Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 10178
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 10178
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 10178
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 10179
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`
`Dated: July 15, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 10180
`
`PAGE
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience ........................................................... 2
`
`Materials Considered .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Compensation ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Infringement ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`Non-Infringing Alternatives .................................................................................... 6
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................ 7
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ASSERTED PATENTS .................................... 8
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ............................................................................................. 9
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`COMCAST’S ACCUSED FUNCTIONALITIES .............................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Testing of the Accused TV Remote Functionalities ............................................... 9
`
`Comcast’s Xfinity TV Remote Application ......................................................... 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`User Experience ........................................................................................ 15
`
`Message Flow between the Xfinity TV Remote Application and
`XTVAPI .................................................................................................... 20
`
`XTVAPI ................................................................................................................ 23
`
`XBO ...................................................................................................................... 28
`
`XAPI ..................................................................................................................... 29
`
`Linchpin ................................................................................................................ 30
`
`The X1 Platform ................................................................................................... 33
`
`1.
`
`XRE Server & XRE Receiver ................................................................... 34
`
`RDK and Media Players ....................................................................................... 39
`
`Comcast’s Video Delivery Network ..................................................................... 41
`
`i
`RESTRICTED – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 10181
`
`VII. THE ACCUSED TV REMOTE FUNCTIONALITIES DO NOT INFRINGE
`ANY ASSERTED CLAIM OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS ........................................ 42
`
`A.
`
`The ’251 Patent ..................................................................................................... 43
`
`1.
`
`The Accused TV Remote Functionalities do not infringe Claim 1 .......... 43
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`1.C: No server system “stor[es]…a record establishing an
`association between the personal computing device and the
`display device based on the synchronization code” ...................... 43
`
`1.D: No “signals from the personal computing device . . .
`identify[] a particular media player for playing the video
`content” ......................................................................................... 49
`
`1.F: There is no “storing, in a database associated with the
`server system, information for transmission to or retrieval
`by the display device wherein the information . . . includes
`the corresponding programming code to control playing of
`the video content on the display device” ...................................... 52
`
`2.
`
`The Accused TV Remote Functionalities do not infringe Claims 5,
`7, 8, and 9 .................................................................................................. 57
`
`B.
`
`The ’751 Patent ..................................................................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`The Accused TV Remote Functionalities do not infringe Claim 12 ........ 58
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`To the extent Touchstream suggests there must be only one
`“remote server device,” there is no such device that
`satisfies all requirements of Claim 12 ........................................... 58
`
`12.B: An X1 set-top box does not “provid[e]…the
`synchronization code to a remote computing device” .................. 58
`
`12.B: No “provided synchronization code causes the
`remote server device to store an association between the
`content presentation device and the remote computing
`device” .......................................................................................... 61
`
`12.D: An X1 set-top box does not “select[] . . . 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” ................................................................................ 62
`
`2.
`
`The Accused TV Remote Functionalities do not infringe Claim 13:
`The media player application is not “selected based further in part
`
`ii
`RESTRICTED – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 186-2 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 10182
`
`VIII. OTHER TOPICS .............................................................................................................. 75
`
`A.
`
`Changes Between the 2010 Xfinity TV App System and the Current Xfinity
`TV Remote System ............................................................................................... 75
`
`B.
`
`Comcast’s Other Mobile Applications.................................................................. 83
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Xfinity TV X1 Remote Application ......................................................... 83
`
`Xfinity Stream Application ....................................................................... 85
`
`iv
`RESTRICTED – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
