Headwater Research LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc.
2:23-cv-00352
| E.D. Tex. | Jun 16, 2025Background
- Headwater Research LLC sued several Verizon entities alleging infringement of four patents, later dismissing claims related to one (the ’543 patent).
- Verizon filed a motion for summary judgment asserting no pre-suit willful infringement, indirect infringement, or copying.
- The key factual dispute centered on whether Verizon had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and allegedly copied Headwater’s technology.
- Evidence cited included notices sent to Verizon about Headwater’s intellectual property portfolio and patent marking, but no direct evidence of copying by Verizon itself.
- Defendants argued that any circumstantial evidence did not support knowledge or copying; Plaintiff argued otherwise based on communications and marking.
- The Court recommended granting summary judgment only on the copying claim (no copying by Verizon), while denying the motion as to pre-suit willful and indirect infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-suit willful infringement | Verizon knew or should have known of the patents via portfolio notices & marking | No evidence Verizon knew of asserted patents pre-suit | Genuine issue for jury; motion denied |
| Pre-suit indirect infringement | Same circumstantial evidence as above | Same as above | Same as above |
| Copying by Verizon | Evidence of competitor copying, not direct Verizon copying | No evidence Verizon copied asserted patents | No copying by Verizon; judgment granted |
| Copying by competitors (non-Verizon) | Cited expert report about others copying for secondary indicia of non-obviousness | Irrelevant to willfulness/Verizon’s actions | Dispute only as to competitors; not Verizon |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; must be a genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (standard for burden on summary judgment)
- Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (knowledge required for indirect infringement)
- Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (knowledge required for induced infringement)
- WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317 (willful infringement requires knowledge and intent)
- Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (knowledge and willful infringement standard)
- Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344 (knowledge/infringement may be inferred circumstantially)
- Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (copying only relevant if it concerns claimed features)