Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
`14107
`
`
`
`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 OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION
`OVERRULING COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14107
`
`
`
`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 OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION
`OVERRULING COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
`14108
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
`14109
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`55 F.4th 900 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 2, 3, 4
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 3021253 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021) ............................................................................ 5
`
`MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 2, 3, 4, 5
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636 ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
`14110
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`Excerpt of Pretrial Conference held on January 23, 2025 ........................................................ Ex. 1
`
`Excerpt of Patent License Agreement between
`
`
`
`
` .......................................................................................... Ex. 2
`
`Webpage entitled,
`
`
`
`Excerpt of
`
`Excerpt of
`
`Excerpt of
`
` .......................................................................... Ex. 3
`
`
` .......................................................................................... Ex. 4
`
`
`
` .......................... Ex. 5
`
`
`
`
` .......................................................................................... Ex. 6
`
`Webpage entitled,
`
`
`
`Webpage entitled,
`
`
`
` ................................................................ Ex. 7
`
` ......................................................................... Ex. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
`14111
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a),
`
`Comcast respectfully objects to the Magistrate Judge’s decision overruling Comcast’s objections
`
`to Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 7 (the “License Agreement”). Ex. 1 at 11:6–21:2. As set forth below,
`
`the Magistrate Judge clearly and legally erred in admitting the License Agreement, which
`
`Touchstream’s damages expert concedes is for non-comparable technology.1
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`75, 180; Ex. 3 at 1. The License Agreement is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2 at -170, 174–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Ex. 4 at -128, 134–36;
`
`Ex. 5 at -910–11, 915–16, 934–43; Ex. 6 at -866–67, 869; see Ex. 2 at -170, 178.
`
`
`
`
`
` E.g., Ex. 7; Ex. 8. Thus, Touchstream’s damage expert, Dr. Mangum,
`
`concedes that the License Agreement is not “for patents comparable with the patents-in-suit.”
`
`Dkt. No. 83-3 ⁋ 138. Moreover, the asserted claims are all method claims while
`
`
`
`
`1 Out of an abundance of caution, Comcast is filing this Objection within 14 days of the
`Magistrate Judge’s January 23, 2025 oral ruling on Comcast’s objections to the License
`Agreement. The Magistrate Judge has not issued a written order ruling on Comcast’s objections.
`Comcast reserves the right to supplement this Objection after the issuance of any such order.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
`14112
`
`
`
`
`
`. Yet
`
`Touchstream nonetheless sought to admit the License Agreement into evidence to support its
`
`. Ex. 1 at 15:23–16:18.
`
`Comcast objected to the admission of the License Agreement for any purpose. Ex. 1
`
`at 12:2–5, 12:10–16. However, the Magistrate Judge ruled that the License Agreement is
`
`relevant to support the structure, but not the rate, of the hypothetical license proposed by
`
`Touchstream. Id. at 12:6–10, 17:21–18:1. The Magistrate Judge thus admitted the License
`
`Agreement on the condition that its financial terms be redacted. Id. at 20:19–24.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Magistrate Judge clearly and legally erred in admitting the License Agreement
`
`because it is admittedly not comparable to the hypothetical license at issue here. The License
`
`Agreement is therefore irrelevant, and it would be unfairly prejudicial to admit it into evidence.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held time and again that “‘licenses relied upon by the patentee in
`
`proving damages [must be] sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical license at issue in suit.’”
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 79 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Lucent
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also ResQNet.com, Inc.
`
`v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 872 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Where the patentee has made “no effort to
`
`link certain licenses to the infringed patent,” such licenses “have no place in [the] case.”
`
`ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 871; see also id. at 869 (“This court has long required district courts
`
`performing reasonably royalty calculations to exercise vigilance when considering past licenses
`
`to technologies other than the patent in suit.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, such licenses
`
`cannot be admitted to support the proposed rate or structure of the hypothetical license. See
`
`LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 80 (error to allow licenses “where comparability . . . was absent”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
`14113
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, Touchstream’s expert concedes that the License Agreement is not for patents
`
`comparable to the asserted patents in this case. Dkt. No. 83-3 ⁋ 138 (“From review of
`
`[Comcast]’s licenses, I have not found agreements for patents comparable with the patents-in-
`
`suit.”). And that is clearly true:
`
`
`
`license agreement is also economically non-comparable, not only because of the number of
`
`patents it covers but also because it is
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 at 1; Ex. 7; Ex. 8. The
`
` Ex. 4 at -128, 134–36; Ex. 5
`
`at -910–11, 915–16, 934–43; Ex. 6 at -866–67, 869; see Ex. 2 at -170, 178. Such an arrangement
`
`has no comparability to a bare patent-license agreement between Comcast and Touchstream
`
`covering only the three related patents-in-suit. See Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th
`
`900, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (affirming exclusion of licenses to “hundreds or thousands of patents
`
`that spanned a broad range of technologies” for lack of “any meaningful comparison of the
`
`licensed technology with the [patented] invention”); MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech.,
`
`Inc., 10 F.4th 1358, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (affirming exclusion of expert’s opinion relying on
`
`agreement that “granted a license to a portfolio,” “not a license for the same single [asserted]
`
`patent”).
`
`Thus, like in ResQNet and LaserDynamics, the License Agreement is not comparable and
`
`“[has] no place in this case.” ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 871; see also LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d
`
`at 80. The Magistrate Judge nonetheless admitted the License Agreement with redactions to
`
`enable Touchstream to suggest it supports Dr. Mangum’s proposed royalty structure. But the
`
`Federal Circuit has made clear that a non-comparable license cannot be used for any purpose.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
`14114
`
`
`
`
`
`ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 871; LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 80; see MLC, 10 F.4th at 1375
`
`(explaining that agreements “need to be ‘sufficiently comparable’ for evidentiary purposes and
`
`any differences in circumstances must be soundly accounted for”). Indeed, in LaserDynamics,
`
`the court specifically considered the relevance of licenses for both structure and rate. While it
`
`noted that actual licenses to the patents-in-suit may be probative of not only the rate but also the
`
`structure, it then proceeded to exclude non-comparable licenses for both purposes. 694 F.3d
`
`at 79–80.
`
`Touchstream asserts that the License Agreement is probative of the structure of the
`
`hypothetical license because it shows that
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1 at 15:23–16:18. Touchstream’s argument
`
`is illogical.
`
`
`
`, which can be infringed by the mere
`
`deployment of systems capable of infringement. The structure of a license covering such claims
`
`says nothing about a license covering only method claims, which are the only claims that are
`
`asserted in this case and are allegedly practiced by only a tiny fraction of Comcast subscribers.
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 576 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A
`
`method claim is directly infringed only by one practicing the patented method.”). A license to
`
`the asserted claims must reflect a “reasonable approximation of actual infringing uses of the
`
`claimed method[s],” Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1357 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022), regardless of whether Comcast has elsewhere agreed to a different structure for
`
`, and the License Agreement does
`
`not reflect such an approximation.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
`14115
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, admission of the License Agreement would be unfairly prejudicial to Comcast.
`
`It is inherently prejudicial to use the structure of this non-comparable license to support the
`
`structure of the hypothetical license. See, e.g., ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 870 (improper to rely on
`
`license “with no relationship to the claimed invention to drive the royalty rate to unjustified”
`
`levels). Moreover, the Magistrate Judge’s decision to admit the License Agreement with
`
`redactions to financial terms would improperly invite the jury to speculate as to those terms. See
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018) (finding reasonable royalty opinion inadmissible in part because “the jury [was]
`
`simply left to speculate or adopt the expert’s unsupported conclusory opinion”). Further,
`
`explaining the full context of the License Agreement would require discussion of
`
`
`
` which Touchstream does
`
`not propose to put into evidence. See Court Standing Motion in Limine No. 13; Maxell, Ltd. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 2021 WL 3021253, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021) (excluding “refer[ences] to other
`
`litigations or parallel proceedings” involving the parties). Thus, the Magistrate Judge clearly and
`
`legally erred in admitting the License Agreement, which is indisputably both irrelevant and
`
`unfairly prejudicial to Comcast.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge clearly and legally erred, and the Court
`
`should sustain Comcast’s objections and exclude the License Agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 10 of 13 PageID
`#: 14116
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 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)
`Keon Zemoudeh (CA Bar No. 343023)
`900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`ashok.ramani@davispolk.com
`david.lisson@davispolk.com
`james.park@davispolk.com
`keon.zemoudeh@davispolk.com
`
`Alena Farber (NY Bar No. 5896170)
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`alena.farber@davispolk.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 11 of 13 PageID
`#: 14117
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that this document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the
`
`Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David J. Lisson
`David J. Lisson
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 12 of 13 PageID
`#: 14118
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 6, 2025 true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECISION OVERRULING
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBIT 7 were served upon the
`
`following as indicated:
`
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`Ryan D. Dykal (pro hac vice)
`Jordan T. Bergsten (pro hac vice)
`Mark Schafer (pro hac vice)
`Philip A. Eckert (pro hac vice)
`Anita Liu (TX State Bar No. 24134054)
`1401 New York Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`rdykal@bsfllp.com
`jbergsten@bsfllp.com
`mschafer@bsfllp.com
`peckert@bsfllp.com
`aliu@bsfllp.com
`
`John M. Lyons (pro hac vice)
`Sabina Mariella (pro hac vice)
`Sophie Roytblat (pro hac vice)
`55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10001
`jlyons@bsfllp.com
`smariella@bsfllp.com
`sroytblat@bsfllp.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`GILLIAM & SMITH LLP
`Melissa Smith (TX State Bar No. 24001351)
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`(t) 903-934-8450
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`8
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 320 Filed 02/11/25 Page 13 of 13 PageID
`#: 14119
`
`
`
`
`
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Dina M. Hayes
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com
`Daniel L. Reisner
`David Benyacar
`Elizabeth A. Long
`Melissa Brown
`Robert Stout
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com
`david.benyacar@arnoldporter.com
`elizabeth.long@arnoldporter.com
`melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com
`robert.stout@arnoldporter.com
`
`Counsel for Charter Defendants
`
`
`
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`
`/s/ Angela Quach
`Angela Quach
`Senior Litigation Paralegal
`
`
`
`9
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
