Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 17 PageID
`#: 14872
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 17 PageID
`#: 14873
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Member Case No. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC, D/B/A XFINITY, et al.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED
`CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS'
`EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '
`
`Defendants.
`
`REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF MICHAEL I. SHAMOS, PH.D.
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 3 of 17 PageID
`#: 14874
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`IX.
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`XII.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 3
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................................... 5
`SUMMARY OF REBUTTAL OPINIONS .................................................................. 6
`RELEV AN"T LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 7
`A. Legal Standard For Infringement ....................................................................... 7
`B. Legal Standard Secondary Considerations Of Non-Obviousness .................... 9
`C. State Of The Art .................................................................................................. 10
`D. Conception ........................................................................................................... 11
`PRIORITY DATES OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................ 12
`A.
`'251 And '751 Patents - No Earlier Than April 21, 2011 .............................. 12
`B.
`'934 Patent - No Earlier Than June 30, 2020 ................................................. 13
`C. No Evidence Of Conception (Invention Date) Prior To April 21, 2011 ......... 14
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................................................... 22
`TIIE ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................................................................... 23
`A. Summary- Of The Patents ................................................................................... 23
`B.
`Summary- of the Prosecution Histories ............................................................. 34
`TIIE ASSERTED CLAIMS ........................................................................................ 46
`A. Table Of The Asserted Claim limitations ......................................................... 47
`B. The Court's Claim Constructions ..................................................................... 50
`C. Summary- Of Claimed Features ......................................................................... 52
`TIIE "THREE ANYS"-TOUCHSTREAM'S VALUE PROPOSITION ............. 55
`TIIE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES .............................................................. 59
`A. Messaging And Signaling Overview ................................................................... 67
`B. Legacy Charter Market Customers Utilizing Spectrum Guide STBs ............. 72
`C. Legacy Charter Market Customers Utilizing Spectrum iGuide STBs ............ 76
`D. Legacy TWC/BHN Market Customers Utilizing Spectrum Guide STBs ....... 79
`E. Legacy TWC/BHN Market Customers Utilizing ODN Guide or MDN
`Guide STBs .......................................................................................................... 83
`GENERAL DEFICIENCIES IN DR. WICKER'S INFRINGEMENT
`OPINIONS .................................................................................................................... 88
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '251 PATENT ASSERTED CLAIMS ............ 91
`A.
`'251 Patent Claim 1 ............................................................................................. 91
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 4 of 17 PageID
`#: 14875
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`XV.
`
`XIV.
`
`'251 Patent Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 104
`B.
`'251 Patent Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 104
`C.
`'251 Patent Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 105
`D.
`XIII. NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '751 PATENT ASSERTED CLAIMS .......... 106
`A.
`'751 Patent Claim 12 ......................................................................................... 106
`B.
`'751 Patent Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 116
`C.
`'751 Patent Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 116
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '934 PATENT ASSERTED CLAIMS .......... 117
`A.
`'934 Patent Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 117
`B.
`'934 Patent Claim 18 ......................................................................................... 121
`C.
`'934 Patent Claim 19 ......................................................................................... 121
`D.
`'934 Patent Claim 20 ......................................................................................... 121
`LACK OF SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................... 121
`A. Lack Of Commercial Success .......................................................................... 121
`B. No Long-Felt But Unmet Need ........................................................................ 123
`C. No Industry Praise ............................................................................................ 125
`D. No Industry Skepticism .................................................................................... 126
`E. No Evidence Of Other Secondary Considerations ......................................... 127
`F. NoNexus ............................................................................................................ 128
`XVI. MINIMAL TECHNICAL VALUE OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ................... 128
`A. Touchstream's Asserted Claims Are Conventional And Purport To
`Solve A Problem That Had Already Been Solved By The Prior Art ........... 128
`B. Touchstream's Quadriga Implementation Had Serious Flaws And
`Little Value ........................................................................................................ 133
`XVII. NON-INFRINGING ALTERN"ATIVES .................................................................. 134
`XVIII. INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 139
`XIX.
`TECHNICAL COMPARABILITY OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS .................. 157
`XX.
`TESTING OF THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES ................................... 160
`XXI.
`CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 165
`XXII. TRIAL EXIDBITS .................................................................................................... 166
`XXIII. SUPPLEMENTATION OF OPINIONS .................................................................. 166
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 5 of 17 PageID
`#: 14876
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My name is Michael Ian Shamos.
`
`I have been retained by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, counsel for Charter
`
`Communications, Inc. ("Charter" or "Defendant") as a technical expert. I have been asked to
`
`provide opinions in rebuttal to the "Expert Report Of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker Regarding
`
`Infringement Of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,356,251, 11,048,751, 11,086,934" ("Wicker Inf. Rep." or
`
`"Opening Report"). In particular, Dr. Wicker asserts that Charter has infringed the following
`
`Asserted Claims:
`
`'251 Patent
`'751 Patent
`'934 Patent
`
`Claims: 1, 5, 7, and 8.
`Claims: 12, 13, and 14.
`Claims: 17, 18, 19,and20.
`
`Collectively, I will refer to these claims as the "Asserted Claims" of the "Asserted Patents." As
`
`used herein, the term "Inventor" and "Applicant" refers to the inventor named on the face of the
`
`Asserted Patents (David Strober) and the attomey(s) who prosecuted the Asserted Patents. I refer
`
`to the Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. as "Touchstream" or "Plaintiff."
`
`3.
`
`My background, qualifications, and professional affiliations are set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`4.
`
`I hold the title of Distinguished Career Professor in the School of Computer Science
`
`at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I am now a member of two
`
`departments in that School, the Software and Societal Systems Department and the Language
`
`Technologies Institute. I was previously a faculty member in four other departments: Computer
`
`Science, Mathematics, Statistics, and the Tepper School of Business. I was a founder and Co(cid:173)
`
`Director of the Institute for eCommerce at Carnegie Mellon from 1998-2004, and from 2004-2018 I
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 6 of 17 PageID
`#: 14877
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`was Director of the eBusiness Technology graduate program in the Carnegie Mellon University
`
`School of Computer Science. I am now Director of the M.S. in Artificial Intelligence and
`
`Innovation degree program at Carnegie Mellon.
`
`5.
`
`I have taught graduate courses at Carnegie Mellon in Electronic Commerce,
`
`including eCommerce Technology, Electronic Payment Systems, Electronic Voting and
`
`eCommerce Law and Regulation, as well as Analysis of Algorithms. Since 2007 I have taught an
`
`annual course in Law of Computer Technology. I currently also teach Artificial Intelligence and
`
`Future Markets.
`
`6.
`
`From 2001-2021 I was a Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong, where I
`
`taught an annual course on Electronic Payment Systems. It was one of only a few university
`
`courses in the world on this subject.
`
`7.
`
`From 1979-1987 I was the founder and president of two computer software
`
`development companies in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Unilogic, Ltd. and Lexeme Corporation.
`
`8.
`
`I am an attorney admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and have been admitted to the
`
`Bar of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 1981. I have not been asked to offer any
`
`opinions of law in this report.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named co-inventor on the following six issued patents relating to electronic
`
`commerce: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,330,839, 7,421,278, 7,747,465, 8,195,197, 8,280,773, and
`
`9,456,299.
`
`10.
`
`I am the author and lecturer in a 24-hour video course on Internet protocols and have
`
`taught computer networking, wireless communication, and Internet architecture since 1999.
`
`11.
`
`I have been an expert in over 380 cases involving computer technology. In
`
`particular, I have been involved in more than 30 cases involving set-top boxes, electronic program
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 7 of 17 PageID
`#: 14878
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`guides, streaming technology and audio and video content distribution. For Rovi Corporation in
`
`2012-2014, I set up and operated a television testing laboratory in Pittsburgh that included 45
`
`different models of television sets and the set-top boxes needed to operate them.
`
`12.
`
`I am being compensated for my work on this matter at my customary rate of $600
`
`per hour plus any costs or expenses that I incur in the course of this engagement. My compensation
`
`does not depend on the outcome of this matter and I have no financial interest in the Asserted
`
`Patents or in any of the parties. It is conceivable that I may own mutual funds which themselves
`
`own a portion of Charter. I have no knowledge of any such holding, and in any case it would not
`
`constitute a material part of my net worth.
`
`13.
`
`In this report, when I say that I "understand" that a particular fact is true, ifl do not
`
`know the particular fact is true through my personal knowledge then I have been informed by
`
`counsel that a witness will testify at trial to the truth of such fact. When I say that I "understand"
`
`that a particular principle of law is applicable then I have been instructed by counsel to follow that
`
`particular principle.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`In this report, all emphasis in boldface is added unless specified otherwise.
`
`I am prepared to testify at trial about the matters set forth in this report, if asked
`
`about these matters by the Court or the parties' attorneys.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`16.
`
`On June 24, 2024, I signed my Expert Report of Michael I. Shamos Ph.D.
`
`Concerning Invalidity ("My Invalidity Report"). I incorporate that report into this report as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`In connection with preparing this report I have reviewed the Asserted Patents, their
`
`prosecution histories, the Wicker Inf. Rep., the materials cited in the Wicker Inf. Rep., the materials
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 8 of 17 PageID
`#: 14879
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`cited in this report, the July 15, 2024 Rebuttal Expert Report of Mark Frappier ("Frappier Rebuttal
`
`Rep."), the materials cited in the Frappier Rebuttal Rep., and the additional materials listed in
`
`Exhibit 2. I have also considered My Invalidity Report and the materials considered therein.
`
`18. My opinions regarding non-infringement and the bases for those opinions, as
`
`contained in this report, are subject to revision based on any relevant documents or information that
`
`may later be produced or disclosed. I reserve the right to revise my opinions and to provide
`
`additional reports if I receive additional information that I deem relevant. Examples of potentially
`
`relevant sources of information would be other expert reports, depositions, source code, technical
`
`documents, or trial testimony.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF REBUTTAL OPINIONS
`
`19.
`
`Charter does not directly infringe any Asserted Claim.
`
`20.
`
`Charter does not indirectly infringe any Asserted Claim.
`
`21.
`
`The '251 and '751 Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`April 21, 2011, the filing date of Provisional Application No. 61/477,998. The '934 Asserted
`
`Claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than June 30, 2020, the filing date of the application
`
`that led to the '934 Patent.
`
`22.
`
`he Asserted Claims are conventional and lack substantial technical value.
`
`23.
`
`There are acceptable non-infringing alternatives to the Asserted Claims that were
`
`available at the alleged time of first infringement.
`
`24.
`
`Charter independently developed its Send-to-TV feature.
`
`25 .
`
`Certain license agreements cited by Mangum include patent rights that are
`
`technically comparable to the Asserted Claims, but these agreements also include other rights
`
`beyond the Asserted Claims.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 9 of 17 PageID
`#: 14880
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`26.
`
`There are no secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and the secondary
`
`considerations that do exist actually support the obviousness of the Asserted Claims.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the following principles of law are applicable
`
`to my analysis. I also incorporate by reference the section on Relevant Legal Principles in My
`
`Invalidity Report.
`
`A. Legal Standard For Infringement
`
`28.
`
`It is my understanding that a determination of patent infringement entails two steps.
`
`In the first step, the asserted claims are construed by the Court. The second step is a comparison of
`
`the claims, as properly construed, to the accused system and/or method. I have applied the Court's
`
`constructions, and for all claim terms not construed, I understand that each should be understood
`
`according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which is the meaning that would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention in light of the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`29.
`
`All of the Asserted Claims are method claims. I understand that a method claim is
`
`infringed when all of the steps of the asserted claim are performed in the accused method. If even
`
`one step of the asserted claim is not performed by the accused method, then there can be no
`
`infringement of that claim.
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that infringement can be either literal or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Literal infringement requires that every step in an asserted patent claim is found in the
`
`accused method exactly as recited in the claim.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a claim can be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE")
`
`even if there is no literal infringement. Dr. Wicker provides a discussion of the legal standard for
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 10 of 17 PageID
`#: 14881
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`F.
`
`No Nexus
`
`280. Dr. Wicker opines that "there is a clear nexus between these indicia and the
`inventions actually claimed in the Touchstream Patents." See Wicker Inf. Rep., ,r 237. For
`
`support, Dr. Wicker claims that he "explained in detail the advantages provided by the
`
`Touchstream Patents, and the importance of those advantages to Charter, and incorporate[s] by
`
`reference that discussion here as it pertains to the nexus between these indicia and the
`
`inventions." See id. I disagree. Dr. Wicker has not articulated any nexus between its claimed
`
`inventions and any secondary consideration.
`
`281 . As explained in this section, Touchstream has not provided claim charts or any
`
`other evidence establishing that its commercial technology practiced any claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents. Further, every limitation of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents was well-known,
`
`routine, and conventional before the alleged priority dates of the Asserted Patents, as discussed in
`
`My Invalidity Report. Accordingly, there is no point of novelty that could serve as a basis for a
`
`nexus between the claimed invention and any secondary consideration.
`
`XVI. MINIMAL TECHNICAL VALUE OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`282.
`
`I provided opinions regarding conventionality and the value of the Asserted Claims
`
`over the prior art in My Invalidity Report, which I incorporate herein by reference. See MY,
`
`Invalidity Report, §XIII. I rovide the following additional opinions in rebuttal to Dr. Wicker.
`
`A.
`
`rfouchstream's Asserted Claims Are Conventional And Purport To Solve A
`Problem That Had Already Been Solved By The Prior Art
`
`283.
`
`In the Wicker Inf. Re ., Dr. Wicker states:
`
`interoperability
`innovations discussed above,
`the numerous
`Despite
`remained a problem in the prior art. "Islands" of media persisted, and it was
`generally difficult for the above-referenced monolithic systems to work
`together. In broad terms, the Strober invention overcame these challenges by
`allowing users to use a personal computing device to select and control
`content, without limiting the personal computing device to specific device
`
`128
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 11 of 17 PageID
`#: 14882
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`manufacturers, media players, or content sources. Stated differently, the
`invention allowed users to use a personal computing device to select and
`control content in a platform agnostic system, meaning that Mr. Strober's
`methodologies could be adopted in either an open or closed system, with or
`without cables and boxes.
`
`Wicker Inf. Rep., , 71. I disagree.
`
`284. Dr. Wicker's quoted passage is not tethered to the actual language of the Asserted
`
`Patents. He paraphrases Mr. Strober's purported invention in a way that is different than what is
`
`actually in the Asserted Patents. Dr. Wicker also overgeneralizes the p1:!!J)orted benefits of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As explained in My Invalidity Report, every single claim limitation, as
`
`arranged in the Asserted Claims, was present in the prior art by numerous references and was
`
`well-known, routine, and conventional at least as of Touchstream's asserted priority date of
`
`October 8, 2010.
`
`285.
`
`I disagree with Dr. Wicker's statement that '"Islands' of media persisted, and it
`
`was generally difficult for the above-referenced monolithic systems to work together." I also
`
`disagree with Dr. Wicker's generic statement that Mr. Strober's invention solved this problem by
`
`allowing "users to use a personal computing device to select and control content in a platform
`
`agnostic system," with no limits on "media players, or content sources." Wicker Inf. Rep., , 71
`
`( emphasis added). his problem was not solved by Mr. Strober at least because it was already
`
`solved in the prior art, including in the purportedly beneficial way that Mr. Strober claims to have
`
`solved it. See, e.g., Muthukumarasamy discussed in My Invalidity Report), which specifically
`
`describes its solution to this problem as "enablling] a device-agnostic and source-agnostic
`
`entertainment experience;" see also My Invalidi!Y Report, §VII.EE; see also ,~ 287 - 288 below.
`
`Further, the "islands of media" problem that Dr. Wicker identifies was naturally encountered and
`
`solved by AOL Inc. a decade before Mr. Strober. See Hayward (discussed in My Invalidity
`
`Report) at, e.g. , 3:53-63 ("Millions of media files already exist and are available from media file
`
`129
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 12 of 17 PageID
`#: 14883
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`sources 116 through the World Wide Web ... "), 5:21-28 ("When the user 'clicks' on a link to a
`
`selected video file, a script file, such as a JavaScript file, transmitted to the client from the
`
`customer system 122 instructs the client to request the embedded media player page from the
`
`customer system 122.").
`
`286. Additionally, setting aside the fact that Mr. Strober did not solve the purported
`
`problem of interconnecting "monolithic systems" to allow a user to watch media from disparate
`
`"islands," even if he had, that is not a problem that Charter has. Charter operates in a closed
`
`network system that plays in-network content on in-network devices. Charter's system does not
`
`need to interconnect with any media "island" or any other "monolithic system," so Charter gets
`
`no value from this alleged benefit of Mr. Strober's inventions.
`
`287.
`
`I address the other purported benefits that Dr. Wicker alleges below:
`
`Purported Benefit
`(Wicker Inf. Rep., , 72)
`
`"the ability to move content from a personal
`device to another screen quickly and easily"
`
`Response
`
`Not novel: IT'his was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 29
`separate references detailed in My Invalidity
`Report. See Lemmons, Morelli,
`Kaowthumrong, Olsson, Black, James,
`Mohanty, Sung, Hayes, Lo, Joon-Ho Cho,
`Olague, Jana, Aldrey, Klein, Flynn, Sukeda,
`Yin, Muthukumarasamy, Harris, Sela,
`Livingston, Redford, McMahon, Danciu,
`Agnihotri, Xfinity TV Remote App, Birkler,
`Dasher; Ex. 3 to My Invalidity Report.
`
`130
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 13 of 17 PageID
`#: 14884
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`Response
`
`Purported Benefit
`(Wicker Inf. Rep., 1 72)
`Not applicable to Charter: This purported
`"the ability to transfer video on restrictive IT
`systems because, in some circumstances (such benefit of not needing to install hardware is
`as when there was a browser built into a smart directly contrary to the accused Charter
`TV) there was no need to install hardware"
`products which utilize installed hardware, i.e.
`an STB that is physically installed on the
`customer premise and physically connected to
`the Charter network via co-axial cable.
`Additionally, the purported benefit of
`compatibility with "restrictive IT systems" of
`third parties is not relevant to the accused
`Charter products because they operate solely
`within Charter's own closed network. This
`purported benefit has no benefit to Charter.
`
`Not novel: IT'his was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 15
`separate references detailed in My Invalidity
`Report. See Olsson, Mohanty, Hayes, Joon-ho
`Cho, Olague, Jana, Flynn, Sukeda, Harris,
`Sela, Livingston, Redford, Danciu, Agnihotri,
`Birkler.
`
`"there was often no need to install software if Not applicable to Charter: This purported
`the TV was equipped with a web browser"
`benefit of not needing to install software on
`web enabled televisions is not relevant to the
`Accused Charter Products, which do not rely
`on IP or web enabled televisions, but use STBs
`that do not have IP or web connectivity. This
`purported benefit has no benefit to Charter.
`
`Not novel: IT'his was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 15
`separate references detailed in My Invalidity
`Report. See Olsson, Mohanty, Hayes, Joon-ho
`Cho, Olague, Jana, Flynn, Sukeda, Harris,
`Sela, Livingston, Redford, Danciu, Agnihotri,
`Birkler.
`
`131
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 14 of 17 PageID
`#: 14885
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`Purported Benefit
`(Wicker Inf. Rep., 1 72)
`"the invention would work without having to
`send remote media from the personal device
`directly to the display device (as with certain
`prior art systems, like mirroring with Apple
`Airplay)"
`
`"the invention allowed one to control the
`playback of media from the remote device"
`
`"the invention would not require the resources
`( or would use substantially less resources) of
`the personal device, unlike other solutions
`(Apple Airplay, etc.)"
`
`Response
`
`Not novel: his was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 29
`separate references detailed in My Invalidity
`Report. See Lemmons, Morelli,
`Kaowthumrong, Olsson, Black, James,
`Mohanty, Sung, Hayes, Lo, Joon-Ho Cho,
`Olague, Jana, Aldrey, Klein, Flynn, Sukeda,
`Yin, Muthukumarasamy, Harris, Sela,
`Livingston, Redford, McMahon, Danciu,
`Agnihotri, Xfinity TV Remote App, Birkler,
`Dasher; Ex. 3 to My Invalidity Report.
`
`Not novel: ifhis was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 29
`separate references detailed in My Invalidicy
`Report. See Lemmons, Morelli,
`Kaowthumrong, Olsson, Black, James,
`Mohanty, Sung, Hayes, Lo, Joon-Ho Cho,
`Olague, Jana, Aldrey, Klein, Flynn, Sukeda,
`Yin, Muthukumarasamy, Harris, Sela,
`Livingston, Redford, McMahon, Danciu,
`Agnihotri, Xfinity TV Remote App, Birkler,
`Dasher; Ex. 3 to My Invalidity Report.
`
`Not novel: IT'his was not invented by Mr.
`Strober as this was disclosed by at least 29
`separate references detailed in My Invalidicy
`Report. See Lemmons, Morelli,
`Kaowthumrong, Olsson, Black, James,
`Mohanty, Sung, Hayes, Lo, Joon-Ho Cho,
`Olague, Jana, Aldrey, Klein, Flynn, Sukeda,
`Yin, Muthukumarasamy, Harris, Sela,
`Livingston, Redford, McMahon, Danciu,
`Agnihotri, Xfinity TV Remote App, Birkler,
`Dasher; Ex. 3 to My Invalidity Report.
`
`288.
`
`In summary, none of the pJ!!])orted benefits that Dr. Wicker generally ascribes to
`
`the Asserted Claims was novel and in many cases are not even needed by Charter.
`
`132
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 15 of 17 PageID
`#: 14886
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION
`
`342. Notably, as shown above, after selecting "Watch on TV" for a VOD asset while
`
`using the Spectrum Guide STB, the VOD asset did not begin playing. Instead, the landing page
`
`shown above appeared on the display, requiring me to press "OK" on the remote control before
`
`the VOD asset would begin playing. Linear "Watch on TV" functioned the same way on the
`
`Spectrum Guide STB as on the ODN, MDN, and iGuide STBs, discussed above. I also confirmed
`
`that Send-to-TV for DVR is not available on Spectrum Guide STBs.
`
`XXI. CONCLUSIONS
`
`343. Charter does not directly infringe any Asserted Claim.
`
`344. Charter does not indirectly infringe any Asserted Claim.
`
`345. The '251 and '751 Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than
`
`April 21, 2011, the filing date of Provisional Application No. 61/477,998. The '934 Asserted
`
`165
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 16 of 17 PageID
`#: 14887
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`Claims are entitled to a priority date no earlier than June 30, 2020, the filing date of the
`
`application that led to the '934 Patent.
`
`346.
`
`he Asserted Claims are conventional and lack substantial technical value.
`
`34 7. There are acceptable non-infringing alternatives to the Asserted Claims that were
`
`available at the alleged time of first infringement.
`
`348. Charter independently developed its Send-to-TV feature.
`
`349. Certain license agreements cited by Mangum include patent rights that are
`
`technically comparable to the Asserted Claims, but these agreements also include other rights
`
`beyond the Asserted Claims.
`
`350. There are no secondary considerations of non-obviousness, and the secondary
`
`considerations that do exist actually support the obviousness of the Asserted Claims.
`
`XXII. TRIAL EXIDBITS
`
`351.
`
`I may rely on visual aids and demonstrative exhibits that demonstrate the bases of
`
`my opinions. Examples of these visual aids and demonstrative exhibits may include, for example,
`
`claim charts, patent drawings, excerpts from patent specifications, file histories, interrogatory
`
`responses, deposition testimony and deposition exhibits, as well as charts, diagrams, videos and
`
`animated or computer-generated video.
`
`XXIII. SUPPLEMENTATION OF OPINIONS
`
`352.
`
`I reserve the right to adjust or supplement my opinions after I have had the
`
`opportunity to review further evidence or in light of additional documents that may be brought to
`
`my attention. I also reserve the right to adjust or supplement my analysis in response to any
`
`critique of or comments on my report or alternative opinions advanced by or on behalf of
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`166
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-5 Filed 02/28/25 Page 17 of 17 PageID
`#: 14888
`CONTAINS RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL -A TTORNEYS ' EYES O NLY INFORMATION
`
`Executed on July 15, 2024 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
`
`167
`
`