Headwater Research LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00397 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2025)

Defendants AT&T Services, Inc.; AT&T Mobility, LLC; AT&T Corp.; and AT&T Enterprises, LLC (“AT&T”) previously filed a “Motion to Dismiss No. 2: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(C) That the Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” (Dkt. No. 130); filed a “Motion to Dismiss No. 1: for Lack of Standing” (Dkt. No. 129); a “Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1: Of Non-Infringement of US Patent No. 9,215,613” (Dkt. No. 124); a “ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 5: of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,589,541 and 9,215,613 as to Certain Android Products” (Dkt. No. 128); a “Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3: of No Pre-Suit Willful Infringement, Indirect Infringement, Or Copying” (Dkt. No. 126); and a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 4: That Headwater's Damages Are Limited By 35 U.S.C. § 287” (Dkt. No. 127.)

Magistrate Judge Payne entered Reports and Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 239; 241; 251; 263; 264; 265), recommending respectively: denial of AT&T’s “Motion to Dismiss No. 2: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(C) That the Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101”; denial of AT&T’s “Motion to Dismiss No. 1: for Lack of Standing.”; denial of AT&T’s “Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1: Of Non-Infringement of US Patent No.2 9,215,613”; denial of AT&T’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 5: of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,589,541 and 9,215,613 as to Certain Android Products”; and grant-in-part of AT&T’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 4: That Headwater's Damages Are Limited By 35 U.S.C. § 287” as to Plaintiff not having given pre-suit actual notice to Defendants, and otherwise recommending denial of the Motion.

AT&T has now filed respective Objections (Dkt. Nos. 246; 247; 282; 296; 297; 295.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motions, the Reports and Recommendations, and the briefing on AT&T’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Reports and Recommendations and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Reports and Recommendations were erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES AT&T’s Objections and ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations and orders as follows: the “Motion to Dismiss No. 2: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Rule 12(C) That the Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101” (Dkt. No. 130) is DENIED; the “Motion to Dismiss No. 1: for Lack of Standing” (Dkt. No. 129) is DENIED; the “Motion for Summary Judgment No. 1: Of Non-Infringement of US Patent No. 9,215,613” (Dkt. No. 124) is DENIED; the “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 5: of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,589,541 and 9,215,613 as to Certain Android Products” (Dkt. No. 128) is DENIED; the “Motion for Summary Judgment No. 3: of No Pre-Suit Willful Infringement, Indirect Infringement, Or Copying” (Dkt. No. 128) is GRANTED at to no copying by AT&T, and otherwise DENIED; and the “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment No. 4: That Headwater's Damages Are Limited By 35 U.S.C. § 287” (Dkt. No. 127) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff not having given pre-suit actual notice to Defendants, and otherwise DENIED.

3.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE