Upfront in Headwater Research LLC’s new Western District of Texas complaint against Alphabet (Google) (7:25-cv-00231), the plaintiff cites testimony from its recent trial against Samsung that the answer to the question “Q. Now, how many devices use [Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM)] today?” is “A. Billions of devices.” An Eastern District of Texas jury returned a $278.8M verdict for Headwater in that case, and Headwater now pleads that a “core aspect of the accused systems” in the suit against Google is FCM, which Headwater characterizes as “Google’s principal mechanism for binding the Android ecosystem as a whole—including Android device OEMs, carriers, app developers, and users—to Google’s advertising platform” and from which Headwater asserts that Google derives “immense value”, as underscored by its Revenue-Share Agreement (“RSA”) and Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (“MADA”) with Samsung. Headwater points to “public testimony in the Department of Justice’s 2025 antitrust case” that allegedly “revealed that Google paid Samsung about $8 billion between 2020 and 2023—roughly $2 billion per year—to ensure Samsung devices, including Galaxy phones and tablets, ship with Google Play Services (and, by extension, the embedded FCM client stack) pre-installed and set as the system-level default”.

On the heels of a $278.8M jury verdict in an earlier case against Samsung, Headwater Research LLC has filed another round of suits against AT&T (AT&T Mobility) (2:25-cv-00464), Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile) (2:25-cv-00462), and Verizon (Verizon Wireless) (2:25-cv-00463), all in the Eastern District of Texas as well. These May cases follow a trio of April ones—AT&T (AT&T Mobility) (2:25-cv-00428), Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile) (2:25-cv-00359), and Verizon (Verizon Wireless) (2:25-cv-00391)—that themselves followed a trio of February suits against the same three defendants.

In January 2025, an Eastern District of Texas jury sided with Samsung in litigation from Headwater Research LLC, finding that the defendant had not infringed the tried claims from a single patent. Now, a trial in a second case between the same parties has ended with a verdict for the plaintiff: On April 25, a different jury returned a verdict that Samsung had infringed claims from two additional patents and had not shown them to be invalid, awarding $278.8M in damages. The trial came shortly after the court denied a Samsung motion challenging Headwater’s standing to sue, after rejecting a related standing defense in the earlier-tried suit as well.

Later in February, Headwater Research LLC added second Eastern District of Texas cases against AT&T (AT&T Mobility) (2:25-cv-00215) and Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile) (2:25-cv-00164) after filing a second suit earlier in the month against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) in the same district. The inventor-controlled plaintiff targets with five more patents a wide array of products, including cellular networks, servers, and services; eSIM provisioning and management components and systems; and eSIM-enabled devices ranging from smartphones to vehicle infotainment systems. 35 patents are now in suit in this campaign, the various defendants having filed 32 petitions for inter partes review (IPR) to date and litigation by Headwater Partners II LLC against all three defendants underway as well.

Headwater Research LLC has filed a second Eastern District of Texas case against Verizon (Verizon Wireless) (2:25-cv-00156), adding five more patents to a litigation campaign that already had 30. The plaintiff targets a wide array of products, including its cellular networks, servers, and services; eSIM provisioning and management components and systems; and eSIM-enabled devices ranging from smartphones to vehicle infotainment systems. A first trial in this campaign went against Headwater last month, with a second, again against Samsung, now set for April 2025. The parties there continue to contest, among other things, Headwater’s standing, Samsung arguing that Qualcomm is the true owner of this portfolio.

Last Friday, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict that Headwater Research LLC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung infringed any of the four claims tried. Those claims are from a single patent, one of many asserted by Headwater against Samsung in multiple complaints filed since October 2022. Each of the US cases was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Headwater having also sued Samsung before the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Closing in on trial, Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne has ruled on two motions in the earliest case filed by Headwater Research LLC against Samsung. The court has denied Samsung’s motion challenging Headwater’s standing based on obligations created by earlier employment agreements between two named inventors and Qualcomm. It has also ruled that Headwater and its counsel have “committed an egregious violation” of a discovery order in the case by failing to timely disclose to Samsung that certain source code exists (and where), source code relevant to Headwater’s copying claim in the case. The court has sanctioned Headwater by precluding the copying claim and shifting fees associated with bringing the sanctions motions. Meanwhile, Headwater has hit Samsung with yet another case (2:24-cv-00627), again in the Eastern District of Texas.

Last Thursday, Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne heard arguments from plaintiff Headwater Research LLC and defendant Samsung concerning cross-motions for summary judgment regarding whether Headwater has standing to sue over the patents asserted in the case. Samsung contends that Qualcomm is at least a coowner of those asserted patents. The court also heard argument concerning Samsung’s motion to sanction Headwater for failure to preserve source code at the heart of the copying claims in the case. Jury selection is set for August 5, 2024 in this, the first suit in Headwater’s campaign, which has also seen complaints filed against wireless carriers AT&T (AT&T Mobility), Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile), and Verizon (Verizon Wireless), as well as against Lenovo (Motorola Mobility).

Headwater Research LLC filed its first of several cases against Samsung back in October 2022. Since Samsung filed an amended answer to plead three additional affirmative defenses (inequitable conduct and “infectious unenforceability”, lack of standing, and prosecution laches), disputes have been multiplying, including over more typical issues (e.g., amendment of infringement contentions, stay in light of inter partes review (IPR), propriety of certain expert opinions, etc.) but also over the release of US discovery for use in parallel proceedings in Germany, the production of clawed-back documents and any related waiver of privilege, the consideration of battery testing evidence, and—at the end of last week—a sealed request to sanction the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Eastern District of Texas has handed down a claim construction order, and Headwater Research has filed yet another complaint against Samsung (2:24-cv-00228), bringing three more patents from the same large family into this fray.

After suing AT&T (AT&T Mobility), Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile), and Verizon (Verizon Wireless), as well as Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), Headwater Research LLC has returned to the first defendant in this campaign, hitting Samsung (2:23-cv-00641) with another complaint in the Eastern District of Texas. Four more mobile data management patents join the 14 from the same large family already in suit against Samsung, which just filed an amended answer in the first case in this campaign, pleading additional facts in support of its marking defense as well as adding three new affirmative defenses: inequitable conduct and “infectious unenforceability”; lack of standing; and prosecution laches.