Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 10203
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO TOUCHSTREAM’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF VALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 10204
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................... 1
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS FAIL ALICE STEP 1 ........................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD FIND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS INVALID ........................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 10205
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`PAGE
`
`Cases
`
`Blonder-Tongue Lab’ys, Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel, Inc.,
`442 F. Supp. 3d 840 (D. Del. 2020) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`Freeny v. Fossil Grp., Inc.,
`2019 WL 1089145 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2019) ............................................................................ 3
`
`SP Plus Corp. v. IPT, LLC,
`2017 WL 2226240 (E.D. La. May 19, 2017) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Dexcom, Inc.,
`2024 WL 3543409 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2024) ........................................................................ 1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 10206
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`Ex. G
`
`Excerpt of U.S. Patent No. 11,086,934 entitled, “Play Control of Content on a
`Display Device,” to Strober (Aug. 10, 2021)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 10207
`
`
`
`The Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for all the reasons outlined in
`
`Defendants’ briefing on this issue.1 As Defendants have explained, the claims are directed to the
`
`abstract idea of controlling content on a display device using a mobile device and do not include
`
`sufficient steps to transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Touchstream
`
`has no principled response. It continues to parrot technical-sounding claim language like
`
`“controlling presentation of video content on a display device that loads any one of a plurality of
`
`different media players,” Reply at 1, while ignoring its own assertion that this merely means
`
`controlling the playback of a prior art video on a prior art television using prior art software such
`
`as YouTube (the “media player”). Additional claim language adds only that the video be
`
`controlled from a generic mobile phone by sending generic messages through a generic
`
`intermediary server. No alleged improvement to the operation of any of those generic devices or
`
`to the network as a whole is claimed or disclosed. Accordingly, the claims are merely the
`
`application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood components, and the
`
`Court should deny Touchstream’s Motion and grant Defendants’.
`
`I.
`
`THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“[T]he ultimate determination of eligibility under § 101 is a question of law.” Symbology
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Dexcom, Inc., 2024 WL 3543409, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2024) (Gilstrap,
`
`
`1 This Motion refers to Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Reply in Support of its
`Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. 134) as “Reply”;
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity Under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. 88) as “Mot.”; Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff Touchstream
`Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt.
`121) as “Defendants’ Validity Opposition” or “Validity Opp.”; and Defendants’ Motion for
`Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. 86) as “Defendants’ Invalidity
`Motion” or “Invalidity Mot.”; and exhibits to the Declaration of Micayla Hardisty in support of
`Defendants’ Invalidity Motion as “Ex.” All other capitalized terms have the meaning given to
`them in Defendants’ Invalidity Motion.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 10208
`
`
`
`C.J.). Any questions of fact that must be “proven by clear and convincing evidence” are not
`
`present at Alice Step 1. Id. The presumption of validity does not apply to “purely legal
`
`questions.” SP Plus Corp. v. IPT, LLC, 2017 WL 2226240, at *6 (E.D. La. May 19, 2017), aff’d,
`
`706 F. App’x 688 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS FAIL ALICE STEP 1
`
`Defendants’ Validity Opposition quoted Touchstream’s own characterization of its
`
`claims directly and demonstrated how that characterization established the abstract idea.
`
`Validity Opp. at 4. Touchstream’s Reply now complains that Defendants ignored Touchstream’s
`
`contention that the claims are focused on “controlling playback of videos from various media
`
`players” and “the precise intra-system messaging that effectuates control.” Reply at 2-3
`
`(emphasis in original). Defendants did not. Defendants explained that a media player is just
`
`software for playing media and the only details concerning the messaging in the Asserted Claims
`
`is that the messages identify a video, the media player associated with the video (e.g., YouTube),
`
`and a control message such as “play.” Validity Opp. at 8-10.
`
`Next, while Touchstream admits that the claims recite “well-known components such as
`
`a server, a computer and a mobile device,” it asserts that the claimed conventional use of those
`
`devices constitutes a “specific computer architecture.” Reply at 3. This defies logic.
`
`Touchstream’s recitation of all the steps of the different claims that require the mobile phone and
`
`the television to communicate through the server is for naught because that is exactly what
`
`conventional intermediary servers are used for. Id. Defendants have explained that a generic
`
`server sitting in between a mobile device and a display device is not a sufficiently specific
`
`architecture to render the claims not abstract. Validity Opp. at 7. Claiming the conventional
`
`steps the server performs as an intermediary does not change that result.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 10209
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 7 of 12 PagelD #: 10209
`
`Touchstream’s reliance on Freeny v. Fossil Grp., Inc. is unavailing. Freeny concerned
`
`the operation of wireless communication systems involving devices communicating on different
`
`frequencies. 2019 WL 1089145,at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2019), report and recommendation
`
`adopted, 2019 WL 1083779 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2019). The court found that the invention
`
`improvedthe prior art by incorporating “multiple low power type signaling capability into a
`
`single unit” that could deliver information in a better way through a single device that transmits
`
`an authorization code remotely using different wireless protocols. Jd. Thus, the court found that
`
`the general-purpose computer components were not used to perform a generic task; rather, they
`
`were used to perform a specific improvementover existing prior art in a technicalfield. Jd.
`
`Here, the Asserted Patents identify no problem or improvement to the way computers or
`
`networks function. See also Validity Opp. at 6-11. The only problem identified in the
`
`specification is the desire to control a television using a mobile phone, Ex. G (’934 Patent) at
`
`1:22-38, andthe claims recite generic components andstepsto do so.”
`
`Finally, Touchstream accuses Defendants of “glossing over” the limitations in the
`
`Asserted Claims concerning conversion. Reply at 4. But courts have repeatedly found that
`
`conversion of commands is an abstract idea. See Invalidity Mot. at 8-9 (collecting cases), 13.
`
`And the Asserted Patents do not claim or disclose any particular way of converting commands
`
`other than a simple look-up table disclosed in the specification (i.e., for each possible received
`
`command, a table indicating what it should be converted to). Ex. 5 at 5:61-6:5, 6:12-15, 6:41-47,
`
`? Touchstream’s Reply asserts for the first time that the need for the invention arose out
`of the incapacity of the then-current computer networks and server systemsto allow for playing
`of content from different media players. Reply at 4. But neither the specification nor
`Touchstream’s experts support that statement. A media player is simply software for playing
`video (like YouTube and Vimeo,which are amongthe prior art examples given in the common
`specification) and there can be no dispute that computer networks and server systems allowed for
`playing content using such software at the time of the invention. Invalidity Mot.at 11.
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 10210
`
`
`
`Fig. 5. Lookup tables are indisputably conventional, well-known data structures that have long
`
`been used by humans and the mere concept of converting a command from one format to another
`
`cannot save the claims from abstraction. Id. at 9; see also, e.g., CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel,
`
`Inc., 442 F. Supp. 3d 840, 849 (D. Del. 2020) (“[A] lookup table is a conventional and well-
`
`known data structure.”).
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD FIND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS INVALID
`
`Touchstream again urges the Court to defer to the Western District of Texas’
`
`determination that the ’251 Patent is not invalid. But litigants “who never appeared in a prior
`
`action [] may not be collaterally estopped without litigating the issue. They have never had a
`
`chance to present their evidence and arguments on the claim.” Blonder-Tongue Lab’ys, Inc. v.
`
`Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971). As explained in Defendants’ previous
`
`briefing, Defendants have filed a different motion than was addressed in Google, with new
`
`arguments, caselaw, and evidence. Validity Opp. at 11. Touchstream cannot deny Defendants
`
`their right to challenge the validity of the Asserted Claims and the Court should consider
`
`Defendants’ motion on its own merits.
`
`For all the reasons stated in Defendants’ Invalidity Motion and in opposition to
`
`Touchstream’s, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Touchstream’s Motion that
`
`the Asserted Claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 and instead grant
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Motion.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 10211
`
`Dated: September 3, 2024
`
`
`
`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
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ David Benyacar
`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
`
`Daniel L. Reisner
`David Benyacar
`Melissa A. Brown
`Robert Stout
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAY SCHOLER LLP
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10212
`
`
`
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel:
`(212) 836-8000
`Fax:
`(212) 836-8689
`daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com
`david.benyacar@arnoldporter.com
`mellissa.brown@arnoldporter.com
`robert.stout@arnoldporter.com
`
`Dina Hayes
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAY SCHOLER LLP
`70 W Madison Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel:
`(312) 583-2300
`Fax:
`(312) 583-2360
`dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Charter
`Communications, Inc., Charter
`Communications Operating, LLC, Spectrum
`Management Holding Company, LLC, Time
`Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Spectrum
`Gulf Coast, LLC, and Charter
`Communications, 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 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 10213
`
`
`
`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 188 Filed 09/05/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 10214
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`