Untitled case

This patent infringement case, 2:25-cv-00710, is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized for its high volume of patent litigation and patentee-friendly reputation. The plaintiff is Headwater Research LLC, an entity that appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), given its assertion campaigns against major wireless carriers and discussions within legal news about patent risk solutions. The defendant is Deutsche Telekom (Sprint, T-Mobile), one of the largest wireless carriers in the United States, which is accused of infringing the asserted patent with its products or services.

The primary patent at issue is US Patent 9,491,564. While the specific accused products, services, or technology of Deutsche Telekom in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in the search results, related litigation by Headwater Research against other major carriers suggests the patents likely concern wireless communication technologies. U.S. Patent 9,491,564, titled "System and method for decision support," generally relates to systems and methods for providing decision support, which can broadly apply to various technological fields including data processing and communication networks.

The procedural posture of the case currently involves Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, who has been active in related litigation, including ruling on a motion to disqualify counsel in a parallel Headwater Research case against Verizon. While Judge Payne is a Magistrate Judge, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is a prominent judge in the Eastern District of Texas and has overseen a significant number of patent cases in 2025. The Eastern District of Texas is a favored forum for patent holders due to its expedited dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly jury pools. This case is notable as it is part of a broader "ever-growing Headwater Research campaign" against major U.S. wireless carriers, highlighting a strategic assertion pattern by Headwater Research across multiple lawsuits in the same district. There is also a contentious issue regarding Headwater's standing and the inventorship of the asserted patents, with claims that the inventor, Dr. Greg Raleigh, was employed by Qualcomm at the time of the invention's conception.

Patent Litigation: Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00710)

This patent infringement case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involved U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564 and concluded swiftly with a voluntary dismissal. Parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against the patent have since been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: On July 11, 2025, Headwater Research LLC ("Plaintiff") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. ("Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under Case No. 2:25-cv-00710. The asserted patent was U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564. Headwater Research is known as a non-practicing entity (NPE) focused on mobile device and wireless connectivity patents.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay, were recorded or reached a decision due to the rapid termination of the case.

3. Discovery Milestones:

• No significant discovery milestones were reached or reported before the case's dismissal.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case did not progress to the claim construction (Markman) stage.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Voluntary Dismissal: The case was terminated on August 15, 2025, with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Such dismissals typically occur before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This type of dismissal allows the plaintiff to refile the claims in the future, subject to statutes of limitations. The rapid resolution, approximately 35 days after filing, indicates an early settlement or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to withdraw the case at this stage.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2026-00271: On March 27, 2026, Google LLC filed an inter partes review petition (IPR2026-00271) against U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564, owned by Headwater Research LLC. This IPR is currently pending.
• IPR2026-00361: Separately, on May 26, 2026, [[Amazon.com Services](/litigations/by-defendant/Amazon.com%20Services) LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%20Services%20LLC) et al. filed another inter partes review petition (IPR2026-00361) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,491,564. This IPR is also currently pending.
• Effect on Litigation: Given that both IPR petitions were filed in 2026, well after the district court case (2:25-cv-00710) was dismissed in August 2025, these PTAB proceedings did not influence the outcome or timing of the district court litigation. They represent subsequent challenges to the patent's validity.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel for this specific docket.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00710 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The only plaintiff's counsel whose name appears on the face of the 2:25-cv-00710 record I could retrieve is Marc A. Fenster of Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) — he signed and filed every plaintiff-side document in the case (Dkts. 1, 2, 3). Headwater's litigation team nationally is a large RAK group, several of whose attorneys are publicly identified as Headwater's litigation counsel in the related '564-patent matters, but I could not verify that any of them entered an appearance in this docket before it was voluntarily dismissed. No notice of appearance by local Texas counsel appears in the publicly retrieved docket for 00710. Details and caveats below.

---

1. Confirmed on the 00710 docket (plaintiff side)

Docket support: Justia docket for 2:2025cv00710 (filed 7/11/2025; Dkts. 1–3 all attributed to "(Fenster, Marc)"), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00710/[239140](/patent/239140). The dismissal was by Headwater's own Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice (Dkt. 8), after which the Court dismissed without prejudice — i.e., no defensive answer or motion practice ever required additional plaintiff appearances.

2. Attorneys publicly identified as Headwater's counsel in the same patent family / campaign, but not confirmed on the 00710 docket

In the Apple IPR against the '564 patent, the petition's certificate of service lists the following as "Patent Owner's litigation counsel" for Headwater (courtesy copies to RAK addresses):

• Reza Mirzaie, Brian D. Ledahl, Dale Chang, Kristopher R. Davis, James N. Pickens, James S. Tsuei, Jason M. Wietholter — all Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles (Pickens also lists a Plantation, FL address).
• Adam S. Hoffman, Benjamin T. Wang, Paul A. Kroeger, Neil A. Rubin, Philip X. Wang, James A. Milkey, Ryan Lundquist, Qi (Peter) Tong, Mackenzie Paladino, Minna Jay appear as Headwater counsel of record in the closely related E.D. Tex. cases (Headwater v. T-Mobile US, 2:23-cv-00379; Headwater v. Samsung, 2:23-cv-00103 / 2:23-cv-00641; Headwater v. Dish, 2:25-cv-00907), typically with California and/or Texas bar numbers under the same Wilshire Blvd. address.

Caveat: these are inferred from parallel matters, not from 00710. Given the case terminated ~35 days after filing with no answer served, it is plausible that no appearance notices beyond the complaint signature were ever filed. I did not find a 00710 "Notice of Attorney Appearance" for any of them, and I will not assert an appearance I cannot source.

3. Local counsel (E.D. Tex.) — likely, but unconfirmed for 00710

• Andrea L. Fair (TX Bar No. 24078488) and Garrett C. Parish (TX Bar No. 24125824), Miller Fair Henry PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Parkway, Longview, TX — the firm that serves as Headwater's E.D. Tex. local counsel across its campaign (appearances in 2:23-cv-00103, 2:23-cv-00352, 2:23-cv-00379, 2:25-cv-00907). Fair is the named local counsel in Headwater's pretrial filings and, notably, helped the RAK trial team obtain a $175 million jury verdict against Verizon in Headwater v. Verizon (E.D. Tex., Aug. 2025) — the same campaign month in which 00710 was filed. Whether Miller Fair Henry formally appeared in 00710 specifically is not shown on the docket excerpt I retrieved; treat as probable but unverified.
• Prior local counsel historically used by Headwater in Marshall/Tyler: Robert Christopher Bunt, Parker Bunt & Ainsworth (Tyler) — terminated 7/19/2024 in the 2023 T-Mobile case; no evidence tying him to 00710.
• Court-appointed technical advisor in the related T-Mobile litigation: Michael Dean Paul, Michael D Paul, PLLC (San Antonio) — not plaintiff's counsel.

4. Related non-litigation counsel (for completeness, not counsel of record here)

• Farjami & Farjami LLP, 26522 La Alameda Ave., Suite 360, Mission Viejo, CA — the prosecution/address-of-record contact for Headwater Research LLC in PTAB proceedings. This is patent-prosecution correspondence, not district-court counsel.
• IPR petitioners' counsel (adverse to Headwater, not relevant to this task): Erise IP for Apple; others for Google/Amazon in IPR2026-00271 and IPR2026-00361.

5. Sourcing gaps and one flagged inconsistency

• Sealed/no-information items: No attorney appearance notices, pro hac vice applications, or designation of lead counsel were publicly retrievable for 00710 before termination. PACER (the authoritative source) may show additional entries not mirrored on the free aggregators; I could only verify Dkts. 1–3 and the Dkt. 8 dismissal notice. I have therefore not invented any additional appearances.
• Contradiction with the prior section: the previously generated "Key legal developments" section characterizes the dismissal as occurring August 15, 2025 (~35 days after filing); a PatSnap case card describes the litigation as an "81-day period" ending in dismissal. The two cannot both be right on a 7/11/2025 filing date. The Justia docket (last retrieved 7/11/2025) and the PatSnap timeline both support a July 11 filing; the 81-day figure likely runs to the date the Court's accepting order was entered (Dkt. 8) rather than the notice's filing. Flagging rather than resolving — PACER is the tiebreaker.
• One more reconciliation note: the complaint in 00710 asserts both U.S. Pat. No. 9,491,564 and U.S. Pat. No. 9,232,403 (claim charts at Exs. 3–6), consistent with the "9491564" patent listed in the case metadata but broader than it. That matters for identifying counsel because the same RAK team litigated both patents across the Verizon, AT&T, Samsung, Dish and Apple matters.

Net answer for the current task: plaintiff's counsel of record = Marc A. Fenster (lead), Russ August & Kabat LLP, Los Angeles, with the broader RAK Headwater team (Mirzaie, Ledahl, Chang, Davis, Pickens, Tsuei, Wietholter, et al.) and Texas local counsel Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Andrea L. Fair / Garrett C. Parish) as the parties who would customarily appear — the latter two groups being highly likely but not docket-confirmed for 2:25-cv-00710.

I'll research defense counsel for this case.

Let me dig into the specific docket and defense-side firms.