Google LLC v. Headwater Research LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Google LLC (Delaware / California)
  • Defendant: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Paul Hastings LLP
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-09558, N.D. Cal., 11/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Google alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, including the development of the accused Android software. It is also alleged that Defendant Headwater has availed itself of the district by filing other patent lawsuits, serving subpoenas on residents, and has historical ties to the district through its inventors, attorneys, and predecessor entities.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff Google seeks a declaratory judgment that its Android mobile operating system features do not infringe two patents asserted by Defendant Headwater related to managing network capacity and data traffic on wireless devices.
• Technical Context: The patents relate to methods for managing data consumption and network load on mobile devices by distinguishing between different types of application activities and applying policies, a critical technology in the smartphone era for preserving battery life and carrier network capacity.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant Headwater previously asserted the patents-in-suit against wireless carriers (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T), alleging that Google's Android devices running the accused features were the basis for infringement. The complaint also states that Plaintiff Google, along with carriers, petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541, and that Headwater subsequently disclaimed numerous claims and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found many others unpatentable.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-28	Earliest Priority Date for ’541 and ’613 Patents
2013-11-19	U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541 Issues
2015-12-15	U.S. Patent No. 9,215,613 Issues
2023-07-28	Headwater files suit against Verizon asserting Patents-in-Suit
2023-08-21	Headwater files suit against T-Mobile asserting Patents-in-Suit
2023-09-01	Headwater files suit against AT&T asserting Patents-in-Suit
2024-06-04	Google and others petition for IPR of the ’541 Patent
2024-09-17	Headwater disclaims claims 1, 24-25, and others of the ’541 Patent in IPR proceeding
2025-10-01	PTAB finds claims 2-23, 26, and others of the ’541 Patent unpatentable
2025-11-05	Google files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,589,541 - "Device-Assisted Services for Protecting Network Capacity," issued November 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a "network capacity crunch" caused by the increasing popularity of smart mobile devices whose applications consume significant network resources, often inefficiently, leading to network congestion and a degraded user experience for all users on the network (’541 Patent, col. 10:55-65).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "device assisted services" (DAS) system where software on the wireless end-user device itself helps manage network usage (’541 Patent, col. 17:42-53). The device's software identifies "service usage activity," determines if it is a "background activity," and if so, applies a policy to control it, potentially based on user input or information from a network element, thereby protecting network capacity at the source (’541 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This approach shifts some network management intelligence from the carrier's core network directly onto the end-user device, allowing for more granular and immediate control over how individual applications consume data.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on limitations found in Claim 79, which depends from independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
• Claim 1 (A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) contains instructions for one or more processors to perform the following essential steps:
  • identify a service usage activity of the wireless end-user device, the service usage activity being associated with a first software component of a plurality of software components on the wireless end-user device;
  • the service usage activity comprising one or more prospective or successful communications over a wireless network;
  • determine whether the service usage activity comprises a background activity;
  • determine at least an aspect of a policy based on a user input obtained through a user interface of the wireless end-user device or based on information from a network element, the policy to be applied if the service usage activity is the background activity, the policy at least for controlling the service usage activity; and
  • if it is determined that the service usage activity is the background activity, apply the policy.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims, but this is a DJ action initiated by the accused infringer.

U.S. Patent No. 9,215,613 - "Wireless End-User Device with Differential Traffic Control Policy List Having Limited User Control," issued December 15, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’541 Patent, this patent addresses the strain on wireless network capacity from data-intensive applications on mobile devices (’613 Patent, col. 1:10-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a wireless end-user device with both WWAN and WLAN modems that stores a "differential traffic control policy list." This list distinguishes between a first group of applications (subject to the policy) and a second group (not subject to the policy). The device includes an interface allowing a user to "augment" the policy for the first group of applications, but not the second. The device's processors classify the network type and whether an application is in the foreground or background, and then selectively allow or deny internet activities based on the policy list and user augmentations (’613 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for selectively controlling data access for different applications on a device, while giving the user limited control to modify those rules for certain apps, creating a hybrid of network-defined policy and user choice.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent Claim 1 and dependent Claim 12 (Compl. ¶55).
• Claim 1 (A wireless end-user device) comprises the following essential elements:
  • A WWAN modem and a WLAN modem;
  • A non-transient memory to store a differential traffic control policy list distinguishing between a first and second group of applications/services, and a differential traffic control policy applicable to the first group;
  • An interface to allow a user to augment the policy for the first group but not for the second group;
  • One or more processors configured to:
    • classify the connected wireless network type;
    • classify whether an application is interacting with the user in the foreground; and
    • selectively allow or deny internet service activities based on whether the application is in the first group, the policy, any user augmentation, and the classifications performed.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Google devices (e.g., phones, tablets, wearables) that use specific Android operating system features known as Battery Saver, Doze Mode, App Standby, and Data Saver (collectively, "Android Features at Issue") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are software features developed by Google and incorporated into its Android operating system, which is used on a vast number of mobile devices worldwide (Compl. ¶¶2, 10, 35, 38). These features are designed to conserve battery life and reduce data consumption by restricting network access and processing for applications, particularly when the device is idle or when a user has enabled a data-saving mode (Compl. ¶2). The complaint positions these features as being accused by Headwater in prior litigations against cellular carriers (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

This is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The "allegations" below are Google's summary of the non-infringement positions it asserts against Headwater's claims.

'541 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[Dependent Claim 79 recites] the policy comprises at least assist in intercepting a stack application programming interface (API) level or application messaging layer request.	The complaint asserts that Google devices that use the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶49	col. 117:79-81
...determine at least an aspect of a policy based on a user input obtained through a user interface of the wireless end-user device or based on information from a network element...	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶49	col. 110:23-29
...if it is determined that the service usage activity is the background activity, apply the policy.	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶49	col. 110:30-32

'613 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a differential traffic control policy applicable to at least some Internet service activities by or on behalf of the first one or more applications	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶56	col. 105:65-67
an interface to allow a user to augment the differential traffic control policy for the first one or more applications but not for the second one or more applications and/or services	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶56	col. 106:1-5
classify whether a particular application...is interacting with the user in the device user interface foreground	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶56	col. 106:15-19
[Dependent Claim 12 recites] receive an update to at least a portion of the differential traffic control policy list from a network element.	The complaint asserts that the Android Features at Issue do not meet or embody this limitation.	¶56	col. 106:58-61

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The non-infringement arguments raise the question of whether Android's power and data-saving functionalities, which allow users to exempt certain apps from restrictions (e.g., "whitelisting"), constitute the claimed "interface to allow a user to augment the differential traffic control policy for the first one or more applications but not for the second."
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the mechanism by which Android's Doze Mode or Data Saver restricts background data constitutes "applying a policy" by "intercepting a stack application programming interface (API) level...request" as required by Claim 79 of the ’541 Patent. Another question is whether the accused Android features "receive an update to...the differential traffic control policy list from a network element" as recited in Claim 12 of the ’613 Patent, or if the policies are determined entirely on the device.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "background activity" (’541 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The entire control scheme of the ’541 Patent is triggered by determining that a "service usage activity" is a "background activity." The definition of this term is fundamental to infringement, as it defines the scope of activities subject to the claimed policy application. Practitioners may focus on this term because Android has its own technical definitions for background processes (e.g., Doze mode, App Standby) which may or may not align with the patent's definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad functional definition, stating that background services can include a wide array of activities such as "a software update...an OS function connection, a device backup connection, an RSS feed connection," and many others not actively engaged by the user (’541 Patent, col. 19:15-26).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims contrast "background activity" with foreground activity, where an application is "interacting with the user in a user interface foreground" (’613 Patent, Claim 1, col. 106:15-19). This could support a narrower definition limited to activities that occur when no part of the application's UI is visible or actively being used.

• The Term: "interface to allow a user to augment the differential traffic control policy" (’613 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because Google's non-infringement argument relies on the assertion that its features do not embody this limitation (Compl. ¶56). The case may turn on whether Android's user-facing controls, which allow users to exempt specific applications from data-saving or battery-saving restrictions, meet this definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to strictly define the "interface," which could support an argument that any user-accessible setting that modifies how a policy is applied to an application (such as a whitelist) qualifies as the claimed interface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "augment" may be construed to mean adding to or modifying the substance of the policy itself (e.g., changing rules), rather than simply creating an exception for a specific application. The claim's structure, which prevents augmentation for a "second one or more applications," suggests a structured policy list where user control is circumscribed in a specific way that may differ from Android's implementation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Google seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not induce or contributorily infringe (Compl., Prayer for Relief). The basis for this arises from Headwater's prior allegations against carriers, which Google argues constitutes a threat of an indirect infringement claim against Google itself, premised on end-users operating the accused Android devices (Compl. ¶¶2, 6, 13).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This declaratory judgment action will likely center on two key issues for the court's determination:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the user's ability to exempt ("whitelist") certain applications from Android's "Battery Saver" or "Data Saver" restrictions constitute an "interface to allow a user to augment the differential traffic control policy for the first one or more applications but not for the second," as claimed in the ’613 patent? The outcome may depend on whether "augment" is interpreted as simply creating an exception or as modifying the underlying policy rules themselves.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Do the mechanisms within Android's "Doze Mode" and "App Standby" that restrict network access for background apps function by "intercepting a stack application programming interface (API) level...request," as specified in the asserted dependent claim of the ’541 patent? The analysis will require a detailed comparison of Android's internal architecture against the specific implementation details described and claimed in the patent.