Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
`13188
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PATENT VALIDITY UNDER 35 USC § 101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
`13189
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea At Alice Step 1 .......................... 1
`
`The R&R Did Not Address Alice Step 2 ............................................................................ 7
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
`13190
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 3, 5
`
`AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`97 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC,
`2024 WL 1338940 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) ............................................................................. 6
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLC,
`135 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (D. Haw. 2015) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`ClearDoc, Inc. v. RiversideFM, Inc.,
`2022 WL 606698 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2022) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Image Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2017 WL 10185856 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017) .......................................................................... 5
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc.,
`2022 WL 2167619 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022) .......................................................................... 4, 8
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. Kayak Software Corp.,
`111 F. Supp. 3d 603 (D.N.J. 2015) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
`13191
`
`VideoShare, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4137524 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2016) ................................................................................. 6
`
`Rules
`
`E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-72 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
`13192
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule CV-72(c), Defendants
`
`respectfully object to Magistrate Judge Payne’s report and recommendation (Dkt. 240,
`
`hereinafter “R&R”) to grant Touchstream’s motion for summary judgment of validity (Dkt. 88)
`
`and deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity (Dkt. 86). This Court “must
`
`determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
`
`to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The R&R erred by concluding that the Asserted Claims are not
`
`directed to an abstract idea and ending the patent eligibility analysis at Alice Step 1.
`
`I.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea At Alice Step 1
`
`The Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea of controlling content on a display
`
`device (e.g., a television) using a mobile device (e.g., a mobile phone). Both of Touchstream’s
`
`own experts agree that the Asserted Patents1 are directed to “methods for controlling, by a
`
`personal computing device [e.g., a mobile phone], content on a display device, by way of a
`
`server system.” Dkt. 86 at 2. In other words, a phone passes messages to the television—
`
`through an intermediary server—to control playback of video on the television. ’934 Patent
`
`claim 17 is representative:2
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,356,251 (the “’251 Patent”), 11,048,751 (the “’751
`Patent”), and 11,086,934 (the “’934 Patent). The Asserted Claims are claims 1 and 5 (Comcast)
`and 1 and 7 (Charter) of the ’251 Patent; claims 12 and 14 (Comcast) and 12 and 13 (Charter) of
`the ’751 Patent; and claims 17, 18, and 19 (Comcast) and 17, 18, and 20 (Charter) of the ’934
`Patent.
`
`2 The R&R notes Touchstream’s argument that “Defendants have provided no justification for
`treating [claim 17 of the ’934 Patent] as representative.” R&R n.1. Defendants did in fact
`separately explain why all the other Asserted Claims are invalid. Dkt. 86 at 13-22. In any event,
`the R&R did not find any of the other Asserted Claims to be patentably distinct from claim 17.
`R&R 7 (finding that the other Asserted Claims “are patent eligible at step one” for “the same
`reason as” claim 17).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
`13193
`
`17. A computer-implemented method for controlling playback of
`various types of content, comprising:
`
`providing, by a media receiver, a unique identifier of the media
`receiver to a computing device in communication with a server
`system;
`
`based on the provided unique identifier, receiving, by the media
`receiver via the server system, a set of messages from the
`computing device, the received set of messages referencing a piece
`of content associated with a first type of media playing application
`of a plurality of media playing application types, and including a
`set of commands converted from a universal format defined by the
`computing device to a first format that corresponds to the first type
`of media playing application;
`
`in response to receiving the set of messages, selecting, by the
`media receiver, the first type of media playing application from the
`plurality of media playing application types based at least in part
`on its association with the piece of content referenced in the
`received set of messages, and
`
`controlling, by the media receiver, how the selected first type of
`media playing application plays the referenced piece of content
`based on at least one command of the converted set of commands
`included in the received set of messages.
`
`The recited generic “media receiver,” “computing device” and “server system” represent the
`
`television, mobile phone and intermediate server, respectively. Dkt 86 at 5-9.3
`
`The steps of the claim—“providing” an identifier, “receiving” messages and converted
`
`commands, “selecting” a media playing application (which the Court has construed to simply
`
`mean software for playing media), and “controlling” how the media player plays the content—
`
`relate to sending/receiving generic messages used to control a television from a phone as well as
`
`
`3 These devices are referred to as the “content presentation device,” “remote computing device,”
`and “remote server device,” respectively, in claim 12 of the ’751 Patent. In claim 1 of the ’251
`Patent, the television is referred to as a “display device,” the mobile phone is referred to as a
`“personal computing device,” and the server is referred to as “a server system.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
`13194
`
`the functional result of controlling the television.4 The mobile device sends a message
`
`identifying a piece of content (e.g., a video), a “media player” for playing that content (e.g.,
`
`YouTube), and a universal playback command (e.g., “play”). Dkt 86. at 2-3, 5-6. The
`
`intermediate server then converts the universal command into the corresponding command for
`
`the identified media player and transmits that command and the video identifier to the television.
`
`Id.5 The television then controls playback of the video in accordance with the command it
`
`received. Id. These generic, functional steps, whether considered individually or as a whole,
`
`indisputably do not limit the claims to a “particular solution to an identified problem.” Affinity
`
`Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Asserted
`
`Claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step 1. The R&R erred by concluding
`
`otherwise.
`
`First, the R&R largely ignores the long line of cases holding that similar claims were
`
`directed to abstract ideas. Claims directed to sending messages to control media have repeatedly
`
`been held to be abstract where they were not “confine[d] . . . to a particular solution to an
`
`identified problem.” Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1269. In Affinity, claims directed to the “concept of
`
`delivering user-selected media content to portable devices” were abstract because “[t]he
`
`specification describes the function of streaming content to a wireless device, but not a specific
`
`means for performing that function.” Id. Similarly, in Maxell, Ltd. v. VIZIO, Inc., claims that
`
`“sought to ‘improve[] the convenience’ of displaying a picture from a portable device such as a
`
`
`4 The claims of the other patents contain similar steps: “obtaining,” “providing,” “receiving,”
`“selecting” and “controlling” (’751 Patent Claim 12) and “assigning,” “receiving,” “storing” and
`“converting” (’251 Patent Claim 1).
`
`5 Touchstream’s own characterization of the claims relies on essentially these same generic,
`functional steps. Dkt. 88 at 6; see also Dkt. 121 at 3-4.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
`13195
`
`camera or phone in a display apparatus” were directed to an abstract idea because they focused
`
`on the “result of displaying a slide show at predetermined intervals” but did not provide “the
`
`technical means for performing those functions and achieving those desired results.” 2022 WL
`
`2167619, at *3, *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022) (alteration and emphasis in original).6 The R&R
`
`“distinguishe[d]” Maxell because the Touchstream claims are directed to “intra-system
`
`messaging between a media receiver, server system, and computing device” and “describe[], in
`
`detail, how to implement [their] solution.” R&R 6. However, the Federal Circuit has held that
`
`generic functional language like the steps of the Asserted Claims does not provide sufficient
`
`detail. See, e.g., Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim 1 recites a method for routing information using result-based functional
`
`language. The claim requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’
`
`‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these
`
`results in a non-abstract way.”). The purpose of the steps recited by the Asserted Claims is to
`
`control playback of content from the mobile device but the components do not have “meaningful
`
`limitations,” and are instead “merely a conduit for the abstract idea.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
`
`Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The R&R also attempted to distinguish Maxell because the Federal Circuit “does not
`
`purport to bind one district court to the reasoning of another on abstractness.” R&R n.3. This
`
`ignores the unbroken chain of Federal Circuit cases confirming the abstractness of sending
`
`messages to control media. See, e.g., Two-Way Media Ltd., 874 F.3d at 1337 (claims directed to
`
`
`6 See also, e.g., ClearDoc, Inc. v. RiversideFM, Inc., 2022 WL 606698, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 22,
`2022) (invalidating claims directed to “remotely controlling the recording, storing, delivering,
`and deleting of media content on a mobile device” and noting “[d]elivery of media content is
`also an abstract idea”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
`13196
`
`“the abstract idea of (1) sending information, (2) directing the sent information, (3) monitoring
`
`the receipt of the sent information, and (4) accumulating records about receipt of the sent
`
`information”); Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1269 (“the concept of delivering user-selected media content
`
`to portable devices is an abstract idea”). In any event, in analyzing whether a claim recites an
`
`impermissibly abstract idea, “the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have ‘found it sufficient
`
`to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in
`
`previous cases.’” Image Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2017 WL 10185856, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017) (Gilstrap, C.J.) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, the fact that both the Federal Circuit and district courts have
`
`found comparable claims to be directed to abstract ideas is a strong indication that the Asserted
`
`Claims are themselves abstract.
`
`Second, the R&R erred by concluding that “Defendants’ characterization of the claimed
`
`invention is too general” because the claims “enhance a computer network’s functionality” by
`
`reciting “intra-system messaging between a media receiver, server system, and computer
`
`device.” R&R 6. The R&R, however, identifies no such “enhance[ment] [to] a computer
`
`network’s functionality.” Id. The purported invention does not make computer networks work
`
`faster, operate more efficiently, or function better in any other way. Instead, the purported
`
`invention is “intra-system messaging” on existing networks so that a phone can control a
`
`television. Supra pp. 2-3; see also Dkt. 156 at 4; Dkt. 121 at 6-11. Not only do the claims
`
`themselves describe only generic elements like a “display device” and a “personal computing
`
`device” to accomplish this objective, but the Asserted Patents make very clear that the intra-
`
`system messaging is not limited to implementation using any particular combination of circuitry
`
`or computer hardware, software, firmware, or programs. See, e.g., Dkt. 105-7 (’934 Patent) at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 10 of 15 PageID
`#: 13197
`
`9:65-10:54. The use of “purely functional and generic” components cannot confer patentability.
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014) (concluding that claims reciting a
`
`“‘data processing system’ with a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’” did not
`
`recite “specific hardware”); Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC,
`
`2024 WL 1338940, at *1-*2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) (determining that claims reciting “a
`
`playback interface executing on an internet enabled multimedia computing platform including: a
`
`media player that plays media resources delivered over the Internet from a remote server” were
`
`directed to patent ineligible subject matter). None of the elements of the Asserted Claims “offers
`
`a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular
`
`technological environment.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation
`
`omitted, alteration in original). Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`controlling content on a display device using a mobile device.7
`
`Third, because the Asserted Claims merely automate methods that could be performed by
`
`humans, the R&R erred by concluding that they are directed to a technological improvement.
`
`R&R 6. “Merely improving speed and efficiency through implementation over the internet or
`
`computers does not root problem and solution in computer technology. Courts look to whether a
`
`human being could perform the same steps, albeit at a slower pace.” Source Search Techs., LLC
`
`v. Kayak Software Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 603, 612 (D.N.J. 2015) (citation omitted); Credit
`
`Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[M]ere automation
`
`
`7 The R&R additionally erred by ignoring that courts have repeatedly found that converting
`electronic messages is itself an abstract idea. Dkt. 86 at 8; see also, e.g., AI Visualize, Inc. v.
`Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (invalidating claims directed to
`the abstract idea of “converting data and using computers to collect, manipulate, and display the
`data”); VideoShare, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2016 WL 4137524, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2016)
`(invalidating claims directed to “preparing a video in streaming video format for sharing over a
`computer network”), aff’d, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 11 of 15 PageID
`#: 13198
`
`of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in
`
`computer technology.”). Here, a parent could tell her child to press the play command for a
`
`particular Blu-ray movie rather than some other movie that would play on a regular DVD player
`
`or a VCR, and the child could comply by using a remote control for the appropriate player,
`
`converting the parent’s universal command (“play”) into a format specific to the media player
`
`that will then play the content. The Asserted Claims effectively just substitute a mobile device
`
`for the parent and a server for the child in this example. The R&R erred by ignoring the fact that
`
`the claimed processes could otherwise be performed by humans, “a telltale sign of abstraction.”
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`For at least these reasons, the R&R erred by concluding that the claims are not directed to
`
`an abstract idea at Alice Step 1.
`
`II.
`
`The R&R Did Not Address Alice Step 2
`
`The R&R did not address Alice Step 2. R&R n. 4. For the reasons explained above, this
`
`was error because the claims are directed to an abstract idea.8 Further, as set forth in
`
`Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity (Dkt. 86), the Asserted Claims do not
`
`add anything to transform the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter at Alice
`
`Step 2. Rather, they recite general functions “insufficient to supply an inventive concept.”
`
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Oceanic Time Warner Cable, LLC, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1189 (D. Haw.
`
`2015) (citation omitted), aff’d sub nom. Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 669 F.
`
`App’x 555 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Dkt. 86 at 12-13; 16-18; 21-22; Dkt. 156 at 7. Further,
`
`“[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-
`
`
`8 Because the R&R expressly declined to address Alice Step 2, there are no other “findings,
`conclusions, and recommendations” to which Defendants could object regarding Alice Step 2.
`R&R 7.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 12 of 15 PageID
`#: 13199
`
`the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and
`
`presenting the desired information.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); Dkt. 86 at 10-13; 16-18; 21-22; Dkt. 156 at 7-8. Finally, the arrangement of the
`
`steps of the Asserted Claims does not constitute an inventive concept because there is nothing
`
`inventive about using a server that intermediates messages between a computing device and a
`
`media receiver. See Maxell, 2022 WL 2167619, at *16; Dkt. 86 at 12-13; 16-18; 21-22; Dkt. 156
`
`at 7-8. There is therefore no genuine dispute that, whether taken individually or as an ordered
`
`combination, the elements of the Asserted Claims were well-known in the art as of the purported
`
`priority date.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For at least these reasons, the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea and the
`
`R&R erred at ending the patent ineligibility analysis at Alice Step 1. Because the claims lack an
`
`inventive concept sufficient to transform this abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter, this
`
`Court should sustain Defendants’ objections and grant Defendants’ motion for summary
`
`judgment of invalidity and deny Touchstream’s motion for validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Dated: January 13, 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 13 of 15 PageID
`#: 13200
`
`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
`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
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ David Benyacar
`Daniel L. Reisner, pro hac vice
`David Benyacar, pro hac vice
`Melissa Brown, pro hac vice
`Robert Stout, pro hac vice
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com
`david.benyacar@arnoldporter.com
`melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com
`robert.stout@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`
`9
`
`Dated: January 13, 2025
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 14 of 15 PageID
`#: 13201
`
`
`
`
`
`Dina M. Hayes, pro hac vice
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com
`
`Deron Dacus (State Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Carson D. Anderson, pro hac vice
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Bldg. 5, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`carson.anderson@arnoldporter.com
`
`Marc A. Cohn, pro hac vice
`Stanton Jones, pro hac vice
`Natalie Steiert, pro hac vice
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
`natalie.steiert@arnoldporter.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Charter Communications,
`Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC,
`Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC,
`Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, Spectrum Gulf
`Coast, LLC, Charter Communications, LLC
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 262 Filed 01/13/25 Page 15 of 15 PageID
`#: 13202
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 13, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`