Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 10184
`
`
`
`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 KEVIN JEFFAY, PH.D.
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 10185
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`DR. JEFFAY APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THE MAY 2010
`PROTOTYPE ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`DR. JEFFAY APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THE CHANGES BETWEEN
`2010 AND THE PRESENT ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 10186
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`01 Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`889 F.3d 735 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Baxalta Inc. v. Bayer Healthcare LLC,
`513 F. Supp. 3d 426 (D. Del. 2021) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc.,
`40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Davis v. Reddy,
`620 F.2d 885 (C.C.P.A. 1980) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728, 737-43 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC,
`2015 WL 452289 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2015) ................................................................................... 3
`
`ThinkOptics, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`2014 WL 3347531 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2014) .......................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 10187
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Ex. M
`
`Ex. N
`
`Deposition transcript of J. Seiden, taken in this case on June 4, 2024
`
`Rebuttal Report of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in Response to the June 24, 2024
`Opening Invalidity Expert Report of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`
`Ex. O
`
`Expert Report of Russell W. Mangum III, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 10188
`
`
`
`Touchstream’s Reply abandons Touchstream’s original position that the Court should
`
`strike all opinions of Comcast’s technical expert, Dr. Jeffay, regarding the 2010 Xfinity TV App
`
`System.1 Touchstream now requests only that the Court “strike the portions [of Dr. Jeffay’s
`
`reports] referring to versions other than the November 2010 commercial release.” Reply at 5.
`
`However, it provides no reason to limit Dr. Jeffay’s testimony in this way, and the Court should
`
`deny Touchstream’s Motion in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
`Dr. Jeffay Appropriately Considered the May 2010 Prototype
`
`As Comcast explained in its Opposition, Dr. Jeffay opines that the Asserted Claims are
`
`anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the 2010 Xfinity TV App System commercially released
`
`by Comcast on November 15, 2010. Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) ¶¶ 26, 223 (at p. 92); Ex. B (Jeffay
`
`Dep. Tr.) at 215:3-9. Because Touchstream asserts a conception date for the Asserted Patents of
`
`October 8, 2010, Dr. Jeffay also traces the development of the 2010 Xfinity TV App System,
`
`including a May 2010 prototype, to explain Comcast’s conception and diligent reduction to
`
`practice of the system under § 102(g).2 Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) ¶ 223; Ex. B (Jeffay Dep. Tr.) at
`
`215:10-25. Under that section, “priority of invention goes to the first party to reduce an
`
`invention to practice unless the other party can show that it was the first to conceive of the
`
`invention and that it exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice.”
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Evidence of the conception and
`
`diligent reduction to practice of a prior art reference is relevant under § 102(g) even when that
`
`
`1 This brief refers to Comcast’s Response to Touchstream’s Motion (Dkt. 119) as the
`“Opposition” or “Opp.”; Touchstream’s Reply in Support of the Motion (Dkt. 138) as “Reply”;
`exhibits to Touchstream’s Motion as “Mot. Ex.”; and exhibits to the Sur-Reply Declaration of
`Alena Farber as “Sur-Reply Ex.” All other terms carry the same meaning as in Comcast’s
`Opposition.
`2 Dr. Jeffay also opines that the Asserted Patents are not entitled to the October 8, 2010,
`priority date and that the 2010 Xfinity TV App System therefore anticipates them under § 102(a)
`as well. Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) ¶ 223 (at p. 92).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 10189
`
`
`
`
`
`process involves multiple teams or individuals and lasts years. See, e.g., Baxalta Inc. v. Bayer
`
`Healthcare LLC, 513 F. Supp. 3d 426, 442-43 (D. Del. 2021).
`
`Touchstream’s Reply does not dispute that the development of the 2010 Xfinity TV App
`
`System, including the prototype, is relevant to the conception and diligent reduction-to-practice
`
`inquiry under § 102(g) that is necessitated by Touchstream’s claimed conception date. Rather,
`
`Touchstream only makes a factual attack on the prototype, arguing that there is a “lack of any
`
`meaningful connection between the November 2010 release and May 2010 prototype.” Reply at
`
`2. Of course, any factual dispute about the connection between the prototype and commercial
`
`release is for the jury to decide, not the Court at the Daubert stage.
`
`In any event, Touchstream misrepresents the record. Dr. Jeffay’s opinion that the May
`
`2010 prototype was part of the development of the 2010 Xfinity TV App System is based on the
`
`testimony of Comcast witnesses as well as contemporaneous documents. A witness who worked
`
`on the prototype in Denver testified that his team “provided design, architecture, XML specs, the
`
`design of how to make it work” to the team working on the commercial release. Sur-Reply Ex.
`
`M (Seiden Dep. Tr.) at 34:11-19. And a member of the engineering team for the commercial
`
`release confirmed that there was a “prototype built by a team in Denver,” although he
`
`understandably did not recall the specific names of those individuals from a project fourteen
`
`years ago. Mot. Ex. 2 (Subbiah Dep. Tr.) at 20:3-12. Touchstream does not cite any case
`
`holding that an expert cannot consider the testimony of prior artists regarding how an invention
`
`was reduced to practice.3 And, regardless, Dr. Jeffay also relies on corroborating documents,
`
`
`3 Touchstream suggests that ThinkOptics, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., stands for the
`proposition that testimony regarding the development of a prior art system is insufficient, but the
`ThinkOptics court was not addressing witness testimony directed to the reduction-to-practice
`process. 2014 WL 3347531, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2014). Rather, the court noted that
`defendant’s “assertion that two programs ‘evolved into’ the programs used in the [accused]
`(….continued)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 10190
`
`
`
`
`
`including code for, and public demonstration of, the May 2010 prototype that shows its
`
`operation, see Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) ¶¶ 221, 412-13, an email thread between an engineer who
`
`worked on the prototype and the product manager for the commercial release, see id. ¶ 221 (at
`
`pp. 89-90) (citing COM_00092062), and documents confirming that the commercially released
`
`application related back to the May 2010 prototype, see Ex. L (COM_00010938) at -0938. Any
`
`disagreement with this evidence is a matter for cross.
`
`Touchstream makes a further factual attack on the corroboration for key features in the
`
`May 2010 prototype. However, it cites no case requiring corroboration of every claim element
`
`in every step of the reduction-to-practice process. Certain of Touchstream’s cases require
`
`corroboration that the prior artist conceived of all elements of the asserted claims as of the
`
`asserted conception date.4 Dr. Jeffay provides such through the McMahon Patent and other
`
`contemporaneous documents, including those corroborating the functionality of the prototype,
`
`such as source code. See Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) ¶¶ 221, 222, 412, 413. Dr. Jeffay separately
`
`has corroboration for the features of the 2010 Xfinity TV App System as it launched
`
`commercially in November 2010, after Comcast had diligently reduced its invention to practice.
`
`Touchstream’s attack is therefore factually as well as legally deficient.5
`
`It is of no moment that the May 2010 prototype and the 2010 Xfinity TV App System
`
`launched in November had slightly different features. Cf. Reply at 4. The May 2010 prototype
`
`
`system” was insufficient to prove that those two programs “before they evolved” included all
`elements of the asserted claims. Id.
`4 Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 452289, at *3 (D. Del. Jan.
`30, 2015), aff’d sub nom. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 675 F.
`App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Davis v. Reddy, 620 F.2d 885, 889 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
`5 Touchstream’s citation to Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., is wholly inapposite as
`that case dealt with prior public use and did not address conception or reduction to practice at all.
`292 F.3d 728, 737-43 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 10191
`
`
`
`
`
`is evidence of diligence in reduction to practice of the 2010 Xfinity TV App System, which met
`
`all the limitations of the Asserted Claims. The Federal Circuit has recognized that different
`
`versions of a prior art system can be relevant to conception and reduction to practice under
`
`§ 102(g), even if changes are made such that not all versions anticipate the asserted claims. Tyco
`
`Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 774 F.3d 968, 976-77 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Finally, Dr. Jeffay also discusses the publicly demonstrated prototype of the 2010 Xfinity
`
`TV App System because it is relevant to understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have modified the commercial release and to the motivations to combine the 2010 Xfinity
`
`TV App System and Comcast’s McMahon Patent. See Ex. A (Jeffay Op. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 417 n.14 (at
`
`p. 198), 485 (at p. 255). Touchstream does not dispute or even address the fact that the prototype
`
`is relevant for that purpose. The Federal Circuit has noted that the development of a prior art
`
`system, including versions other than the one specifically asserted as prior art, can be probative
`
`of obviousness. See Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP, 774 F.3d at 978. And Touchstream provides no
`
`reason to exclude use of the prototype for that purpose here.
`
`II.
`
`Dr. Jeffay Appropriately Considered the Changes Between 2010 and the Present
`
`Dr. Jeffay’s non-infringement report included a section titled “Changes Between the 2010
`
`Xfinity TV App System and the Current Xfinity TV Remote System.” Ex. G (Jeffay Rebut.
`
`Rpt.) ¶¶ 180-94 (at pp. 75-83). Touchstream’s Reply now seeks to strike any reference to
`
`changes in Comcast’s system after November 2010 as a purported attempt by Comcast to
`
`“present evidence on a legally erroneous ‘practicing the prior art defense.’” Reply at 4. But that
`
`argument is illogical. Comcast asserts (and Dr. Jeffay opines) that its current system does not
`
`infringe the Asserted Claims. Comcast must be able to discuss the development of that system,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 10192
`
`
`
`
`
`and Dr. Jeffay’s explanation of changes between the anticipating prior art system and the non-
`
`infringing current system plainly is not directed to a “practicing the prior art” defense.6
`
`The history of the changes to the system are relevant for a number of reasons. For
`
`example, although Touchstream’s technical expert offered an infringement analysis starting in
`
`February 2017, its damages expert opines that the hypothetical negotiation would begin in May
`
`2012 and culminate in a hypothetical agreement by January 2013. See Dkt. 83 at 14. Dr.
`
`Jeffay’s analysis of the changes made to the system is relevant to the discrepancy between
`
`Touchstream’s hypothetical negotiation date and infringement analysis. Further, Touchstream’s
`
`technical expert opines that the lack of Video On Demand playback in the 2010 Xfinity TV App
`
`System means the application does not anticipate the claims but the current system infringes,
`
`Sur-Reply Ex. N (Almeroth Rebut. Rpt.) ¶ 204, and
`
`
`
`
`
`, see Sur-Reply Ex. O (Mangum Rpt.) ¶ 102.
`
`Comcast’s independent development of this feature between 2010 and 2012 is relevant to rebut
`
`Touchstream’s infringement and willfulness allegations, and Dr. Jeffay must be allowed to
`
`explain how and when Comcast made those changes.
`
`
`
`
`6 Touchstream’s cited cases, Reply at 5, all stand for the unremarkable proposition that
`“an accused infringer cannot defeat a claim of literal infringement or establish invalidity merely
`by pointing to similarities between an accused product and the prior art,” because both the
`accused product and prior art must be separately compared to the asserted claims. 01
`Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 889 F.3d 735, 742 (Fed. Cir. 2018). But none of
`them prohibit discussing differences between the anticipating prior art and the accused product
`or “preclude a litigant from arguing that if a claim term must be broadly interpreted to read on an
`accused device, then this same broad construction will read on the prior art.” Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10193
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 10194
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 187 Filed 09/05/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 10195
`
`
`
`☒ 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`