DCT
2:25-cv-00711
Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility, LLC and AT&T Enterprises LLC (Delaware, Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00711, E.D. Tex., 07/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because AT&T resides in the district, has committed acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district, including operating cellular base stations and selling mobile devices and services.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile devices, cellular networks, servers, and related services infringe two patents related to secure and efficient management of data communications between applications on a mobile device and a network.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the growing demand for mobile data by creating a managed, secure communication layer between mobile devices and network servers to control how individual applications consume network resources.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, asserting that AT&T was made aware of the pending patent applications that matured into the patents-in-suit during a series of meetings and presentations under a non-disclosure agreement with Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, ItsOn, between 2009 and 2011. Plaintiff alleges AT&T subsequently developed its own internal software agent based on the technology disclosed in those meetings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-01-20 | ItsOn (Plaintiff's predecessor) and AT&T enter into an NDA and meet to discuss technology |
| 2009-03-02 | Earliest priority date for '403 and '564 Patents |
| 2009-07-07 | ItsOn provides AT&T with information on its pending patents |
| 2009-07 | ItsOn provides detailed presentations on its technology to AT&T |
| 2010-05-03 | Date of an internal AT&T presentation allegedly proposing a replacement for ItsOn's solution |
| 2011 | Headwater Research LLC is formed |
| 2011-06 | ItsOn receives a copy of the May 3, 2010 AT&T presentation |
| 2011-08 | ItsOn and AT&T meet again to discuss solutions |
| 2016-01-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403 issues |
| 2016-11-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564 issues |
| 2025-07-11 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403 - "Mobile device with common secure wireless message service serving multiple applications"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As wireless data usage grows, networks become congested, and the cost of providing service increases. The patent identifies a need for a system to more efficiently manage a device's use of network resources to control costs and improve performance ('403 Patent, col. 2:33-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention places a software "device messaging agent" on a mobile device. This agent establishes a secure, managed communication channel with a "network message server." It intercepts data requests from various applications on the phone, identifies which application the data is for, and uses a "secure interprocess communication service" to route messages to the correct application. This architecture allows a network operator to centrally control and policy-manage data traffic for individual applications on the device ('403 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 16).
- Technical Importance: This approach shifts some network management intelligence from the core network to the end-user device itself, allowing for more granular, application-specific control over data consumption and service delivery ('403 Patent, col. 5:40-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 ('403 Patent, col. 163:23-53; Compl. ¶55).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A mobile end-user device with a WWAN modem.
- A "device messaging agent" that receives secure data messages from a network server for multiple software applications.
- The messages must identify the corresponding software application.
- A "secure interprocess communication service" that the agent uses to map and forward the application data to the correct software process on the device.
- The complaint notes that Exhibits 3 and 4 provide charts for claim 1, but these exhibits are not attached to the complaint as filed (Compl. ¶55).
U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564 - "Mobile device and method with secure network messaging for authorized components"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to provide flexible and efficient management of network services, particularly by ensuring that communications on the device are secure and limited to "authorized components" ('564 Patent, col. 5:58-6:11). This prevents unauthorized software from consuming resources or compromising the device.
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "device link agent" that creates a "secure communication bus" within the mobile device. Before software components can use this bus to communicate, they must be identified by "access authorization information" received from a secure server. The device link agent maintains a secure link to a "message link server" in the network, receives messages intended for different applications, and securely routes them over the internal bus only to the authorized components ('564 Patent, Abstract; col. 42:1-40).
- Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for creating a trusted execution environment on a mobile device, where a network operator can ensure that only vetted software components are communicating through the network, enhancing both security and resource management ('564 Patent, col. 42:41-57).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 ('564 Patent, col. 167:12-168:5; Compl. ¶67).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A mobile end-user device with a wireless modem.
- A "device link agent" that provides secure communication for a plurality of software components.
- This secure communication requires receiving "security authorization information" from a secure server and allowing bus access only to authorized components.
- The agent maintains a secure link to a "message link server" and routes received messages to the appropriate software components via an "inter-process software communication bus."
- The complaint notes that Exhibits 5 and 6 provide charts for claim 1, but these exhibits are not attached to the complaint as filed (Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Accused Instrumentalities" are broadly defined as "mobile electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablets... as well as cellular networks, servers, and services" supplied by AT&T (Compl. ¶1, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these instrumentalities function as an integrated system to manage data traffic, reduce network congestion, and improve network reliability (Compl. ¶1, 26). This system includes AT&T's 4G and 5G cellular networks, the servers that operate them, and the mobile devices sold to consumers for use on those networks (Compl. ¶46-47).
- The complaint emphasizes the commercial importance of this functionality, citing AT&T’s advertisements that it operates the "fastest and most reliable mobile carrier network in the U.S." (Compl. ¶1). The complaint provides a screenshot of an AT&T wireless coverage map for Marshall, Texas, to support its allegation that AT&T provides 5G and 4G LTE services in the district (Compl. p. 12).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6, which allegedly contain detailed claim charts (Compl. ¶55, 67). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations within the body of the complaint.
’403 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mobile end-user device comprising: a wireless wide-area network (WWAN) modem for communication with a first network; | AT&T sells and supplies mobile electronic devices, including phones and tablets with WWAN modems, that operate on its cellular networks. | ¶38, 47 | col. 29:43-51 |
| a device messaging agent to receive secure inter data messages, on behalf of a plurality of software applications, from a network message server via the WWAN... | The complaint alleges AT&T’s devices and services include features and functionalities that infringe, which would necessarily include software agents communicating with network servers. | ¶31, 54 | col. 41:20-40 |
| ...wherein at least a subset of the secure inter data messages identifies a corresponding one of the software applications and application data; | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element, but direct infringement is alleged generally. | ¶54 | col. 163:38-42 |
| a secure interprocess communication service, wherein the device messaging agent maps the identification of the secure inter data messages...to forward the application data...to a software process corresponding to the identified software application. | The complaint alleges AT&T’s devices contain infringing functionalities, which would require a service for routing data to specific applications. | ¶31, 54 | col. 42:1-20 |
’564 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A mobile end-user device comprising: a wireless modem to exchange data via a network; | AT&T sells and supplies mobile electronic devices with wireless modems for use on its networks. | ¶38, 47 | col. 29:30-36 |
| a device link agent configured to provide secure communication between an executing device link agent and respective executing processes for a plurality of software components... | The complaint alleges AT&T’s devices and services contain infringing functionalities, which would necessarily include software agents managing communications. | ¶31, 66 | col. 41:58-67 |
| ...wherein providing secure communication includes receiving security authorization information from a secure server, and allowing one or more of the software components to access the bus only for software components identified by the access authorization information; | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element, but direct infringement is alleged generally. | ¶66 | col. 42:21-40 |
| the device link agent configured to...receive secure messages from the message link server...and...route the received messages to a given one of those software components via the inter-process software communication bus... | The complaint alleges AT&T provides services that include features and functionalities which infringe, implying the presence of a system for routing messages from the network to device components. | ¶31, 66 | col. 167:38-168:5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific technical details mapping AT&T's products to the claim elements. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence through discovery that AT&T’s devices and networks actually contain a "device messaging agent," "secure interprocess communication service," and "secure communication bus" that operate in the specific manner claimed, as opposed to using generic operating system functionalities.
- Scope Questions: The claims recite specific software components like a "device messaging agent." The court may need to determine if these terms require a single, distinct software module as depicted in the patent figures or if their functions can be met by a combination of disparate processes within the mobile device's operating system and network infrastructure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "device messaging agent" ('403 Patent) / "device link agent" ('564 Patent)
Context and Importance: These terms define the core software component on the mobile device. The infringement analysis will depend on whether this "agent" must be a specific, non-conventional piece of software installed on the device (as Headwater may argue) or if it can be interpreted to cover the collective functions of standard operating system components and network drivers (as AT&T may argue).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the agent in functional terms as a component that performs tasks like receiving and forwarding messages, which could support an argument that any software architecture performing these functions meets the limitation ('403 Patent, col. 5:28-39).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed diagrams, such as Figure 16, that depict the agent as a distinct component within a specific "Service Processor" (115) architecture, communicating over a dedicated "Agent Communication Bus" (1630). This suggests the "agent" is part of an integrated, non-generic system ('403 Patent, Fig. 16; col. 37:1-9).
The Term: "secure interprocess communication service" ('403 Patent) / "secure communication bus" ('564 Patent)
Context and Importance: These terms are central to how security is implemented on the device. Their construction will determine the required level of security and structure. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires more than standard, secure OS-level inter-process communication (IPC) and if a "bus" implies a specific software architecture for one-to-many communication.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use functional language, and the specification notes that the functions can be implemented in software, potentially covering various secure IPC mechanisms ('403 Patent, col. 27:3-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "agent communication bus" as enabling secure, point-to-multipoint communication between specific, authorized agents and suggests the use of shared keys and session-based encryption, which could support a narrower construction requiring a specific security protocol beyond generic IPC ('403 Patent, col. 42:21-57; '564 Patent, col. 42:1-12).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that AT&T induces infringement by actively encouraging and instructing its customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶57, 59, 71).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on AT&T’s purported pre-suit knowledge of the technology and the pending patent applications that led to the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges that this knowledge was gained through a series of meetings and disclosures under an NDA with Plaintiff's predecessor, ItsOn, between 2009 and 2011 (Compl. ¶17-23, 56, 68). The complaint further alleges that an internal AT&T presentation from 2010 proposed developing a "replacement for the solutions offered to AT&T and disclosed by ItsOn" (Compl. ¶28).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- History vs. Technical Proof: A foundational issue will be whether the compelling narrative of prior business dealings and alleged copying can overcome the lack of specific technical evidence in the complaint. The case may test how much weight is given to allegations of a defendant’s state of mind when the corresponding technical proof of infringement is not detailed at the pleading stage.
- The "Agent" Architecture: The dispute will likely center on claim construction. The key question for the court will be one of definitional scope: do the terms "device messaging agent" and "secure communication bus" require a specific, integrated software architecture as depicted in the patents, or can they be construed to cover the distributed, conventional functions of a modern mobile operating system and its interaction with a cellular network?
- System-Level Infringement: A central evidentiary challenge for Headwater will be to demonstrate that AT&T, as a single entity, "makes," "uses," or "sells" the entire claimed system, which comprises both a device-side agent and a network-side server. The court may need to analyze whether AT&T's control over its network and the devices it provisions for that network is sufficient to establish liability for direct infringement of the complete system claim.