DCT

2:25-cv-00907

Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00907, E.D. Tex., 08/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district and have committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that mobile electronic devices sold by Defendants and operating on their networks infringe three patents related to managing wireless data usage and network access.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of mobile data traffic and service access on end-user devices, a critical area given the exponential growth in data consumption on wireless networks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor, Dr. Gregory Raleigh, founded and sold two influential wireless technology companies, Clarity Wireless (to Cisco) and Airgo Networks (to Qualcomm), and also founded ItsOn Inc., which licensed the asserted intellectual property. This history is presented to establish the significance and commercial adoption of the underlying technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’364, ’976, and ’918 Patents
2014-03-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364 Issues
2015-09-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,143,976 Issues
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918 Issues
2025-08-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364 - Verifiable device assisted service usage billing with integrated accounting, mediation accounting, and multi-account

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364, "Verifiable device assisted service usage billing with integrated accounting, mediation accounting, and multi-account," issued March 4, 2014 (the "’364 Patent"). (Compl. ¶17).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes that as digital communications become mainstream, wireless and wireline networks are "pressed for user capacity," and the associated costs for service providers increase with bandwidth demand. (’364 Patent, col. 1:35-57). This creates a need for more efficient management of network resources and service delivery.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "device assisted" service architecture where a software "service processor" on the end-user device communicates with a "service controller" in the network. (’364 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:15-28). This on-device processor monitors service usage, enforces policies, and reports data back to the network, enabling more granular and verifiable control over how network services are consumed and billed, rather than relying solely on network-based monitoring. (’364 Patent, col. 6:15-40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more flexible service plan offerings and more efficient use of network capacity by moving some control intelligence to the edge of the network—the device itself. (Compl. ¶¶14-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶37).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A wireless device with one or more processors enabling communication over at least two wireless networks, and a user interface.
    • The device is configured with a "first service policy" associated with a first wireless network.
    • This policy is for controlling a "first service activity" on the device.
    • The processors execute one or more "agents" that communicate with a software component to get user input via the user interface.
    • The device is configured to identify its connection to the first wireless network, identify a data communication associated with the first service activity, and apply the first service policy. (’364 Patent, col. 162:1-163:4).

U.S. Patent No. 9,143,976 - Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access and access status for background and foreground device applications

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,143,976, "Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access and access status for background and foreground device applications," issued September 22, 2015 (the "’976 Patent"). (Compl. ¶18).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a "network capacity crunch" driven by the proliferation of smart devices and applications that are not optimized to preserve network capacity, particularly through background processes that consume resources. (’976 Patent, col. 3:25-4:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wireless device with both WWAN and WLAN modems that can classify whether an application is interacting with a user in the "foreground" or operating in the "background." (’976 Patent, Abstract). The device then applies a "differential traffic control policy" to selectively disallow network access for applications classified as being in the background, particularly over the WWAN. It also uses an Application Programming Interface (API) to inform the application of its network access status. (Id.).
  • Technical Importance: This foreground/background differentiation provides a mechanism to conserve scarce wireless network capacity by limiting data consumption from non-user-facing tasks, which is a key strategy for managing data-hungry smartphones on modern cellular networks. (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶48).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • A wireless end-user device with a WWAN modem and a WLAN modem.
    • One or more processors configured to classify when a first application is interacting in the "device display foreground with a user."
    • When communicating over the WWAN modem, the processors apply a "first differential traffic control policy" that "disallow[s]" Internet service activity for the application when it is classified as not interacting in the foreground.
    • The processors indicate network access conditions to the application via an API based on the applied policy. (’976 Patent, col. 106:1-65).

U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918 - Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918, "Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application," issued May 9, 2017 (the "’918 Patent"). (Compl. ¶19).
  • The Invention Explained: This patent addresses the technical challenge of correctly attributing network data usage to the specific application that initiated it, particularly when a separate media service, proxy, or system-level function handles the actual data transfer. The patented solution uses application programming interfaces (APIs) to ensure that data transfers managed by a media service are properly associated with the original requesting application for purposes of accounting and policy enforcement. (’918 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities as a whole infringe the ’918 Patent by performing the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶58-59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The Accused Instrumentalities are "mobile electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablets," that are sold or imported by DISH and operate on its networks, such as through its MVNOs Boost Mobile and Ting Mobile. (Compl. ¶1).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these devices possess functionalities that manage data usage and network access to "reduce data usage and network congestion, extend battery life by decreasing power consumption, and enable users to stay connected." (Compl. ¶15). It does not detail the specific technical implementation of these features in the accused devices. The complaint contextualizes the devices' market importance by referencing the explosive growth in mobile data demand, which creates the need for the patented technologies. The complaint provides a chart from an Ericsson Mobility Report illustrating the dramatic increase in mobile data traffic from 2011 to a projected level in 2027. (Compl. p. 6). It also includes a screenshot of a Boost Mobile coverage map for Marshall, Texas, which serves as an example of Defendants advertising the network on which the accused devices operate. (Compl. p. 10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 4-9) that are not provided with the filing; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • ’364 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that DISH's mobile devices directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’364 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶36-37). The narrative theory suggests that the accused devices embody the claimed "wireless device," and that their operating systems and software perform the functions of the claimed "agents" and "software component." (Compl. ¶¶1, 15). The infringement theory relies on mapping the device's standard network management functions—such as connecting to a network, handling data for an application, and applying data usage rules—to the specific "service policy" and "service activity" limitations of the claim. (Compl. ¶¶15, 36).
  • ’976 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the accused devices directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’976 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶47-48). The core of the allegation is that the devices' software can differentiate between applications operating in the "foreground" (active user interaction) and those in the "background." (Compl. ¶15). The infringement theory posits that when on a cellular (WWAN) network, the devices implement a "differential traffic control policy" that "disallow[s]" data access for background applications to conserve data, and that an API is used to communicate this access status to the applications themselves. (Compl. ¶¶15, 47).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’364 Patent, a potential issue is whether the general network management software on a standard smartphone constitutes the specific "agent"-based architecture described in the patent, or if the claim requires a more distinct, modular software structure. For the ’976 Patent, a central question may be the proper construction of "disallowed"—whether it requires a complete block of data access, or if it can read on modern data-saving techniques like throttling, delaying, or batching background data transfers.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the ’976 Patent is what proof exists that the accused devices use an "API" to specifically communicate network access status based on the foreground/background classification, as required by the claim, rather than a generic network availability API. For the ’364 Patent, a question is what evidence supports the "verifiable" aspect of the invention, as the complaint's infringement theory focuses more on the device-side control elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "software component associated with the first service activity" (’364 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement case for the ’364 Patent appears to depend on mapping this term to general operating system functions on the accused devices. The term's construction will be critical in determining whether a specific, dedicated software module is required to meet the claim limitation, or if a general-purpose OS function that manages any given "service activity" suffices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests that the "service processor" and its agents can be implemented in software in a variety of ways, including as part of an operating system, which may support an argument that a general OS component can be the claimed "software component." (’364 Patent, col. 27:3-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent, such as Figure 16, depict the various agents as distinct functional blocks within the "Service Processor." This could support a narrower construction requiring a more discrete and identifiable software module than a diffuse, general-purpose OS function.
  • The Term: "disallowed" (’976 Patent, claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the ’976 Patent may depend on this term's scope. If construed narrowly to mean a complete and permanent block of data, it may not read on common power-saving modes that merely delay or de-prioritize background data. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be case-dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes a wide range of "traffic control" techniques, including throttling and delaying, under the broader umbrella of managing network capacity. This context may support interpreting "disallowed" as encompassing any of a number of restrictive actions, not just a complete block. (’976 Patent, col. 42:5-43:68).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "disallow" implies a prohibition. The patent's abstract uses the parallel term "selectively block," which could be argued to connote a complete stoppage. (’976 Patent, Abstract). A defendant may argue that if a background data transfer is merely delayed but ultimately completes, it was not "disallowed."

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis is the allegation that Defendants provide instructions and user manuals that "actively encourage and instruct their customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways that directly infringe." (Compl. ¶¶39, 50, 61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge acquired at least as of the filing of the suit. (Compl. ¶¶40, 51, 62). It also alleges pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness by asserting that patents assigned to the Defendants cite to family members of the asserted patents, suggesting Defendants' awareness of the patented technology. (Compl. ¶¶38, 49, 60).

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

This dispute will likely center on the following key questions for the court:

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the specific, modular "agent"-based architecture of the ’364 Patent be found in the integrated operating systems of modern smartphones, or does the claim language require a more distinct software structure than what is present in the accused devices?
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "disallowed" in the ’976 Patent require a complete prohibition of background data traffic, or can it be construed more broadly to cover the data-saving techniques of delaying, throttling, or de-prioritizing such traffic, as is common in the accused products?
  • For willfulness, an evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's alleged awareness of related patents in the field is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness regarding the specific infringement alleged in this case.