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

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00397, Dkt. No. 326
Decided
October 28, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER Adopting 243 Memorandum Order on Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC, §

§

Plaintiff,

§

v. §

§ CASE NO. 2:23 -CV-00397-JRG-RSP AT&T INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC.,

§

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, and AT&T

§

CORP.,

§

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) previously filed a “Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports Based on Newly Produced Discovery” (Dkt. No. 143.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 243), granting-in-part Headwater’s “Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports Based on Newly Produced Discovery” as to the Apple Data and the AT&T produced materials including ATT_HEADWATER_00142510. Defendants AT&T Services, Inc.; AT&T Mobility, LLC; AT&T Corp.; and AT&T Enterprises, LLC (“AT&T”) have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 256), with Headwater filing a Response (Dkt. No. 290.)

After reviewing the briefing on the “Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Reports Based on Newly Produced Discovery,” Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order, and the briefing on AT&T’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Memorandum Order and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Memorandum Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

2.

Consequently, the Court OVERRULES AT&T’s Objections (Dkt. No. 256) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 243).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of October, 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. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00397 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00397-13
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00397-13

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.