Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: DISH Network Corp (Nevada), DISH Network LLC (Colorado), and DISH Wireless LLC D/B/A BOOST MOBILE (Colorado)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00920, E.D. Tex., 10/31/2025
• 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, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and advertise their services, including 5G wireless coverage, within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular networks, services, and associated wireless devices that implement wireless offloading functionalities infringe three patents related to managing how devices switch between cellular and other wireless networks (e.g., Wi-Fi).
• Technical Context: The technology concerns intelligent network selection for mobile devices, a critical function for managing network congestion and service costs in an environment with overlapping cellular and Wi-Fi coverage.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family via a patent marking notice included in software from ItsOn Inc., a company founded by the patents' inventor that licensed and implemented the patented technology. This allegation forms the basis for claims of indirect and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-28	Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents ('335, '471, '757)
2014-01-21	U.S. Patent No. 8,635,335 Issues
2019-03-19	U.S. Patent No. 10,237,757 Issues
2020-09-29	U.S. Patent No. 10,791,471 Issues
2025-10-31	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,635,335 - "System and method for wireless network offloading," Issued January 21, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that when a wireless device is in an area with multiple overlapping wireless networks (e.g., cellular and Wi-Fi), the choice of which network to connect to is often based on simple user selection, which may not be the optimal choice for the given situation (U.S. Patent No. 8,635,335, col. 1:15-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a client-server system for intelligent network selection. A wireless device performs an "available network characterization scan" (ANCS) to measure performance metrics of nearby networks and sends this data in a report to a central "wireless network offloading engine." This engine processes the data to generate and provide an "instruction set" back to the device, which the device then uses to make an intelligent decision about whether to offload from its current network (e.g., cellular) to an alternative one (e.g., Wi-Fi) (’335 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:6-15).
• Technical Importance: This technology centralizes network selection intelligence, allowing a service provider to manage network traffic across numerous devices based on real-time performance data rather than relying on static user preferences or simple signal strength metrics ('335 Patent, col. 11:18-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('335 Patent, col. 33:43-62).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Communicating data over a wireless cellular connection to or from an end user device.
  • Identifying an alternative wireless network.
  • Based on processing an "instruction set for offloading," determining whether to communicate data over the alternative network or the cellular network.
  • The instruction set comprises at least one rule that accounts for at least one "state associated with the wireless cellular connection."

U.S. Patent No. 10,791,471 - "System and method for wireless network offloading," Issued September 29, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with related patents in the family, the technology addresses the challenge of a wireless device selecting the most appropriate network from multiple available options (U.S. Patent No. 10,791,471, col. 1:44-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method performed by a wireless device. The device obtains performance data on alternative networks and sends a "network characterization report" to a network element. Crucially, this report includes both the network performance information and "device-specific information." In response, the device receives customized data from the network element and applies rules involving this data to determine whether to switch networks (’471 Patent, Abstract; col. 33:14-34:41, Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This method enhances network offloading by enabling personalized decisions; the central network element can provide tailored guidance based not only on general network conditions but also on factors specific to the individual device, such as its location, usage history, or applications (’757 Patent, col. 2:9-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('471 Patent, col. 33:14-34:41).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A wireless device identifying alternative wireless networks and obtaining performance data on them.
  • Sending a network characterization report, which includes both the network information and "device-specific information," to a network element.
  • Receiving data from the network element that is responsive to the report and "customized to the wireless device."
  • Applying rules involving the customized data to determine whether to switch networks.
  • Switching from the first wireless network to the particular wireless network in response to the rules.

U.S. Patent No. 10,237,757 - "System and method for wireless network offloading," Issued March 19, 2019

Technology Synopsis

• This patent describes a method for a wireless device to make more informed offloading decisions through empirical testing. The device connects to an available alternative network to conduct an upload and/or download sequence, characterizes the network's performance based on this test, and then uses that characterization to determine whether to switch to that network from its current connection ('757 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

• The complaint asserts "multiple claims," including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶59).

Accused Features

• The complaint alleges that the wireless offloading functionalities of Defendants' mobile devices, networks, and services infringe by performing the patented methods of network characterization and selection (Compl. ¶56, ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "cellular networks, servers, and services that implement wireless offloading functionalities," along with wireless devices operating on those networks, including through MVNOs such as Boost Mobile and Ting Mobile (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products and services support "automatic or policy-driven handover between cellular and Wi-Fi networks" (Compl. ¶2). A screenshot from Defendant’s Boost Mobile website shows a coverage map for Marshall, Texas, indicating the availability of both 4G LTE and 5G services in the district (Compl. ¶25). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific operation of the accused offloading functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which were not provided. The infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

• '335 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Defendants' networks, servers, and devices perform the method of claim 1 by using at least one "state associated with the wireless cellular connection" (e.g., congestion, performance) to process an "instruction set" that determines whether a device should offload traffic to an alternative network like Wi-Fi (Compl. ¶31-32).
• '471 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that devices on Defendants' networks perform the method of claim 1 by gathering performance data on alternative networks, sending a report containing that data plus "device-specific information" to a network element (e.g., a DISH server), receiving "customized" data in response, and applying rules to this data to decide whether to switch networks (Compl. ¶43-44).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'335 Patent

• The Term: "instruction set for offloading"
• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to whether the data communicated from the network to the device meets the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether general policy updates qualify as an "instruction set," or if a more specific, command-like structure is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, describing the instruction set as potentially being "an implementation of a general algorithm that is customized by the wireless device...after it is received" ('335 Patent, col. 6:26-29). This could support an argument that any data that informs an algorithm on the device constitutes the "instruction set."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that the offloading engine "can generate an instruction set from the multi-dimensional map, which it makes available to the wireless device" ('335 Patent, col. 6:23-26). This language may support an argument that the term requires a discrete set of instructions generated by the network engine, not just raw data or a general policy.

'471 Patent

• The Term: "device-specific information"
• Context and Importance: Infringement of claim 1 hinges on the accused device sending this type of information to the network element. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could turn on whether the information sent by accused devices (e.g., device model, OS version) is merely for general compatibility or constitutes the context-rich information contemplated by the patent for tailoring an offloading decision.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide-ranging list of examples, including "location, performance thresholds, a motion trace, knowledge about other devices or interference, a performance history, [and] applications" ('335 Patent, col. 5:1-13, incorporated by reference).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The purpose of sending this information is explicitly "to customize a priority list or multi-dimensional network map" ('335 Patent, col. 5:14-17, incorporated by reference). This linkage to "customization" may support a narrower construction requiring that the information sent is actively used by the network element to tailor the response for that specific device's situation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement by providing instructions and encouragement for customers to use the accused offloading functionalities (Compl. ¶34, ¶46, ¶58). It alleges Defendants had knowledge of the patents based on a patent marking notice in "ItsOn software" and from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶33, ¶45, ¶57).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts Defendants "have known, or have been willfully blind" to their infringement, citing the same "ItsOn software" patent marking notice as the basis for pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶33, ¶35, ¶45, ¶47, ¶57, ¶60).

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

• A central evidentiary question will concern technical implementation: what proof will discovery yield about the actual architecture of DISH's offloading system? The case may depend on whether the system uses the specific client-server feedback loop described in the patents (e.g., sending a device-specific report and receiving a customized instruction set) or relies on a more generalized, pre-configured logic stored on the device.
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: can key claim terms such as "instruction set for offloading" and "device-specific information" be construed broadly to read on generic policy updates and standard device identifiers, or will they be limited to the specific, context-aware data exchanges detailed in the patent specifications?
• A key factual dispute for willfulness and indirect infringement will be the sufficiency of notice: what is the specific relationship between Defendants and the "ItsOn software" referenced in the complaint, and did the alleged patent marking notice in that software provide legally adequate pre-suit notice of the asserted patents to DISH?