Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00352 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2025)

Granted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00352, Dkt. No. 379
Decided
July 9, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations for 303 Report and Recommendations re 181 Sealed Motion, filed by Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Communications Inc.. (Motion(s)181, 303 t…
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

§

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v.

§

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

§ Case No. 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP 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 Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 (Dkt. No. 181.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 303), recommending that the Court grant Verizon’s Motion. Headwater has now filed Objections1 (Dkt. No. 332) and Verizon has filed its Response (Dkt. No. 365).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Headwater’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 Headwater’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and ORDERS that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,042 (Dkt. No. 181) is GRANTED. 1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not file its objections to the Report and Recommendation in ECF under the event “Objection to Report and Recommendation [cv, respoth],” as was required (Dkt. No. 303 at 6) (emphasis added).

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of July, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00352 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00352-12
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00352-12

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.