US 8799451

I'll search for the specific patent number 8799451 and related litigation/docket information.

Let me search for the full claims of US8799451 and any CAFC 2026 docket information.

Let me do one more targeted search on the CAFC docket for this specific patent number and confirm the independent claims.

Search Results for US Patent 8799451

Confirmation of the target patent

I searched for the specific patent number 8799451 (US8799451B2; application US12/380,773) and its CAFC/litigation dockets. I did not substitute or auto-correct any identifiers. The searches confirm the following, consistent with the authoritative patent text provided:

Patent summary

Abstract (as published for the family/continuation): Various embodiments are disclosed for a services policy communication system and method. In some embodiments, an intermediate networking device acts as a service intermediary or intermediate connection between a network and one or more communications devices; implements a service policy set for assisting control of the intermediate networking device use of a service set on the network, the service policy set including one or more service policies associated with the intermediate networking device or one or more communications devices connected to the intermediate networking device, the service set being one or more network services used by the intermediate networking device or one or more communications devices; and monitors use of the service set based on the first service policy set, in which the implementation of the service policy set is verified.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Based on the issued patent text and litigation-database reproductions of the claims (RPX/Unified Patents), the patent's independent claims are claim 1 (apparatus), claim 14 (computer program product), and claim 15 (method), with the remaining claims dependent. Note: the claim text in the user-provided full specification is truncated before the claims section, so I flag minor wording uncertainty below.

Claim 1 – Apparatus (first end-user device as an intermediate networking device)
A first end-user device that can act as an intermediate networking device. It has one or more modems enabling it to (a) communicate with a network system over a first network, where the first network is a wireless access network, and (b) communicate with one or more other end-user devices over a second network. A processor is configured to:

• provide a forwarding service that forwards "first traffic" between the other end-user devices and the network system (i.e., tethering/hotspot-style bridging);
• implement a first service policy assisting in control of that forwarded first traffic;
• implement a second service policy assisting in control of "second traffic" — the first device's own access to services over the first (wireless access) network — where the second policy differs from the first policy (i.e., the device's own data usage is governed differently from the forwarded traffic);
• monitor or identify successful use or attempted use of the forwarding service (enabling verification/accounting of tethering).
  Memory coupled to the processor stores the instructions.

Claim 14 – Computer program product
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions that cause one or more processors of a first end-user device to perform the same functional combination: provide a forwarding service to other end-user devices coupled to the first device over a first network (forwarding traffic between those devices and a network system coupled over a second network, where the second network is the wireless access network); implement first and second differing service policies respectively for the forwarded traffic and the device's own access to services over the wireless access network; and monitor/identify successful or attempted use of the forwarding service.

Claim 15 – Method
A method performed by a first end-user device capable of operating as an intermediate networking device: providing the forwarding service for first traffic between other end-user devices and the network system; implementing a first service policy for controlling that forwarded first traffic; implementing a second, different service policy for controlling second traffic associated with the first device's own access to services over the wireless access network; and monitoring or identifying successful use or attempted use of the forwarding service.

Plain-language essence of all three: the claimed invention covers a user device (e.g., a smartphone or mobile hotspot) that both (1) tethers/forwards traffic for other devices onto a wireless network and (2) manages its own service usage under a separate, distinct service policy, while monitoring/identifying whether the forwarding service is actually being used (or attempted) — enabling verifiable service-policy implementation and billing for intermediate networking devices.

CAFC 2026 docket / litigation search results

• No CAFC 2026 appeal specifically identified for US8799451B2 itself in my searches. The CAFC docket search returned no appeal docket that names 8,799,451 as an asserted patent.
• Active district-court litigation involving 8799451B2 exists (per Google Patents' litigation links and PatSnap/Unified Patents):
  • Headwater Research v. Google (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00375 / 7:25-cv-00376): asserting US8631102B2, US8799451B2, and US8023425B2 against Google Pixel/Android devices and Google Fi; transferred to N.D. California on or about June 11, 2026 — still in district court, no CAFC appeal yet.
  • Headwater Research v. Sprint LLC (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00359): same three patents asserted; dismissed without prejudice per a 2026 PACER order.
• Related CAFC 2026 dockets exist for the Headwater/Verizon case (Headwater Research v. Verizon, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP): Headwater's notice of appeal assigned CAFC No. 2026-1884, and Verizon's cross-appeal assigned CAFC No. 2026-1906 (both docketed and then deactivated pending post-trial motions as of May–June 2026). However, I could not confirm from my search results whether US8799451B2 is one of the asserted patents in the Verizon case — the asserted-patent list for that case was not shown in the retrieved docket pages. Do not assume 8799451 is in the Verizon appeal without checking the district-court pleadings.

Cautions / uncertainties

1. Independent-claim identification: Claims 1, 14, and 15 are identified as independent based on the RPX litigation reproduction; the Google Patents snippet also indicates dependent claims exist ("dependent claims 6"). I could not pull the USPTO full-text claims page directly in this session, so minor wording variances (e.g., "assisting in control of" vs. "assisting control of") may exist between sources.
2. Verizon appeal patent list: Unverified (see above).
3. Assignee: Listed as Headwater Partners I LLC at issue; assignment records show a 2017 merger/name change to Headwater Research LLC — Google Patents' current-assignee label is "Headwater Research LLC."
4. Abstract: The abstract quoted is from the published family/continuation text (EP-2392109-A1 / US20120197792A1) and is consistent with the specification provided; the full text you supplied was truncated before the formal abstract/claims block.

Based on my searches, US Patent 8,799,451 (the '451 patent, "Verifiable service policy implementation for intermediate networking devices") is being actively litigated in 2025–2026 by Headwater Research LLC (formerly Headwater Partners I LLC) against wireless carriers and device makers. All cases below assert '451 together with the same family trio: US 8,023,425 and US 8,631,102.

Confirmed litigation involving US 8,799,451

1. Headwater Research LLC v. [Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Cellco%20Partnership%20d%2Fb%2Fa%20Verizon%20Wireless) et al.

• Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC
• Defendants: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. (per Justia/Unicourt dockets). Note: Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists a broader defendant set for this docket — AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., Sprint LLC, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. — which appears to aggregate related cases; the PACER-derived dockets name only the two Verizon entities.
• Jurisdiction / Case No.: E.D. Tex. (Marshall), 2:25-cv-00391
• Filing date: April 15, 2025
• Judges: Rodney Gilstrap (presiding); Roy S. Payne (magistrate)
• Patents: 8,023,425; 8,631,102; 8,799,451 (complaint asserts at least claim 1 of '451; accused instrumentalities are Verizon wireless devices supporting tethering/hotspot plus Verizon's tethering policy-enforcement systems)
• Status: Open as of the most recent docket entries retrieved (April 2025); no merits ruling or disposition found.
• Sources: Justia docket 2:2025cv00391; unicourt.com case pc-db5-casegu73a15cf9b5fb-2080396; npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8799451; Ex Parte complaint analysis 2:25-cv-00391.

2. Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC
• Defendants: AT&T Inc. / AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Corp. / AT&T Services, Inc.
• Jurisdiction / Case No.: E.D. Tex. (Marshall), 2:25-cv-00428
• Filing date: April 2025 (April 2025 "trio" per contemporaneous reporting)
• Patents: 8,023,425; 8,631,102; 8,799,451 (complaint asserts at least '451 claim 1; accused tethering-capable AT&T devices and network services)
• Status: Open; no disposition found in my searches.
• Sources: Ex Parte complaint/analysis 2:25-cv-00428 (ai-lab.exparte.com); Mondaq/MarketScreener article "Headwater Research Sues The Major Wireless Carriers For A Third Time This Year" (Aug. 6, 2025).

3. Headwater Research LLC v. Sprint LLC

• Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC
• Defendants: Sprint LLC (T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom)
• Jurisdiction / Case No.: E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00359
• Filing date: April 2025
• Patents: 8,023,425; 8,631,102; 8,799,451
• Outcome / Status: Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Per PatSnap's review of the PACER docket, the court "ACCEPT[ED] AND ACKNOWLEDGE[D]" that all claims were dismissed without prejudice and denied all pending requests for relief as moot (2026 order). No findings on infringement or validity; refiling rights preserved.
• Sources: PatSnap litigation summary (patsnap.com), "Headwater Research v. Sprint LLC — Mobile Tethering Patent Dispute"; Mondaq article.

4. Headwater Research v. Google LLC (two cases)

• Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC
• Defendants: Google LLC (accused: Pixel smartphones and Android-based devices used on Google Fi, and the Google Fi wireless service)
• Jurisdiction / Case Nos.: W.D. Tex., 7:25-cv-00375 and 7:25-cv-00376
• Filing date: 2025 (per PatSnap, the case spent 288 days in W.D. Tex. before transfer, implying a filing around late August 2025; exact filing date not confirmed)
• Patents: US8631102B2, US8799451B2, US8023425B2
• Status: Transferred to the Northern District of California on June 11, 2026 (procedural venue transfer; all three patents and claims survived intact). Pending in N.D. Cal.; no merits ruling on infringement, validity, or damages.
• Sources: PatSnap "Headwater Research v. Google — Mobile Device Patent Transfer" (reporting the June 11, 2026 transfer); Google Patents litigation links (portal.unifiedpatents.com listings for 7:25-cv-00375 / 7:25-cv-00376).

5. Headwater Research LLC v. Charter Communications Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: Headwater Research LLC
• Defendants: Charter Communications Inc., et al.
• Jurisdiction / Case No.: E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00919
• Filing date: 2025 (docket numbering suggests a September 2025 filing; exact date not confirmed)
• Patents: 8,023,425; 8,631,102; 8,799,451
• Status: Unknown from my searches.
• Source: USPTO PTACTS petition document (ptacts.uspto.gov) listing "Headwater Research LLC v. Charter Communications Inc., et al., E.TX., Case No. 2:25-cv-00919" with patents 8,023,425 / 8,631,102 / 8,799,451; Google Patents litigation links for 2:25-cv-00919.

6. Headwater Research LLC v. [defendants not confirmed] (two cases)

• Jurisdiction / Case Nos.: E.D. Tex., 2:25-cv-00914 and 2:25-cv-00921
• Patents: 8,023,425; 8,631,102; 8,799,451 (per the USPTO PTACTS document)
• Filing date: 2025 (docket numbering suggests September 2025; not confirmed)
• Status: Unknown. The defendant identities could not be confirmed from my search results — do not assume they are the wireless carriers without checking PACER.
• Source: USPTO PTACTS petition document; Google Patents litigation links.

Flagged uncertainties / exclusions

1. Google case filing date and defendant details: The June 11, 2026 transfer date comes from PatSnap (a secondary source); I did not pull the W.D. Tex. docket directly. Note that June 2026 is after the nominal "current date" of April 26, 2026 given in your instructions — the underlying search/fetch data is dated August 29, 2026, so I have reported the later-dated events as retrieved.
2. 2:25-cv-00391 defendant list: Justia/Unicourt name only Cellco Partnership and Verizon Corporate Services Group; Stanford's NPE database lists additional carrier defendants (AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) for that same docket number. I flagged this rather than resolving it.
3. Verizon case 2:23-cv-00352 (with CAFC appeals 2026-1884 / 2026-1906): I could not confirm that '451 is among the asserted patents in that older Verizon suit. The reporting I found ties '451 to the 2025 tethering cases, not to the 2023 Verizon suit. Treat '451 as unverified in the CAFC appeals unless the district-court pleadings confirm it.
4. 2:25-cv-00920 (Dish Network) asserts a different patent trio (8,635,335; 10,791,471; 10,237,757) and is not a '451 case — excluded per your instruction not to return similar-but-different matters.
5. No PTAB/IPR proceedings directed to '451 were identified in my searches (the only IPR docket surfaced — IPR2025-00820 — concerns Align Technology, unrelated).

If you need defendant names for 2:25-cv-00914 / 2:25-cv-00921 or the exact Google filing dates, the next step would be pulling the PACER docket sheets for those case numbers directly.

Proceedings overview

There are 2 AIA trial proceedings on US 8,799,451, both Inter Partes Reviews filed by Google LLC et al. on the same day (2026-08-28), both Pending — zero proceedings with claims invalidated, zero with claims sustained (no Final Written Decision anywhere), zero settled, zero institution decisions issued yet. Bottom line for a defendant: the '451 patent is completely untested at the PTAB — every claim (including independent claims 1, 14, and 15) remains in full force — and the immediate question is not merits but whether Director Squires will institute at all under the current discretionary-denial regime ("settled expectations" / Fintiv), given that '451 issued 2014-08-05 (≈12 years old) and is asserted against Google in a parallel N.D. Cal. case.

IPR2026-00467 — Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-08-28
• Status: Pending (verbatim from USPTO Open Data Portal; i.e., petition filed, no institution decision — the ordinary pre-institution phase)
• Judge panel: Not yet assigned/public — the petition is one day old as of the data ingest; no panel has been announced.
• Petition grounds: Not yet confirmed from public sources. The petition (Paper 1) and exhibits were filed 2026-08-28 but were not yet indexed in the searchable PTAB databases I could reach. I will not speculate on which claims or which references are asserted. (Filing pattern note only: two same-day petitions on the same patent, captioned "Google LLC et al.," is consistent with Google's broader 2025–2026 Headwater campaign, in which Google has paired Sotera stipulations with art such as Rao, Araujo, Freund, Singh, Montemurro, Wright, Vignaud, and RFCs — see IPR2026-00138 — but that is other-patent context, not a ground list for this proceeding.)
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. Statutory timing: the Director must decide within 3 months of the patent owner's preliminary response (or its due date) — 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). With a 2026-08-28 filing, a PO preliminary response is due on roughly a 3-month clock, so an institution decision would realistically land in Q1–Q2 2027 unless the Director acts earlier. Under Director Squires' practice (personal control of every institution decision since Oct. 2025; discretionary denials under § 314(a) on "settled expectations" and Fintiv grounds — Magnolia Medical, IPR2026-00097), institution is genuinely uncertain for a 12-year-old patent facing parallel litigation.
• Final Written Decision: None — no institution yet, so no trial, no FWD.
• Settlement / termination: None; proceeding is days old.
• Appeal: None; nothing to appeal yet.
• Defensive value: If you are Google or a privy, this petition (if instituted and won) could kill claims of '451 and estop you from nothing more than the grounds raised. If you are any other defendant, Google's petition gives you essentially no direct defense — estoppel does not run to you, and your own § 315(b) one-year clock from service is independently running.

IPR2026-00466 — Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-08-28
• Status: Pending (verbatim from USPTO Open Data Portal; same pre-institution phase as above)
• Judge panel: Not yet assigned/public.
• Petition grounds: Not yet confirmed from public sources. Same caveat as IPR2026-00467 — the petition was filed the day before the data ingest and is not yet indexed in accessible databases. The natural inference (same petitioner, same patent, same day) is that Google split the challenge — e.g., different claim sets, different statutory grounds, or different art combinations — across the two petitions, a common hedge against redundancy denials, but that is inference, not verified fact.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. Same § 314(b) framework as above; expect a decision roughly 3 months after the PO preliminary response (or its due date), i.e., realistically Q1–Q2 2027.
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Identical to IPR2026-00467 — watch it if you're in Google's camp; do not rely on it if you're a separate defendant. If both petitions are instituted, the Board will typically coordinate the trials (and may consolidate or stay one), and Google would face a 12-month statutory trial deadline from institution for the FWD.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% untested, 100% in force. No claim of '451 — independent apparatus claim 1, computer-program-product claim 14, method claim 15, or any dependent claim — has been canceled or even substantively reviewed by the PTAB. There is no FWD, no institution decision, no settlement, and no prior IPR history on this specific patent. The only PTAB activity that has ever existed for '451 is these two petitions filed 2026-08-28. (Do not confuse the many other Google v. Headwater IPRs — e.g., IPR2024-00942, IPR2024-00809, IPR2026-00049, -00137, -00138, -00203 — which target other Headwater patents like 9,647,918, 9,609,544, and the '541/'042 family patents, not '451.)

Estoppel landscape. If these IPRs are instituted and reach FWD, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will estop Google (and its real parties in interest/privies — note the "et al." caption, whose identity I could not confirm) from asserting in the N.D. Cal. litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPRs. But the practical reality for a new defendant is the opposite: you are not estopped by Google's proceedings, and unless you are in privity with Google, every § 102/§ 103 ground over patents and printed publications remains available to you — subject to your own § 315(b) one-year bar from service of the complaint. If you were served in 2025 (e.g., the W.D. Tex. / N.D. Cal. Google case, or the E.D. Tex. carrier cases), that clock may be running or expired; check service dates immediately. Because '451 issued from a 2009 application with a 2009 priority date, the § 102(b)/AIA effective-filing-date analysis matters: art published more than one year before the critical date is the strongest available class of references.

Pattern signals. (1) Serial, coordinated petitioner: Google has filed a wave of IPRs across Headwater's portfolio (2024–2026), and these two same-day petitions on '451 are part of that campaign — Google is litigating '451 in N.D. Cal. (transferred from W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00375/-00376, where '451, 8,631,102, and 8,023,425 were asserted) and now attacking the patent at the PTAB in parallel. (2) Aggressive patent owner: Headwater (counsel: Russ August & Kabat) has been filing preliminary responses with detailed discretionary-denial briefs attacking the sufficiency of Google's Sotera stipulations (see IPR2026-00137/-00138 papers) — expect the same playbook here against the "settled expectations" and Fintiv factors. (3) Hostile institution climate: since Oct. 2025, Director Squires has personally controlled every institution decision and denied a large majority on discretionary grounds; the "settled expectations" policy disfavors review of patents in force 6+ years, and '451 is ~12 years old. That said, the Board has instituted at least one Google v. Headwater IPR (IPR2026-00049, trial instituted) and a bulk order in April 2026 granted a couple of petitions including a Google/Headwater challenge — so institution is possible but far from assured. (4) No defensive aggregator: unlike many NPE-targeted patents, there is no Unified Patents/OpenSky-style aggregator in the chain here — the petitioner is the accused infringer itself. (5) The pending Supreme Court petition in Google v. VirtaMove (No. 25-1230) challenges the settled-expectations policy; a grant of certiorari could materially change the institution calculus for these very petitions, though the petitions here would likely be decided first.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the petitions now. Both IPR2026-00466 and IPR2026-00467 were filed 2026-08-28; the papers should be publicly available on PTAB E2E (uspto.gov/PTAB/E2E) and via Docket Navigator/Docket Alarm as they index. Get Paper 1 (petition) and the exhibit list to learn: which claims are challenged, what art/grounds (§ 102/§ 103), who the "et al." co-petitioners/RPIs are, and whether a Sotera stipulation was filed (Google's pattern in IPR2026-00137/-00138 suggests one will appear). This determines everything downstream — including whether you are estopped (if you're a co-petitioner/privy) or unaffected (if not).
2. Calendar the institution milestones. PO preliminary response is due ~3 months from the notice of filing date (likely late Nov. 2026); institution decision is due within 3 months after that response (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)) — realistically Q1–Q2 2027. If instituted, the FWD is statutorily due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), with the possibility of a 6-month extension for good cause. Watch for the Director's bulk institution orders, which under current practice may come in waves rather than per-case.
3. If you are a separate defendant, do not wait on Google. Google's IPRs do not extend § 315(e)(2) estoppel to you, and they do not stop your § 315(b) one-year deadline from service. If you were served recently, consider whether your own petition (with your own art) is warranted; if your deadline has passed, your validity defenses live in district court only, and Google's institution outcome has no binding effect on you (though a Google FWD would be persuasive authority and could support a stay motion in your case).
4. Link the FWD if/when it comes. There is no FWD to link today — the honest statement is that no PTAB merits decision on '451 exists. When the institution decisions issue (and, if instituted, the FWDs), cite them from PTAB E2E and the PTAB Decisions database; until then, any demand letter citing "PTAB victories" against Headwater is referring to other patents in the portfolio, not '451.
5. Track the discretionary-denial overlay. Monitor Google v. VirtaMove (Sup. Ct. No. 25-1230) and Director Squires' § 314(a) guidance — including the Magnolia Medical rationale and any new "true alternative" (Sotera) requirements. These are the single largest variables for whether IPR2026-00466/-00467 ever reach the merits, because Headwater will almost certainly move for discretionary denial citing the parallel N.D. Cal. case and the patent's age.

Bottom line: No claims of '451 have been invalidated, sustained, or even institution-reviewed. The patent is a live, fully enforceable threat, and the only PTAB docket on it consists of two day-old, pre-institution Google petitions facing a skeptical Director. A defendant's realistic PTAB leverage today is procedural (institution risk, estoppel planning, stay arguments) — not a merits win that does not yet exist.

I've hit my tool-call limit, so I'll now reconstruct the assignment record from what the searches returned, flagging clearly which data points are confirmed vs. unverified. I was unable to pull the USPTO Assignment Center directly this session; the reel/frame data below comes from litigation exhibits (PACER/CourtListener archives) and the Google Patents legal-events feed.

Inventors

• Gregory G. Raleigh — sole named inventor on US 8,799,451. Employer at the time of filing: none (founder of Headwater). Raleigh left Qualcomm on September 19, 2008 and filed the '354 provisional (priority basis for this patent) on January 28, 2009 — approximately four months after departing. (Source: E.D. Tex. briefing in the Samsung/Verizon standing disputes, gov.uscourts.txed.220857 / 224519 exhibits.)
• Unusual pattern worth flagging: Raleigh's provisional filing landed within one year of his Qualcomm departure, which triggered a statutory presumption that Qualcomm co-owns the Headwater portfolio. Qualcomm's alleged co-ownership of the family (including the '022/'354 lineage) was litigated as a standing defense in Headwater Research v. Samsung (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00422) and Headwater Research v. Verizon (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00352). This is an ownership-chain vulnerability, not a fire-sale signal, but it makes the chain contested.

Original assignee

• Headwater Partners I LLC (Delaware LLC) is the assignee named on the issued patent (Google Patents legal event, recorded 2009-06-09; original address 350 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood City/Redwood Shores, CA 94065).
• Primary line of business: development of device-assisted service policy / "service processor" technology — never a shipping product company. Raleigh publicly described pitching the technology to carriers and OEMs ("we distributed it to carriers, pitched it to OEMs") rather than selling products (video cited in the Samsung case, Ex. 1).
• Current status: still exists as a legal entity, now styled Headwater Research LLC (Delaware, principal place of business 1011 Pruitt Place, Tyler, TX 75703 per the 2016 merger certificate). Its business since 2022 is patent assertion — it is the named plaintiff in a large, ongoing multi-defendant campaign.

Assignment timeline

• 2009 (execution date not confirmed) / recorded 2009-06-09 — Reel/frame not confirmed in this session (flagged: I could not pull the Assignment Center record directly; the event is confirmed only via Google Patents' legal-events feed: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: RALEIGH, GREGORY G.")

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Gregory G. Raleigh
  • Assignee: Headwater Partners I, LLC
  • Correspondent: not confirmed for this specific record
  • Context: founder-to-company assignment at formation; no money changes hands — the standard inventor-to-startup transfer.

• 2016-12-29 (effective) / recorded 2017-01-04 — Reel 041248 / Frame 0777 (confirmed from PACER exhibit, Case 2:23-cv-00352 Doc. 200-17, archive.org copy)

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignor: Headwater Partners I LLC (merging into Headwater Management LLC)
  • Newly merged entity: Headwater Management LLC; surviving entity renamed Headwater Research LLC
  • Submitter/correspondent: Ann Taylor (cover sheet signed 01/04/2017)
  • Context: internal Delaware LLC reorg — Headwater Partners I LLC merged with and into Headwater Management LLC under the new name Headwater Research LLC; same ownership, change of name only. No change in economic ownership.

• 2019-05-07 (recorded) — Reel 049108 / Frame 0205 (and referenced prior corrective, Reel 048531 / Frame 0366), per PlainSite's Headwater assignment index

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (correcting the corrective assignment previously recorded at 048531/0366)
  • Assignors: Gregory G. Raleigh; Alireza Raissinia; James Lavine
  • Assignee: Headwater Partners I, LLC
  • Correspondent: not confirmed in snippet
  • Context: Coverage of '451 unverified — this corrective assignment concerns the multi-inventor (Raleigh/Raissinia/Lavine) applications (e.g., 13/134,028); '451 is a Raleigh-only application, so these corrective records may or may not list it. Flag: do not cite as on-chain for '451 without pulling the property list.

No other recorded assignments found: no security agreements, licenses, or transfers to third parties appear on this patent's chain in the sources reviewed. The chain is short: Raleigh → Headwater Partners I LLC (2009) → Headwater Research LLC (2016/2017 name change).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8799451
    2008 : Raleigh leaves Qualcomm
    2009 : Raleigh files provisional
         : Assigned to Headwater Partners I LLC
    2014 : Patent issued
    2016 : Merged into Headwater Management LLC
    2017 : Renamed Headwater Research LLC
    2025 : First infringement suits filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (strong). The assignee is a Delaware LLC (Headwater Partners I LLC / Headwater Research LLC) with no product in commerce; the 2016 merger certificate lists the surviving entity's principal place of business as a residential address (1011 Pruitt Place, Tyler, TX 75703) in the Eastern District of Texas — the forum where Headwater filed its carrier suits. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database independently classifies this as an "Individual-inventor-started" NPE (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8799451). This is more than naming inference: the entity's only observable commercial activity since 2022 is assertion.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (strong). Headwater Research LLC is a high-frequency plaintiff tracked by Unified Patents and the Stanford NPE database; it has asserted the '425/'102/'451 trio against AT&T (2:25-cv-00428), Verizon (2:25-cv-00391), Sprint (2:25-cv-00359, dismissed without prejudice), Google (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00375/-00376, transferred to N.D. Cal.), Charter (2:25-cv-00919), and others, on top of its 2022–2023 Samsung/Motorola/Verizon campaign.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The 2017 merger cover sheet was submitted by Ann Taylor; earlier Headwater family assignments (e.g., 13/134,028, 2011) were recorded through Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (Marc A. Sockol, 390 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto) — but that Sheppard Mullin record is on a related application, not on '451's own chain, and Headwater's current litigation counsel is Russ August & Kabat. I cannot establish recurrence on this patent's specific records without the 2009 cover sheet, so I mark this not confirmed rather than a finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain has exactly one substantive link (Raleigh → Headwater Partners I, 2009) plus a 2016/2017 name-change merger. The 2019 corrective assignments are title-correction filings, not cascading LLC transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only post-issuance event (2017 name change) predates Headwater's first infringement suits (2022) by five years. No assignment dated within six months before the 2025 suits was found.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 for Headwater Partners I LLC or Headwater Research LLC; the patent was not acquired in any bankruptcy auction.

7. Privateering — not present (but contested standing, see Inventors). No operating company transferred '451 to Headwater to assert against competitors. The inverse allegation exists — Qualcomm's claimed co-ownership based on Raleigh's and Raissinia's pre-departure assignments — but that is a standing dispute, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Headwater Research LLC, an asserting entity. RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, and OIN do not appear anywhere in the chain.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals drive this: (1) the patent resides in an individual-inventor-started Delaware LLC (Headwater Research LLC, formerly Headwater Partners I LLC) that ships no product and whose post-2016 business is assertion — its own merger certificate (Reel 041248/Frame 0777, recorded 2017-01-04) places it at a Tyler, TX residential address in the E.D. Tex. filing district; and (2) the entity is a recognized high-frequency plaintiff per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Unified Patents, currently asserting the '451 patent (with 8,023,425 and 8,631,102) against AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Google, Charter, and others in 2025–2026. The single original assignment from Gregory G. Raleigh to Headwater Partners I LLC (recorded 2009-06-09) plus the 2016/2017 name-change merger is a classic founder-to-assertion-vehicle chain — no operating company, no products, no defensive aggregator anywhere in it.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 8,799,451; compare Reel 041248/Frame 0777 for the 2017 merger and confirm the 2009 Raleigh assignment reel/frame, which I could not confirm in this session).