DCT

7:25-cv-00374

Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00374, W.D. Tex., 12/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Google has a regular and established place of business in the district, including a corporate office and a retail store in Austin, and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile electronic devices, including its Pixel and Chromebook product lines, infringe patents related to on-device management of wireless data consumption and attribution of data usage to specific applications.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for more efficient management of mobile data traffic at the device level, a challenge amplified by the exponential growth in data consumption driven by smartphones and other connected devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Google had knowledge of the asserted patents prior to the suit. For U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364, this alleged knowledge stems from Google citing related patents during the prosecution of its own patent applications. For U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918, knowledge is alleged to have come from Google's participation as a non-party in separate litigation Headwater brought against Samsung involving the same patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918
2009-02-05 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364
2014-03-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364 Issued
2014-04-03 Google allegedly identified a related patent during its own prosecution
2015-12-29 Date of IDS submission where Google allegedly identified parent of ’364 patent
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918 Issued
2024-01-01 Alleged date by which Google learned of ’918 patent via Samsung litigation
2024-05-01 Alleged date by which Google learned of ’918 patent infringement contentions
2025-02-01 Alleged date by which Google learned of ’918 patent via subpoena in Samsung litigation
2025-06-01 Alleged date by which Google learned of ’918 patent via expert report in Samsung litigation
2025-12-08 Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a growing strain on wireless networks due to increased data demand from devices like smartphones. This creates a need for communication systems and methods that give network operators and users more granular control over data consumption to manage costs and network capacity. (’364 Patent, col. 6:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "service processor" within a wireless device that implements "service policies" to monitor and control data usage on the device itself. This on-device system uses a combination of software "agents" to enforce rules, such as throttling or blocking data for certain activities, thereby providing a more efficient, device-centric alternative to purely network-based control. (’364 Patent, Abstract; col. 37:22-40).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more dynamic and fine-grained management of a user's data consumption and service experience than traditional, centralized network control systems. (’364 Patent, col. 9:18-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶46).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 of the ’364 Patent include:
    • A wireless device comprising one or more processors for running an application interface and communicating via a wireless network.
    • A "first service policy" associated with a "first service activity," where the policy comprises assisting in reducing data usage over the wireless network.
    • A software component associated with the first service policy.
    • A "first service activity" that is different from a second service activity, where the second activity is controlled differently from the first.
    • One or more agents for assisting in applying the first service policy, including a "high-level policy agent" and a "low-level policy agent."

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In modern operating systems, when an application requests to play media, the actual data transfer may be handled by a generic, system-level media framework rather than the application itself. This makes it difficult for service providers to accurately account for and attribute data usage to the specific application that initiated the request. (’918 Patent, col. 111:15-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system using two distinct Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). A first API is used for general data flows. A second, specialized API is used by applications to request media transfers via a "media service manager." This manager handles the data transfer but does so in a way that allows "service classification and measurement agents" to correctly associate the network usage with the application that made the original request through the second API. (’918 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 29).
  • Technical Importance: This method enables accurate, application-specific data usage tracking and billing, even when media streams are processed by underlying operating system components. (’918 Patent, col. 115:13-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶58).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 of the ’918 Patent include:
    • A wireless end-user device.
    • A network stack for transmitting and receiving data.
    • A "first network stack Application Programming Interface (API)" allowing applications to open and use data flows.
    • A "second API" allowing applications to make a data transfer request for a media object, associated with a "network resource identifier."
    • A "media service manager" that receives the request from the second API and interfaces with the network stack to retrieve the media object.
    • One or more "service classification and measurement agents" to associate the resulting network data usage with the application that made the request.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as "mobile electronic devices, including laptops, mobile phones, tablets, and smartwatches" sold or imported by Google, specifically naming "Google Chromebooks and Pixel phones, tablets, and smartwatches" and the Android Operating System. (Compl. ¶¶ Intro, 22, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these devices possess functionalities that "reduce data usage and network congestion, extend battery life by decreasing power consumption, and enable users to stay connected." (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical breakdown of the accused features' operation.

To establish market context and the importance of the patented technology, the complaint alleges that mobile data demand has "exploded" and is projected to increase more than three-fold between the present and 2027. (Compl. ¶¶12-13). This claim is supported by a graph titled "Mobile data traffic," which visually depicts the steep upward trend in data consumption from 2011 to a projected level in 2027. (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibits 3 and 4 as containing claim charts for the ’364 and ’918 Patents, respectively. (Compl. ¶¶46, 58). As these exhibits were not included in the provided filing, the infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,666,364 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Google's mobile devices directly infringe, literally and equivalently, the claims of the ’364 Patent. (Compl. ¶44). The infringement theory appears to be based on the devices incorporating software and hardware that perform the patented methods for on-device data management and service control. (Compl. ¶¶15, 44, 48). The complaint states that Google induces infringement by instructing its customers on how to use the devices in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶48). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping elements of the accused devices to the limitations of claim 1.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918 Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Google's mobile devices, which use the Android Operating System, directly infringe the claims of the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶22, 56). The infringement theory centers on the devices performing the patented methods of attributing data usage for media services back to the specific requesting application. (Compl. ¶¶29, 52). The complaint also alleges that Google instructs users to perform these patented methods, thereby inducing infringement. (Compl. ¶56). As with the ’364 Patent, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping the operation of the Android OS or accused devices to the limitations of claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’364 Patent: "service policy" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of "service policy" is central to the scope of claim 1. The infringement analysis may turn on whether general data-saving settings within the Android OS (e.g., "Data Saver" mode) meet the specific definition of a "service policy" as claimed, which is associated with a "first service activity" and implemented by "high-level" and "low-level" agents.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes service policies in broad terms, stating they can be used to "manage user service usage" and can include "service plan limits," "billing," and "service notification preference and feedback." (’364 Patent, col. 9:1-12). This could support an argument that various device settings related to data usage qualify.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the "service policy" to be implemented via a specific structure of "one or more low-level policy agents" and "one or more high-level policy agents." (’364 Patent, col. 163:1-6). The detailed description links these agents to specific functions, which could suggest that a "service policy" must be one that is enforced through this particular architectural arrangement.

  • ’918 Patent: "media service manager" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the core component that distinguishes the patented method from conventional systems. The dispute may focus on whether the standard media frameworks within the Android OS constitute a "media service manager" that is invoked by a "second API" distinct from a "first API" for general network traffic, as required by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the invention can be implemented in "various operating system functions or framework software or library functions." (’918 Patent, col. 112:20-24). This language may support arguing that existing components of the Android media framework perform the claimed function.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "media service manager" to be the entity that is called by the "second API," which in turn is used by the "requesting application." (’918 Patent, col. 124:40-47). Figure 32 depicts the "Proxy Service Manager" (3206) as a distinct architectural block that mediates between applications and the network stack, suggesting a more specific and defined role than a general-purpose system function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement of both patents by providing its products to customers and instructing them on how to use the devices in ways that practice the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶48, 60).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for both patents. For the ’364 Patent, willfulness is based on allegations that Google knew of the patent family from citing related patents as prior art during its own patent prosecution activities, with knowledge dating to at least December 2015. (Compl. ¶18). For the ’918 Patent, willfulness is based on allegations that Google learned of the patent and Headwater's infringement theories through its role as an interested non-party in separate litigation against Samsung, beginning in January 2024. (Compl. ¶¶22-23).

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

  1. A primary issue will be one of definitional scope and claim construction: Can the terms "service policy" and "media service manager," as defined in the patents, be construed to read on the general-purpose data management and media framework functionalities of Google's Android operating system, or do the claims require a more specific, specialized software architecture not present in the accused devices?
  2. A central factual question will concern the accused products' technical operation: Assuming the complaint's missing exhibits are produced in discovery, what evidence will emerge to show that Google's devices actually implement the specific agent-based policy enforcement of the ’364 patent and the dual-API data attribution system of the ’918 patent?
  3. A key question for damages will be the nature of Google's alleged knowledge: Did Google's citation of related patents during prosecution and its non-party involvement in the Samsung litigation provide it with pre-suit knowledge of infringement sufficient to support a finding of willfulness?