Litigation

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

active

2:25-cv-00711

Filed
2025-07-11

Patents at issue (1)

9232403PTAB challenge active

Summary

Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement suit against AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Enterprises, LLC, and AT&T Mobility LLC in the Eastern District of Texas on July 11, 2025. The case status implies it was recently filed.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

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](/litigations/by-defendant/Amazon.com%20Services) LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%20Services%20LLC), 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.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

I found some leads. Let me drill into coverage specific to the AT&T case and the settlement.

Press & Media Coverage

*Bottom line: I could not find any published news article that reports specifically on Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00711, or on its assertion of U.S. Patent No. 9,232,403 against AT&T.* The July 2025 wave of EDTX complaints Headwater filed against AT&T (including 2:25-cv-00685, -00693 and the instant -00711), Verizon (2:25-cv-00709) and T-Mobile (2:25-cv-00710) went essentially unreported as such; what the trade and legal press covered was the earlier Headwater-vs-carrier litigation and the two nine-figure verdicts that preceded this filing spree. Everything below is coverage that touches the same parties, the same patent family, or the same campaign — not coverage of this docket.

The one wire story that directly discusses an AT&T–Headwater resolution is Reuters' Aug. 12, 2025 report by Blake Brittain, "AT&T, T-Mobile settle US wireless patent cases before trial," which states that AT&T and Headwater told a Texas federal court they had settled a suit accusing AT&T of infringing wireless-communications patents, and that the parties asked the court to pause proceedings days before a trial was set to begin; it added that T-Mobile settled a related Headwater case the same day. That story expressly identifies the cases as Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00397 and Headwater Research LLC v. T-Mobile US Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00379 — the 2023–24 AT&T case, not the 2025 case at issue here — which is an important limit on how much of the reporting can be mapped onto 2:25-cv-00711. Law360 ran the same development on Aug. 12, 2025 under the headline "AT&T, T-Mobile Settle Patent Suit After $175M Verizon Verdict," framing the carrier settlements as fallout from the July 2025 Verizon jury verdict. Separately, JDJournal, reporting on Verizon's post-verdict settlement, noted in passing that Headwater "has also settled comparable claims with AT&T and T-Mobile." Notably, the -00397 docket and USPTO related-matter filings show that case still generating activity into late October 2025 (e.g., Judge Gilstrap's Oct. 28, 2025 order adopting magistrate recommendations), so the publicly reported "settlement" appears to have resolved only part of that multi-patent case — a tension between the press framing and the record worth flagging.

Most of the substantive coverage is about Headwater's verdicts, which supply the commercial backdrop the press uses to explain the carrier suits. Reuters (syndicated via ET Telecom, July 24, 2025) reported that an EDTX Marshall jury ordered Verizon Wireless to pay $175 million on July 23, 2025, quoting Headwater's complaint characterization that the patented technology lets wireless devices "reduce data usage and network congestion, extend battery life by decreasing power consumption, and enable users to stay connected," and noting Verizon denied infringement and argued invalidity. Legal Era (July 24, 2025) added a Verizon spokesperson's reaction that the verdict was "simply not supported by the facts," with the company confirming it would appeal, and tied the win to Headwater's earlier $278.7 million Samsung verdict in April 2025 — roughly $454 million combined. Miller Fair Henry, the firm that tried the Verizon case alongside Russ August & Kabat, later described the $175 million award as arising from "the sale of Apple and Android mobile phones sold by the carrier," and in a Jan. 9, 2026 retrospective listed the Samsung and Verizon awards as two of Texas's ten largest 2025 verdicts. Law360 profiled Russ August & Kabat's run of nine-figure patent verdicts, including the $175 million Texas win. None of this reporting mentions the '403 patent, the July 2025 AT&T complaints, or case 2:25-cv-00711.

On the AT&T side of the docket, the only Headwater-specific litigation story I found is Law360's report that a Texas magistrate declined Headwater's bid to disqualify McKool Smith LLP from representing AT&T in its wireless patent suit — a conflict fight in the earlier AT&T matter, with no apparent press counterpart in the 2025 filings. The '403 patent itself surfaces in the press mainly through third parties: Google's N.D. Cal. declaratory-judgment action of Sept. 3, 2025 (3:25-cv-07453) seeking non-infringement of the '403 and '564 patents — the record confirms the filings and Apple's mirror-image DJ suit (3:25-cv-07591, dismissed by stipulation Nov. 3, 2025), though I found no news article covering either — and Google's IPR2026-00203 petition against the '403 patent filed Jan. 23, 2026, which is documented on PTAB aggregators (Docket Alarm, Ex Parte) rather than in journalism.

Finally, a note on the "analysis" hits that dominate search results: the articles most closely addressing Headwater-vs-AT&T 2025 dockets are vendor-generated litigation-intelligence posts from PatSnap Eureka (e.g., on the rapid without-prejudice dismissals in AT&T cases 2:25-cv-00215 and 2:25-cv-00685) and PatSnap (on the 77-day dismissal of the Verizon companion case 2:25-cv-00709, which asserted the '403 patent). These are PACER-derived analytics, not reporting, and should be treated as such. They also bear on an unresolved inconsistency in this record: the case metadata here lists 2:25-cv-00711 as "active," and docket aggregators (UniCourt, Stanford NPE Database) show it open with no termination date, while the previously generated sections of this summary state the case was dismissed on a joint motion (the order apparently filed as Exhibit 2005 in IPR2026-00050). I could not verify that dismissal through any press article or independent docket source, so the dismissal claim should be treated as unconfirmed rather than as reported fact.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research plaintiff's counsel using multiple search angles.

Let me pull the specific docket and attorney appearances for 2:25-cv-00711.

Let me get the actual docket sheet and complaint signature block.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00711 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The only attorney I can confirm on the face of the 2:25-cv-00711 record is Marc A. Fenster of Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles), who signed and filed every paper entered on this docket (Dkts. 1–3). Headwater's plaintiff-side representation in this campaign is a Russ August & Kabat ("RAK") team, with RAK serving as lead counsel; EDTX-local counsel from Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth (Tyler) has appeared for Headwater in the related EDTX cases but I could not verify an appearance in -00711 itself. Because this docket apparently terminated very early (the joint-dismissal order reportedly surfaced as Exhibit 2005 in IPR2026-00050), it is plausible that no further appearances were ever entered — see the caveats at the end.

1. Confirmed: attorney of record on the -00711 docket

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Marc A. Fenster (CA Bar No. 181067) Lead counsel / counsel of record — the signing attorney on the complaint, AO-120 notice, and Rule 7.1 disclosure Russ August & Kabat LLP, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 RAK partner; co-chair of the firm's litigation department and chair of its patent litigation group. Signed the -00711 complaint on 7/11/2025 (Dkt. 1), the AO 120 (Dkt. 2), and the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure (Dkt. 3). Led the RAK trial teams that won the $175M Verizon verdict (E.D. Tex., July 23, 2025) and the $278.7M Samsung verdict (April 2025).

Sources: docket entries 1–3 as recorded at Justia Dockets, Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al., No. 2:2025cv00711 and UniCourt case page (both list "Plaintiff Attorney: Marc A Fenster" and show Dkts. 1–3 as "(Fenster, Marc)"); see also the Ex Parte case page for 2:25-cv-00711. Press confirms the firm-level representation: Law.com reported that "Headwater is represented by a team from Russ August & Kabat in Los Angeles" for the July 2025 carrier suits (Law.com, July 8, 2025).

I could not retrieve a PACER docket sheet or an appearance notice for -00711 listing any plaintiff attorney beyond Fenster; where aggregators show only "Marc A Fenster," that typically reflects the filing attorney, not a complete Rule 83.1/CM-ECF appearance list.

2. Inferred (not confirmed on this docket): the broader RAK plaintiff team

Headwater's filings are filed by a recurring RAK roster. The signature block used across the parallel 2025 Headwater complaints — e.g., the Dish Network complaint, No. 2:25-cv-00907 (Dated Aug. 27, 2025) — lists the following RAK attorneys as "Attorneys for Plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC": Marc Fenster, Reza Mirzaie, Brian Ledahl, Dale Chang, Kristopher Davis, James Pickens, James S. Tsuei, and Jason M. Wietholter (2:25-cv-00907 Dkt. 3, Rule 7.1 Disclosure). A later Headwater pleading in the N.D. Cal. litigation lists a 13-attorney RAK signature block (adding Ben Wang, Paul Kroeger, Neil A. Rubin, Philip Wang, James Milkey, and Jason Wietholter) (govinfo PDF, N.D. Cal. 4:26-cv-06192). These names appear as "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" on the contemporaneous Headwater EDTX docket in Headwater v. T-Mobile, No. 2:23-cv-00379 (Marshall Div., Judge Gilstrap / Mag. J. Payne).

Name Role (inferred for this campaign) Firm / Office Relevant experience
Reza Mirzaie (CA Bar 246953) Co-lead / trial counsel RAK, Los Angeles Co-chair of RAK's plaintiff-side patent litigation department; registered patent attorney; tried the Verizon ($175M) and Samsung ($279M) Headwater verdicts with Fenster and Ledahl; >$600M in client recoveries over five years per firm bio (RAK bio).
Brian D. Ledahl (CA Bar 186579) Trial counsel RAK, Los Angeles RAK partner; Headwater trial team on Verizon and Samsung verdicts.
Benjamin ("Ben") T. Wang (CA Bar 228712) Trial counsel RAK, Los Angeles Headwater trial teams; appeared in Headwater v. T-Mobile (2:23-cv-00379).
Dale Chang (CA Bar 248657) Trial counsel RAK, Los Angeles Cross-examined Verizon's corporate representative in the $175M trial; >20 trials; ex-Latham & Watkins (RAK bio).
Adam S. Hoffman Counsel RAK, Los Angeles Long-time Headwater/RAK patent litigator; appeared in Headwater v. T-Mobile and Headwater v. Samsung dockets.
Kristopher R. Davis, James S. Tsuei, Jason M. Wietholter, James N. Pickens Counsel RAK, Los Angeles Recurring RAK signatories on 2025 Headwater complaints (e.g., 2:25-cv-00907).
Matthew D. Aichele Pro hac vice counsel RAK, Washington, D.C. office (800 Main Ave. SW, Ste. 200) Admitted PHV in the related EDTX Headwater v. T-Mobile matter (Dkt. 123, 12/19/2024).
Also seen on RAK Headwater pleadings: Paul A. Kroeger, Neil A. Rubin, Philip X. Wang, James A. Milkey, Mackenzie Paladino, Qi Tong, Ryan Lundquist Counsel RAK, Los Angeles / D.C. Appearances and signature blocks in Headwater's 2022–2025 EDTX cases.

Caveat: I list these as the likely team by pattern from Headwater's parallel filings, not as verified counsel of record in -00711. Do not treat them as confirmed for this docket absent a PACER check.

3. Local counsel (EDTX) — inferred, not verified for -00711

  • Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. — 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418, Tyler, TX 75702. Charles ("Charley") Ainsworth and Robert Christopher Bunt entered appearances "as additional counsel for Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC" in the related EDTX cases (Headwater v. Samsung, 2:23-cv-00103, Dkt. 102, July 9, 2024, CourtListener PDF; also Headwater v. T-Mobile, 2:23-cv-00379). The Texas Lawbook's Verizon-verdict coverage described Headwater's trial team as including "Robert Blunt of Parker Blunt & Ainsworth in Tyler" — almost certainly a misprint for Bunt (Texas Lawbook).
  • Miller Fair Henry (Longview, TX) — Andrea Fair and Garrett Parish appeared on Headwater's trial team in Headwater v. Verizon, No. 2:23-cv-00352, but this is trial-team staffing in a different case, not an appearance here.

I found no evidence (docket entry, opinion, or press item) that either firm entered an appearance in 2:25-cv-00711.

4. In-house counsel

No in-house/Headwater-employed attorney appears anywhere on the -00711 record. Headwater Research LLC is a licensing entity founded by Dr. Gregory Raleigh; the litigation is run through outside counsel (RAK), so in-house counsel is not expected to appear.

5. What I could not verify — and two flags

  1. No PACER-level attorney-appearance list for -00711 was retrievable. The docket aggregators I could reach (Justia

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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.