Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
`12983
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC, d/b/a XFINITY, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG
`Member Case No. 2:23-cv-00062-JRG
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAYNE’S
`DENIAL OF COMCAST MIL NO. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
`12984
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Order Clearly And Legally Erred By Failing To Address The
`Prejudice To Comcast Or Risk Of Misleading The Jury ........................................ 1
`
`The Order Clearly Erred By Ignoring This Court’s Dismissal of Pre-Suit
`Willful Infringement Claims With Respect To The ’751 And ’934 Patents .......... 3
`
`The Order Further Erred By Allowing Testimony, Evidence, And
`Argument From Before The Asserted Patents Issued ............................................. 3
`
`Comcast Reserves The Right To Argue That Willfulness Should Not Be
`Decided By The Jury .............................................................................................. 4
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
`12985
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co.,
`46 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enter., Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`HOYA Corp. v. Alcon Inc.,
`713 F.Supp.3d 291 (N.D. Tex. 2024) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`SB IP Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc.,
`2023 WL 6799020 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023) ............................................................................ 3
`
`State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-72 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`D. Atkins, Baker Botts Atty Says Halo Drastically Tilted Patent Trial Odds, Law360,
`Dec. 13, 2019 .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
`12986
`
`Comcast respectfully objects pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 72(a), and Local Rule CV-72(b) to Magistrate Judge Payne’s denial of Comcast’s
`
`motion in limine No. 3 (the “Order”) regarding willful infringement evidence before February
`
`2017.1 Pursuant to Rule 72(a), this Court reviews this denial for clear or legal error. As set forth
`
`below, the Order clearly and legally erred for several independent reasons. Comcast therefore
`
`respectfully requests that this Court preclude all testimony, evidence, and argument regarding
`
`purported pre-February 2017 knowledge of Touchstream’s technology, the asserted patents, or
`
`the alleged infringement because such testimony, evidence, and argument is unduly prejudicial
`
`and risks misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Order Clearly And Legally Erred By Failing To Address The Prejudice
`To Comcast Or Risk Of Misleading The Jury
`
`Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a court may exclude relevant evidence if its
`
`probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or risk of misleading the jury.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403. The Order clearly erred and was contrary to law because it addressed only the
`
`purported relevance of pre-February 2017 evidence and not the substantial prejudice to Comcast
`
`or the risk of misleading the jury if this evidence is admitted.
`
`Willfulness is only relevant to enhancement of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In turn,
`
`enhancement can only be considered with respect to the damages period. Here, the damages
`
`
`1 Out of an abundance of caution, Comcast is filing these objections within 14 days of Magistrate
`Judge Payne’s December 19, 2024 oral ruling on Comcast’s motion in limine. Judge Payne has
`not issued a written order ruling on the parties’ pretrial motions. Comcast reserves the right to
`supplement its objections following issuance of any such order.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
`12987
`
`period begins no earlier than February 2017 for U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251 (the “’251 Patent”).2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 (“[N]o recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six
`
`years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.”); 2:23-
`
`cv-00062, Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint against Comcast dated February 17, 2023). Thus, evidence of
`
`purported knowledge from before February 2017 is substantially more prejudicial than probative
`
`because it risks misleading the jury regarding the correct time period to evaluate willfulness.
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`The Order did not address the prejudice to Comcast. Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 233, Transcript of
`
`Proceedings Held on December 19, 2024) at 138:21-139:5. Instead, the Order considered only
`
`whether there is a per-se rule prohibiting willfulness evidence that predates the damages period.
`
`Id. at 135:17-21. This was error. Comcast did not ask the Court to impose a per-se rule. Rather,
`
`the specific evidence Touchstream seeks to introduce is substantially more prejudicial than
`
`probative and risks misleading the jury. Dkt. No. 192 at 8; see also Ex. 1 at 135:22-25.
`
`Touchstream reaches back “at least to 2011, six years before the earliest damages period” and
`
`“two years before the issuance of the earliest patent in this suit.” Id. at 135:23-136:7 (emphasis
`
`added). Such attenuated evidence risks confusing the jury into focusing on the wrong period of
`
`time for determining willfulness. Moreover, much of this evidence has very little, if any,
`
`probative value because it concerns communications and meetings that did not refer to any of the
`
`asserted patents. Id. at 136:16-20. Further, the prejudice to Comcast is heightened because
`
`Touchstream has resisted any instructions that would provide the jury with the relevant time
`
`period for willfulness. Id. at 137:6-12. Thus, under the specific facts of the case, evidence of
`
`
`2 The ’251 Patent is the only patent for which Touchstream is permitted to argue pre-suit willful
`infringement. Dkt. No. 44.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
`12988
`
`pre-February 2017 evidence knowledge of Touchstream’s technology, patents, or alleged
`
`infringement would be unduly prejudicial and risk misleading the jury. The Order clearly and
`
`legally erred by failing to consider this risk.
`
`B.
`
`The Order Clearly Erred By Ignoring This Court’s Dismissal of Pre-Suit
`Willful Infringement Claims With Respect To The ’751 And ’934 Patents
`
`The Order clearly erred by failing to preclude Touchstream from presenting pre-February
`
`2017 testimony, evidence, and argument in support of its claims for willful infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 11,048,751 (the “’751 Patent”) and 11,086,934 (the “’934 Patent”). This Court
`
`already dismissed Touchstream’s claims of pre-suit willful infringement with respect to the ’751
`
`and ’932 Patents. Dkt. No. 44. Thus, at minimum, pre-suit testimony, evidence, and argument
`
`has no probative value with respect to those patents. Fed. R. Evid. 401-402; see also, e.g., SB IP
`
`Holdings LLC v. Vivint, Inc., 2023 WL 6799020, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2023) (precluding
`
`plaintiff from offering evidence of defendant’s “pre-suit conduct as evidence of post-filing
`
`willful infringement, as pre-suit willful infringement is not before the Court”). Further, even if
`
`there were probative value, it would be substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the jury
`
`into believing that pre-suit willfulness can be considered with respect to the ’751 and ’934
`
`Patents. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, the Order clearly erred by failing to preclude Touchstream
`
`from relying on pre-February 2017 testimony, evidence, and argument in support of the
`
`purported willful infringement of the ’751 and ’934 Patents.
`
`C.
`
`The Order Further Erred By Allowing Testimony, Evidence, And Argument
`From Before The Asserted Patents Issued
`
`The Order further clearly erred by failing to preclude, at minimum, Touchstream’s pre-
`
`January 15, 2013 willfulness testimony, evidence, and argument. The ’251 Patent issued on
`
`January 15, 2013. Before that time, Comcast could have had, at most, knowledge of a pending
`
`patent application. Knowledge of a patent application is “insufficient to support a finding of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
`12989
`
`willfulness.” Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see
`
`also State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“To willfully
`
`infringe a patent, the patent must exist and one must have knowledge of it.” (emphasis in
`
`original)). This is because “the scope of claims in patents that do issue” from a pending
`
`application “is something totally unforeseeable.” Id. at 1236; see also HOYA Corp. v. Alcon
`
`Inc., 713 F.Supp.3d 291, 317 (N.D. Tex. 2024) (“all but one of the emails relied on by [plaintiff]
`
`predate by several years the 2017 and 2018 issuance dates of the ’718, ’826, and ’442 patents,
`
`and thus are not probative of knowledge or willful infringement of those patents”). Nevertheless,
`
`the Order did not address Comcast’s arguments with respect to evidence that precedes the
`
`issuance of the ’251 Patent. Ex. 1 at 135:17-21, 138:21-25. This was clear error. Such
`
`evidence risks misleading the jury into believing that having a pending application is the same as
`
`having a patent for purposes of willful infringement. Comcast respectfully requests that, at
`
`minimum, this Court preclude all evidence, testimony, or argument regarding Comcast’s
`
`purported knowledge from before January 15, 2013.
`
`D.
`
`Comcast Reserves The Right To Argue That Willfulness Should Not Be
`Decided By The Jury
`
`While Comcast acknowledges the Federal Circuit’s holding that “the factual components
`
`of the willfulness question should be resolved by the jury,” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d
`
`1317, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), it preserves the right to argue at an appropriate time that willfulness
`
`should be decided by the Court. Willful infringement was not presented to the jury at common
`
`law, and willfulness is only relevant to enhancement, which is assigned by statute to “the court.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284; see also Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enter., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367,
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“enhancement is for the court and not the jury”); Brief of Mentor
`
`Graphics Corp. et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party at 20–27, Halo Elecs., Inc. v.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
`12990
`
`Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016). Thus, any relevant fact findings are properly for the
`
`Court to decide. Further, unnecessarily submitting the issue of willfulness to the jury is highly
`
`prejudicial because empirical studies have shown that the odds of the jury finding infringement
`
`substantially increase when willfulness is presented to the jury. See D. Atkins, Baker Botts Atty
`
`Says Halo Drastically Tilted Patent Trial Odds, Law360, Dec. 13, 2019.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Comcast respectfully requests that the Court preclude
`
`testimony, evidence, and argument regarding purported pre-February 2017 knowledge of
`
`Touchstream’s technology, patents, or the alleged infringement, or, alternatively, evidence,
`
`testimony, or argument regarding purported knowledge from before the ’251 Patent issued on
`
`January 15, 2013.
`
`Dated: January 2, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David J. Lisson
`Deron Dacus (State Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel:
`(903) 705-1117
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`Ashok Ramani (CA Bar No. 200020)
`David J. Lisson (CA Bar No. 250994)
`James Y. Park (CA Bar No. 343659)
`Micayla Hardisty (CA Bar No. 333246)
`900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`ashok.ramani@davispolk.com
`david.lisson@davispolk.com
`james.park@davispolk.com
`micayla.hardisty@davispolk.com
`
`Alena Farber (NY Bar No. 5896170)
`450 Lexington Avenue
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 243 Filed 01/02/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
`12991
`
`New York, NY 10017
`alena.farber@davispolk.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`Thomas G. Saunders (DC Bar No. 503012)
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`thomas.saunders@wilmerhale.com
`
`Lauren Matlock-Colangelo
`(NY Bar No. 5771340)
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`lauren.matlock-colangelo@wilmerhale.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Comcast
`Corporation, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable
`Communications Management, LLC, and
`Comcast of Houston, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 2, 2025 a true and correct copy of the
`
`above and foregoing document has been served on all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David J. Lisson
`David J. Lisson
`
`6
`
`