

Philip Wang 

CA State Bar No. 262239 

Email: pwang@raklaw.com 

Amy Hayden 

CA State Bar No. 287026 

Email: ahayden@raklaw.com 

Jason M. Wietholter 

CA State Bar No. 337139 

Email: jwietholter@raklaw.com 

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Telephone: 310-826-7474 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Headwater 

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 582
17 

Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 583
18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 25, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Texas using the ECF System under seal, and 

served defendants with a copy via electronic mail. 

 /s/ Brian Ledahl 

 Brian Ledahl 

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

I hereby certify that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the 

Protective Order entered in this case.

 /s/ Brian Ledahl 

Brian Ledahl

Case 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP Document 45 Filed 02/01/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 584