US Patent 11,405,429 B2 — Summary

Note on sources: I searched the USPTO-related records (via the USPTO front-page image captured in a court exhibit, Google Patents, and USPTO PTAB/IPR documents) and CAFC 2026 dockets. I found no CAFC 2026 appeal docket for this patent in my searches — the only 2025–2026 proceedings I could confirm are district-court cases and a PTAB IPR (details below). I could not retrieve the verbatim claims text of the '429 itself from the sources I reached; the full claims text I found on Espacenet was for its parent, US 10,694,385 B2. The claim structure below is therefore partly inferred from the patent abstract, the parent patent's claims, and the IPR petition analysis, and is flagged as such.

Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the USPTO front page / Google Patents)

• Patent number: US 11,405,429 B2
• Title: Security techniques for device assisted services
• Assignee (current/original): Headwater Research LLC, Tyler, TX (US)
• Inventor: Gregory G. Raleigh, Woodside, CA (US)
• Application No.: 16/907,887 — filed June 22, 2020 (published as US 2020/322802 A1 on Oct. 8, 2020)
• Issue date: August 2, 2022
• Priority date: January 28, 2009 (provisional 61/206,354); continuation chain: 16/034,362 (→ US 10,694,385) → 14/948,065 (→ US 10,028,144) → 13/737,748 (→ US 9,198,042) → 12/694,445 (→ US 8,391,834) → CIP of 12/380,780 (→ US 8,839,388)
• Claims/drawings: 12 claims, 11 drawing sheets
• Examiner/Attorney: Benjamin Kaplan; Farjami & Farjami LLP
• Status: Active; subject to a terminal disclaimer. Anticipated expiration listed as 2029-03-02 (Google Patents estimate).

Abstract (authoritative, from the USPTO front page)

"Security techniques for device assisted services are provided. In some embodiments, secure service measurement and/or control execution partition is provided. In some embodiments, implementing a service profile executed at least in part in a secure execution environment of a processor of a communications device for assisting control of the communications device use of a service on a wireless network, in which the service profile includes a plurality of service policy settings, and wherein the service profile is associated with a service plan that provides for access to the service on the wireless network; monitoring use of the service based on the service profile; and verifying the use of the service based on the monitored use of the service."

Independent claim overview (partly inferred — see caveat above)

The patent has 12 claims, and the IPR petition (IPR2025-00482, brought by Samsung against all claims 1–12) quotes dependent claims reciting "The method of claim 1 …," which indicates claim 1 is a single independent method claim with dependent claims 2–12. Based on the abstract and the IPR analysis of the claim elements, claim 1 in plain language covers a method comprising:

1. Implementing a service profile in a secure execution environment — executing, at least partly in a secure execution environment of a communications device processor, a service profile containing multiple service policy settings, where the profile is tied to a service plan granting access to a service on a wireless network.
2. Secure control-link operation — operating a host service control link in the secure execution environment to connect securely to a network service controller over a control channel, receiving messages from the controller, and updating policy settings accordingly.
3. Monitoring service use — monitoring the device's use of the service according to the profile.
4. Verifying service use — verifying the monitored use (e.g., against the policy), using a secure modem subsystem that includes a wireless modem and a modem control link connected securely to the network service controller via a second, separately secured control channel (per the IPR analysis, the claims require a "secure execution environment" that is "separately secure from" the "secure modem subsystem," plus first/second secure control channels, a modem local channel, and a host service control link).

Dependent claims 2–12 (as evidenced by the IPR exhibit and parent-patent parallels) appear to cover variations such as: the second control channel routing through a modem local channel providing secure communication between the modem control link and the host service control link; the two control channels being separately secured; a modem agent accessible only by the network service controller; a modem service-measurement point and reporting; separate reporting from the secure execution environment; policy settings including access/traffic/admission control or network/device management communication settings; and the secure execution environment implemented as a hardware partition, a software partition, or a virtual machine. (I could not verify the exact wording of claims 2–9 of the '429 itself; treat this list as indicative, not verbatim.)

Litigation / PTAB status (from search results)

• PTAB: IPR2025-00482 (petitioned by Samsung against claims 1–12) — listed as filed but Not Instituted (procedural) per Google Patents' litigation metadata.
• District court: The patent has been asserted by Headwater Research in multiple 2024–2025 Texas cases (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00228; 2:25-cv-00901/00902/00903; W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00369/00370). The Samsung case (2:24-cv-00228) was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025 following a negotiated resolution (per Patsnap's case summary).
• CAFC 2026: No CAFC appeal docket involving this patent number was found in my searches. If a 2026 appeal exists, I could not confirm it from available records.

Key uncertainties

1. I did not obtain the verbatim claim text of US 11,405,429; the claim overview is reconstructed from the abstract, the parent patent (US 10,694,385), and the IPR petition's discussion of the claim limitations.
2. The "12 claims / 1 independent claim" structure is inferred from the IPR challenge of "claims 1–12" and the quoted dependent claims reciting "The method of claim 1."
3. No CAFC 2026 docket was located — absence of a search hit is not conclusive proof none exists.

I'll research current litigation involving US Patent 11,405,429 B2. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me search the Unified Patents portal and other sources for the specific case numbers associated with this patent.

Let me identify the remaining defendants in the 2025 cases and confirm details for each.

Litigation involving US Patent 11,405,429 B2 ("Security techniques for device assisted services")

Based on searches of Google Patents' litigation metadata for the '429 patent, the Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, PACER Monitor, Law.com Radar, Patsnap, and IP-Verse/Greyb, I can identify the following proceedings. Google Patents' litigation metadata itself lists six district-court cases for this patent: 2:24-cv-00228 (E.D. Tex.), 2:25-cv-00901, 2:25-cv-00902, 2:25-cv-00903 (E.D. Tex.), and 7:25-cv-00369, 7:25-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex.). All plaintiffs are Headwater Research LLC (the patent's assignee).

District court cases

1. Headwater Research LLC v. [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 2:24-cv-00228 (per Google Patents metadata; Patsnap confirms)
• Filing date: April 2024 (Patsnap lists duration Apr 2024 – Sep 2025)
• Patents in suit: US 9,609,510; US 11,096,055; US 11,405,429
• Accused products: Samsung mobile phones and tablets
• Status/outcome: Dismissed with prejudice in September 2025 pursuant to a Joint Motion to Dismiss reflecting a negotiated resolution. Headwater's claims were dismissed with prejudice; Samsung's counterclaims/defenses were dismissed without prejudice; each party bore its own costs. (Source: Patsnap case summary.)

2. Headwater Research LLC v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Judge Alan D. Albright)
• Case No.: 7:25-cv-00370
• Filing date: August 27, 2025
• Patents in suit (per USPTO PTACTS litigation disclosure): 9,973,930; 11,096,055; 11,405,429; 11,966,464; 11,985,155; 9,609,510
• Counsel: Plaintiff — Russ August & Kabat; Defendant — The Dacus Firm, P.C. and DLA Piper
• Status: Pending as of the most recent records I found (Oct. 2025). I could not verify any disposition after that date.

3. Headwater Research LLC v. Google LLC

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas; transferred to the Northern District of California
• Case No.: 7:25-cv-00369 (W.D. Tex.); new case 3:26-cv-07551 (N.D. Cal.)
• Filing date: August 27, 2025
• Patents in suit: Includes US 11,405,429 (listed in Google Patents' litigation metadata for the '429; the complaint also alleges willful infringement based on Google's alleged awareness of prior Headwater litigation against Samsung and carriers)
• Status: Case transferred in from W.D. Tex. to N.D. Cal. as 3:26-cv-07551 (per PACER Monitor). Pending; no disposition found.

4. Headwater Research LLC v. Charter Communications Inc.

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 2:25-cv-00901
• Filing date: August 27, 2025
• Patents in suit: Includes US 11,405,429 (the complaint analysis identifies the '935, '510 and other family patents; Google Patents metadata confirms the '429 is at issue in 2:25-cv-00901)
• Status: Marked "Closed" in the Ex Parte/AI-Lab docket aggregator, though I could not confirm from primary sources whether this reflects dismissal, transfer, or consolidation. Flagging this as unverified.

5. Headwater Research LLC v. Comcast entities (identification partially unverified)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 2:25-cv-00902 (per Google Patents metadata listing the '429 in this case)
• Filing date: ~August 27, 2025
• Defendant(s): A docket-aggregator party page links Comcast Cable Communications LLC / Comcast of Houston LLC to this case number (filed 08/27/25), but I could not confirm from a primary source that Comcast is the named defendant in 2:25-cv-00902 specifically. Treat defendant identification as provisional.

6. Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp. (identification partially unverified)

• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
• Case No.: 2:25-cv-00903 (per Google Patents metadata listing the '429 in this case)
• Filing date: ~August 29, 2025
• Patents in suit (per aggregator listing): '930, '510, '935, '429, '155, '055, '464
• Defendant(s): An aggregator page associates "Headwater Research LLC v. DISH Network Corp" (08/29/25) with 2:25-cv-00903. I could not independently confirm DISH as the named defendant from a primary source. Treat defendant identification as provisional.

Related PTAB proceeding (not district-court litigation)

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLC — IPR2025-00482

• Filing date: Petition filed ~January/February 2025 (mandatory notices dated Feb. 3, 2025)
• Challenge: All claims 1–12 of US 11,405,429 B2
• Status: Not instituted. The Board issued a Director Discretionary Decision denying institution on July 23, 2025; Samsung later withdrew its request for Director review/rehearing (Oct. 27, 2025) and a refund of post-institution fees was approved (Nov. 2025).

Caveats

• I found no CAFC appeal docket for the '429 patent as of the search date.
• Current status (as of April 26, 2026) of the Apple, Google, Charter, Comcast, and DISH cases could not be fully verified from primary docket sources beyond the dates above; the Samsung case dismissal and the PTAB non-institution are the most firmly confirmed outcomes. Defendant identification for cases 2:25-cv-00902 and 2:25-cv-00903 rests on secondary aggregator data and should be verified on PACER.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block lists one AIA proceeding for US 11,405,429 — IPR2026-00440 (Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC), filed 2026-08-27, status: Pending. A second, earlier proceeding — IPR2025-00482 (Samsung Electronics v. Headwater), institution denied on 2025-07-23 — is documented in the previously generated sections of this analysis and confirmed by live sources (Greyb/IP-Verse, USPTO PTACTS stipulation letters) but does not appear in today's canonical structured block; I flag that discrepancy explicitly below and include it so the picture is complete. Bottom line: zero claims have ever been canceled or even substantively tested — the patent has survived one IPR only on procedural/discretionary grounds, and all 12 claims remain fully enforceable. For a defendant, the honest posture is: the claims are entirely UNTESTED on the merits at the PTAB, a brand-new Google IPR is the first live threat to them, and an IPR-based defense is viable but entirely contingent on that petition clearing institution under Director Squires' restrictive 2025–2026 discretionary-denial regime.

IPR2026-00440 — Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-08-27 (petition filed yesterday, per the canonical structured data; last modified 2026-08-27)
• Status: Pending — verbatim from the structured block. Plain-English gloss: the petition was docketed one day ago; no notice of filing date, POPR, or institution decision has issued.
• Judge panel: Not yet public. No panel has been identified in any source I reached as of 2026-08-28.
• Petition grounds: Unknown. The petition was filed 2026-08-27 and I could not retrieve its contents from any public source (PTAB E2E, Unified Patents portal, or aggregators) as of today. Do not rely on any guess as to which claims, which art, or which statutory basis Google asserts — I will not fabricate them. If you are a defendant, pull the petition from PTAB E2E or the USPTO Open Data Portal immediately.
• Institution decision: None yet. Statutory timing: the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response is due ~3 months after the filing-date notice (estimate ~2026-12), and the Director must decide institution within 3 months after the POPR is filed or due — estimate ~2027-03 (35 U.S.C. § 314(b)). Given Headwater's co-pending Google litigation (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00369, transferred to N.D. Cal. as 3:26-cv-07551) and the Director's interim workload-management process, expect a discretionary-denial fight along the lines of IPR2025-00482.
• Final Written Decision: None — not instituted (no trial has begun).
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: This is the first-ever merits shot at claims 1–12. Note the pattern signal: Law360 reported on 2026-04-15 that Director Squires' bulk order granted "a Google challenge to a patent owned by Headwater Research LLC" while rejecting 10 petitions — that was a different (unnamed in my sources) Headwater proceeding filed before this one, but it shows Google can get Headwater IPRs over the discretionary bar. If Google gets institution here, a FWD is due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), and this becomes the pivotal proceeding for the patent.

IPR2025-00482 — [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Headwater Research LLC

Flagged discrepancy: This proceeding is not in today's canonical structured block (which lists only IPR2026-00440). It is nonetheless firmly documented in the previously generated sections of this analysis and confirmed by live web sources (Greyb/IP-Verse docket page; USPTO PTACTS stipulation letters dated 2025-01-28 and 2025-05-12; Google Patents' litigation metadata listing it as "Not Instituted - Procedural"). I include it as historical context.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-01-28 (petition on file as of Samsung's 2025-01-28 PTACTS stipulation letter; mandatory notices 2025-02-03; filing date accorded per Greyb docket)
• Status: Not instituted — Director Discretionary Decision denying institution issued 2025-07-23 (Paper, Board).
• Judge panel: Not identified in any source I reached (the denial was a Director discretionary decision under the Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management referenced in the record).
• Petition grounds (from the PTACTS stipulation letters, Appendix A — all 35 U.S.C. § 103; no § 102 or § 112 grounds):
  • Ground 1A: claims 1–3, 8–12 — Schmidt (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0077643) + De Beer (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2005/0101323)
  • Ground 1B: claims 4–7 — Schmidt + De Beer + Bittman (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0148237)
  • Ground 1C: claims 10–12 — Schmidt + De Beer + Smith ("Virtual Machines: Versatile Platforms for Systems and Processes," Elsevier, 2005)
  • All 12 claims (1–12) challenged.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2025-07-23 (Director Discretionary Decision: Deny). Key procedural sequence: Headwater filed a Request for Discretionary Denial of Institution on 2025-04-27; Samsung opposed on 2025-05-27 (arguing, inter alia, that the co-pending E.D. Tex. trial date was speculative and that its Sotera-type stipulation — promising not to pursue the same or reasonably-raisable § 102/§ 103 grounds in district court, per letters of 2025-01-28 and 2025-05-12 — weighed against denial); Headwater replied on 2025-06-12. The denial was discretionary (§ 314(a)) — not a merits ruling — consistent with the Director's interim workload-management process. No claim was ever examined on the merits.
• Final Written Decision: None — the petition was never instituted, so no FWD exists. This is the single most important thing to understand: no PTAB tribunal has ever ruled on the patentability of any claim of the '429.
• Settlement / termination: Samsung withdrew its Request for Director Review/rehearing on 2025-10-27 (Ex. 3103); an email regarding a motion to terminate was expunged on 2025-10-23; Samsung requested a refund of post-institution fees on 2025-11-04. Separately, the underlying E.D. Tex. case (2:24-cv-00228) was dismissed with prejudice in September 2025 after a negotiated resolution. Any settlement terms are confidential/unknown.
• Appeal: None. No CAFC appeal exists or was possible — 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars review of institution decisions, and Samsung abandoned its Director-review path.
• Defensive value: Procedurally useful (the patent "survived" an IPR) but no substantive validation. Critically, a denied petition creates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel — Samsung's art (Schmidt/De Beer/Bittman/Smith) remains fully available to Google and any other challenger. For today's defendant, the Samsung IPR is history; its only lasting significance is that the discretionary-denial playbook it triggered (Headwater's Request for Discretionary Denial, the interim-process factors, Sotera-stipulation debate) will likely be rerun in IPR2026-00440.
• Sources: Greyb/IP-Verse docket page (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00482); USPTO PTACTS stipulation letters (2025-01-28 and 2025-05-12, ptacts.uspto.gov, petition ref. 1557288); Unified Patents PTAB case page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00482).

Strategic summary

Claims status: 100% UNTESTED. All 12 claims of US 11,405,429 (1–12) remain in force. None are CANCELED, none have been SUSTAINED in a final written decision, and none have ever been examined on the merits at the PTAB. The only prior IPR (Samsung) was bounced on procedural/discretionary grounds — not on the art. Anyone telling you this patent has been "hardened" or "narrowed" by IPR is wrong; equally, anyone telling you it has been weakened is wrong. The cleanest characterization: the claims are virgin territory for PTAB merits review, and IPR2026-00440 is the first test.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel anywhere in this patent's history, because estoppel attaches only to a petition that results in a final written decision — and no FWD has ever issued. Samsung's denied petition binds no one: Google (a new, independent petitioner) is free to raise Schmidt, De Beer, Bittman, Smith, or any other § 102/§ 103 ground, as are Apple, Charter, Comcast, DISH, and any other current or future defendant. The only estoppel that will ever arise here is forward-looking: if Google institutes IPR2026-00440 and a FWD issues, Google and its privies would then be barred from re-raising the grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised. Until then, the § 102/§ 103 prior-art field is wide open — the practical constraint is the § 315(b) one-year bar from service of a complaint for any new petitioner, so defendants considering their own IPR should move fast.

Pattern signals. (1) Two major tech companies in a row — Samsung, then Google — have now attacked this patent, which is itself a signal that Headwater is actively and aggressively enforcing it (asserted in 2024–2025 against Samsung, Apple, Google, Charter, Comcast, DISH, plus the reported Verizon and other litigation). (2) Google is a repeat Headwater PTAB challenger: Law360 reported on 2026-04-15 that Director Squires granted a Google IPR against a Headwater patent (a different, unnamed proceeding), and on 2025-11-10 that Headwater filed yet another Android-related suit against Google — IPR2026-00440 is the continuation of that campaign. (3) The Director's 2025–2026 discretionary-denial regime is the single biggest gate: it rejected 10 petitions in one bulk order alone and it already killed Samsung's IPR here, so Google's petition faces a real § 314(a) headwind tied to the N.D. Cal. litigation — though the April 2026 grant to Google on another Headwater patent shows the door is not closed. (4) I found no Unified Patents or other defensive-aggregator involvement in either proceeding — both petitions were brought by the operating companies themselves.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the IPR2026-00440 petition now. It was filed 2026-08-27 and is the only live proceeding. Retrieve it from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) or the USPTO Open Data Portal the moment it goes public — the claims challenged, the art, and the statutory grounds will define the entire defensive landscape. As of today those details are unknown and I will not speculate.
2. Mark the institution calendar. POPR due ~2026-12 (3 months from the filing-date notice); institution decision due ~2027-03 (3 months after POPR, § 314(b)); if instituted, FWD due within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)). Also watch for an early discretionary-denial round: Headwater's playbook from IPR2025-00482 (Request for Discretionary Denial filed 2025-04-27) will likely repeat, keyed to the co-pending N.D. Cal. case 3:26-cv-07551.
3. If you are a defendant facing assertion today: do not rely on the Samsung IPR for anything except procedural history — it decided nothing. The patent is fully enforceable and all 12 claims are live. Consider whether to file your own IPR promptly (watch the § 315(b) one-year bar from service), and coordinate strategy with Google's petition rather than duplicating it — but be aware the current Director regime makes institution uncertain, and the practical near-term levers may be the co-pending district-court cases (Apple 7:25-cv-00370, Google 3:26-cv-07551, and the E.D. Tex. 2025 cases) and the standard § 101 / § 112 arguments that no PTAB proceeding has yet tested.
4. Link for the record: the only substantive opinion ever issued in any AIA proceeding on this patent is the 2025-07-23 Director Discretionary Decision denying institution in IPR2025-00482 — available via the Greyb/IP-Verse docket page (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00482) and the Unified Patents PTAB case page (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00482). It invalidates nothing and sustains nothing; it is a discretionary, non-merits denial.

Caveats on sourcing: (a) The canonical structured block contains only IPR2026-00440; IPR2025-00482 is included on the strength of the previously generated sections and live web confirmation, and I have flagged the discrepancy rather than silently reconciling it. (b) The IPR2026-00440 petition contents, panel assignment, and grounds were not publicly available to me as of 2026-08-28 — one day after filing. (c) No CAFC appeal docket involving this patent was found in any source; given § 314(d), none is expected from the denied Samsung petition.

Assignment Record — US Patent 11,405,429 B2 ("Security techniques for device assisted services")

Method note / data-availability caveat (read first): I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center's page for the '429 itself in the searches available to me (search budget exhausted before I could retrieve the specific reel/frame entries for this patent's own recordings). What follows is grounded in: (a) Google Patents' authoritative legal-event metadata for the '429 (which is fed by USPTO assignment records), (b) the Plainsite/USPTO assignment index entry for application 16/907,887, (c) Espacenet INPADOC records for a head-of-family patent (US 8,583,781) showing the identical transfer pattern with reel/frame numbers, and (d) the litigation/PTAB dockets already documented in the earlier sections of this analysis. Where a reel/frame or correspondent for the '429's own recordings was not retrievable, I say so explicitly rather than reconstructing it. Verify the two 2020-09-11 entries directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11405429 or application 16/907,887).

Inventors

• Gregory G. Raleigh — the sole named inventor on US 11,405,429 B2 (per the USPTO front page / Google Patents). Employer at the time of the underlying work and of the 2020 continuation filing: Headwater (he is the founder/principal of the Headwater entities; the original 2009–2011 Headwater filings list him as assignor, and the 2020-09-11 assignment recorded against this application runs from him personally). Prior background: Cisco, Nokia, and founder of Openwave Systems (public biography; moderate confidence on the pre-Headwater employers).
• Unusual pattern worth flagging: the original 2009–2011 Headwater filings named up to eight inventors (Raleigh, Raissinia, Lavine, Tellado, Green, James, Nguyen, Carter — see the family assignments at reels 047770/0371 area, 49108/205, 49108/636, 51819/826, 59564/110). By the time the continuation chain reached application 16/907,887 (filed 2020-06-22), inventorship had narrowed to Raleigh alone. That is consistent with the continuation adding subject matter originating with Raleigh while the earlier multi-inventor subject matter remained in the parent patents — but it is a pattern to keep in mind for any inventorship challenge.

Original assignee

• Headwater Research LLC, Tyler, Texas (TX) — the entity named on the issued patent and the current owner per Google Patents (status: Active; no post-grant assignments recorded in the legal-event feed).
• Line of business: developer of "device assisted services" (DAS) technology — on-device service-usage measurement, policy control, and service-plan management for wireless networks. I found no confirmed commercial product shipment in the records I reached; the technology was developed for carrier/mobile-device deployment, and the entity's demonstrable activity since ~2019 is patent prosecution and, since 2024, high-volume patent assertion (six-plus district-court cases, one PTAB challenge, per the litigation summary above).
• Current status: operating — but as a patent-assertion/licensing entity, not as a product company. Headwater Research LLC is the plaintiff in E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00228 (Samsung, dismissed with prejudice Sept. 2025 after negotiated resolution), E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00901/00902/00903, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00369 (Google, transferred to N.D. Cal.), and 7:25-cv-00370 (Apple), and is patent owner in IPR2025-00482 (Samsung; institution denied July 23, 2025).

Assignment timeline

The '429 is a continuation of a chain reaching back to a January 28, 2009 provisional and application 12/694,445. The title chain as recorded against this patent and its family:

• 2009-03-24 (effective) / recorded 2009-06-09 — Reel 022799/0920

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Gregory G. Raleigh
  • Assignee: Headwater Partners I, LLC (California/ Delaware LLC)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this entry (see family note below)
  • Context: inventor-to-company assignment at the head of the family; the '429 chain derives from this line through continuations.

• 2016-12-29 (effective) / recorded 2017-01-04 — Reel 041248/0681

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignor: Headwater Partners I LLC; Headwater Management LLC
  • Assignee: Headwater Research LLC (Texas)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved for this entry
  • Context: internal reorg — the two Headwater LLCs merged/renamed into Headwater Research LLC; this same merger was re-recorded repeatedly against later continuation applications (30 Headwater Management → Headwater Research and 29 Headwater Partners → Headwater Research transactions per patent-transaction network data).

• 2020 (execution date not retrieved) / recorded 2020-09-11 — Reel not retrieved (record against application 16/907,887, which issued as the '429)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" per Google Patents; assignors: RALEIGH, GREGORY G)
  • Assignor: Gregory G. Raleigh
  • Assignee: Headwater Partners I, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — flagging for verification
  • Context: title cleanup — the inventor re-assigned the continuation application to Headwater Partners I LLC even though the application had been filed in the name of Headwater Research LLC on 2020-06-22. Confirmed by Google Patents legal events and the Plainsite assignment index for app 16/907,887 ("Security Techniques for Device Assisted Services" → 11405429).

• 2020-09-11 (recorded, same day) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name ("MERGER AND CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" per Google Patents; assignors: HEADWATER MANAGEMENT LLC, HEADWATER PARTNERS I LLC)
  • Assignor: Headwater Partners I LLC; Headwater Management LLC
  • Assignee: Headwater Research LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — flagging for verification
  • Context: internal reorg — the same 2016 merger re-recorded against the '429 application to complete the chain: Raleigh → Headwater Partners I LLC → Headwater Research LLC.

• No post-grant assignments. Google Patents' event feed for the '429 shows no recorded transfer after the 2020-09-11 entries — the later 2022-07-18, 2024-03-13, and 2025-08-20 events are continuation filings (US 17/867,585; 18/604,106; 19/305,071), not conveyances. No security agreements or licenses appear in the records I reached. Headwater Research LLC remains the owner of record.

Repeat-correspondent note (family level): on the Headwater family's other recorded assignments, the recurring correspondent firm is Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (390 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA), with attorney/submitter Marc A. Sockol and Headwater docket numbers in the "RALEP" series (e.g., 26WV-160509 [RALEP032]) — documented on the recorded cover sheets for the 2011–2019 corrective-assignment cluster (reels 047770/0371 area, 49108/205, 49108/636, 51819/826, 59564/110). I could not confirm whether Sheppard Mullin or another correspondent handled the '429's own 2020-09-11 recordings; that is the single most useful check to run on the Assignment Center before relying on this section.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11405429
    2009 : Priority provisional filed
         : Raleigh assigns to Headwater Partners I
    2010 : Parent application filed
    2016 : Headwater entities merge into Research LLC
    2020 : Continuation 16907887 filed
         : Raleigh reassigns to Partners I
         : Merger re-recorded to Research LLC
    2022 : Patent issued
    2024 : First infringement suit filed
    2025 : Apple Google Charter suits filed
         : IPR2025-00482 denied

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present (strong). The chain runs through Delaware/Texas LLCs — Headwater Partners I LLC → Headwater Research LLC — and the current owner, Headwater Research LLC (Tyler, TX), practices no product: its observable activity is litigation and licensing. The recorded addresses (350 Marine Parkway, Suite 300, Redwood City, CA 94065; 2995 Woodside Road #400, Woodside, CA 94062 on family cover sheets) are office/agent-style addresses. Support: 2020-09-11 assignment + merger recordings (Google Patents), family reels 022799/0920 and 041248/0681 (INPADOC), litigation dockets. Note: "LLC that doesn't ship product" is corroborated by the assertion dockets, not by the name alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present (strong). Headwater Research LLC is a high-frequency patent plaintiff: it filed the Samsung case (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00228, Apr. 2024) and the August 2025 wave against Apple, Google, Charter, Comcast, and DISH (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00901/00902/00903; W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00369/00370), and defended IPR2025-00482. It is surfaced in Unified Patents' PTAB and litigation datasets (linked from the Google Patents page for this patent). Not on the classic Acacia/Marathon/IV list, but it is a recognized repeat plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear for the '429's own entries (correspondents on the two 2020-09-11 recordings were not retrievable in my searches — verify on the Assignment Center). Present at family level: Sheppard Mullin (Marc A. Sockol) recurs as correspondent across multiple Headwater recordings (reels 49108/205, 49108/636, 51819/826, 59564/110, and the 047770/0371 corrective cluster), and Headwater's own in-house filing address (patent@headwaterllc.com, customer no. 106963) appears on PTACTS filings. Because the same firm handled the family's post-issuance title cleanup, I would expect one of these two to appear on the 2020-09-11 entries — but that is an expectation, not a retrieved fact.

4. Cascading transfers — Present (weak). The same-day double recording on 2020-09-11 (Raleigh → Partners I; Partners I + Management → Research) plus the re-recording of the same 2016 merger across dozens of continuations (30 + 29 transactions in the transaction-network data) is a title-cleanup cascade, not a multi-shell shuffle — all transfers share common principals (Raleigh/Headwater) and the same underlying merger.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last recorded conveyance is 2020-09-11; the first suit naming the '429 is April 2024 (2:24-cv-00228) — roughly 3.5 years later. The transfers were recorded pre-grant and were not timed to enable the litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 anywhere in the chain; the owner is actively litigating rather than in any insolvency proceeding.

7. Privateering — Not present. The patents originated with the inventor's own company (Raleigh → Headwater Partners I LLC in 2009/2020); there is no operating company that offloaded the portfolio to Headwater to assert against competitors, and no SEC-filing or EFF/Patent Progress evidence of such an arrangement surfaced.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at Headwater Research LLC, an asserting entity — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two strong signals are present: (1) the patent now sits in a non-practicing, single-purpose Texas LLC (Headwater Research LLC) whose only observable activity is assertion — the 2020-09-11 assignment + merger recordings completed a founder-to-LLC chain (family reels 022799/0920, 041248/0681; Google Patents events of 2020-09-11), and (2) Headwater Research LLC is a high-frequency plaintiff with six-plus district-court cases (2024–2025) and a PTAB challenge (IPR2025-00482, institution denied July 23, 2025) naming this patent. The pattern is a founder-built portfolio monetized by its own licensing entity — not a bankruptcy fire-sale and not classic privateering — and no defensive aggregator is in the chain. The one open item is the correspondent identity on the '429's own 2020-09-11 recordings (reel/frame not retrievable in my searches); the family-level data points to Sheppard Mullin / Marc A. Sockol as the repeat filer.

Verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent number 11405429 (or application 16/907,887) and pull the two 2020-09-11 entries for their reel/frame and correspondent.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 11,405,429 B2

Important preliminary caveat

I reached the search-step limit before I could retrieve the complete "References Cited" section printed on the face of the '429 patent. The Google Patents full-text dump provided in this session was truncated before the "Patent Citations" section, so the examiner's complete citation list could not be read verbatim from that source. What follows is therefore built from two independent evidentiary sources that I did retrieve:

1. The IPR2025-00482 petition record (Samsung v. Headwater, PTAB), whose exhibit list names the prior-art references Samsung asserted against claims 1–12 of the '429 — this is the strongest available evidence of "most relevant prior art" for this patent.
2. Google Patents cross-reference indices, which reveal earlier patents that appear in the '429's citation list (a later-cited patent shows up in the earlier patent's "Cited By" section).

I flag confidence levels per item. The petition was denied on discretionary grounds (Director Discretionary Decision, July 23, 2025), so the PTAB never reached the merits of any of these references against the claims. None of the §102 determinations below is a holding — each is an assessment of potential anticipation.

Claim structure reference (from the prior summary, partly inferred)

• Claim 1 — sole independent method claim: implementing a service profile (plurality of service policy settings tied to a service plan) at least partly in a secure execution environment of a communications-device processor; operating a host service control link in the secure execution environment to a network service controller; monitoring service use per the profile; and verifying the monitored use, using a secure modem subsystem (wireless modem + modem control link) connected to the service controller via a second, separately secured control channel.
• Claims 2–12 — depend from claim 1 and cover: modem local channel routing; separately secured first/second channels; modem agent accessible only by the service controller; modem service-measurement point/reporting; separate reporting from the secure execution environment; policy-setting content (access/admission/traffic control, network/device management); and the secure execution environment implemented as hardware partition, software partition, or virtual machine.

Part A — References identified as examiner citations on the '429 (via Google Patents cross-indexes)

These are references I found appearing in the "Cited By" listings of their own pages pointing to US11405429B2, which is the signature pattern of a patent that the '429 itself cites. Treat this list as partial and indicative, not the complete examiner list (I could not open the '429's own citation section).

Net assessment (Part A): These look like background/art-cited references (many are family-adjacent). None, on their face, discloses the combination of a secure execution environment + host service control link + secure modem subsystem with a separately secured modem control channel that dominates claim 1, so I would not call any of them a strong standalone §102 anticipation candidate against claim 1. I could not verify the full examiner list, so this section is incomplete by necessity.

Part B — Prior art asserted by Samsung in IPR2025-00482 (all claims 1–12)

This is the most probative evidence of the "most relevant prior art" for the '429. The petition's exhibit list (per the IPVerse/Greyb PTAB docket record) includes these U.S. patent references. Because the petition challenged all 12 claims, each reference was mapped in the petition to specific claim limitations; the petition was denied without a merits decision, so my claim-level mapping below is an analyst's inference from the references' content and the claim elements.

Part B — synthesis

• The IPR petition asserted all claims 1–12 were unpatentable, and the reference set spans every limitation cluster of claim 1: secure execution environment (Schmidt, Bittman, Jobs-796, Bajikar, Scarlata), host service control link to a network controller (Schmidt, Minborg, Jobs, Nelson), service monitoring (Alfrano, Pattenden), verification (Bauer, Scarlata), and secure modem subsystem with separately secured control channel (Taylor, Weiser, Nelson).
• Because the Board never instituted (discretionary denial, July 23, 2025), no reference was adjudicated — every anticipation mapping above is a potential ground, not a finding.
• The most likely "primary reference" candidates for claim 1, had the case proceeded, are Schmidt (2009/0077643), Alfrano (2007/0178888), and De Beer (2005/0101323) — Schmidt in particular because it pairs a protected device execution environment with remote service/management control, mirroring claim 1's central architecture.

Part C — Priority-date caveat affecting all §102 analysis

The '429 was filed June 22, 2020 (post-AIA), claiming priority through the Headwater continuation chain back to provisional 61/206,354 (Jan. 28, 2009). Under AIA §102:

• References published before Jan. 28, 2009 (Taylor, Nelson, Bauer, Clapton, De Beer, Bittman, Mittal, Scarlata, Alfrano, Pattenden, Jobs, Bajikar, and the Part A pre-2009 items) are clearly available under §102(a)(1) if the priority claim holds.
• References published after Jan. 28, 2009 but filed before it (notably Schmidt, filed 2007, published March 2009) may still be available under §102(a)(2) as U.S. applications by another inventor effectively filed before the effective filing date — but this turns on whether the '429 is entitled to the 2009 priority date and on the "by another" analysis.
• The IPR petition's exhibit list included "Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the 429 Patent", signaling that claim-construction/priority issues were contested; the discretionary denial short-circuited any resolution.

Bottom line

1. I could not retrieve the complete examiner citation list from the face of the '429 (the supplied full text truncates before the citations section), so Part A is partial and flagged as such.
2. The most relevant prior art for the '429, as actually asserted in litigation-adjacent proceedings, is the Samsung IPR2025-00482 reference set (Part B), led by Schmidt, Alfrano, and De Beer, with Taylor/Nelson/Bauer covering the modem-verification and attestation elements.
3. No anticipation determination has ever been made on these references — the IPR was denied on discretionary grounds, and the Samsung district-court case was dismissed with prejudice (Sept. 2025).
4. Any rigorous §102 claim chart would need (a) the verbatim claims of the '429 (which neither I nor the prior summary could retrieve from primary sources) and (b) the full "References Cited" page from the USPTO's PatentCenter/patent image — both are the natural next steps for a complete analysis.

Sources: Google Patents (US11405429B2; cross-reference pages for US6035281A, WO2007124279A2, US20080313730A1, US8504574, US8228818, US6996076, US7584298, US7421004); IPVerse/Greyb PTAB docket for IPR2025-00482 (petition exhibits and decision record); Unified Patents portal litigation/PTAB metadata.