Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00686, E.D. Tex., 07/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because T-Mobile resides in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district, supported by its operation of cellular base stations, retail stores, and network coverage.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular networks, servers, and associated eSIM-enabled devices infringe five patents related to wireless communications technology, service provisioning, and security.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for managing device services, security, and billing in wireless networks, a domain of increasing importance due to the explosive growth of mobile data consumption driven by smartphones.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the Asserted Patents, related IPR proceedings, or a prior licensing relationship between the parties.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,797,908 - Automated device provisioning and activation

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,797,908, titled Automated device provisioning and activation, issued August 5, 2014 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a communication system and method for a device to obtain a service policy from a management entity, which can then be used to control traffic associated with available service activities on the device (’908 Patent, Abstract). The complaint frames the broader problem as the explosion in mobile data demand since 2011, creating a need for more sophisticated network management (Compl. ¶12-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for a device to communicate with a network system to obtain a classification policy and a control policy. These policies are used to identify traffic associated with different services on the device and then control that traffic, for example, by allowing or blocking it based on the established rules (’908 Patent, Abstract, col. 8:1-12). This allows for device-assisted enforcement of service plans.
• Technical Importance: This device-centric approach to service management enables more granular control over data usage at a time when carriers faced immense network strain from rapidly growing smartphone adoption (Compl. ¶11-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Obtaining, from a device-group management entity, a first device-group service policy applicable to a first device-group managed in part by the device-group management entity
  • Identifying first traffic associated with one or more available service activities within the data traffic
  • Controlling at least a portion of the first traffic associated with the one or more available service activities, based at least in part on a portion of the first policy
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’908 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,706,061 - Service design center for device assisted services

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,706,061, titled Service design center for device assisted services, issued July 11, 2017 (Compl. ¶17).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a more flexible and modular way to create and provision network service plans, moving beyond cumbersome, monolithic plan creation processes (Compl. ¶48; ’061 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "service design center" that allows a network operator or other entity to build service plans from modular components, such as filters, charging policies, and notification rules. This sandbox-like system enables the customized creation and provisioning of diverse service offerings that can be deployed to end-user devices (’061 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows carriers to more rapidly design, test, and deploy a wide variety of customized service plans, enabling more flexible business models to meet diverse consumer demands and manage network resources (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Accepting user input defining an event associated with the use of a wireless access network
  • Accepting user input specifying a plurality of service policies (access, accounting, notification)
  • Creating a service plan definition based on the event and policies
  • Automatically translating the plan definition into instructions for policy implementation elements to implement the policies when the event is detected
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’061 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,028,144 - Security techniques for device assisted services

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,028,144, titled Security techniques for device assisted services, issued July 17, 2018 (Compl. ¶18).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes security techniques for on-device service management. The solution involves partitioning a device’s software into multiple execution environments, including a separate "protected execution partition" for agents that measure and control network traffic, thereby isolating them from potential hacking or malware in the main application environment (’144 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses T-Mobile's networks, servers, and eSIM-enabled devices of infringement (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 10,080,250 - Enterprise access control and accounting allocation for access networks

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,080,250, titled Enterprise access control and accounting allocation for access networks, issued September 18, 2018 (Compl. ¶19).
• Technology Synopsis: The technology provides for enterprise and consumer billing allocation for a device's service usage. It involves monitoring a service activity on a wireless device and determining how to allocate the billing for that usage between an enterprise account and a consumer account, which can be configured through a "service design center" (’250 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses T-Mobile's networks, servers, and services that provide both consumer and enterprise accounts of infringement (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,177 - Device group partitions and settlement platform

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,779,177, titled Device group partitions and settlement platform, issued September 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶20).
• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a "settlement platform" that processes usage data for groups of devices. The platform aggregates service usage information and facilitates billing allocation or revenue sharing among multiple partners, such as for devices associated with different service plans or business partners (’177 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶80).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses T-Mobile's networks, servers, and services, particularly those related to group plans and partner arrangements, of infringement (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are T-Mobile's cellular networks, servers, and services, including its eSIM provisioning and management systems (e.g., SM-DP+, SM-DP, RSP), and the eSIM-enabled devices that operate on its network, such as mobile phones, tablets, wearables, and IoT devices (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these components collectively provide cellular connectivity and services to a subscriber base of approximately 110 million as of Q4 2021 (Compl. ¶25, 32). The functionality includes provisioning device credentials (especially for eSIMs), managing service plans, and controlling network access for end-user devices operating on T-Mobile's network (Compl. ¶25). The complaint provides a coverage map for its 5G and 4G networks as evidence of its business presence and acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. p. 10, fig. at ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 6-10 that allegedly detail infringement of each asserted patent; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

• '908 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's systems for provisioning and activating devices, including eSIM-enabled devices, on its cellular network directly and indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’908 Patent. The narrative suggests that T-Mobile’s network acts as the "device-group management entity" that provides service and control policies to devices, which in turn identify and control data traffic according to the user's service plan (Compl. ¶39-40).

• '061 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's use of a "service design center" or equivalent back-end system to create, define, and provision cellular service plans infringes at least claim 1 of the ’061 Patent. The theory posits that T-Mobile's internal platforms for designing service offerings—which define access rules, accounting, and notifications—perform the steps of the patented method (Compl. ¶49-50).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue for the '908 Patent may be whether T-Mobile's standard network signaling and device configuration processes constitute "obtaining" a "device-group service policy" as specifically required by the claim, or if the claim requires a more distinct, device-initiated policy-fetching mechanism. For the '061 Patent, a question is whether T-Mobile's potentially distributed set of internal service-creation tools collectively meets the limitations of the claimed "service design center."
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be mapping the specific operational steps of T-Mobile's eSIM provisioning and management (e.g., the functions of its SM-DP+ and RSP servers) onto the method steps recited in claim 1 of the '908 patent (Compl. ¶25, 40).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "protected execution partition" (from asserted claim 1 of the '144 Patent)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis of the '144 Patent. The patent’s alleged novelty lies in using a secure, isolated software environment to protect service management agents. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a specific hardware-enforced security feature (like ARM TrustZone) or if it can be read more broadly to cover software-based virtualization or containerization techniques that may be present in the accused devices' operating systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention can be implemented in "numerous ways," including as a "process" or "system," and notes that a protected partition can be supported by "certain configurations in the host" or "OS software functions" (’144 Patent, col. 5:7-16, 6:11-24). This language may support an interpretation that is not strictly limited to a specific hardware implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract distinguishes between an "application execution partition," a "kernel execution partition," and a "separate protected execution partition," suggesting a distinct, architecturally separate environment (’144 Patent, Abstract). Figure 1 shows the "PROTECTED DEVICE ASSISTED SERVICE EXECUTION PARTITION" (114) as a separate box, distinct from the application and kernel partitions, which could support a narrower construction requiring architectural separation (’144 Patent, Fig. 1).

• The Term: "enterprise and consumer billing allocation" (from asserted claim 1 of the '250 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining whether T-Mobile's standard business and family/group plans fall within the scope of the '250 patent. The dispute may turn on whether "enterprise and consumer" requires a formal corporate account and a separate consumer account for the same device, or if it can cover any scenario where service costs for a group of users are split between a primary account holder and individual users.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims and specification refer generally to allocating "service usage activities," a broad concept. The patent aims to solve the general problem of allocating costs for devices that may have dual-use (personal and business) contexts, a problem that exists in many shared-cost scenarios beyond formal enterprise accounts (’250 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:48-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The title and abstract repeatedly use the term "enterprise," and the figures explicitly depict an "Enterprise Network" and "Enterprise Service Design Center" separate from consumer-facing elements (’250 Patent, Fig. 1, Abstract). This may suggest the invention is limited to formal corporate environments where a business entity is a party to the service plan.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all five patents. The allegations are based on T-Mobile providing the accused devices and network services to its customers along with "information and instructions on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities," thereby allegedly encouraging and intending for its customers to perform infringing acts (e.g., Compl. ¶42-43, 52-53).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it alleges for each patent that Defendants have had "knowledge of the [asserted] patent and the infringing nature of the Accused Instrumentalities through at least the filing and service of this Complaint" and continue their allegedly infringing activities despite this knowledge (e.g., Compl. ¶41-42, 51-52). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the specific, partitioned software structures described in the patents, such as the "protected execution partition" of the '144 patent and the modular "service design center" of the '061 patent, be found in the complex, distributed, and potentially vendor-supplied components of T-Mobile's nationwide cellular network and eSIM management systems?
• A key question of definitional scope will be whether terms like "enterprise" ('250 Patent) and "device group" ('177 Patent) are limited to formal corporate or multi-partner settlement platforms, or if they can be construed broadly enough to read on T-Mobile's common consumer-facing offerings, such as family plans or standard business accounts.