Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused technology. Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex.), is a patent-infringement suit filed August 27, 2025, by Headwater Research LLC — a non-practicing entity/patent assertion firm founded around the inventions of Gregory Raleigh, with management c/o Farjami & Farjami LLP (Mission Viejo, CA) and ties to Texas (per PTACTS petition records and Law.com/Texas Lawyer coverage). Headwater does not practice the patents; it monetizes a large portfolio of mobile-communications patents through litigation, most famously a $278.79 million jury verdict against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Gilstrap) in April 2025. The defendant, Apple Inc. (Cupertino, CA), is the global consumer-electronics maker. The complaint accuses Apple's cellular mobile devices and related activation/management services — centered on device provisioning and activation, credential porting, and device-assisted service security (the features Apple implements through its eSIM provisioning and device-activation flows) — of infringement. I could not locate the full complaint text or claim charts for this specific docket number in public sources; the accused-technology description is inferred from the asserted patent titles and Headwater's parallel filings, which EchoStar's SEC 10-Q summarized as relating to "eSIM management, data management, application data traffic management, wireless data offloading and tethering operations."

Patents and procedural posture. The complaint asserts six patents (per PTACTS litigation records): U.S. Patent No. 11,096,055, "Automated device provisioning and activation" (priority Jan. 28, 2009; granted Aug. 17, 2021) — automated activation/provisioning of wireless end-user devices via a device service processor and network service controller; 9,973,930, "End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check"; 11,405,429 and 11,966,464, both "Security techniques for device assisted services"; 11,985,155, another "Automated device provisioning and activation" patent; and 9,609,510, "Automated credential porting for mobile devices" (e.g., moving SIM credentials between devices). The case was filed in the W.D. Tex. Midland Division, initially assigned to Judge David Counts and reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on August 28–29, 2025 under the court's 7/25/2022 patent-case assignment order. Albright's W.D. Tex. docket is the premier post-TC Heartland patent venue; Apple's Austin retail presence supports venue, and Albright is known for aggressive scheduling. Plaintiff is represented by Russ August & Kabat (Marc Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, et al.); Apple by The Dacus Firm (Deron Dacus) and DLA Piper (John M. Guaragna). The case moved quickly: Apple secured agreed extensions, filed an opposed motion to consolidate co-pending Headwater cases on October 15, 2025, and the parties then settled. On October 30, 2025, they filed a joint motion to dismiss; Judge Albright granted it on October 31, 2025, dismissing Headwater's claims with prejudice and denying all pending motions as moot (docket entries 19–20 in the related 7:25-cv-00407 action; identical orders issued in the parallel Apple cases, e.g., 7:25-cv-00379 and 7:25-cv-00318, per PACER-derived records). Note: the case metadata you provided lists the case as "open," but docket aggregators (PACER-derived) show it terminated/closed as of October 31, 2025 — the settlement disposition.

Why it matters. The case is a snapshot of Headwater's aggressive 2025 NPE campaign: after its headline $278.8M Samsung verdict (E.D. Tex., April 2025), Headwater filed waves of suits in July–September 2025 against Apple, Google, Samsung, Motorola, Amazon, DISH, Charter, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile (per Texas Lawyer and EchoStar's 10-Q). This particular suit's lead patent, the '055, was already under PTAB attack: Samsung's IPR2025-00481 (filed Feb. 26, 2025) was denied institution on August 4, 2025 under § 314(a) discretionary denial, with Samsung's ensuing Director Review request withdrawn and post-institution fees refunded — leaving the patent intact and reinforcing Headwater's leverage. Apple's defensive response included its own IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2025-01571, co-petitioned with Amazon, directed to related Headwater patents) and a declaratory-judgment action in N.D. Cal. (Apple Inc. v. Headwater Research LLC, 3:25-cv-07591). The near-immediate global settlement of the entire August 2025 Apple slate — within roughly two months, with dismissal with prejudice and no fee award — highlights both the settlement pressure Headwater's portfolio creates and Apple's preference to resolve rather than litigate these device-management claims before Judge Albright.

Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex.)

Key facts established: This is Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc. — the previously unidentified defendant is Apple Inc. The case was filed 2025-08-27 in the W.D. Tex. (Midland Division), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, and is now CLOSED (terminated 2025-10-31). Although the user's metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 11,096,055, the complaint actually asserted six patents: 9,973,930; 11,096,055; 11,405,429; 11,966,464; 11,985,155; and 9,609,510 (confirmed via the USPTO PTACTS litigation-matter record and Law.com Radar). Counsel: Russ August & Kabat for Headwater; The Dacus Firm, P.C. and DLA Piper (John M. Guaragna, Deron Dacus) for Apple.

---

Chronology of key developments

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2025-08-27 — Headwater filed its patent-infringement complaint (jury demand noted) asserting the six patents, described as relating to mobile operating systems and cloud technology. (Law.com Radar; docketupdate mirror listing filed Aug. 27, 2025.)
• 2025-08-28 — Law360 reported Headwater's multi-defendant "suit spree" across two Texas districts against Apple, Amazon, Google, Comcast, Charter, Dish, and others, in the wake of its $279M jury verdict against Samsung and $175M Verizon settlement (context for the campaign). (Law360, 2025-08-28.)
• September 2025 — Apple appeared through the Dacus Firm and DLA Piper. Service and pleading-stage activity followed. (Note: I could not confirm from public sources the exact docket entries for Apple's answer/counterclaims in 7:25-cv-00370 specifically. In the companion W.D. Tex. Headwater-v.-Apple actions, Apple filed answers with non-infringement/validity counterclaims and the parties jointly stipulated to drop willful/indirect-infringement allegations — e.g., Dkt. 16 in 7:25-cv-00407, 2025-10-19 — but I cannot verify those exact filings for this docket without PACER.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment was reached before resolution — the case settled and was dismissed roughly 65 days after filing, before any merits motion practice matured.
• 2025-10-15 (companion case) — Apple filed an opposed motion to consolidate co-pending Headwater v. Apple cases presenting overlapping issues of fact and law (Dkt. 15, 7:25-cv-00407), with joint stipulations extending the response deadline (Dkts. 17–18, 2025-10-21/29). This motion was pending when the cases settled and would have been denied as moot. Caveat: I found this motion on the 7:25-cv-00407 docket (Justia mirror); it is highly likely but not independently verified that the same motion was filed in 7:25-cv-00370.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Never reached. The case was dismissed before any claim-construction briefing or hearing.

4. Discovery

• No strategic discovery milestones. The case terminated at the pleading/early-motion stage; no document production, depositions, or expert discovery of record.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion. There is no merits adjudication of any kind.

6. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

• 2025-10-31 — Bloomberg Law reported that Apple and Headwater "settled their competing lawsuits," with each party bearing its own fees and costs, per filings in the N.D. Cal. and W.D. Tex. (2025-10-31). Law360 likewise reported "Headwater, Apple Reach Deal To Close Patent Cases" (2025-10-31).
• 2025-10-30/31 — Judge Albright entered an Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); the case was terminated 2025-10-31 (docketupdate mirror: "Terminated Oct. 31, 2025"; flags CLOSED, PATENT).
• Settlement structure (confirmed verbatim from the identical, near-identical orders in companion cases 7:25-cv-00318 and 7:25-cv-00379, and consistent with the 00370 termination): Headwater's claims dismissed with prejudice; Apple's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice; each party to bear its own fees, costs, and expenses; all pending motions denied as moot. The "with prejudice" bar on Headwater's claims against Apple (on these patents/accused products) coupled with Apple's preserved counterclaims is the classic asymmetric settlement architecture. Terms of any license are confidential and not on the public record.
• No appeal. The case is closed; final disposition is settlement-dismissal.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '055 patent

• IPR2025-00481 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Headwater Research LLC (U.S. Patent 11,096,055):
  • 2025-02-26 — Petition filed (Fish & Richardson for Samsung; Russ August & Kabat for Headwater), challenging claims of the '055 patent (the very patent at issue here).
  • 2025-08-04 — Institution DENIED — discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (procedural non-institution; the Board did not reach the merits). (Unified Patents portal; IPverse/GreyB.)
  • 2025-09-03 / 09-11 — Samsung requested Director Review; Headwater filed an authorized response.
  • 2025-10-28 — Samsung withdrew its Director Review/rehearing request; post-institution fees refunded (2025-11-05/07). Proceeding closed.
  • Effect on litigation: Because the IPR was never instituted, there was no estoppel and no stay issue. It was filed pre-suit by Samsung (not Apple) and did not drive the Apple case, which settled before any IPR institution decision on Apple petitions could matter.
• Related Apple IPRs (context, different case): In the companion push-notification action (7:25-cv-00318), Apple and Amazon filed IPR2025-01571/-01572; after the 00318 settlement and district-court dismissal (order 2025-10-30), Apple moved to dismiss itself as co-petitioner (2025-11-10), and the Board dismissed Apple pre-institution (2026-01-13). Those IPRs concern patents 8,667,571 and 10,064,055 — not the '055 patent in this case.
• Other '055 activity: The '055 patent was also asserted against Samsung in E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00228, which was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025 after a negotiated resolution (PatSnap), and against DISH entities in five E.D. Tex. actions (Aug. 28–29, 2025) stayed by DISH's bankruptcy (EchoStar 10-Q).

---

Bottom line

This was a 65-day, pleading-stage settlement. Headwater filed suit on 2025-08-27; Apple appeared, the parties negotiated quickly, and Judge Albright entered the joint dismissal on 2025-10-31 — Headwater's infringement claims against Apple dismissed with prejudice, Apple's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, no fees shifted. There was no Markman, no discovery of consequence, no trial, no post-trial practice, and no appeal. The only PTAB proceeding on the '055 patent (Samsung's IPR2025-00481) was discretionarily denied institution on 2025-08-04 and ended after Samsung withdrew its Director Review request.

Sourcing caveats: Docket-entry specifics for 7:25-cv-00370 (answer/counterclaims, exact dismissal docket number) are not fully visible in free sources; the dismissal date/structure are corroborated by the docketupdate mirror (terminated 2025-10-31), Bloomberg Law, Law360, and the verbatim orders in the parallel 00318/00379/00407 settlements. For definitive docket numbers, PACER (W.D. Tex., case 7:25-cv-00370) would be the authoritative check.

Based on the available sources, here is what can be confirmed and what remains uncertain about plaintiff's counsel in Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex., Midland Div., Judge Alan D. Albright), which asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,096,055 among six patents.

Firm of record (confirmed)

Russ August & Kabat (RAK) — Los Angeles, CA (firm also maintains a Texas presence via its Austin office).

• Law.com Radar's "Who Got the Work" entry for this exact case (7:25-cv-00370) lists plaintiff counsel as Russ August & Kabat, with the complaint filed Aug. 27, 2025. (law.com/radar/card/headwater-research-llc-v-apple-inc-59806510-1)
• PTAB records for IPR2025-00481 (Samsung v. Headwater, challenging the '055 patent) list Russ August & Kabat as Patent Owner counsel. (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00481)

Attorneys likely on the filing — with sourcing caveats

I could not pull the full 7:25-cv-00370 docket (entries appear via the docket-aggregator page but the detailed text was not retrievable in my searches), so I cannot state with certainty every attorney who entered a notice of appearance in this specific case. However, the following RAK attorneys are confirmed in the parallel Headwater-Apple W.D. Tex. actions and the '055 IPR, and are the expected counsel:

• Marc A. Fenster — Partner, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Listed as Headwater's "Represented By" counsel in companion case Headwater v. Apple, No. 7:25-cv-00373 (per PacerMonitor case page), and filed a Notice of Appearance for Headwater in the related N.D. Cal. Google matter (4:25-cv-09558, Dkt. 21, Nov. 21, 2025). Known RAK patent trial lead; leads the firm's Headwater campaign.
• Reza Mirzaie — Partner, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Named Patent Owner (Headwater) lead counsel in IPR2025-00481 directed to the '055 patent (per Unified Patents/ipverse counsel tables: "Respondent Counsel | Mirzaie, Reza et al"); appeared for Headwater in Apple v. Headwater, 3:25-cv-07591 (N.D. Cal.) (PacerMonitor Dkt. 19).
• James N. Pickens — Associate, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance for Headwater in companion Apple case 7:25-cv-00373 (PacerMonitor Dkt. 7, Sept. 4, 2025). Trial-experienced RAK associate (EcoFactor v. Google, W.D. Tex. 2022 verdict; Core Wireless v. Apple, N.D. Cal.).
• Brian D. Ledahl — Partner, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Appeared for Headwater in Apple v. Headwater (3:25-cv-07591, Dkt. 21) and in Headwater's E.D. Tex. Amazon case (2:26-cv-00304). Firm bio cites Headwater v. Samsung ($279M verdict) and Headwater v. Verizon ($175M verdict).
• Kristopher R. Davis — Partner, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Firm bio expressly lists Headwater v. Verizon (E.D. Tex., $175M jury verdict) and Headwater push-messaging cases ($279M verdict); regular Headwater trial counsel.
• Adam S. Hoffman — Partner, Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Firm bio cites Headwater v. Samsung ($279M verdict, E.D. Tex.); patent damages specialist.
• Philip X. Wang — Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles). Appeared for Headwater in Apple v. Headwater, 3:25-cv-07591 (N.D. Cal., Dkt. 22).

Status notes / caveats

• Case posture: The case was docketed as "Terminated Oct. 31, 2025" (docket-aggregator page for 7:25-cv-00370), with case flags CLOSED/PATENT — consistent with an early dismissal or consolidation. If the case was dismissed before full appearances, counsel of record may be limited to the attorneys on the complaint.
• Local counsel: W.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-1 requires local counsel, and RAK has an Austin office frequently used for its Albright-court filings; however, I could not confirm the specific local counsel of record for 7:25-cv-00370 from the sources retrieved. The defendant's side in this case is confirmed as DLA Piper (John M. Guaragna) and The Dacus Firm (Deron Dacus) per Law.com Radar.
• In-house counsel: No in-house counsel for Headwater (a non-practicing entity managed c/o Farjami & Farjami LLP, Mission Viejo, CA) was identified in the retrieved filings.
• Not fabricated: All attorney names above are grounded in either the PacerMonitor docket excerpts for the parallel Headwater–Apple W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. cases, the Unified Patents/ipverse IPR2025-00481 counsel tables, or RAK's published attorney bios. If you need the exact appearance list for 7:25-cv-00370 (Dkt. entries for notices of appearance by plaintiff), a PACER query or PacerMonitor's full docket for case 59806510 is the next step.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex.)

The sole defendant is Apple Inc. Per Law.com Radar's "Who Got the Work" entry for this exact case (7:25-cv-00370), Apple's counsel of record are The Dacus Firm, P.C. and DLA Piper, with John M. Guaragna and Deron Dacus specifically named as having entered appearances (law.com/radar/card/headwater-research-llc-v-apple-inc-59806510-1). Because the case settled and was dismissed with prejudice on October 31, 2025 (Joint Motion to Dismiss; Order of dismissal, W.D. Tex.), the appearance window was short — the confirmed counsel below are the two named by Law.com Radar, corroborated by the parallel Headwater–Apple dockets.

Confirmed counsel of record

1. John M. Guaragna (John Michael Guaragna)

• Role: Lead counsel for Apple (national/lead trial counsel). DLA Piper LLP (US), Texas Chair, Intellectual Property & Technology Practice.
• Firm/office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX (303 Colorado St., Suite 3000, Austin, TX 78701; TX Bar, admitted 2004).
• Experience: Among the most active patent-defense litigators in Texas — 300+ patent cases in W.D./E.D. Tex., 60+ cases before Judge Albright, and ranked #1 patent litigator for defendants (and #1 overall) in Patexia's 2026 Patent Litigation Intelligence Report; Chambers Band 3 (IP–Texas); regular counsel to NVIDIA, Samsung, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Oracle, and others (dlapiper.com profile; chambers.com; Patexia/DLA Piper announcement, Feb. 2026). Corroborated in the parallel case Headwater v. Apple, No. 7:25-cv-00375, where he filed his Notice of Attorney Appearance for Apple on Oct. 9, 2025 (Justia docket, Dkt. 10).

2. Deron R. Dacus

• Role: Lead Texas/local counsel for Apple (Texas counsel of record; sponsor of pro hac vice admissions for the DLA Piper team; signatory on Apple's stipulations, extension notices, and the joint dismissal papers).
• Firm/office: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX (821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430, Tyler, TX 75701; TX Bar No. 00790553).
• Experience: Founder of The Dacus Firm, a well-known Texas patent-litigation boutique handling high-volume defense work in the W.D. and E.D. of Texas, frequently for Apple and other tech defendants before Judge Albright. In the parallel Headwater–Apple cases he filed Apple's agreed-extension notices (e.g., 7:25-cv-00373, Dkts. 8–9, Sept. 12, 2025) and the pro hac vice motions for DLA Piper attorneys, and he signed the October 31, 2025 Joint Motion to Dismiss with prejudice in the coordinated Apple cases (DocketAlarm exhibit, Exhibit 2002 in IPR2026-00088).

Additional DLA Piper team — confirmed in the parallel Apple cases (likely same team here, with caveat)

The following DLA Piper attorneys entered pro hac vice appearances for Apple in the coordinated Headwater–Apple W.D. Tex. wave; their motions (filed by Deron Dacus) were granted October 2, 2025 in companion case 7:25-cv-00407 (Justia docket, Dkts. 10–14 and text orders). I could not retrieve the individual appearance entries for 7:25-cv-00370 itself, so treat these as the probable-but-not-individually-confirmed members of Apple's team for this docket:

• Cosmin Maier — DLA Piper (Silicon Valley/SF) — filed Apple's Opposed Motion to Consolidate Co-Pending Cases Presenting Overlapping Issues of Fact and Law (7:25-cv-00407, Dkt. 15, Oct. 15, 2025, with declaration) and Apple's joint notice dismissing willful/indirect-infringement allegations (Dkt. 16). A veteran Apple patent-defense litigator (e.g., VirnetX v. Apple).
• Kurt Fredrickson — DLA Piper (Silicon Valley) — seasoned patent litigator; long-time Apple defense counsel in N.D. Cal. and W.D. Tex. matters.
• Tuhin Ganguly — DLA Piper (Silicon Valley) — patent litigator with extensive Apple and tech-company defense experience.
• Maria A. Tartakovsky — DLA Piper — IP litigator; pro hac vice for Apple granted Oct. 2, 2025.
• William Yau — DLA Piper — pro hac vice for Apple granted Oct. 2, 2025 (filed by Dacus on Oct. 1, 2025).

In-house counsel

None identified. No Apple in-house attorneys appear in the public docket excerpts retrieved for this case or its parallel dockets; the defense team appears to have been entirely outside counsel (DLA Piper + Dacus Firm).

Sourcing caveats

• The Law.com Radar card is the only source that confirms defendant counsel for 7:25-cv-00370 by case number; it names only Guaragna and Dacus, which is consistent with the short two-month lifespan of the case (filed Aug. 27, 2025; dismissed Oct. 31, 2025).
• The five additional DLA Piper attorneys are confirmed for the parallel Apple cases (7:25-cv-00407, and the pattern in 7:25-cv-00375) but not individually confirmed on the 7:25-cv-00370 docket; full PACER docket text for 7:25-cv-00370 was not retrievable in public sources.
• The docket-aggregator page for 7:25-cv-00370 confirms the case was terminated/closed Oct. 31, 2025 (flags CLOSED, PATENT), meaning no further appearances were docketed after settlement.