Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 15 PageID
`#: 14889
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 15 PageID
`#: 14890
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 2:23-cv-00059
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. STEPHEN B. WICKER REGARDING INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,356,251, 11,048,751, 11,086,934
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 3 of 15 PageID
`#: 14891
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential - Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction And Qualifications
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Educational Background ......................................................................................... 1
`
`Career History ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Publications and Other Relevant Qualifications ..................................................... 1
`
`Materials Considered .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Prior Testimony ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Compensation ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`Understanding of the Law
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 4
`
`Literal Infringement ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Direct Infringement ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Acceptable Non-Infringing Substitutes to Infringing Products .............................. 6
`
`Secondary Considerations ofNon-Obviousness ..................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`Technology Background and State of the Art
`
`1
`
`4
`
`4
`
`8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`General Network Communication .......................................................................... 8
`
`802.11 Wi-Fi ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`High Definition Television (HDTV) .................................................................... 12
`
`Codecs ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Exemplary Mobile Devices ................................................................................... 13
`
`The Digital Home and Mobile Devices ................................................................ 13
`
`V.
`
`The Touchstream Asserted Patents
`
`14
`
`A.
`
`Industry Problems and Mr. Strober's Solution ..................................................... 14
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page I ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 4 of 15 PageID
`#: 14892
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Overview of Patented Technologies ..................................................................... 14
`
`The '251 Patent ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`The '751 Patent ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`The '934 Patent ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`VI.
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`VII. Touchstream's Partnership with Quadriga
`
`VIII. Opinions Regarding the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`IX.
`
`Relevant Architecture
`
`17
`
`19
`
`22
`
`22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Spectrwn TV ......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Legacy Charter, BHN, and TWC .......................................................................... 27
`
`STB Equipment ..................................................................................................... 27
`
`X.
`
`Charter's Accused Products and Services
`
`40
`
`A.
`
`Spectrwn TV Application and Send-To-TV Feature ............................................ 40
`
`XI.
`
`Description of Source Code
`
`XII. Testing of the Accused Instrwnentalities
`
`XIII. Asserted Claims And Claim Constructions
`
`XIV. Opinions on Infringement
`
`72
`
`75
`
`82
`
`84
`
`A.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe '251 Claim 1 ....................................................... 84
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [Preamble] - A machine-implemented method of
`controlling presentation of video content on a display device that loads any
`one of a plurality of different media player players .................................. 84
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [a] - assigning, by a server system, a synchronization
`code to the display device ......................................................................... 85
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [b] - receiving, in the server system, a message from a
`personal computing device that is separate from the server system and
`separate from the display device, wherein the message includes the
`synchronization code ................................................................................ 85
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page I iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 5 of 15 PageID
`#: 14893
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [ c] - storing, by the server system, a record establishing
`an association between the personal computing device and the display
`device based on the synchronization code ................................................ 85
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [ d] - receiving, in the server system, one or more signals
`from the personal computing device, the one or more signals specifying a
`video file to be acted upon and identifying a particular media player for
`playing the video content, the one or more signals further including a
`universal playback control command for controlling playing of the video
`content on the display device by the particular media player ................... 85
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [ e] - converting, by the server system, the universal
`playback control command into corresponding programming code to
`control playing of the video content on the display device by the particular
`media player, wherein converting the universal playback control command
`includes selecting from among a plurality of specific commands, each of
`which represents a corresponding playback control command for a
`respective media player ............................................................................. 86
`
`Claim Limitation 1 [ f] - storing, in a database associated with the server
`system, information for transmission to or retrieval by the display device,
`wherein the information specifies the video file to be acted upon, identifies
`the particular media player for playing the video content, and includes the
`corresponding programming code to control playing of the video content on
`the display device by the particular media player in accordance with the
`universal playback control command ....................................................... 86
`
`B.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe Dependent Claims 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the '251 Patent
`............................................................................................................................... 87
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 5 - The method of claim 1 wherein the universal command represents
`an instruction to play the video content, to stop playing the video content or
`to pause playing the video content.. .......................................................... 87
`
`Claim 7 - The method of claim 1 wherein the video content is streaming
`media ......................................................................................................... 87
`
`Claim 8 - The method of claim 1 wherein the synchronization code is
`uniquely associated with the display device on which the video content is
`to be played ............................................................................................... 87
`
`C.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe '751 Claim 12 ..................................................... 87
`
`1.
`
`Claim Limitation 12[Preamble] - A computer-implemented method for
`remotely presenting various types of content, comprising: ...................... 87
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page I iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 6 of 15 PageID
`#: 14894
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim Limitation 12[a] - obtaining, by a content presentation device, a
`synchronization code associated with the content presentation device, ... 87
`
`Claim Limitation 12[a.1] - wherein the associated synchronization code is
`stored on a remote server device; .............................................................. 88
`
`Claim Limitation 12[b] - providing, by the content presentation device, the
`synchronization code to a remote computing device in communication with
`the remote server device, .......................................................................... 88
`
`Claim Limitation 12[b.l] - wherein the provided synchronization code
`causes the remote server device to store an association between the content
`presentation device and the remote computing device; ............................ 88
`
`Claim Limitation 12[c] - receiving, by the content presentation device and
`from the remote server device, a first message that includes at least one
`command in a first format, ........................................................................ 88
`
`Claim Limitation 12[ c. l] - the first message being received based at least in
`part on the stored association and on a second message including at least
`one command in a second format having been sent from the associated
`remote computing device; ......................................................................... 89
`
`Claim Limitation 12[d] - selecting, by the content presentation device while
`a connection between the content presentation device and the remote server
`device is maintained, a first media player application from a plurality of
`media player applications based at least in part on the first format of the first
`message, .................................................................................................... 89
`
`Claim Limitation 12[d.1] - the first media player application being selected
`to play a first piece of content referenced in the received first message; and
`................................................................................................................... 89
`
`10.
`
`Claim Limitation 12[e] - controlling, by the content presentation device,
`how the selected first media player application plays the referenced first
`piece of content based on a first command of the at least one command in
`the first format having been included in the received first message ......... 89
`
`D.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe Dependent Claims 13, 14, and 16 of the '751 Patent
`............................................................................................................................... 90
`
`1.
`
`Claim 13 - The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the
`first media player application is selected based further in part on the
`received first message including therein a reference to the first media player
`application ................................................................................................. 90
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page Iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 7 of 15 PageID
`#: 14895
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14 - The computer-implemented method of claim 12, the operations
`further comprising: selecting the first media player application based on a
`determination that a second media player application is currently selected .
`................................................................................................................... 90
`
`E.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe '934 Claim 17 ..................................................... 90
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 17[Preamble] - A computer-implemented method for controlling
`playback of various types of content, comprising: ................................... 90
`
`Claim Limitation 17[a] - providing, by a media receiver, a unique identifier
`of the media receiver to a computing device in communication with a server
`system; ...................................................................................................... 90
`
`Claim Limitation 17[b] - based on the provided unique identifier, receiving,
`by the media receiver via the server system, a set of messages from the
`computing device, ..................................................................................... 91
`
`Claim Limitation 17[b.1] - 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, ............................................ 91
`
`Claim Limitation 17[b.2] - 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; ...................... 91
`
`Claim Limitation 17[ c] - 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 ............................................................................................ 91
`
`Claim Limitation 17[d] - 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 .................................................. 92
`
`F.
`
`Charter, Either on Its Own or Through its Direction and Control of Others, Practices
`Methods that Directly Infringe Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 20 of the '934 Patent
`............................................................................................................................... 92
`
`1.
`
`Claim 18 - The method of claim 17, wherein the media receiver is coupled
`to a display, and the media receiver controls how the selected first type of
`media playing application plays the referenced piece of content via the
`display ....................................................................................................... 92
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page lvi
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 8 of 15 PageID
`#: 14896
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 19 - The method of claim 17, wherein the server system is configured
`to convert the set of commands from the universal format to the first format
`based on the piece of content being associated with the first type of media
`playing application .................................................................................... 92
`
`Claim 20 - The method of claim 17, wherein the set of commands in the
`universal format is included in the set of messages communicated from the
`computing device to the server system ..................................................... 92
`
`XV. Absence of Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives
`
`XVI. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`
`XVII. Signature
`
`93
`
`94
`
`96
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page I vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 9 of 15 PageID
`#: 14897
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit A:
`Exhibit B:
`Exhibit C:
`Exhibit D:
`Exhibit E:
`Exhibit F:
`
`CV
`Materials Considered
`Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251
`Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 11,048,751
`Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 11,086,934
`Claim Charter for Quadriga Solution
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page I viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 10 of 15 PageID
`#: 14898
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`My name is Dr. Stephen B. Wicker. I have been retained as an expert by Touchstream
`1.
`Technologies, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "Touchstream") in connection with the litigation between
`Touchstream and Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter").
`
`In this report I will set forth my opinions as to whether Charter's Spectrum TV
`2.
`Application infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent Numbers 8,356,251, 11,048,751, and
`11,086,934 ("Asserted Patents").
`
`I have summarized in this section my educational background, career history,
`3.
`publications, and other relevant qualifications. My full curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A
`to this expert report.
`
`A. Educational Background
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`4.
`Virginia in 1982. In 1983, I received a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from Purdue
`University, and in 1987, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
`Southern California.
`
`B. Career History
`
`In 1982, I worked for the Network Architecture Research Group of Bell Laboratories, in
`5.
`Columbus, Ohio. From August 1983 through September 1987, I was a System Engineer for the
`Space and Communications Group of the Hughes Aircraft Company, in El Segundo, California.
`While at Hughes Aircraft I designed and developed wireless communication payloads for
`commercial, military, and NASA spacecraft. My work at Hughes included acting as the Principal
`System Engineer for new business in advanced satellite communications.
`
`From September 1987 through June 1996, I was a member of the faculty of the School
`6.
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia Tech. From July 1, 1996 to February 29, 2024,
`I was a member of the faculty of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell
`University, where I taught and conducted research in wired and wireless information networks,
`digital telephony, information theory, security, and digital systems. I am now Professor Emeritus
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Cornell University.
`
`I have consulted extensively in the telecommunications industry, working with Motorola,
`7.
`Lockheed, Integrated Device Technologies, Digital Technics, Unisys, Texas Instruments, and
`other corporations to develop advanced technologies for their telecommunications products. This
`experience includes extensive work with analog and digital telephony, and digital information
`networks.
`
`8.
`My current research focuses on wireless and wired information networks, with an
`emphasis on network security and privacy.
`
`C. Publications and Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page 1 of96
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 11 of 15 PageID
`#: 14899
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`I have written and/or edited six books and roughly two hundred and fifty journal and
`9.
`conference papers, most of which focus on digital communication systems and information
`networks. My most recent book is Cellular Convergence and the Death of Privacy, published by
`Oxford University Press in 2013. I am also the author of Error Control Systems for Digital
`Communications and Storage (Prentice Hall, 1995), which has been adopted as a text for courses
`in over forty universities in nine countries. I am also the author of Reed-Solomon Codes and Their
`Application, published in 1994 by the IEEE Press; Turbo Coding, published in November 1998 by
`Kluwer Academic Press; and Fundamentals of Codes, Graphs, and Iterative Decoding, published
`in 2002 by Kluwer Academic Press. My work has been cited roughly twenty thousand times.
`
`I have also contributed chapters to several books, including "Base Station Location
`10.
`Optimization in Cellular Wireless Networks using Heuristic Search Algorithms," a study of the
`use of random search algorithms in wireless networks, published in the Soft Computing in
`Communications, (L. Wang, ed.), Springer-Verlag, 2004. A complete list of my publications is
`contained in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is appended as Exhibit A to this report.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on the following patents.
`
`Information Networks", U.S. Patent
`• Wicker, S.B., "Private Overlay for
`No. 9,813,233, 7 November, 2017 - assigned to Cornell University.
`
`• Ober, C.K., O'Rourke, T.D., Spencer, M.G., Turner, J.N., Wicker, S.B., "Flexible
`Substrate Sensor System For Environmental And Infrastructure Monitoring",
`U.S. Patent No. 8,701,469, 22 April 2014- assigned to Cornell University.
`
`• Fontaine, F. and Wicker, S.B., "Method and Apparatus for Turbo Decoding Block
`Codes", U.S. Patent 7,243,288, 10 July 2007 - assigned to Motorola Inc.
`
`• Wicker, S.B. and Fine, T.L., "Sensor-Assisted ALOHA Multiple Access", U.S.
`Patent No. 6,404,750, 11 June 2002- assigned to Cornell University.
`
`• Wang, X.A. and Wicker, S. B., "Artificial Neural Network Viterbi Decoding System
`and Method," U.S. Patent No. 5,548,684, 20 August, 1996 - assigned to Georgia
`Tech Research Corporation.
`
`I have served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Communications and
`12.
`the ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks. I was twice elected to the Board of Governors of the
`IEEE Information Theory Society. I have also edited several special issues for a variety of journals
`and technical magazines and served a three-year term on the Information Science and Technology
`Panel for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This panel is responsible
`for technology assessment for the U. S. Department of Defense. My DARPA duties included
`leading a one-year study on wireless sensor networks.
`
`In 2010 I briefed the staff of the Congressional Committee on Science and Technology
`13.
`and was appointed to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. In 2011 I was made a Fellow of
`the IEEE for "contributions to wireless information systems." In 2014 I briefed the staff of the
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page 2 of96
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 12 of 15 PageID
`#: 14900
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`National Economic Council at the White House on the subject of privacy aware designs for cellular
`and the smart grid.
`
`From 2005 to 2018 I served as the Cornell University Principal Investigator for the
`14.
`TRUST Science and Technology Center- a National Science Foundation center dedicated to the
`development of technologies for securing the nation's critical infrastructure.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`
`In connection with my analysis in this matter, I have reviewed a large number of
`15.
`documents, including the Touchstream Asserted Patents, their prosecution histories, and the
`references of record. I have also studied certain of the parties' documents produced in this and
`related cases, deposition transcripts, deposition exhibits, and various telecommunication
`standards. A listing of the materials that I have considered has been appended as Exhibit B to this
`report, as well as the documents cited throughout this report.
`
`E. Prior Testimony
`
`The cases in which I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the
`16.
`preceding five plus years are as follows:
`
`• SEVEN Networks v. Motorola Mobility (for the defendant)
`• Ax Wireless v. Lenovo and Dell (for the defendants)
`•
`Identity Security v. Apple (for the defendant)
`• Netgear v. TP-Link (for the claimant, ITC)
`• Acceleration Bay v. Activision (for the defendant)
`• State Farm v. Amazon (for the plaintiff)
`• GComm v. Samsung (for the defendant)
`• Unisys v. Atos et al. (for the plaintiff)
`• Alacritech v. Intel et al. (for the defendants)
`• University of Minnesota v. Ericsson and Nokia (for the defendants)
`• Viasat v. Adobe (for the defendant)
`• KPN v Ericsson (for the defendant)
`• TQ Delta v DISH (for the defendant)
`• AMO Development v. Alcon Vision, LLC (for the defendant)
`• Sonrai v. Samsung et al (for the defendants)
`•
`IPCom v AT&T et al (for the defendants)
`• Barkan v. Nokia and TMobile (for the defendants)
`• Teradyne v. Astronics (for the defendant)
`• Huawei v. Verizon (for the defendant)
`• Google v. Sonos (for the defendant)
`• Gigamon v. Apcon (for the defendant)
`•
`Impact Engine v. Google (for the plaintiff)
`• Sprint v. Altice et al. (for the plaintiff)
`• KAIFI v. AT&T (for the defendant)
`• Sprint v. Charter et al. (for the plaintiff)
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page 3 of96
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 13 of 15 PageID
`#: 14901
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential"/ "Highly Confidential- Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`• Live Person v. 24/7 (for the plaintiff)
`• Motorola v. Hytera (for the plaintiff)
`
`F. Compensation
`
`For time spent in connection with study and analysis in this matter, I will be compensated
`17.
`in the amount of $900 per hour. For time spent in connection with testifying in this matter, I will
`be compensated in the amount of $900 per hour. My compensation does not depend on the
`outcome of this case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`18. My opinions regarding infringement of the Asserted Patents by Charter are set forth
`below and in further detail in Exhibits C through E of this report as follows:
`
`• Exhibit C: Infringement of the '251 Patent
`
`• Exhibit D: Infringement of the '751 Patent
`
`• Exhibit E: Infringement of the '934 Patent
`
`It is my opinion that the Send-to-TV feature of Charter's Spectrum TV Application, as
`19.
`offered by Charter to its customers with set-top boxes ("STBs") running the Spectrum Guide,
`iGuide, ODN, and MDN guides ("Accused Instrumentalities") infringe the Asserted Claims of the
`Asserted Patents, as addressed in more detail below and in the exhibits to this report. 1
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`I understand that a determination of infringement is a two-step process. First, the claims
`20.
`are construed. Second, the construed claims are compared with the accused instrumentalities to
`determine whether the accused instrumentalities contain each and every element required by at
`least one claim of a given asserted patent.
`
`I understand that claim construction is a matter of law that sometimes involves
`21.
`underlying determinations of fact. I understand that the Court has not yet entered a claim
`construction order in this case. However, I have reviewed both parties' offered constructions for
`
`1 I understand that Charter offers its customers video services on other guides, including, for
`example, SARA and Passport. I have not rendered an opinion as to whether these STB guides
`infringe, largely because I did not have enough information at my disposal to render such an
`opinion based on (1) the lack of documents produced by Charter regarding these guides, (2)
`Charter's lack of production of source code for them, and (3) the inability of Charter's 30(b)(6)
`witnesses to testify about the architecture and operation of the networks including these STB
`guides. However, merely because I am not offering an opinion on infringement does not mean they
`do not infringe, or that they should in any way be considered non-infringing alternatives to one or
`more Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Infringement Report of Dr. Stephen B. Wicker
`
`Page 4 of96
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 363-6 Filed 02/28/25 Page 14 of 15 PageID
`#: 14902
`
`Page May Contain "Confidential" / "Highly Confidential - Outside Attorneys Eyes' Only" Information
`
`about any platform at any time. There were also new types of devices, for example, tablets that
`were creating new islands, overlapping with existing islands, and creating bridges.
`
`These trends were built on earlier visions-particularly with respect to personal
`70.
`computers-of using these devices to mimic and improve on existing services. As broadband
`deployment grew to significant levels, content providers increasingly made high-quality media
`available over the Internet. A case in point is Netflix, which first offered streaming of movies and
`other video content as an alternative to its DVD-by-mail service in 2007. Netflix initially offered
`streaming only to web browsers, but by 2008 users could stream to television set-top boxes, and
`by 2009 they could stream directly to smart televisions. In 2010, Netflix launched its app on
`Apple's App Store, meaning users could stream content directly to their iPhones and iPads.
`
`V.
`
`THE TOUCHSTREAM ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A. Industry Problems and Mr. Strober's Solution
`
`Despite the numerous innovations discussed above, interoperability remained a problem
`71.
`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 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.
`
`ffhe founders of Touchstream, including Mr. Strober himself, recognized many benefits
`72.
`of Mr. Strober's invention. These included the ability to move content from a personal device to
`another screen quickly and easily (Google Strober Dep. Tr. at 41; Google Trial Tr. at 84-86;
`Charter Strober Tr. at 24-25); the ability to transfer video on restrictive IT systems because, in
`some circumstances (such as when there was a browser built into a smart TV) there was no need
`to install hardware (Google Strober Dep. at 45; Google Trial Tr. at 84-86; Charter Strober Tr. at
`22-24); similarly, there was often no need to install software if the TV was equipped with a web
`browser (Google Strober Dep. at 45); 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) ( Google Strober Dep. Tr. at 54-55, 85-88; Charter Strober Dep.
`Tr. at 13-14, 21-23); the invention allowed one to control the playback of media from the remote
`device (Google Strober Dep. at 88-95; Charter Strober Tr. at 24-25); the invention would not
`require the resources ( or would use substantially less resources) of the personal d