Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al.

This case, Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Headwater Research LLC (a patent licensing entity, also known as a Non-Practicing Entity or NPE) against AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Enterprises, LLC, and AT&T Mobility LLC (collectively, AT&T). AT&T, a multinational telecommunications conglomerate, provides a wide range of services including wireless, internet, and business solutions. Headwater Research, founded by Dr. Gregory Raleigh, focuses on inventing and developing technological breakthroughs in areas such as mobile device operating systems, cloud technology, and mobile network services, and then licenses or commercializes these technologies. The lawsuit targets AT&T's products and services, particularly those related to mobile electronic device communication functionality, with the specific patent asserted being U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403. This patent generally relates to mobile device communication technologies. While specific accused products or services in this case are not detailed in public search results, Headwater's broader litigation campaign against major wireless carriers frequently involves mobile data management and device policy enforcement, including tethering infrastructure.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX), a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural norms and experienced patent juries. This venue selection is a strategic consideration in Headwater's assertion patterns. The case is notable as it is part of an ongoing and aggressive patent assertion campaign by Headwater Research against major U.S. wireless carriers and technology companies. Headwater has a track record of filing coordinated suits against multiple defendants, often leading to out-of-court settlements or significant jury verdicts. For example, Headwater secured a $278.8 million verdict against Samsung in April 2025 and a $175 million verdict against Verizon in July 2025 for infringement of other patents in their portfolio. The repeated assertions against major telecommunications providers highlight the commercial significance Headwater attributes to its intellectual property in mobile device and wireless connectivity technologies. While this specific case (2:25-cv-00711) is active, other similar cases filed by Headwater against AT&T and Verizon on or around the same time have seen rapid dismissals without prejudice, often indicating a portfolio-wide licensing arrangement. There is no information readily available regarding a specific judge assigned to this case. There are also no details available on any parallel PTAB IPRs directly related to the '403 patent for this specific case, though Headwater Research LLC has been involved in PTAB proceedings for other patents in its portfolio.

The patent infringement lawsuit Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00711 E.D. Tex.), concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403, has seen several key developments since its filing on July 11, 2025.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Headwater Research LLC filed its complaint against AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Enterprises, LLC, and AT&T Mobility LLC on July 11, 2025. The specific details of AT&T's answer and any counterclaims are not yet publicly available in detailed search results, but it is standard practice for defendants in such cases to file an answer denying infringement and asserting various affirmative defenses.

Pre-trial Motions:

• A significant development occurred with the filing of a Joint Motion to Dismiss in Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al.. While the exact date of this motion is not immediately clear, an order granting this Joint Motion to Dismiss was issued, indicating a resolution before reaching trial.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403, has been subject to multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • On January 23, 2026, Google LLC filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403 (IPR2026-00203), which is currently pending.
  • Another IPR, IPR2026-00050, was filed by Google LLC et al. against Headwater Research LLC on October 30, 2025, also involving patent 9,232,403. In this IPR proceeding, exhibits included notices of partial settlement and joint motions to dismiss in other Headwater Research LLC cases against various defendants, including Amazon.com Services LLC, Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. Notably, an "Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss in Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al." was filed as Exhibit 2005 in IPR2026-00050, confirming the dismissal of the district court case.
• There were other IPRs against Headwater Research LLC's patents, including some that were not instituted (e.g., IPR2026-00153 and IPR2026-00154 filed by Target Corp.) and others that were instituted and are pending (e.g., IPR2026-00106 filed by Amazon Web Services Inc.).
• It's worth noting that in an earlier IPR (IPR2024-01396) concerning a different Headwater Research LLC patent (9,647,918 B2), the Director of the USPTO vacated the decision granting institution and denied institution, citing that the trial date in a parallel proceeding was set for approximately six months before the final written decision, and the merits of the petition did not outweigh other factors in a Fintiv analysis.

Outcome:

• The case Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00711 E.D. Tex.) was dismissed following a Joint Motion to Dismiss. This indicates a settlement or other agreement between the parties that led to the voluntary termination of the litigation. The exact terms of the settlement are not publicly available. The existence of multiple IPR filings against the asserted patent, as well as Google's declaratory judgment action filed on September 3, 2025, seeking non-infringement of the '403 patent and another (9,491,564 patent), likely played a strategic role in the overall litigation landscape for Headwater Research LLC.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. 2:25-cv-00711 EDTX plaintiff counsel", "Headwater Research LLC patent litigation counsel", "inventor Gregory Raleigh patent attorney"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, in the case Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00711 E.D. Tex.). I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and relevant experience. I will use web search with the provided case details and plaintiff's name.

Based on the previous sections, I know the case was filed on July 11, 2025, and is active. I will look for recent docket entries if available to identify the appearing attorneys.## Plaintiff Representatives

Identifying the specific counsel of record for Headwater Research LLC in Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00711 E.D. Tex.) requires a review of the initial filings or a direct docket search. While specific attorneys for this case are not immediately apparent through general web searches, Headwater Research LLC frequently relies on a consistent set of law firms and attorneys for its extensive patent litigation campaigns.

Based on Headwater Research LLC's history of litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and parallel cases, the following firms and attorneys are highly likely to represent the plaintiff:

• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, Texas) is a prominent local counsel firm often used by Headwater Research LLC.
• Lee & Hayes, PC (Spokane, Washington and other offices) has also represented Headwater Research LLC as lead counsel in previous litigation.

Specific attorneys associated with Headwater Research LLC in similar cases include:

• Clayton Dark, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: The Dark Law Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Dark has represented Headwater Research LLC in numerous cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including against major telecommunications providers.

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Local Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, Texas)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Ward is a highly experienced trial attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases, including for Headwater Research LLC.

As of May 29, 2026, without direct access to the docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00711, the precise lead counsel and local counsel have not been explicitly identified through public search results for this specific case number. However, the firms and attorneys listed above have a strong historical pattern of representing Headwater Research LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, making their involvement highly probable.

The following attorney has been identified as representing the defendant(s) in Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al. (2:25-cv-00711 E.D. Tex.).

Deron R. Dacus

• Role: Local Counsel (Inferred)
• Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C.
• Office Location: Tyler, Texas
• Relevant Experience: Mr. Dacus is a seasoned patent litigation attorney with extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas, having represented clients in over 1,000 patent cases and successfully tried dozens to verdict. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property and Business Litigation in multiple years (2009-2011, 2019-2026). He frequently represents major corporate defendants, including AT&T and Verizon, in patent infringement suits in the EDTX. Notably, he is listed as representing AT&T Mobility, LLC in another 2025 case brought by Headwater Research LLC (2:25-cv-00464) and represented Verizon in a parallel Headwater Research LLC case (2:25-cv-00709) filed on the same day as the instant case.

While a national firm likely serves as lead counsel for AT&T, specific attorneys from such a firm for this particular case (2:25-cv-00711) were not explicitly identified in public search results. However, based on similar litigation, firms like Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP have represented AT&T in complex patent matters in the Eastern District of Texas.