Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
`14743
`
`
`
`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 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
`DENYING COMCAST’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
`14744
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
`14745
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`418 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (S.D. Ind. 2006) ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................... 2, 4, 5
`
`Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`909 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Infernal Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Ent., LLC,
`19-cv-00248-JRG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021) ......................................................................... 2, 5
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Traxxas LP v. Hobby Prods. Int’l, Inc.,
`2018 WL 953334 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2018) .............................................................................. 1
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5815950 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2020) ....................................................................... 3, 5
`
`Walters v. Hoover & Strong, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12137777 (S.D. Tex. May 1, 2013) ........................................................................ 3, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
`14746
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule CV-72(c), Comcast
`
`respectfully objects to the Report & Recommendation (the “R&R”), Dkt. No. 322, denying
`
`Comcast’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion” or “Mot.”), Dkt.
`
`No. 85. Review of the R&R is de novo. Traxxas LP v. Hobby Prods. Int’l, Inc., 2018 WL
`
`953334, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2018).
`
`Touchstream only asserts method claims, which can be infringed only by actually
`
`performing the patented method. As relevant here, each Asserted Claim requires that a particular
`
`message, i.e., a remote-tune request, be sent from another device to the accused X1 set-top boxes
`
`(“STBs”). Yet Touchstream’s technical expert, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, opines that all Comcast X1
`
`STBs with the mere capability of receiving such remote-tune requests from another device
`
`infringe the Asserted Claims. That is incorrect as a matter of law. Without actually receiving
`
`such a message, neither an X1 STB nor any other element in Comcast’s system can perform the
`
`claimed methods, and there can be no infringement.
`
`There is no genuine dispute that an X1 STB that has not received a remote-tune request
`
`cannot infringe, or be involved in any infringement of, any Asserted Claim. Accordingly,
`
`Comcast moved for summary judgment that any X1 STB that has not received an accused
`
`remote-tune request from another device does not infringe. As set forth below and in the
`
`Motion, the R&R erred in denying that Motion.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Asserted Claims are all method claims. Touchstream’s Opposition to Motion
`
`(“Opp.”), Dkt. No. 122 at 3. It is undisputed that each claim requires receiving a remote-tune
`
`request sent from a mobile phone or other computing device. Opp. at 3; Mot. at 2.
`
`Dr. Almeroth opines that the “Accused TV Remote Functionalities” infringe the Asserted
`
`Claims. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 122. The Accused TV Remote Functionalities are implemented by
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
`14747
`
`
`
`
`
`what Dr. Almeroth identifies as the “Infringing Instrumentalities,” which include Comcast’s TV
`
`Remote mobile application (“TV Remote App”). Id. ¶¶ 59, 122, 127. “Comcast’s TV Remote
`
`application enables users to select and control playback of content.” Id. ¶ 174.
`
`Dr. Almeroth opines that “Comcast supports remote control sessions through the
`
`XFINITY TV Remote Application installed on a personal computing device . . . .” Dkt. No.
`
`85-4 ¶ 129 (emphasis added); see Opp. at 3; Mot. at 2. Thus, to initiate playback using the TV
`
`Remote App, a user must first download the TV Remote App on to his or her mobile device and
`
`log in with Comcast account credentials to use the application. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 245 & App. 1;
`
`Dkt. No. 85-8 at 39:20–45:23. Dr. Almeroth identifies the TV Remote App as the only source of
`
`remote-tune requests. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 167; see Opp. at 3; Mot. at 3. However, it is undisputed
`
`that not all Comcast subscribers have downloaded and used the TV Remote App and,
`
`accordingly, not all X1 STBs have actually been involved in a remote tune. Opp. at 3; Mot. at 3;
`
`see Dkt. No. 85-8 at 39:20–45:23. Dr. Almeroth nevertheless opines that “any ‘XFINITY X1
`
`STB,’ that is, capable of receiving remote tune requests from another device, infringes the
`
`Asserted Claims of the Touchstream Patents.” Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 59 (emphasis added); see Opp.
`
`at 3; Mot. at 2. Because mere capability is insufficient to establish infringement of the Asserted
`
`Claims, Comcast moved for partial “summary judgment that any X1 [STB] that has not received
`
`an accused remote tune request from another device does not infringe.” Mot. at 1.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`“A method claim is directly infringed only by one practicing the patented method.”
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 576 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(“Cardiac”) (quoting Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Thus, a
`
`product does not infringe a method claim simply because it is capable of performing the claimed
`
`process. See, e.g., Infernal Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Ent., LLC, 19-cv-00248-JRG, Dkt.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
`14748
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 281 at 4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021) (Gilstrap, C.J.) (“Sale of an apparatus is not an
`
`infringement of a method claim merely because the apparatus is capable of performing the
`
`claimed method steps.”); Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 5815950, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 30, 2020) (Gilstrap, C.J.) (“[A] method claim is ‘not directly infringed by the mere sale of
`
`an apparatus capable of performing the claimed process.’”) (quoting Joy Techs., 6 F.3d at 773);
`
`Walters v. Hoover & Strong, Inc., 2013 WL 12137777, at *5 (S.D. Tex. May 1, 2013) (granting
`
`summary judgment of non-infringement of method claims because “[i]t is not enough to simply
`
`show that a product is capable of infringement.”).
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement is therefore warranted for any X1 STB that has
`
`not actually received an accused remote-tune request. For there to be any performance of the
`
`Accused TV Remote Functionalities, a subscriber must first download and install the TV Remote
`
`App on his or her mobile device and then send an accused remote-tune request to an X1 STB.
`
`Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶¶ 127, 129 & App. 1; Dkt. No. 85-8 at 39:20–45:23. Indeed, Dr. Almeroth’s
`
`infringement analysis expressly requires “a smartphone or tablet running a TV Remote
`
`Application” that sends remote-tune requests to a server system that then communicates with an
`
`X1 STB. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 263; see id. ¶¶ 245, 252, 264, 290, 296, 314, 316.
`
`Dr. Almeroth’s assertion “that any ‘XFINITY X1 STB,’ that is, capable of receiving
`
`remote tune requests from another device, infringes the Asserted Claims of the Touchstream
`
`Patents” is therefore wrong as a matter of law. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 59. Mere capability does not
`
`constitute infringement of any of the asserted method claims. Walters, 2013 WL 12137777,
`
`at *5. “Absent proof that [defendant’s] devices were programmed for and actually executed the
`
`claimed method, [plaintiff] may not recover damages for the sales of devices merely capable of
`
`infringing. . . . None of these facts are sufficient to impose liability (and therefore damages) for
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
`14749
`
`
`
`
`
`every device sold.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 418 F. Supp. 2d 1021,
`
`1040–41 (S.D. Ind. 2006), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (emphasis added).
`
`Because the capability of an X1 STB to receive remote-tune requests is not sufficient to
`
`establish infringement of method claims by such STB, it is improper to impose either damages or
`
`liability on that basis. In Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., the Federal Circuit entered
`
`judgment as a matter of law that the plaintiff could not recover damages for products where the
`
`plaintiff had not demonstrated actual performance of the accused method claims. 965 F.3d 1299,
`
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently reinforced that “patentees cannot
`
`recover damages based on sales of products with the mere capability to practice the claimed
`
`method.” Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, partial summary judgment is necessary to carve out X1 STBs that have
`
`not been involved in a remote tune. See Cardiac, 576 F.3d at 1358.
`
`The R&R erred when it denied partial summary judgment to that effect.
`
`First, the R&R suggests that it denied the Motion for the same reasons that it denied
`
`Comcast’s Motion to Strike the Opinions of Dr. Russell W. Mangum III, Touchstream’s
`
`damages expert (“Motion to Strike”). R&R at 3. But the denial of the Motion to Strike itself
`
`constituted clear legal error for the reasons outlined in Comcast’s objections to that order. Dkt.
`
`No. 263. Further, the two motions requested different relief under different legal standards,
`
`rendering it improper to decide the two motions on the same basis. A ruling that an expert’s
`
`testimony is admissible does not necessarily mean that the expert’s testimony is sufficient. See
`
`Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., 909 F.3d 398, 411 & n.2 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (vacating damages award because royalty base included non-infringing products).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
`14750
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, the R&R states that Dr. Almeroth relies on the correct legal test and addressed
`
`his legal theory in more detail and according to the law on method claims in paragraphs 122 and
`
`123 of his report. However, Dr. Almeroth’s assertion “that any ‘XFINITY X1 STB,’ that is,
`
`capable of receiving remote tune requests from another device, infringes the Asserted Claims” is
`
`unambiguous and contrary to law. Dkt. No. 85-4 ¶ 59. The paragraphs in Dr. Almeroth’s report
`
`to which the R&R points do not alter that opinion. To the contrary, in paragraph 122,
`
`Dr. Almeroth again notes that all X1 STBs are “capable of using the accused remote-tune
`
`functionality,” which simply repeats his erroneous view that such STBs infringe through their
`
`capability (emphasis added). Paragraph 123 is a single sentence that concludes that any direct
`
`infringement is by Comcast because software provided and maintained by Comcast purportedly
`
`“performs all the claim steps.” Thus, paragraph 123 addresses divided infringement when there
`
`is a remote-tune request and is irrelevant to the issue of whether X1 STBs that never receive a
`
`remote-tune request infringe. As explained above, they cannot. Cardiac, 576 F.3d at 1358.
`
`Third, the R&R nowhere addresses the black-letter law holding that a device cannot
`
`infringe a method claim simply because it is capable of performing the claimed method. See
`
`Cardiac, 576 F.3d at 1359; Infernal, 19-cv-00248-JRG, Dkt. No. 281 at 4; Vocalife, 2020 WL
`
`5815950, at *2; Walters, 2013 WL 12137777, at *5. Absent summary judgment, Touchstream
`
`and its expert will assert at trial that any X1 STB capable of receiving the accused remote-tune
`
`requests infringes even if it has never done so. That is contrary to law and the undisputed facts.
`
`Accordingly, Comcast’s Objection should be sustained, and the Motion should be
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
`14751
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 21, 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
`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 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 10 of 12 PageID
`#: 14752
`
`
`
`
`
`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 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 11 of 12 PageID
`#: 14753
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 21, 2025 true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION DENYING
`
`COMCAST’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 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 357 Filed 02/26/25 Page 12 of 12 PageID
`#: 14754
`
`
`
`
`
`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/ Bruno Silva
`Bruno Silva
`Litigation Paralegal
`
`
`
`9
`
`