IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
§
HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v.
§
Case No. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
§
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
§
WIRELESS, and VERIZON CORPORATE
§
SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
§
Defendants. §
ORDER
Defendants Verizon Communications Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Corporate Services Group, Inc previously filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) that the Asserted Claims are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 190.) Magistrate Judge Payn e entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 300), recommending denial of Verizon’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) that the Asserted Claims are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 Verizon has now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 339) and Headwater has filed its Response (Dkt. No. 367).
After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) that the Asserted Claims are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Verizon’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was clearly erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Verizon’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, ORDERS that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(c) that the Asserted Claims are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 190) is DENIED.
1 Though the Report and Recommendation references the stricter summary judgment standard instead of the standard for judgment on the pleadings , the Court finds that this does not change the Court’s conclusion that the claims of the asserted patents are not directed to abstract ideas.
2.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of July, 2025.