DCT

7:25-cv-00518

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-00518, W.D. Tex., 12/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Google having a regular and established place of business in the District, committing acts of infringement in the District, and placing the accused products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be used there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile electronic devices, including its Pixel phones and tablets, infringe patents related to device-assisted management of wireless network access and capacity.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of mobile data consumption to mitigate network congestion, a significant challenge driven by the widespread adoption of data-intensive smartphone applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant gained pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit through prior infringement lawsuits Plaintiff filed against Samsung (Case Nos. 2:23-cv-00641 and 2:22-cv-00422), in which infringement contentions against devices using Google’s Android OS were allegedly shared with Google.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-01-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’359 and ’544 Patents
2015-11-03 ’359 Patent Issued
2017-03-28 ’544 Patent Issued
2023-03-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’544 Patent via complaint in prior Samsung litigation
2023-04-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’544 Patent via infringement contentions in prior Samsung litigation
2023-11-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’544 Patent via subpoena in prior Samsung litigation
2024-01-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’359 Patent via complaint in prior Samsung litigation
2024-03-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’544 Patent via expert report in prior Samsung litigation
2024-05-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’359 Patent via infringement contentions in prior Samsung litigation
2025-02-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’359 Patent via subpoena in prior Samsung litigation
2025-06-01 Alleged Google knowledge of ’359 Patent via expert report in prior Samsung litigation
2025-12-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,179,359 - “Wireless end-user device with differentiated network access status for different device applications” (issued Nov. 3, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a "network capacity crunch" resulting from the increasing popularity of general-purpose mobile devices (like smartphones) that are not optimized to conserve wireless network resources, leading to network congestion and poor performance. (’359 Patent, col. 3:28-4:6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a wireless device with both WWAN (cellular) and WLAN (Wi-Fi) modems. The device’s processors apply a traffic control policy specifically to the WWAN connection. Through an Application Program Interface (API), the device can signal to a specific application that the WWAN internet service is unavailable, even while other applications on the same device continue to access it. This enables application-specific control over network access to manage data consumption. (’359 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:13-33).
  • Technical Importance: This device-centric approach to managing network access provides more granular control over data consumption than purely network-based traffic management systems, addressing the problem of network congestion at its source. (’359 Patent, col. 9:43-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 1 essential elements:
    • A wireless end-user device comprising a WWAN modem and a WLAN modem.
    • One or more processors configured to apply a stored WWAN differential traffic control policy to Internet data service provided via the WWAN modem.
    • The processors are also configured to indicate to a particular application, via an API, one or more network access conditions based on the policy.
    • The network access conditions include one that indicates the unavailability of the WWAN Internet service to the particular application, while that same service is currently available to a different application on the device.

U.S. Patent No. 9,609,544 - “Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity” (issued Mar. 28, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes how certain application behaviors, such as frequent background updates or aggressive "power save state cycling," can consume a disproportionate amount of network resources and transaction capacity, even when the volume of data transferred is small. This inefficient use of resources contributes to overall network degradation. (’544 Patent, col. 5:20-6:40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system wherein a communications device's processor monitors its own network service usage activity. The processor then classifies this activity (e.g., as a "network capacity controlled service") and associates it with a specific control policy. This allows the device to implement differential traffic controls locally, thereby protecting network capacity at the source. (’544 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 14).
  • Technical Importance: This device-assisted system enables dynamic, real-time management of network usage based on activity classification and policy, offering a more intelligent method for mitigating network congestion compared to static, network-wide throttling. (’544 Patent, col. 11:13-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶59).
  • Claim 1 essential elements:
    • A system comprising a processor of a communications device configured to monitor a network service usage activity of the device in network communication.
    • The processor is configured to classify the network service usage activity for differential network access control for protecting network capacity.
    • The processor is configured to associate the activity with a network service usage control policy based on the classification.
    • A memory is coupled to the processor to provide it with instructions.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are mobile electronic devices sold or imported by Google, including Google Pixel phones and tablets, that operate on the Android Operating System. (Compl. ¶¶ Introduction, 18, 32).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused devices incorporate features designed to help "reduce data usage and network congestion, extend battery life by decreasing power consumption, and enable users to stay connected." (Compl. ¶15). These functionalities are presented as being crucial in the context of exponentially growing mobile data consumption. (Compl. ¶¶12-13). To illustrate this market pressure, the complaint includes a chart projecting the steep growth of "Mobile data traffic" from 2011 to 2027. (Compl. p. 5). Another visual from an "Ericsson Mobility Calculator" breaks down monthly data consumption by activity type, such as video streaming and app traffic, highlighting the types of usage the accused features purportedly manage. (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4 to detail its infringement allegations for the ’359 and ’544 patents, respectively. (Compl. ¶47, ¶59). As these exhibits were not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’359 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Google's mobile devices, including Pixel phones, directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’359 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶45, 47). The infringement theory appears to target features within the Android Operating System that differentially manage network access for various applications. (Compl. ¶18). The complaint’s narrative suggests these devices can apply a traffic control policy to the WWAN (cellular) connection that makes the internet service appear unavailable to certain applications (e.g., those running in the background) while it remains available to others (e.g., a foreground application), thereby mapping to the elements of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶15, 18).

  • ’544 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Google's mobile devices directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’544 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶57, 59). The infringement theory appears to be based on functionalities in the Android OS that monitor, classify, and control data usage to manage network capacity. (Compl. ¶23). The complaint alleges these features monitor network service usage by applications, classify those activities (e.g., as background data usage), and then apply control policies to manage that usage, which purportedly corresponds to the monitoring, classifying, and associating steps of Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶15, 23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’359 Patent: "application program interface (API)"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires an API to "indicate...unavailability" of internet service to one application while the service remains available to another. The construction of "API" will be critical. The dispute may turn on whether a user-facing operating system feature (e.g., a "Data Saver" toggle) that internally blocks an application's network access constitutes the claimed API, or if the term requires a more formal, programmatic interface for developer use.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract describes the API simply as a means to "indicate to particular applications" a network status, which may support a broad reading that covers any mechanism, internal or external to the application, that achieves this indicative function. (’359 Patent, Abstract).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the specification depict the API as a distinct layer within the device's software stack, labeled "Network Services API" and "API & OS Stack Interface," situated between applications and lower-level network functions. (’359 Patent, Fig. 3, 1693; Fig. 12). This could support a narrower construction requiring a structured, developer-facing interface.

  • ’544 Patent: "classify the network service usage activity for differential network access control"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the device's processor to "classify" the network activity. The central question will be what level of technical analysis constitutes "classification" in the context of the patent. Practitioners may focus on whether simply identifying an app's data usage as occurring in the "background" is sufficient, or if a more sophisticated analysis tied to network conditions or activity type is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses classification in general terms, such as identifying a "network capacity controlled service usage activity," which could support an argument that a binary determination (e.g., background vs. foreground) is sufficient for the purpose of control. (’544 Patent, col. 27:8-12).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification includes a "priority level chart" that assigns different numerical priority levels to various applications based on the "Network Busy State." (’544 Patent, Fig. 23). This embodiment suggests a more complex, multi-level classification scheme that is responsive to network conditions, which could support a narrower construction that requires more than a simple binary check.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement by providing user manuals and other instructions that encourage and instruct customers to use the accused devices in a way that performs the patented methods. (Compl. ¶¶45, 49, 57, 61).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Google was aware of the patents and its infringement through prior lawsuits Headwater filed against Samsung, a Google business partner. It is alleged that complaints, claim charts, and expert reports from those cases were shared with Google, with the earliest alleged knowledge dating to March 2023 for the ’544 patent and January 2024 for the ’359 patent. The complaint alleges that Google continued its infringing conduct despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶17-27, 48, 60).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "application program interface (API)" in the ’359 patent, which "indicates unavailability" to an application, be construed to cover an operating system's internal data-restriction function that is activated by a user-facing setting, or does it require a more formal, programmatic interface?
  • A second key question will be one of functional scope: does the accused devices' alleged act of distinguishing between "background" and "foreground" data usage constitute the act of "classifying...for differential network access control" as required by Claim 1 of the ’544 patent, or does the claim, read in light of the specification, require a more granular, multi-level classification responsive to network conditions?
  • A central evidentiary question regarding willfulness will be what proof can be shown that Google actually received and understood the specific infringement theories from the separate Samsung litigations prior to this suit, and whether such third-party notice is sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent required for a finding of willful infringement.