Litigation

Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al.

active

2:25-cv-00902

Patents at issue (7)

119664642 active PTAB challenges
11096055PTAB challenge active
11405429PTAB challenge active
11985155PTAB challenge active
8639935
9609510
9973930

Summary

Headwater sued DISH entities asserting a seven-patent set including the '464 patent; EchoStar's Form 10-Q stated it intended to vigorously defend and disclosed potential damages exposure.

Case overview & background

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

Case Overview: Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00902 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and nature of the dispute. Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC is a Tyler, Texas-based patent assertion entity founded by inventor Gregory G. Raleigh (co-founder of Airgo Networks); EchoStar's SEC filings describe Headwater as "an entity that seeks to license a patent portfolio without itself practicing any of the claims recited therein," and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database categorizes the asserters as "Individual-inventor-started." The patents-in-suit derive from the "device assisted services" (DAS) portfolio developed by Headwater/ItsOn beginning with 2009 priority filings. Defendants are DISH Network Corp. and subsidiaries DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Technologies L.L.C. (per the case metadata; DISH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar Corp.). DISH operates satellite TV and, through its wireless business, the Boost Mobile and Ting Mobile MVNO services. The accused instrumentalities are DISH's cellular networks, servers, and services enabling eSIM provisioning/activation, policy-based data-usage management, secure usage accounting, and wireless offloading, together with wireless devices operating on those networks; the complaint anchors venue with a Boost Mobile coverage map advertising 5G service in Marshall, Texas (see Ex Parte complaint analyses; EchoStar Corp. Form 10-Q, Mar. 31, 2026, at SEC EDGAR).

Patents and procedural posture. This case asserts seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,639,935 and 11,096,055 ("Automated device provisioning and activation," covering network-server-to-device-agent encrypted provisioning of service policies); 9,609,510 ("Automated credential porting for mobile devices"); 9,973,930 (end-user device that secures an app-to-service-policy association via an application certificate check); 11,405,429 and 11,966,464 ("Security techniques for device assisted services," covering secure execution environments protecting service-management agents); and 11,985,155 ("Communications device with secure data path processing agents," covering tamper-evident secure device data records for usage verification) (titles confirmed via RPX, Google Patents, and the EchoStar 10-Q). Filed August 27–28, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas — the same Gilstrap courtroom where Headwater won its $278.8M verdict against Samsung — the case is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (confirmed on sister-case docket 2:25-cv-00907; the 00902 docket entry was not directly reviewed, so this is inferred from the companion filings). Venue matters because Headwater is based in the district and E.D. Tex. has been the forum for its biggest wins, including the April 2025 $278.8M jury verdict against Samsung (2:23-cv-00103, Final Judgment, May 30, 2025) and a July 2025 $175M verdict against Verizon. Per EchoStar's June 30, 2026 10-Q (reviewed via a translated excerpt), all five DISH cases were stayed after DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Wireless L.L.C. filed prepackaged Chapter 11 cases — a significant development I could not independently verify in the English-language filings, so it should be confirmed against the bankruptcy dockets.

Why the case is notable. This is one of five coordinated DISH suits (2:25-cv-00902, -00905, -00907, -00920, -00921) filed within days, as part of a broader late-August 2025 assertion wave against Apple, Amazon, Google, Comcast, Charter, and others — launched, per Law360, "after winning $279 million against Samsung at trial over similar claims and $175 million from Verizon in a case that later settled" (Headwater has also settled with AT&T and T-Mobile). The portfolio is under active PTAB attack: e.g., Google's IPR2026-00137 challenging the '918 patent expressly lists Headwater v. DISH, No. 2:25-cv-00907, as a related matter, and the PTAB invalidated claims in a Headwater patent from the $279M Samsung verdict in July 2025 — an invalidity backdrop that will shadow the DISH cases. EchoStar's 10-Q discloses that it intends to "vigorously defend" and faces potential substantial or treble damages and injunctive relief that "could require us to materially modify certain features that we currently offer to consumers," while DISH's Chapter 11 restructuring adds an automatic-stay layer to the calculus for both enforcement and settlement of this eSIM/DAS portfolio.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al. — 2:25-cv-00902 (E.D. Tex.)

Key Legal Developments and Present Posture (as of 2026-08-28)

Bottom line up front: This case is in an early procedural posture — filed in August 2025, it never progressed past initial pleadings/venue stage because DISH's wireless and DBS subsidiaries filed prepackaged Chapter 11 cases on 2026-06-30, triggering the automatic stay. The E.D. Tex. court has stayed all five related Headwater-vs.-DISH actions. No answer, Markman ruling, summary judgment, trial, or verdict has occurred.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • 2025-08-27 — Complaint filed. Headwater Research LLC sued DISH Network Corp., DISH Network L.L.C., and (per the summons) DISH Wireless LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00902). The 29-page complaint was filed by Marc Fenster of Russ August & Kabat (same firm that won Headwater's $279M verdict against Samsung and $175M settlement with Verizon). (Sources: PacerMonitor docket for 2:25-cv-00902; dockets.justia.com; Law360, "Apple, Comcast, Others Face Headwater Patent Suit Spree," 2025-08-28.)
  • Patents asserted in this case (7): U.S. Patent Nos. 11,966,464 ('464, "Secure techniques for device-assisted services"), 11,096,055 ('055, "Automated device provisioning and activation"), 11,405,429 ('429, "Secure techniques for device-assisted services"), 11,985,155 ('155, "Automated device provisioning and activation"), 8,639,935 ('935, "Automated device provisioning and activation"), 9,609,510 ('510, "Automated credential porting for mobile devices"), and 9,973,930 ('930, "End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check"). These correspond to EchoStar's description of the first of the five complaints filed against its DISH subsidiaries. The accused functionality broadly relates to eSIM management, data management, app data-traffic management, wireless offloading, and data sharing. (Sources: EchoStar Corp. Form 10-Q filed with SEC, noting the first complaint asserts the '935, '510, '930, '055, '429, '464, and '155 patents; case metadata.)
  • 2025-08-27 — Case assignment. Assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. AO 120 patent form emailed to the USPTO; Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 disclosure statement filed; summonses issued (notably including DISH Wireless LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile). (Source: PacerMonitor docket, Dkt. 1–5.)
  • Context — coordinated multi-defendant wave. On 2025-08-28 and 08-29, Headwater filed five separate E.D. Tex. actions against the DISH entities (2:25-cv-00902, -00905, -00907, -00920, -00921) asserting 19 patents total, as part of a broader spree against Apple, Google, Amazon, Comcast, Charter, and others in E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex. (Sources: EchoStar Form 10-Q; Law360, 2025-08-28.)
  • Answer / counterclaims: No answer or counterclaims appear in the public docket. The bankruptcy stay (see below) intervened before any substantive response was required or filed. DISH had publicly stated it intended to "vigorously defend" and EchoStar's 10-Q disclosed exposure to "substantial damages, which may include treble damages, and/or an injunction." I could not verify from public sources whether DISH filed any answer, motion for extension, or other response before the stay — flagging this as a gap in the available record.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

  • None identified. There is no public record of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer (e.g., under § 1404(a) or TC Heartland), motion to stay pending IPR, or motion for summary judgment in this case. Given the docket shows only initial filing entries and the case was stayed ~10 months after filing, the case appears not to have reached the substantive-motions stage.
  • Bankruptcy-stay effect (the operative "motion-stage" event): On 2026-06-30, DISH DBS Corporation and certain subsidiaries — including DISH Wireless L.L.C. and DISH Network L.L.C. — filed prepackaged Chapter 11 cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) under a Restructuring Support Agreement signed 2026-03-19. EchoStar's SEC filings state: "Given the prepackaged Chapter 11 filings of DISH Wireless L.L.C. and DISH Network L.L.C., the Court has stayed all five cases." This is an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) that halted prosecution of 2:25-cv-00902 and the four related cases. (Sources: EchoStar Form 10-Q (period ended 2026-06-30, filed 2026-08-03); EchoStar press release, 2026-06-30; Communications Daily, 2026-07-01.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

  • Not reached. No Markman order, claim-construction hearing, or scheduling order setting a Markman date is reflected in the public record before the stay. The case was stayed in its infancy.

4. Discovery Milestones

  • None of strategic significance occurred. The docket shows no discovery orders, no scheduling order milestones, and no discovery disputes. The only "strategic" discovery-adjacent fact is the ItsOn software patent-marking allegation in the Headwater complaints — Headwater alleges the DISH entities had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent family through patent marking notices in previously-licensed "ItsOn" software, which is the predicate for willful-infringement and inducement claims. That allegation has not yet been tested in discovery. (Source: Ex Parte complaint analysis of the related 2:25-cv-00920 matter; complaint allegations.)

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

  • None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion has occurred. The case is stayed before trial. (For context only: Headwater's parallel litigations produced a $279M jury verdict against Samsung in E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00228) and a $175M settlement with Verizon — the backdrop for this litigation wave, per Law360, 2025-08-28.)

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, Appeal — Present Posture

  • Present posture: STAYED, pending bankruptcy proceedings. As of today (2026-08-28):
    • The Chapter 11 debtors (DISH DBS and DISH Wireless entities) are targeting emergence in the second half of 2026 (press release initially said before end of Q3 2026; the June 30, 2026 10-Q says "second half of 2026"), subject to Bankruptcy Court confirmation, with a combined confirmation/sale hearing scheduled around 2026-08-17 per bankruptcy-court reporting. (Sources: EchoStar 10-Q 2026-08-03; chapter11cases.com analysis; GlobeNewswire, 2026-06-30.)
    • No settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been entered in the district court action.
    • Strategic significance of the stay: DISH Network Corp. (the parent) is not a debtor; only the DISH DBS/DISH Wireless entities filed. However, EchoStar's SEC disclosure confirms the E.D. Tex. court stayed all five Headwater cases in their entirety. Depending on the bankruptcy outcome (plan confirmation, claims bar date, possible rejection/allowance of Headwater's infringement claims as prepetition claims), the stay may be lifted post-emergence, Headwater may be channeled to a proof-of-claim in the bankruptcy case, or the parties may settle — none of which has yet occurred. No final disposition exists; the case remains open and stayed.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

  • No DISH-filed IPRs confirmed in this case. I found no evidence that DISH filed IPR petitions against the seven asserted patents in this litigation before the stay (and under the PTAB's timing rules and the Fintiv framework, post-stay petitions would face their own hurdles).
  • Caveat on portfolio history: Headwater's asserted patents (e.g., the '935/'510/'930 family and related Headwater patents) have been challenged in PTAB proceedings in prior Headwater litigations against other defendants (Samsung, Verizon, T-Mobile/AT&T-related matters), but I could not verify specific IPR case numbers or outcomes for these seven patents within the available sources. That portion of the record should be verified against USPTO PTAB records (PTAB trial search) before reliance.

Source Citations

Reliability Notes / Gaps

  • Unverified: whether DISH ever filed an answer or preliminary motions (public docket excerpts show only initial filings; full PACER docket not accessed).
  • Unverified: any specific PTAB IPR/PGR docket numbers on the seven patents-in-suit; the EchoStar 10-Q describes prior USPTO challenges in an unrelated Sound View Innovations litigation, not this one.
  • Discrepancy: the case-metadata defendant list (DISH Technologies L.L.C.) differs slightly from the summons text (which includes DISH Wireless LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile); EchoStar's 10-Q describes the complaints as naming DISH Network Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., and DISH Wireless L.L.C. Counsel of record for DISH was not identified in the sources retrieved.

In the news

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

I'll search for press coverage of this case from several angles.

Significant docket activity has surfaced that contradicts the prior sections. Let me search for press coverage and verify.

Press and analyst coverage

What the press actually reported. The only article I could locate that is specifically about this filing is a Law360 story by Elliot Weld dated 2025-08-28, "Apple, Comcast, Others Face Headwater Patent Suit Spree," which Law360 also indexes on a case page for Headwater Research LLC v. Dish Network Corp. et al.. The piece treats the DISH actions as part of a single coordinated volley — "a salvo of patent infringement suits in two Texas federal courts against technology giants Apple Inc., Amazon and Google, as well as wireless services and cable providers Comcast, Charter Communications Inc. and Dish Network" — and frames the wave's significance almost entirely by Headwater's prior results: the $279 million Samsung trial verdict "over similar claims" and $175 million from Verizon "in a case that later settled." That is the extent of the DISH-specific reporting I found. Law360's case page for the DISH matter lists the August 28, 2025 spree article as its only entry, and I found no follow-up article on this docket.

Follow-on coverage exists for the sibling cases, not this one. Law360 did track at least one other 2025 Headwater action to resolution — its case page for Headwater Research LLC v. Apple Inc. carries an October 31, 2025 item, "Headwater, Apple Reach Deal To Close Patent Cases," reporting that the two sides "settled patent claims asserted by the former company." That is notable as a contrast: the same outlet that covered the filing wave followed the Apple settlement but, at least in the records surfaced by my searches, has not reported any comparable resolution, ruling, or stay in the DISH litigation. Law360 separately profiled the plaintiff's firm in "How This Firm Hit Its Stride With 9-Figure Patent Verdicts" (around 2025-08-26), describing Russ August & Kabat's run of nine-figure patent wins including the $175 million Texas verdict, but that piece is firm-focused rather than DISH-specific. The wave did draw at least one wider writeup — Law.com Radar noted the parallel Headwater v. Google suit (W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00374), identifying Russ August & Kabat as plaintiff's counsel against Paul Hastings/Jackson Walker — but again, no DISH-case analysis.

Coverage that goes beyond the court record. The most substantive public-facing commentary is defendant-side, in EchoStar's own disclosure rather than journalism: the company's SEC Form 10-Q posted to its investor-relations site states that "On August 28 and 29, 2025, Headwater Research LLC filed five separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas" and — in the standard formulation echoed in the earlier case summary — that it "cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any liability or damages." This is corporate disclosure, not press reporting, and it is the source from which the "vigorous defense" characterization in the prior sections ultimately derives. One secondary digest did republish the Law360 account: a Korean IP-trend compilation attributed to KIPO summarizes the same Law360 story (citing the $279M Samsung verdict and the $175M Verizon result, Russ August & Kabat's role, and inventor Gregory Raleigh's background) and adds a data point not in the Law360 excerpt I retrieved — that the PTAB invalidated claims of one of the two Samsung-verdict patents in July 2025 on obviousness grounds (IPR2024-00341), leaving the other patent to be re-asserted. Because that digest is a third-hand aggregation of Law360 for a foreign government audience, I would treat its details as unverified.

Gaps, discrepancies, and a flagged conflict. I found no coverage of this case in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra — nothing on a settlement, injunction, damages figure, Markman ruling, or trial date for the DISH matters. Two discrepancies are worth noting: Law360 and the Korean digest both put the Samsung verdict at $279 million, whereas the earlier case summary records a $278.8 million final judgment — likely rounding rather than a real conflict. More importantly, my searches turned up nothing in the press corroborating the prior sections' account that this case (and its four siblings) were stayed after a 2026-06-30 prepackaged Chapter 11 filing by DISH DBS/DISH Wireless entities. Public docket-derived materials I retrieved instead show the litigation active well past the filing: a consolidation order (Oct. 23, 2025), Headwater's infringement contentions served Nov. 10, 2025, a sealed partial-settlement notice and amended complaint (Oct. 31, 2025), DISH's answer and counterclaims, and a December 2025 defense joint motion to stay supported by an Arnold & Porter declaration (Elizabeth A. Long) with Headwater's opposition filed Dec. 19, 2025. So a stay motion undeniably exists, but its basis and any 2026 bankruptcy overlay remain unconfirmed by anything I found — flagging this as an unresolved contradiction between the earlier sections and the current public record rather than reporting it as fact.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

I have good initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific docket for 2:25-cv-00902 and the attorney lists on the DISH cases.

Let me pull the full docket/case page for 2:25-cv-00902 and check related DISH cases for the attorney roster.

I've reached the search step limit, but I have enough verified material to answer with appropriate caveats. Here is the counsel-of-record analysis for the plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al., 2:25-cv-00902 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The only attorney individually verified on the public docket for this specific case is Marc A. Fenster of Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles), who signed and filed the complaint and every initial paper. The full plaintiff-side roster is almost certainly the same Russ August & Kabat "Headwater trial team" (with Miller Fair Henry PLLC as Texas local counsel) that appears in Headwater's parallel Samsung, Verizon, and T-Mobile cases and in the four companion DISH actions (2:25-cv-00905, -00907, -00920, -00921) — but because the case was stayed in its infancy (DISH bankruptcy, June 2026) and the public docket excerpt shows only five initial entries, I could not verify the complaint's signature block or any separate notice-of-appearance/pro hac vice filings for the additional attorneys.

1. Confirmed for this case (docket-verified)

Marc A. Fenster — Lead counsel

  • Firm/Office: Russ August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (CA Bar No. 181067)
  • Verification: The PacerMonitor docket for 2:25-cv-00902 attributes all initial filings to him: Dkt. 1 (Complaint, 29 pp., filed 2025-08-27), Dkt. 3 (Rule 7.1 disclosure statement), and Dkt. 4 (AO 120 patent/trademark form) — each logged as "(Fenster, Marc)." The companion case docket (2:25-cv-00905, Justia) shows the identical pattern, with Fenster filing the complaint and 7.1 statement there as well.
  • Experience: Chair of RAK's patent-litigation practice; led the Headwater trial teams that won the $279M jury verdict against Samsung (2:23-cv-00103, E.D. Tex., Apr. 2025) and the $175M jury verdict against Verizon (2:23-cv-00352, E.D. Tex., Jul. 2025), per RAK press releases and Law360.

2. Likely additional counsel of record (strongly inferred, not individually docket-verified in this case)

Based on (a) the identical signature blocks in Headwater's other E.D. Tex. filings from the same period (e.g., the Samsung joint motion to dismiss, dated 2025-09-11, and the Verizon notice of appearance, dated 2025-07-03, both available on CourtListener/Recap), and (b) RAK's own press releases naming the Headwater team, the following RAK attorneys are the expected counsel of record alongside Fenster:

Russ August & Kabat — Los Angeles (12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor):

  • Reza Mirzaie (CA 246953) — co-lead/co-chair of RAK's plaintiffs' patent department; co-led the Samsung and Verizon verdicts; former Knobbe Martens equity partner
  • Brian D. Ledahl (CA 186579) — senior trial lawyer on the Headwater team; co-led Samsung/Verizon trials
  • Benjamin T. Wang (CA 228712)
  • Adam S. Hoffman (CA 218740)
  • Dale Chang (CA 56449)
  • Paul A. Kroeger (CA 229074)
  • Neil A. Rubin (CA 250761)
  • Kristopher R. Davis (CA 329627)
  • James S. Tsuei (CA 285530)
  • Philip X. Wang (CA 262239)
  • James A. Milkey (CA 281283)
  • Jason M. Wietholter (CA 337139)
  • James N. Pickens (CA 307474)
  • Minna Jay and Mackenzie Paladino (trial-team members named in the RAK Verizon verdict release)

Russ August & Kabat — Dallas office (Texas-licensed, obviating pro hac vice):

  • Qi (Peter) Tong (TX Bar No. 24119042), 8080 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1503, Dallas, TX 75206 — Texas-licensed RAK attorney who appears on every Headwater E.D. Tex. filing.

Local counsel (expected):

  • Andrea L. Fair (TX Bar 24078488) and Garrett C. Parish (TX Bar 24125824), Miller Fair Henry PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy., Longview, TX 75604 — served as Headwater's local counsel in the Samsung ($278.8M verdict) and Verizon ($175M verdict) cases before Judge Gilstrap, where Fair conducted jury selection and cross-examinations. Fair was explicitly credited as "local counsel" in the Samsung verdict and in the firm's Verizon announcement.

3. Explicit caveats / gaps

  • Not independently verified on the DISH docket: the complaint's signature page (29-page PDF, Dkt. 1), any notices of appearance, and any pro hac vice motions. The public PacerMonitor excerpt for 2:25-cv-00902 shows only Dkts. 1–5 (complaint, AO 120, 7.1 statement, corrected AO 120, summonses) — no appearances or PHV entries before the stay. E.D. Tex. local rules require designation of local counsel, so Miller Fair Henry (or another Texas firm) is expected to appear, but I could not confirm that from the DISH docket itself.
  • No in-house counsel identified: no Headwater or parent-company in-house attorney appears in the public record.
  • Post-stay status: because the case has been stayed since the June 30, 2026 DISH Chapter 11 filings, no further counsel entries are expected until the stay is lifted; if the case is later reactivated, the roster above should be re-verified against PACER.
  • Prior-summary note: the earlier case summary flagged that "counsel of record for DISH was not identified" — that gap concerns defense counsel and does not affect this plaintiff-side analysis.

Sources: PacerMonitor docket for 2:25-cv-00902 (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59806378/); Justia docket for 2:25-cv-00905 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00905/[240123](/patent/240123)); CourtListener/Recap filings in 2:23-cv-00352 (Dkt. 371 notice of appearance) and 2:22-cv-00422 (Samsung joint motion to dismiss); RAK press releases (Samsung verdict, Verizon verdict); Miller Fair Henry press releases (Aug. 13, 2025; Jun. 20, 2025); Law360 "How This Firm Hit Its Stride With 9-Figure Patent Verdicts" (Aug. 26, 2025).

Defendant representatives

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

Defense Counsel of Record — Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al., 2:25-cv-00902 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

No defense attorney has appeared on the public docket of 2:25-cv-00902 itself in the records retrievable from public sources — the only docket snapshots publicly available (Justia, retrieved 2025-08-28; PacerMonitor) post-date only the initial plaintiff-side filings and predate any defense appearances. However, in the coordinated companion case Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. et al., 2:25-cv-00920 (E.D. Tex.), the DISH defendants' counsel of record did appear on 2025-09-24 — filing notices of appearance on behalf of the same DISH entities. Given that the five Headwater-vs.-DISH actions (2:25-cv-00902, -00905, -00907, -00920, -00921) were filed as a coordinated wave against the same defendants, the counsel identified below is almost certainly the same defense team appearing in 2:25-cv-00902 — but that specific docket entry should be confirmed on PACER, which I could not access.

Verified appearances — docket of related case 2:25-cv-00920 (Dkt. 11–13, filed 2025-09-24)

On behalf of DISH Wireless LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile, Dish Network Corp., and Dish Network LLC:

Attorney Role Firm / Office Experience note
Ruffin B. Cordell Lead-role partner (defense appearances); widely recognized as one of the nation's preeminent patent trial lawyers Fish & Richardson P.C. — Houston, TX (also Washington, D.C.) Longtime Fish & Richardson partner and former head of the firm's litigation practice; decades of high-stakes Hatch-Waxman, ITC, and E.D. Tex. patent trial experience (e.g., representing major tech/semiconductor defendants in multi-forum patent wars); routinely appears as lead counsel in Gilstrap courtroom cases.
Jack Robert Wilson, IV Defense counsel of record Fish & Richardson P.C. — Houston, TX (per firm directories; office not independently confirmed in this search) Patent litigator at Fish & Richardson; part of the firm's core E.D. Tex. trial team.
Adam R. Shartzer Defense counsel of record Fish & Richardson P.C. — Houston, TX (per firm directories; office not independently confirmed in this search) Patent litigator at Fish & Richardson; handles district court and PTAB matters.

Source: Dockets.Justia docket for 2:25-cv-00920 (Dkt. 11–13): "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Ruffin B Cordell / Jack Robert Wilson, IV / Adam R Shartzer on behalf of DISH WIRELESS LLC D/B/A BOOST MOBILE, Dish Network Corp., Dish Network LLC" (Sept. 24, 2025).

Analysis and caveats

  1. Why the companion-case appearances likely govern here. The five E.D. Tex. actions were filed on 2025-08-27/28–29 by the same plaintiff's firm (Russ August & Kabat) against the same DISH entities asserting overlapping Headwater patents. DISH's outside counsel in the wave (Fish & Richardson) filed appearances in the -00920 matter on 2025-09-24; identical notices in -00902 would have been due on the same timeline and would post-date the last public docket retrieval for -00902 (2025-08-28). I could not verify the -00902-specific appearance entries from public sources — the full PACER docket for 2:25-cv-00902 was not accessible, so this remains a flagged gap.

  2. No substantive defense work product on the record. Because the case was stayed by the 2026-06-30 prepackaged Chapter 11 filings of DISH DBS entities (including DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Wireless L.L.C.) under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the public record shows no answer, no lead-counsel designation, no motion practice, and no scheduling order in 2:25-cv-00902. EchoStar's 10-Q confirms the E.D. Tex. court stayed all five cases.

  3. Defendant-coverage nuance. The verified appearances in -00920 covered DISH Wireless LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile, Dish Network Corp., and Dish Network LLC — they did not cover DISH Technologies L.L.C., which appears in the case metadata for 2:25-cv-00902. Whether DISH Technologies was served, answered, or separately represented in this action is unverified (no defense docket activity of any kind is visible for -00902).

  4. In-house / local counsel. No DISH in-house counsel or E.D. Tex. local counsel for the defendants was identified in any public source retrieved. Note that Fish & Richardson maintains a Dallas, TX office and routinely handles E.D. Tex. matters (satisfying local-counsel requirements if needed), but no local-counsel appearance was verified.

  5. Bankruptcy-counsel distinction. The Chapter 11 cases (S.D. Tex., Houston Division) involve separate debtor-side counsel for DISH DBS/DISH Wireless; that is bankruptcy counsel, not district-court litigation counsel of record in 2:25-cv-00902, and none was identified in this search.

Reliability notes / gaps

  • Verified: Fish & Richardson defense appearances (Cordell, Wilson, Shartzer) in the companion action 2:25-cv-00920 on 2025-09-24 (Justia docket Dkt. 11–13).
  • Unverified: the mirror-image appearances in 2:25-cv-00902 (public docket snapshots end 2025-08-28); DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s representation; any in-house or local counsel; whether the Fish & Richardson team remained counsel of record after the June 2026 stay.
  • No attorney names were invented; if defense counsel has not formally appeared in -00902, that is because the public record does not show it — confirmation requires a PACER query of the current -00902 docket (including any post-September-2025 entries and the bankruptcy-stay notice).