Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` Headwater Research LLC,
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00641
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Headwater”) files this complaint against Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants” or “Samsung”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,588,110, 8,639,811,
`
`9,179,359, and 9,647,918. The Accused Instrumentalities are mobile electronic devices, including
`
`mobile phones and tablets used, made, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendants in
`
`the United States and supplied by Defendants to customers in the United States.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendants’ infringement of the following United States
`
`patents owned by Headwater, each of which relate to wireless communications technology: United
`
`States Patent Nos. 8,588,110 (“the ’110 patent”), 8,639,811 (“the ’811 patent”), 9,179,359 (“the
`
`’359 patent”), and 9,647,918 (“the ’918 patent”), (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Gregory Raleigh—the primary inventor of the Asserted Patents—is a world-
`
`renowned scientist, inventor, and entrepreneur, with over 25 years of executive experience in several
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG 1004
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
`
`technology sectors including networking, cloud software, consumer services, wireless and military
`
`systems. Dr. Raleigh holds Ph.D. and Masters degrees in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
`
`University, and a BS in Electrical Engineering from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He is the inventor of
`
`over 350 issued U.S. and international patents in several fields including radio systems and
`
`components, radar, mobile operating systems, cloud services, IoT, networking, consumer
`
`electronics, radiation beam cancer therapy and medical imaging.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Raleigh has a long and distinguished record of significant contributions and
`
`advancements in wireless communications technology. His inventions, companies, and products
`
`have profoundly and positively impacted virtually every aspect of the mobile device and
`
`communications market. In 2005, Dr. Raleigh was named one of the “50 most powerful people in
`
`networking” because of his discoveries in wireless communications technology, and his work in
`
`multiplying the capacity of a radio link using multiple transmission and receiving antennas to exploit
`
`multipath propagation was described as the “most important wireless technology in the works.” See
`
`https://www.networkworld.com/article/2316916/the-50-most-powerful-people-in-
`
`networking.html?page=2.
`
`4.
`
`In 1996, while at Stanford University, Dr. Raleigh presented the first mathematical
`
`proof demonstrating that multiple antennas may be used with special signal processing techniques
`
`to transmit multiple data streams at the same time and on the same frequency while in the presence
`
`of naturally occurring multipath propagation. Dr. Raleigh’s work at Stanford has been widely
`
`adopted in modern multiple-input and multiple-output (“MIMO”) radio communication and
`
`implemented in major wireless communication standards including 4G and 5G. See, e.g.,
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Raleigh.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
`
`5.
`
`Dr. Raleigh’s groundbreaking work solved problems that had existed in wireless
`
`communication since the late 1800s and overturned a century of research and practice in the fields
`
`of radio science and wireless communication theory. His work revealed that a new class of MIMO
`
`signal processing architectures would allow wireless devices to transmit multiple data streams at the
`
`same time on the same frequency thereby multiplying the information-carrying capacity of wireless
`
`networks.
`
`6.
`
`Based on his discoveries, Dr. Raleigh co-founded Clarity Wireless to develop smart
`
`antenna products incorporating the advances of his MIMO signal processing architecture, and
`
`obtained patents now used in 4G and 5G cellular and Wi-Fi standards. Field trials of the smart
`
`antennas developed by Clarity Wireless demonstrated performance significantly above anything else
`
`contemplated at the time and continue to set standards for multipath broadband wireless access links.
`
`Shortly after those field trials, Cisco acquired Clarity in 1998 and hired Dr. Raleigh to continue to
`
`commercialize these technologies.
`
`7.
`
`After leaving Cisco, Dr. Raleigh founded Airgo Networks to develop the world’s first
`
`MIMO wireless chipsets, networking software, reference design systems and commercial OEM
`
`products. Airgo Networks’s chipset products significantly improved the speed and reliability of Wi-
`
`Fi, leading to the adoption of its technology as the core of Wi-Fi radio standards since 2006, and
`
`adoption of the chipsets into products sold across the globe. In 2006, Qualcomm acquired Airgo
`
`Networks and hired Dr. Raleigh to continue to commercialize these technologies. The Airgo team at
`
`Qualcomm spearheaded the creation of Wi-Fi standards and developed the first Qualcomm Wi-Fi
`
`chips for cell phones.
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Raleigh’s innovations at Clarity Wireless, Cisco, Airgo Networks, and
`
`Qualcomm, resulted in the widespread adoption of his technologies in a multitude of cellular and
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
`
`Wi-Fi standards, such as LTE, WiMAX, 802.11n, 802.11ac (Wi-Fi 5), as well as 802.11ax (Wi-Fi
`
`6).
`
`9.
`
`After successfully founding and selling Clarity Wireless and Airgo Networks to
`
`Cisco and Qualcomm, respectively, Dr. Raleigh shifted his focus from solving radio-centric
`
`problems to solving problems in how wireless services are provided to consumers. Dr. Raleigh
`
`foresaw significant data demand problems presented by the advent and adoption of smartphones. He
`
`sought to solve these data demand problems by improving end-user wireless devices and the services
`
`that support them.
`
`10.
`
`In 2008, Dr. Raleigh formed Headwater to develop mobile operating systems and
`
`cloud technology, which today, underpin the mobile phone and app industries. The patents in this
`
`action describe and claim some of the extraordinary inventions developed by Dr. Raleigh and the
`
`Headwater team.
`
`11.
`
`Smartphones and other mobile devices have become ubiquitous and inseparable
`
`components of our daily lives, allowing us to make and receive phone calls, get notifications,
`
`download music, upload photos, stream entertainment, transact business, exchange ideas, and keep
`
`us connected to our family and friends whether they are down the hall or around the globe. Users
`
`can get email, install apps, and browse the internet from these tiny devices by making use of data
`
`connectivity services. These devices accomplish these amazing feats by exchanging staggering
`
`amounts of data over the internet using wireless and cellular networks, relying on ubiquitous data
`
`connectivity to keep users up-to-date and connected.
`
`12.
`
`Since 2011, mobile device data demand has exploded—increasing by almost
`
`400%—with each user consuming approximately 11.5 gigabytes of data per month. In the aggregate,
`
`this equates to approximately 90 exabytes of data consumption per month. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
`
`https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report/mobility-
`
`visualizer?f=9&ft=2&r=1&t=11,12,13,14,15,16,17&s=4&u=3&y=2011,2027&c=3. For context: a
`
`single exabyte of data is equivalent to one billion gigabytes of data. Said another way, if one gigabyte
`
`is
`
`the size of
`
`the Earth,
`
`then an exabyte
`
`is
`
`the size of
`
`the sun. See, e.g.,
`
`https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-is-an-exabyte/.
`
`13.
`
`And mobile device data demand shows no sign of slowing down. Between now and
`
`2027, mobile data demand is projected to increase more than three-fold, from 90 exabytes per
`
`month to a staggering 282 exabytes per month, with each user consuming an average of 41
`
`gigabytes of data each and every month. See, e.g., https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-
`
`papers/mobility-report/mobility-calculator?up=2&bp=1&v=0&c=2;
`
`https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report/mobility-
`
`visualizer?f=9&ft=2&r=1&t=11,12,13,14,15,16,17&s=4&u=3&y=2011,2027&c=3.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Also in 2008, Dr. Raleigh founded ItsOn Inc., which licensed Headwater’s
`
`intellectual property and implemented Headwater’s technology into software and services that
`
`expanded cellular service plan offerings and improved device and data management capabilities.
`
`The tools and technologies delivered by ItsOn allowed carriers to implement Headwater’s
`
`technologies in end-user devices—such as mobile phones and tablets—opening up new business
`
`models while also providing greater flexibility to carriers and device manufacturers, allowing them
`
`to reduce costs while simultaneously improving their devices and services.
`
`15.
`
`The Headwater technologies disclosed in the Asserted Patents laid the groundwork
`
`for many of the infringing features and functionalities that help device manufacturers, wireless
`
`carriers, and customers reduce data usage and network congestion, extend battery life by decreasing
`
`power consumption, and enable users to stay connected.
`
`NOTICE OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
`
`16.
`
`The patented technologies which are the subject of this lawsuit are well known to
`
`Defendants.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`In April of 2010, ItsOn entered into an NDA with Sprint (now T-Mobile).
`
`Under that NDA, ItsOn and Sprint’s product development and engineering teams
`
`discussed implementing Headwater’s patented technological solutions to solve Sprint’s data
`
`demand problems. Over the next several years, ItsOn and Sprint continued sharing confidential
`
`information under NDA discussing how the Headwater/ItsOn unique and unconventional
`
`technological solutions would provide Sprint and its customers with an improved user experience
`
`on the Sprint network, while lowering costs for both Sprint and its users.
`
`19.
`
`In 2013, ItsOn and Sprint began implementing use cases of Headwater’s
`
`technologies in connection with Sprint’s network, including roaming controls, background
`
`controls, data offloading, family device management, as well as on-demand data purchasing
`
`functionalities. Each of these features make use of technologies developed by Headwater and
`
`protected by patents issued to Headwater.
`
`20.
`
`Between 2013-2016, ItsOn worked with Sprint and Samsung USA, also under
`
`NDA, to implement Headwater-patented technology directly into Samsung’s devices.
`
`21.
`
`As part of the ItsOn, Sprint, and Samsung relationship, ItsOn software
`
`implementing Headwater’s patented inventions was installed on numerous end-user wireless
`
`devices sold by Sprint, including Samsung devices.
`
`22.
`
`Sprint mandated that Android handset manufactures, including Samsung, integrate
`
`ItsOn’s software into device operating systems and kernels.
`
`23.
`
`ItsOn and Samsung held frequent, in-depth meetings to discuss engineering details
`
`and implement ItsOn’s solutions into Samsung’s software builds.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
`
`24.
`
`Headwater’s patents were disclosed to Samsung in various meetings and through
`
`various presentations.
`
`25.
`
`As part of this work, ItsOn installed its confidential and proprietary software onto
`
`Samsung devices, granting Samsung executives and engineering teams root and debug access—
`
`under NDA—for testing and implementation.
`
`26. More than a dozen different models of Samsung devices were enabled with ItsOn
`
`solutions implementing Headwater’s patented technologies.
`
`27.
`
`By the end of 2015, millions of Sprint devices (including Samsung devices) were
`
`running the ItsOn application, which included Headwater’s intellectual property.
`
`28.
`
`The ItsOn application included a link to http://www.itsoninc.com/patent-notices,
`
`which provided notice of Headwater’s patents licensed by ItsOn.
`
`29.
`
`But what began as a mutual undertaking abruptly became a losing proposition for
`
`ItsOn and Headwater.
`
`30.
`
`In early October 2015, Sprint personnel indicated to ItsOn team members that
`
`Samsung planned to implement the Headwater/ItsOn proprietary technology in Samsung’s own
`
`device software without further involvement from ItsOn.
`
`31.
`
`On October 9, 2015, Samsung USA unexpectedly announced to ItsOn that
`
`Samsung Korea would be taking over negotiations with ItsOn going forward.
`
`32.
`
`On October 20, 2015, Samsung personnel requested that ItsOn provide its
`
`proprietary and confidential “roaming control policy”—its source code—to Samsung.
`
`33.
`
`This “roaming control policy” was the subject of the Roaming Reduction project
`
`and included functionality implicated in other projects undertaken by Sprint and ItsOn, including
`
`Project RuST.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
`
`34.
`
`The “roaming control policy” technology is protected by Headwater’s issued
`
`patents.
`
`35.
`
`Shortly after requesting ItsOn’s “roaming control policy,” Samsung Korea cut off
`
`the ItsOn implementation project, leaving ItsOn in the dark about Sprint’s and Samsung’s plans to
`
`implement Headwater’s technology.
`
`36.
`
`Approximately one week later on October 27, 2015, Sprint purported to terminate
`
`the Sprint/ItsOn MSA.
`
`37.
`
`On October 29, 2015, ItsOn team members met with Sprint personnel to discuss
`
`the Sprint and ItsOn relationship going forward, and the ramifications of Sprint’s and Samsung’s
`
`apparent plans to implement Headwater’s patent-protected technologies in Samsung’s devices.
`
`38.
`
`ItsOn and Sprint continued to work together into 2016 to implement Headwater’s
`
`patented technologies into Sprint devices, including Samsung’s phones and tablets.
`
`39.
`
`Over the next several years, Samsung released new devices with features and
`
`functionalities that help device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and customers save data, reduce
`
`power consumption, and stay connected. These new features and functionalities were the subject of
`
`the Sprint, Samsung, and ItsOn relationship, use information learned from ItsOn, and infringe
`
`Headwater’s Asserted Patents.
`
`PLAINTIFF HEADWATER AND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Headwater was formed in 2011 and has been in continued existence and
`
`operation since that time. Headwater is a Texas limited liability company organized under the laws
`
`of Texas, with its headquarters at 110 North College Avenue, Suite 1116, Tyler, Texas 75702.
`
`41.
`
`Headwater is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110, entitled “Verifiable device
`
`assisted service usage billing with integrated accounting, mediation accounting, and multi-
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
`
`account,” which issued on November 19, 2013. A copy of the ’110 patent is attached to this
`
`complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`42.
`
`Headwater is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811, entitled “Automated device
`
`provisioning and activation,” which issued on January 28, 2014. A copy of the ’811 patent is
`
`attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2.
`
`43.
`
`Headwater is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,359, entitled “Wireless end-user
`
`device with differentiated network access status for different device applications,” which issued
`
`on November 3, 2015. A copy of the ’359 patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 3.
`
`44.
`
`Headwater is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,647,918, entitled “Mobile device and
`
`method attributing media services network usage to requesting application,” which issued on May
`
`5, 2017. A copy of the ’918 patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 4.
`
`DEFENDANTS AND THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business at 129,
`
`Samsung-Ro, YeongTong-Gu, Suwon-Si, Gyonggi-Do, 443-742, South Korea.
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)
`
`is a United States corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal
`
`place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of SEC. SEA distributes certain Samsung consumer electronics products,
`
`including the Accused Instrumentalities, in the United States.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, SEA has corporate offices in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas at 1303 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082, 2800 Technology Drive, Suite 200,
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
`
`Plano, Texas 75074, and at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023.1 On information and belief,
`
`SEA may be served with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan
`
`Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136.
`
`48.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities are mobile electronic devices, including mobile
`
`phones and tablets used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendants in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`49.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code.
`
`50.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`51.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung in this action because Samsung
`
`has committed acts of infringement within this District giving rise to this action, has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District, and has established minimum contacts with this forum
`
`such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Samsung would not offend traditional notions of fair
`
`play and substantial justice. Samsung, directly and/or through subsidiaries or intermediaries,
`
`conducts its business extensively throughout Texas, by shipping, distributing, offering for sale,
`
`selling, and advertising its products and/or services in Texas and the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`regularly do business or solicit business, engage in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or
`
`derive substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in Texas, and
`
`commit acts of infringement of Headwater’s patents in this District by, among other things,
`
`making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the asserted patents,
`
`
`1 https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-electronics-america-open-flagship-north-texas-campus/;
`https://www.themuse.com/profiles/samsungelectronicsamerica/location/plano.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
`
`including without limitation the Samsung tablets and phones accused of infringement in this case.
`
`52.
`
`Samsung, directly and/or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, have purposefully
`
`and voluntarily placed one or more products and/or services in the stream of commerce that
`
`practice the Asserted Patents with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and
`
`used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. These products and/or services have been and
`
`continue to be purchased and used in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`53.
`
`Venue as to Samsung is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400(b). On information and belief, Samsung has transacted business in this District and has
`
`committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this District by, among other things, making,
`
`using, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant SEA maintains a regular and established place of business at 1303 East
`
`Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082, 2800 Technology Drive, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75074,
`
`and 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant SEC is a foreign corporation. Venue is proper as to a foreign defendant
`
`in any district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
`
`56.
`
`Further, upon information and belief, Samsung has admitted or not contested proper
`
`venue in this Judicial District in other patent infringement actions.
`
`COUNT 1 – CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’110 PATENT
`
`57.
`
`Headwater incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1–56
`
`above and further alleges as follows:
`
`58.
`
`On November 19, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,588,110, entitled “Verifiable device assisted service usage billing with integrated
`
`accounting, mediation accounting, and multi-account.” Ex. 1.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
`
`59.
`
`Headwater is the owner of the ’110 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
`
`royalties for damages for infringement, including full rights to recover past and future damages.
`
`60.
`
`The written description of the ’110 patent describes in technical detail each
`
`limitation of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the nonconventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`61.
`
`Headwater and its predecessors in interest have satisfied the requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’110 patent, and Headwater is entitled to damages for
`
`Defendants’ past infringement.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed (literally and equivalently) and induced others
`
`to infringe the ’110 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products that
`
`infringe the claims of the ’110 patent and by inducing others to infringe the claims of the ’110
`
`patent without a license or permission from Headwater, such as for example instructing users of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities to perform the patented methods of the ’110 patent.
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants use, import, offer for sale, and sell certain
`
`infringing products in the United States. The Accused Instrumentalities are, for example, mobile
`
`electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablets.
`
`64.
`
`For example, attached as Exhibit 5 is a chart setting forth a description of
`
`Defendants’ infringement claim 1 of the ’110 patent.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce and contribute to infringement
`
`of the ’110 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, Defendants have
`
`had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’110 patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
`
`Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software installed on Defendants phones and tablets in
`
`2013-2016 included a patent marking notice which listed the ’110 patent. Similarly, Defendants
`
`have had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’110 patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and among ItsOn, Sprint, and
`
`Samsung discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, including pending patent
`
`applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the ’110 patent) and issued patents
`
`(including the ’110 patent), during the integration and installation of the ItsOn software and
`
`solutions into Defendants’ operating systems, source code, and kernels in 2013-2016.
`
`Additionally, on information and belief, Samsung has cited this specification in at least one
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. patent, which issued after the ’110 patent was published and
`
`granted.
`
`66.
`
`Despite this knowledge of the ’110 patent, Defendants continue to actively
`
`encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways
`
`that directly infringe the ’110 patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers
`
`will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’110 patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’110 patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants have infringed multiple claims of the ’110 patent, including
`
`independent claim 1. By way of example only, the normal and customary use of the mobile phones
`
`and tablets made, used, sold, offered for sale and/or imported by Defendants infringes an
`
`exemplary claim of the ’110 patent, as in the description set forth in Exhibit 5, which Headwater
`
`provides without the benefit of information about the Accused Instrumentalities obtained through
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
`
`discovery.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants have known how the Accused Instrumentalities are made and have
`
`known, or have been willfully blind to the fact, that making, using, offering to sell, and selling the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to their customers, would constitute willful infringement of the ’110
`
`patent. Those products imported into and sold within the United States include, without limitation,
`
`Samsung Galaxy tablets and phones.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants have induced, and continue to induce, infringement of the ’110 patent
`
`by actively encouraging others (including its customers) to use, offer to sell, sell, and import the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, these acts include providing information
`
`and instructions on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education and
`
`instructions to its customers; providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers; and
`
`indemnifying patent infringement within the United States.
`
`70.
`
`Headwater has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement of the ’110 patent and
`
`is entitled to damages as provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 284, including reasonable royalty damages.
`
`COUNT 2 – CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’811 PATENT
`
`71.
`
`Headwater incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1–70
`
`above and further alleges as follows:
`
`72.
`
`On January 28, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,639,811, entitled “Automated device provisioning and activation.” Ex. 2.
`
`73.
`
`Headwater is the owner of the ’811 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
`
`royalties for damages for infringement, including full rights to recover past and future damages.
`
`74.
`
`The written description of the ’811 patent describes in technical detail each
`
`limitation of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
`
`the nonconventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`75.
`
`Headwater and its predecessors in interest have satisfied the requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’811 patent, and Headwater is entitled to damages for
`
`Defendants’ past infringement.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed (literally and equivalently) and induced others
`
`to infringe the ’811 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products that
`
`infringe the claims of the ’811 patent and by inducing others to infringe the claims of the ’811
`
`patent without a license or permission from Headwater, such as for example instructing users of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities to perform the patented methods of the ’811 patent.
`
`77.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants use, import, offer for sale, and sell certain
`
`infringing products in the United States. The Accused Instrumentalities are, for example, mobile
`
`electronic devices, including mobile phones and tablets.
`
`78.
`
`For example, attached as Exhibit 6 is a chart setting forth a description of
`
`Defendants’ infringement claim 1 of the ’811 patent.
`
`79.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce and contribute to infringement
`
`of the ’811 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). For example, Defendants have
`
`had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’811 patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities at least because the ItsOn software installed on Defendants phones and tablets in
`
`2013-2016 included a patent marking notice which listed the ’811 patent. Similarly, Defendants
`
`have had knowledge or were willfully blind of the ’811 patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities at least because of communications by and among ItsOn, Sprint, and
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
`
`Samsung discussing ItsOn’s and Headwater’s intellectual property, including pending patent
`
`applications (such as the application which led to the issuance of the ’811 patent) and issued patents
`
`(including the ’811 patent), during the integration and installation of the ItsOn software and
`
`solutions into Defendants’ operating systems, source code, and kernels in 2013-2016.
`
`Additionally, on information and belief, Samsung has cited this specification in at least one
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. patent, which issued after the ’811 patent was published and
`
`granted.
`
`80.
`
`Despite this knowledge of the ’811 patent, Defendants continue to actively
`
`encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the Accused Instrumentalities in ways
`
`that directly infringe the ’811 patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers
`
`will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Instrumentalities, despite their knowledge of the ’811 patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’811 patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants have infringed multiple claims of the ’811 patent, including
`
`independent claim 1. By way of example only, the normal and customary use of the mobile phones
`
`and tablets made, used, sold, offered for sale and/or imported by Defendants infringes an
`
`exemplary claim of the ’811 patent, as in the description set forth in Exhibit 6, which Headwater
`
`provides without the benefit of information about the Accused Instrumentalities obtained through
`
`discovery.
`
`82.
`
`Defendants have known how the Accused Instrumentalities are made and have
`
`known, or have been willfully blind to the fact, that making, using, offering to sell, and selling the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to their customers, would constitute willful infringement of the ’811
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00641 Document 1 Filed 12/29/23 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
`
`patent. Those products imported into and sold within the United States include, without limitation,
`
`Samsung Galaxy tablets and phones.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants have induced, and continue to induce, infringement of the ’811 patent
`
`by actively encouraging others (including its customers) to use, offer to sell, sell, and import the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, these acts include providing information
`
`and instructions on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities; providing information, education and
`
`instructions to its customers; providing the Accused Instrumentalities to customers; and
`
`indemnifying patent infringement within the United States.
`
`84.
`
`Headwater has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement of the ’811 patent and
`
`is entitled to damages as provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 284, including reasonable royalty damages.
`
`COUNT 3 – CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’359 PATENT
`
`85.
`
`Headwater incorporates by reference eac