Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 10166
`
`
`
`IN 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 SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO TOUCHSTREAM’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE THE OPINIONS OF DR. STEPHEN BECKER
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 10167
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`
`Lionra Techs. Ltd. v. Fortinet, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-322-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024) .................................................................. 4
`
`Retractable Techs. Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`2009 WL 8725107 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2009) ...................................................................... 1, 3, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 10168
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Ex. H
`
`Ex. I
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Kevin Jeffay Regarding Non-Infringement of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 8,356,251, 11,048,751, and 11,086,934
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth Regarding Infringement of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 8,356,251, 11,048,751, & 11,086,934
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 10169
`
`
`
`Touchstream’s Reply abandons any pretense that it is improper for Comcast’s damages
`
`expert, Dr. Becker, to rely on Comcast’s prior-art McMahon Patent for purposes of
`
`apportionment. Instead, the Reply now claims that the underlying opinions of Comcast’s
`
`technical expert, Dr. Jeffay, are unfairly prejudicial but misreads his report in doing so.
`
`Touchstream’s Motion should therefore be denied.1
`
`Touchstream’s Reply does not (and cannot) dispute that it is appropriate, if not required,
`
`for a damages expert to consider features of the accused product on which the defendant had
`
`obtained a patent for purposes of apportionment. Courts thus routinely find that such analysis is
`
`admissible, including as it pertains to Georgia Pacific factor 13. See, e.g., Retractable Techs.
`
`Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2009 WL 8725107, at *7-8 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2009). And that
`
`is precisely the analysis that Dr. Becker provided in his report as to the McMahon Patent that
`
`continues to be practiced by the accused Xfinity TV Remote App. See Ex. E (Becker Rpt.)
`
`¶ 315. Touchstream’s Reply does not cite any authority to the contrary or otherwise attempt to
`
`address these principles. Indeed, the Reply does not even mention “apportionment.”
`
`Having conceded its original critique of Dr. Becker’s opinions, the Reply pivots to
`
`challenging Dr. Jeffay’s underlying opinions as consisting of improper “non-infringement
`
`analysis.” Reply at 1. As a threshold matter, Touchstream has not made this challenge in its
`
`separate motion to strike certain of Dr. Jeffay’s opinions. See Dkt. No. 91. Thus, as the Reply
`
`itself acknowledges, it was appropriate for Dr. Becker to rely on Dr. Jeffay’s technical opinions
`
`for purposes of his apportionment analysis. See Reply at 2 (“[Dr. Becker] relies, as he must, on
`
`the technical opinion of Dr. Jeffay that the accused product practices [the McMahon Patent].”
`
`
`1 Defined terms carry the same meaning as in Comcast’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 116), and
`“Ex. __” refers to the exhibits attached to that Opposition unless otherwise specified.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 10170
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added)). The Reply also ignores that Dr. Becker is not himself trying to sponsor any
`
`of Dr. Jeffay’s technical opinions. It is therefore entirely irrelevant whether Comcast would “try
`
`to present” Dr. Jeffay’s analysis for purposes of this Motion, which is directed solely to
`
`Dr. Becker’s opinions. See Reply at 1 n.2.
`
`In any event, the Reply misreads Dr. Jeffay’s opinions because Dr. Jeffay does not mix
`
`his opinions regarding the McMahon Patent with his non-infringement analysis. Dr. Jeffay’s
`
`report includes separate sections for (1) a description of how Comcast’s system operates, (2) an
`
`analysis of why that system does not infringe, and then (3) “other topics,” including his
`
`conclusion that the system practices the McMahon Patent. See Ex. H to the Sur-Reply
`
`Declaration of James Y. Park (Jeffay Rebuttal Rpt.) at i, ii, iv. In his analysis of how Comcast’s
`
`system practices the McMahon Patent, Dr. Becker only cross-references subsections of his report
`
`from the section describing how the system operates. See Ex. G (Jeffay Rebuttal Rpt.) ¶ 194
`
`(citing Subsections VI.A, VI.B.1, VI.B.2, VI.C, VI.E, VI.F, VI.G, VI.H). None of the
`
`subsections to which he cites analyzes non-infringement, which is the subject of the separate
`
`Section VII. Compare Ex. G ¶ 35 (start of Section VI), with id. ¶ 105 (start of Section VII).2
`
`Touchstream’s Reply (again, in support of its Motion to Strike Dr. Becker’s opinions)
`
`also challenges the sufficiency of Dr. Jeffay’s analysis of McMahon Claim 18. See Reply at 2-3.
`
`If Touchstream had wanted to challenge that opinion, it should have done so directly. But,
`
`regardless, Touchstream again overlooks key details in Dr. Jeffay’s opinion. In his report,
`
`Dr. Jeffay maps each limitation of Claim 18 of the McMahon Patent to the relevant aspects of
`
`
`2 Touchstream’s Reply also claims that Dr. Jeffay provides no reliable analysis tying the
`McMahon Patent to the 2010 Xfinity TV App System, but it ignores that Dr. Jeffay’s invalidity
`report does just that. See Reply at 3 n.4; Ex. B (Jeffay Opening Rpt.) ¶¶ 484-92 (at pages 255-
`61). Accordingly, Dr. Becker’s opinions on the costs associated with developing the 2010
`Xfinity TV App System apply to the McMahon Patent as well. See Opp. at 7-8.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 10171
`
`
`
`Comcast’s system to show how the limitations are met. See Ex. G ¶¶ 36-104, 194. Specifically,
`
`
`
`Dr. Jeffay opines that:
`
` Subsections “VI.A, VI.B.1, VI.B.2, VI.C, VI.E, VI.F, VI.G, VI.H” meet Claim “18.A”;
`
` Subsections “VI.A, VI.B.1” meet Claim “18.B”; and
`
` Subsection “VI.B.2” meets Claim “18.C.”
`
`See id. ¶ 194. For example, Claim 18.B recites “receiving a user selection of the user-selectable
`
`option,” and so Dr. Jeffay refers to his previous discussion of his selection of video while testing
`
`Comcast’s system (Subsection VI.A) and his description of the user experience of the Xfinity TV
`
`Remote App (Subsection VI.B.1). Compare Ex. F (McMahon Patent) at Claim 18.B, with Ex. G
`
`¶¶ 36-55. This is the same approach Touchstream’s infringement expert, Dr. Almeroth, took
`
`when analyzing alleged infringement. See, e.g., Ex. I to the Sur-Reply Declaration of James Y.
`
`Park (Almeroth Rpt.) ¶ 252
`
`
`
`
`
`. Thus, Dr. Jeffay’s analysis is
`
`more than sufficient to establish that the Xfinity TV Remote App continues to practice Claim 18
`
`of the McMahon Patent.
`
`Because Dr. Becker’s apportionment opinions do not rely on or otherwise invoke any
`
`non-infringement analysis, the Reply’s attempts to evade Comcast’s cited cases fail. See Reply
`
`at 3-4; Opp. at 7 & n.4 (distinguishing the Malibu Boats and Advanced Cardiovascular decisions
`
`cited by the Reply). Touchstream’s Reply also tries to minimize Retractable Technologies on
`
`the ground that the defendant did not argue that its patents covered the accused products, but it
`
`ignores that the accused products in that case “incorporate[d] key aspects of [the defendant’s
`
`patented] technology.” 2009 WL 8725107, at *7. The Retractable Technologies court went on
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 10172
`
`
`
`
`
`to recognize that the defendant’s patents could be “relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis”
`
`under Georgia Pacific factor 13. Id. at *8. The McMahon Patent, which continues to be
`
`practiced by the accused Xfinity TV Remote App, is similarly relevant here.
`
`Finally, there will not be any unfair prejudice in allowing Comcast’s damages expert to
`
`analyze for apportionment purposes the McMahon Patent because the jury would have already
`
`heard about that patent in Comcast’s invalidity case. See id. at *7 (denying motion to exclude
`
`references to defendant’s patents for purposes of damages where defendant contended that one of
`
`its patents “renders some of the claims anticipated or obvious”). Since the McMahon Patent will
`
`be extensively discussed during the trial, there can be little prejudice in allowing Comcast’s
`
`damages expert to explain that, if the Patent does not anticipate or render obvious the Asserted
`
`Claims, it must be apportioned out during the damages analysis so that Touchstream is not
`
`improperly compensated for Comcast’s continued practice of pre-existing technology.3 See
`
`Ex. E ¶ 315.
`
`For the foregoing reasons and those stated in Comcast’s Opposition, Touchstream’s
`
`Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 The defendant’s patents in the Lionra case on which Touchstream relies were not prior
`art to the asserted patents there, and thus that case does not support exclusion of the prior-art
`McMahon Patent here. See Lionra Techs. Ltd. v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 22-cv-322-JRG-RSP, Dkt
`Nos. 475 (Lionra’s Motions in Limine) at 9-11 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024), 509 (Order on Motions
`in Limine) at 2 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2024). Moreover, unlike here, there was no expert opinion in
`Lionra on how the defendant’s patents could impact the damages analysis. See id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 10173
`
`
`
`Dated: September 3, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`1600 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`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
`
`Counsel for Defendants Comcast
`Corporation, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable
`Communications Management, LLC, and
`Comcast of Houston, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 10174
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 3, 2024 true and correct copies of the foregoing were
`
`served upon the following as indicated:
`
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`John Michael Lyons
`Sabina Mariella
`Sophie Roytblat
`55 Hudson Yards
`New York, NY 10001
`jlyons@bsfllp.com
`smariella@bsfllp.com
`sroyblat@bsfllp.com
`
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`Ryan Dykal
`Mark Schafer
`Jordan Bergsten
`Anita Liu
`Philip A. Eckert
`1401 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`rdykal@bsfllp.com
`mschafer@bsfllp.com
`jbergsten@bsfllp.com
`aliu@bsfllp.com
`peckert@bsfllp.com
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`
`
`
`GILLIAM & SMITH LLP
`Melissa Richards Smith
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186 Filed 09/05/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10175
`
`
`
`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
`Carson Anderson
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`carson.anderson@arnoldporter.com
`Marc A. Cohn
`601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`Counsel for Charter Defendants
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`Deron R. Dacus
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`Counsel for Comcast and Charter Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`☒ Via Email
`☐ Via Overnight Courier
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`
`/s/ Angela Quach
`Angela Quach
`Senior Litigation Paralegal
`
`
`
`7
`
`