UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS [DKT NO. 50]

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

(collectively, “Samsung”) do not oppose Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC’s (“Headwater”) 

procedural request for leave to amend its infringement contentions. Samsung maintains its 

positions that certain claims, accused features, and functionalities have neither been adequately 

disclosed nor sufficiently supported with evidence, as described in prior correspondence with 

counsel for Headwater. See, e.g., 2024-06-26 Ltr fr Fish to Headwater re Deficient Infringement 

Contentions (Ex. A); 2024-09-17 Meet and Confer; 2024-10-14 Email fr Gallo to Wietholter re 

Deficient Infringement Contentions (Ex. B). Samsung therefore expressly reserves its substantive 

objections to deficiencies in Headwater’s amended contentions. 1 However, reserving these 

objections to the substance of Headwater’s contentions, Samsung does not oppose the present 

motion. 

1 The disputed deficiencies addressed herein are non-exhaustive and merely examples of the types 

of inaccuracies advanced by Headwater in its motion. Samsung will continue its meet and confer 

efforts with Headwater to try to address the issues with Headwater’s infringement contentions to 

the extent possible before raising them with the Court.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 53 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

2674
Although most of Headwater’s motion does not require a response and does not raise issues 

appropriate for the Court at this time, Samsung files this Response to preserve objections to several

irrelevant, self-serving statements offered by Headwater in its Motion. For example, Samsung 

reserves objections concerning , which remains accused 

without sufficient disclosures or specificity to sustain a plausible infringement theory. Samsung 

disagrees with Headwater’s incorrect representation that “Samsung does not dispute that these 

documents or testimony accurately reflect .” Dkt. 50 at 10. 

Samsung also reserves objections regarding the adequacy of the amended contentions’ Network 

Policy-related disclosures, which Headwater overwhelmingly relies on yet offers little to no 

analysis of. Indeed, Headwater indiscriminately charts Network Policy and related Android 

classes (e.g., NetworkPolicyManager.java, NetworkPolicyManagerService.java, etc.) to multiple 

claims without sufficiently describing how they practice each limitation. 

Further, Samsung disagrees with Headwater’s claim that “Samsung does not dispute that 

these allegations existed in Headwater’s Original PICs and were further clarified in its Amended 

PICs” and that “[t]he Original PICs and Amended PICs provide notice to Samsung of Headwater’s 

theories of infringement.” Id. at 7. Notwithstanding new verbiage, Headwater’s amended 

infringement contentions still leave Samsung in the dark as to how each accused feature and 

functionality purportedly infringes each claim limitation. Accordingly, Samsung generally 

reserves objections to the adequacy of disclosures in Headwater’s original and amended 

infringement contentions. 

Samsung does not oppose the procedural nature of Headwater’s motion at this time but

expressly reserves its substantive objections regarding the adequacy of Headwater’s disclosures 

and supporting evidence.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 53 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

2675
Dated: November 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Sara C. Fish

Ruffin B. Cordell

TX Bar No. 04820550

Michael J. McKeon

DC Bar No. 459780

mckeon@fr.com

Jared Hartzman (pro hac vice)

DC Bar No. 1034255

hartzman@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1000 Maine Avenue, SW, Ste 1000

Washington, D.C. 20024

Telephone: (202) 783-5070

Thad C. Kodish

GA Bar No. 427603

tkodish@fr.com

Sara C. Fish

GA Bar No.

Christopher O. Green

GA Bar No. 

Benjamin K. Thompson

GA Bar No. 633211 

bthompson@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1180 Peachtree St. NE, Fl. 21

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: (404) 892-5005

Melissa R. Smith

State Bar No. 24001351

Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Harry L. Gillam, Jr. 

State Bar No. 07921800 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

102 N. College, Ste. 800

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 53 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

2676
Jon Hyland 

Texas Bar No. 24046131 

jhyland@hilgersgraben.com 

Grant K. Schmidt 

Texas Bar No. 24084579 

gschmidt@hilgersgraben.com

HILGERS GRABEN PLLC

7859 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 335 

Dallas, Texas 75230 

Telephone: (972) 645-3097

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 53 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

2677
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served on November 18, 2024, with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).

/s/ Sara C. Fish

Sara C. Fish

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 2:23-cv-00641-JRG-RSP Document 53 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

2678