Headwater Partners II LLC v. Cellco Partnership

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Headwater Partners II LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Delaware), and Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00007, E.D. Tex., 01/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Verizon resides in the District, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 4G LTE and 5G network infrastructure and services infringe two patents related to wireless communications technology, specifically concerning link quality estimation and the use of user equipment for network backhaul.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing and optimizing modern wireless networks to handle ever-increasing data demands efficiently.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history events related to the asserted patents. The complaint notes that on March 11, 2025, the patent owner disclaimed claims 1-10 and 16-34 of the ’868 patent, which includes the asserted independent claim 1. The significance of this post-filing disclaimer on the present action raises a procedural question for the court.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2012-10-15	Earliest Priority Date for ’868 and ’502 Patents
2015-07-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868 Issues
2016-08-09	U.S. Patent No. 9,413,502 Issues
2024-01-05	Complaint Filed
2025-03-11	Plaintiff files disclaimer for claims of the ’868 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868, titled "User equipment link quality estimation based on positioning," issued on July 28, 2015.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless networks, the quality of the connection (link quality) between a user device (user equipment or UE) and a base station can change dramatically over time and space due to factors like user movement, physical obstructions (buildings, trees), and interference. Continuously sending link quality updates from the UE to the base station to adapt transmissions is resource-intensive and the information can quickly become outdated. (’868 Patent, col. 1:19-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a predictive system. It involves determining and storing a history of link qualities for a UE at various positions (which can include location and orientation). The system then estimates a future position of the UE and uses the stored historical data to estimate the link quality at that predicted future position. This allows the network to anticipate changes in link quality rather than simply reacting to them. (’868 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-54).
• Technical Importance: By forecasting link quality, this technology enables more efficient and proactive network management, potentially improving reliability and data rates by allocating resources based on predicted needs. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Determining a plurality of link qualities (LQs) of a user equipment (UE) for a plurality of its positionings (including location or orientation).
  • Storing information associated with the LQs for those positionings.
  • Estimating at least one future positioning of the UE.
  • Estimating a future link quality of the UE at that future positioning based on the stored information.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,413,502

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,413,502, titled "Backhaul assisted by user equipment," issued on August 9, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Expanding a cellular network requires connecting new base stations to the core network, a process known as backhaul. Traditional backhaul methods, like laying fiber optic cables or installing point-to-point microwave links, can be expensive, slow to deploy, and sometimes physically impractical. (’502 Patent, col. 1:19-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a base station can use a network of "backhaul user equipment" (bUE) devices to provide its backhaul connection. The base station selects one or more of these bUE devices, which have their own connection to a data network, to route traffic for other user equipment (UE). This creates a flexible, equipment-assisted backhaul network. (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-67).
• Technical Importance: This approach offers a more dynamic and potentially lower-cost method for network backhaul, which could accelerate the deployment of small cells and increase network density and capacity. (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with a base station (BS) and a plurality of backhaul user equipment (bUE) devices.
  • Each bUE is capable of wirelessly communicating with the BS and also communicating with a data network.
  • The BS is operative to connect other user equipment (UE) devices to the data network through one or more of the bUE devices.
  • The BS selects which bUE devices to use for backhaul traffic.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Verizon’s "4G LTE and 5G base stations, nodes, and related network equipment and services" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint specifies that these include cellular base stations from manufacturers such as Samsung, Ericsson, and/or Nokia (Compl. ¶¶33, 41).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products constitute the core infrastructure of Verizon's national 4G and 5G wireless networks, which provide mobile data services to customers (Compl. ¶¶25, 27). The complaint specifically highlights two advanced 5G technologies as infringing: "5G NR adaptive beamforming" is accused of infringing the ’868 patent, and "5G NR Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB)" is accused of infringing the ’502 patent (Compl. ¶¶33, 41). The complaint provides a screenshot of Verizon's online coverage map to demonstrate the operation of these networks within the judicial district (Compl. p. 9). This map shows Verizon's advertised 4G LTE and 5G network coverage in Marshall, Texas (Compl. p. 9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4) that would detail its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶33, 41). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

’868 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Verizon's 5G network, through its use of "5G NR adaptive beamforming," practices the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶33). Adaptive beamforming is a technology that focuses wireless signals toward a specific user device to improve signal quality and reduce interference. This infringement theory suggests that, in order to effectively direct these beams, Verizon's equipment must estimate a user's link quality based on its position, thereby practicing the patented method of predicting future link quality based on stored positional data.

’502 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Verizon's 5G network, particularly its support for "5G NR Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB)," infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶41). IAB is a feature where network nodes, such as small cells or other base stations, use a wireless connection instead of a physical cable for backhaul. The infringement theory suggests that these network nodes, when used for backhaul, function as the claimed "backhaul user equipment (bUE)," thereby creating the patented system.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions (’868 Patent): A central technical question will be whether the accused "adaptive beamforming" technology operates by performing the specific steps of claim 1: storing historical link quality data across multiple positions, estimating a future position, and then estimating a future link quality based on that stored history. The case may turn on evidence showing whether the accused systems are predictive in this manner or if they rely on different methods, such as reacting to real-time channel state feedback without a predictive, historical component.
  • Scope Questions (’502 Patent): The dispute may focus on whether a dedicated piece of network infrastructure, such as a 5G base station or node performing IAB, falls within the scope of the term "backhaul user equipment (bUE)." The patent specification describes bUEs as potentially including mobile terminals and consumer premises equipment, raising the question of whether the term can be construed to cover dedicated network nodes that are part of the carrier's infrastructure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "backhaul user equipment (bUE)" (from ’502 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement allegation against Verizon's IAB technology. The case hinges on whether a 5G network node used for backhaul is properly classified as a "bUE." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples appear different from the accused IAB nodes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a bUE "includes one or more of a fixed client terminal, mobile terminal, a user terminal, an access terminal, a consumer premises equipment" (’502 Patent, col. 5:20-23). This list could be argued as exemplary, not exhaustive, potentially allowing for a network node to be included if it performs the claimed function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict bUEs as devices separate from the primary base station tower, resembling consumer devices like smartphones (e.g., UE 212) or dedicated modem-like boxes (e.g., bUE 210, 211) (’502 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an interpretation that a "bUE" is distinct from a base station or integrated network node.

• The Term: "estimating a future link quality... based on the stored information" (from ’868 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term captures the core predictive nature of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused beamforming systems actually perform this estimation step based on a stored history of LQs at different positions, or if they use a non-predictive, reactive mechanism.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's detailed description discusses the estimation process in general terms, without limiting it to a single algorithm, stating a controller is "operative to... estimate a future link quality (LQ) of the UE... based on the stored information" (’868 Patent, col. 2:49-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where the estimation is based on a "UE positioning path" or "trajectory" (’868 Patent, col. 30:60-67; Fig. 10). This may suggest the "estimating" step requires an analysis of movement over time, which may not be present in all beamforming implementations.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. It claims Verizon induces infringement by providing customers, end users, and Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) with user manuals, technical specifications, and online materials that allegedly instruct them to use the accused instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶34, 42).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Verizon has knowledge of the patents and their infringement "[t]hrough at least the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶34, 42). This allegation forms a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

• Definitional Scope: A core issue for the ’502 patent will be one of claim construction: can the term "backhaul user equipment," which the patent illustrates with devices resembling consumer electronics, be construed to cover a dedicated 5G network node performing Integrated Access Backhaul as part of the carrier's infrastructure?
• Operational Functionality: A key evidentiary question for the ’868 patent will be one of technical operation: does Verizon's accused adaptive beamforming system perform the specific, multi-step predictive method required by claim 1—storing historical link quality data tied to position and using it to estimate a future link quality—or does it function based on a different, non-predictive mechanism?
• Procedural Impact: A threshold question for the ’868 patent claim is what effect, if any, the patent owner's post-filing disclaimer of the asserted claim has on the viability of that count in the ongoing litigation.