Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00370, W.D. Tex., 08/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple maintains multiple regular and established places of business in the district, including a major campus in Austin with employees in engineering, research and development, and other roles.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile electronic devices, including phones, tablets, and wearables, infringe six U.S. patents related to mobile device service management, automated provisioning, and security.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for managing, securing, and activating services on mobile devices, a foundational element of the modern smartphone ecosystem and wireless carrier operations.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that patents assigned to Apple cite family members of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,096,055 and 11,405,429. This allegation may be used to support claims of pre-suit knowledge for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,096,055 - "Automated device provisioning and activation"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,096,055, "Automated device provisioning and activation," issued August 17, 2021. (Compl. ¶14; ’055 Patent, front page).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes how growing consumer demand for digital content and applications strains the capacity of wireless and wireline networks, which can degrade the user experience and negatively impact service provider profits. (ʼ055 Patent, col. 1:10-31). This creates a need for more efficient and nuanced management of network services. (ʼ055 Patent, col. 5:58-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture where a "service processor" on the end-user device works in coordination with a network-based "service controller" to manage network services. (’055 Patent, Abstract). This on-device processor contains various software "agents" that can monitor usage, enforce service policies, and manage network connections, thereby automating functions like device provisioning and activation that were traditionally handled entirely by the network. (’055 Patent, Fig. 16).
• Technical Importance: This distributed approach allows for more granular control over network services and enables more flexible and customized service plans, improving efficiency for both the provider and the end-user. (’055 Patent, col. 6:5-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶53).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A wireless end-user device with a Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN) modem.
  • A memory for storing at least a first and a second service profile, each associated with a service plan and a set of network service policies.
  • A connection manager configured to select an access network for the WWAN modem based on one of the service profiles.
  • An adaptive service policy control agent that enforces the network service policies associated with the selected service profile.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,405,429 - "Security techniques for device assisted services"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,405,429, "Security techniques for device assisted services," issued August 2, 2022. (Compl. ¶15; ’429 Patent, front page).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for security in "device assisted services," where functions like service monitoring and policy enforcement are performed on the end-user device. Such on-device functions are vulnerable to being compromised by malware or unauthorized user modifications, undermining the integrity of the service management system. (’429 Patent, col. 1:41-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes implementing service management functions within a "secure execution environment" on the device's processor. This protected partition is isolated from the main operating system and applications, ensuring that the agents that monitor service usage and enforce service policies cannot be tampered with. (’429 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The architecture includes separate secure channels for communication between this secure environment and the network, and between a secure modem subsystem and the network. (’429 Patent, claim 1).
• Technical Importance: By partitioning and securing service control functions on the device itself, the invention aims to provide a trustworthy mechanism for enforcing service plans and accurately measuring usage, which is critical for billing and network management. (’429 Patent, col. 3:9-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶63).
• Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method) include:
  • Connecting from a secure modem subsystem to a wireless network.
  • Connecting a first secure control channel from the secure modem subsystem to a network service controller.
  • Connecting a second secure control channel from a secure execution environment—which is separately secure from the modem subsystem—to the network service controller.
  • Receiving service policy settings at the secure execution environment via the second secure channel.
  • Storing the policy settings in a secure memory partition accessible only from the secure execution environment.
  • Enforcing a network service profile based on those settings from within the secure execution environment.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,609,510 - "Automated credential porting for mobile devices"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,609,510, "Automated credential porting for mobile devices," issued March 28, 2017. (Compl. ¶12).
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not describe the patented technology. The patent’s title suggests a method for automatically transferring user or service credentials, such as a phone number or account profile, to a new or different mobile device.
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶33).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused features, referring only to an exhibit not included with the complaint. (Compl. ¶33).

U.S. Patent No. 9,973,930 - "End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,973,930, "End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check," issued May 15, 2018. (Compl. ¶13).
• Technology Synopsis: The complaint does not describe the patented technology. The patent’s title suggests a security mechanism on a device that verifies an application's digital certificate to ensure it is authorized before allowing it to operate under a specific service policy.
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶43).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused features, referring only to an exhibit not included with the complaint. (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 11,966,464 - "Security techniques for device assisted services"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,966,464, "Security techniques for device assisted services," issued April 23, 2024. (Compl. ¶16).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to security techniques for device-assisted services, similar to the ’429 Patent. The technology involves executing a service profile within a secure environment on a device's processor to monitor and verify the device's use of a wireless network service. (’464 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶73).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused features, referring only to an exhibit not included with the complaint. (Compl. ¶73).

U.S. Patent No. 11,985,155 - "Communications device with secure data path processing agents"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,985,155, "Communications device with secure data path processing agents," issued May 14, 2024. (Compl. ¶17).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for generating secure device data records (DDRs) of service usage. A processor operating in a secure execution environment monitors the device’s data path and creates these records, which can be used for secure billing and usage verification. (’155 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶83).
• Accused Features: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific accused features, referring only to an exhibit not included with the complaint. (Compl. ¶83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Apple's mobile electronic devices, including but not limited to mobile phones, tablets, wearables, and television devices. (Compl. ¶¶ Introduction, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these devices are made, used, sold, and imported in the United States. (Compl. ¶20). It does not provide specific technical details regarding the functionality of the accused products. The infringement allegations are general, accusing the devices of incorporating the patented technologies for service management, security, and activation. The complaint positions these devices within the highly competitive and commercially significant mobile device and communications market. (Compl. ¶3).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include these exhibits in the filing. (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 43, 53, 63, 73, 83). As such, the specific infringement theories mapping claim elements to product features are not available for analysis. The narrative infringement theory is that Apple's mobile devices, through their normal operation, practice the methods and contain the systems claimed in the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 42, 52, 62, 72, 82).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’055 Patent): A central question may be whether Apple’s operating system features for managing network preferences and data usage constitute an "adaptive service policy control agent" as recited in the claims, or if the term requires a more specific software architecture not present in the accused devices.
  • Technical Questions (’429 Patent): A key dispute will likely concern whether the hardware and software architecture of Apple devices, such as the "Secure Enclave," meets the claim limitations of a "secure execution environment" that is "separately secure from the secure modem subsystem." The analysis will turn on evidence of how these components are partitioned and interact to store and enforce "service policy settings."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’055 Patent:
  • The Term: "adaptive service policy control agent" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core software component responsible for enforcing service rules on the device. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on whether Apple’s general-purpose OS functionalities perform the specific role of this claimed "agent."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various software components as "agents" that perform policy and control functions, suggesting the term could be applied broadly to software modules with those capabilities. (’055 Patent, col. 48:32-58, describing Policy Control Agent 1692 and Policy Implementation Agent 1690).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes detailed functional diagrams, such as Figure 16, showing a specific "Service Processor" architecture with numerous interacting agents. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to an agent within such a specific, dedicated architecture, rather than a general operating system function. (’055 Patent, Fig. 16).
• For the ’429 Patent:
  • The Term: "secure execution environment" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent’s security claims. The case may turn on whether Apple’s on-chip security features, like its Secure Enclave, fall within the scope of this term as it is used and defined in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention can be implemented as a "virtual execution environment or a separate hardware security function," which could support construing the term to cover a range of security implementations. (’429 Patent, col. 5:12-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures depict the "secure execution environment" as a distinct "Protected DAS Execution Partition" (114) architecturally separate from the application and kernel partitions. (’429 Patent, Fig. 1). A defendant could argue this requires a specific software-based partitioning model rather than a hardware co-processor like the Secure Enclave.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The factual basis alleged is that Apple provides instructions and encourages customers to use its devices in a manner that directly infringes the claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 85).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. For the '930, '055, '464, and '155 patents, the basis for knowledge is alleged to arise, at a minimum, from the filing of the complaint, supporting a theory of post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 54, 74, 84). For the '055 and '429 patents, the complaint additionally alleges pre-suit knowledge based on citations to the patents’ family members in Apple's own issued patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 64).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does the functionality of Apple's on-device software, including its operating system's network management features and the Secure Enclave co-processor, map onto the specific "agents" and "secure execution environments" recited in the patent claims, or is there a fundamental difference in architecture and operation?
• A key question of claim scope will be whether the term "secure execution environment," as defined in the context of the ’429 patent family, can be construed to read on Apple's security hardware. This will likely involve a detailed comparison of the patent's described software-centric partitioning against the hardware-based implementation of Apple's Secure Enclave.
• An underlying evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff will be one of technical proof: Given the general nature of the allegations, the case will depend heavily on evidence obtained through discovery of Apple's proprietary source code and hardware designs to demonstrate that the accused devices perform the specific functions required by the asserted claims.