Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 10363
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PLAINTIFF TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S SUR-REPLY IN FURTHER
`OPPOSITION TO CHARTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND STRIKE
`DR. STEPHEN B. WICKER’S OPINIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 10364
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Court Should Deny Charter’s Motion to Strike Dr. Wicker’s References to the
`Google Matter. ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`The Court Should Deny Dr. Wicker’s References to Dr. Almeroth’s Reports and
`Testimony in the Google Matter. ............................................................................ 4
`
`The Court Should Deny Charter’s Motion to Strike Dr. Wicker’s References to
`and Reliance on the CableLabs Specifications. ...................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 10365
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Lone Star Tech. Innovations, LLC v. ASUSTek Computer Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00059-RWS, 2022 WL 21714403 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2022) ............................... 3
`
`Saint Lawrence Commc'ns LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:15-CV-349-JRG, 2017 WL 3476978 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2017) ........................................ 3
`
`Sprint Communications Co. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`760 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2016)................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 10366
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Charter’s reply in support of its motion to strike certain of Dr. Wicker’s opinions largely
`
`insists that the Court rule on issues prematurely before trial. But Dr. Wicker is a rebuttal witness
`
`on those issues, and the scope of his testimony thus depends on the testimony that Charter elicits
`
`from its own expert and from Dr. Wicker.
`
`Charter also seeks to strike Dr. Wicker’s opinions adopted from, or referring to, a different
`
`technical expert who earlier opined on similar issues involving overlapping patents. But there is
`
`nothing improper about one expert adopting another expert’s opinions, particularly where, as here,
`
`that expert independently analyzed those opinions and timely set them forth in his own report.
`
`Finally, Charter concedes that Dr. Wicker’s reliance on the OCAP specifications used in
`
`Charter’s accused products should not be excluded and that this issue is now moot.
`
`The Court should deny Charter’s motion.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Court Should Deny Charter’s Motion to Strike Dr. Wicker’s References to
`the Google Matter.
`
`As explained in Touchstream’s opposition brief, Touchstream is well aware of the Court’s
`
`standing Court MIL No. 13 regarding prior litigation. Accordingly, Touchstream committed in its
`
`brief to (1) not affirmatively eliciting testimony about the Google Matter from Dr. Wicker unless
`
`necessary to respond to testimony elicited by Charter, (2) to raise any such anticipated testimony
`
`about the Google Matter with Charter and the Court in advance, and (3) to work with Charter and
`
`the Court to potentially craft a curative limiting instruction.
`
`In its reply, Charter does not at all explain why this procedure is insufficient to address its
`
`concern that the jury would be prejudiced by hearing about Touchstream’s prior verdict against
`
`Google, or why a ruling in advance of trial on this issue is at all necessary given the Court’s
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 10367
`
`
`
`standing order and the probative value of these opinions if Charter opens the door. In fact, Charter
`
`does not address this procedure at all, simply reiterating that permitting Touchstream to introduce
`
`testimony relating to the Google verdict “will fundamentally change the trial.” (Reply at 1). That
`
`response, of course, does not explain why Touchstream’s proposed course of action is insufficient.
`
`In the sole case Charter cites in contending that permitting Dr. Wicker to reference Google
`
`would be prejudicial, no such procedure was in place to mitigate any potential prejudice. In that
`
`case, two actions involving the same parties, same patents, and different versions of the same
`
`product were consolidated, and one of the cases was being retried on remand as to only certain
`
`issues. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:12-CV-855, 2016 WL 4063802, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 29,
`
`2016). The prior verdict “was repeatedly used as a shortcut for the infringement analysis,” “the
`
`parties went well beyond what was appropriate,” and “many statements regarding [the prior
`
`verdict] were unnecessary.” Id. at *2, *5. Here, there is no such risk—the Court has a Standing
`
`Order requiring Touchstream to obtain prior permission before eliciting testimony about the
`
`Google Matter, and Touchstream will not attempt to elicit such testimony from Dr. Wicker unless
`
`necessary to respond to testimony that Charter itself elicits. Further, in VirnetX, because the prior
`
`verdict involved the same parties, same patents, and different versions of the same products, the
`
`Court found that the issues were “too similar for a jury to distinguish.” Id. at *4–5 (“The Court’s
`
`decision to consolidate Cause Nos. 6:10-cv-417 and 6:12-cv-855 merged two cases with incredibly
`
`similar issues.”). Here, it will not be difficult for the jury to understand that the Google Matter
`
`involved a different defendant and different accused products with different branding.
`
`Saint Lawrence is also inapposite. In that case, this Court denied a motion by the plaintiff
`
`to supplement its damages expert’s report to include opinion testimony about how a verdict in a
`
`related case might affect damages in the case at hand. Saint Lawrence Commc'ns LLC v. ZTE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 10368
`
`
`
`Corp., No. 2:15-CV-349-JRG, 2017 WL 3476978, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2017). The Court
`
`pointed to the fact that final judgment had not yet been entered in finding that the verdict was not
`
`a “reliable data point” on which the expert could rely. Id. at *2. There was no finding relating to
`
`prejudice in that case, and Charter makes no argument about the reliability of Dr. Wicker’s opinions
`
`here. Again, if Dr. Wicker must reference the Google Matter, Charter is free to challenge the
`
`appropriate weight that he should have given that verdict through cross examination.
`
`Without any ability to explain why the procedure Touchstream has presented would not
`
`cure prejudice, Charter now attempts to argue that the verdict in the Google Matter is not relevant
`
`to Dr. Wicker’s opinions at all. But, again, Charter’s attempt to obtain a pre-trial ruling on this
`
`issue should be rejected. As Touchstream has explicitly stated, Dr. Wicker includes discussion of
`
`the Google Matter in his rebuttal report to disclose his views on that topic in the event Charter
`
`opens the door to it—whether and how Dr. Wicker actually references the Google Matter entirely
`
`depends on what testimony Charter elicits.
`
`And Charter does not seriously dispute that its knowledge of Touchstream’s litigation
`
`against Google is at the very least probative of its state of mind, its notice of Touchstream’s patents,
`
`and, therefore, willfulness. Sprint stands for that proposition, despite Charter’s attempts to
`
`distinguish it, as do other cases. Sprint Communications Co. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 760 F.
`
`App’x 977, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that district court did not err in permitting prior verdict
`
`from related case between same parties as relevant to willful infringement and damages); see also
`
`Lone Star Tech. Innovations, LLC v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00059-RWS, 2022 WL
`
`21714403, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2022) (permitting verdict form from prior trial to be used to
`
`argue post-verdict willfulness). Here, the prior verdict evidence would be even less prejudicial
`
`than in Sprint, where the prior verdict was from a related case between related parties—again,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 10369
`
`
`
`here, the jury will surely understand that Charter and Google are different defendants whose
`
`products should be independently evaluated.
`
`Charter’s motion to strike Dr. Wicker’s references to the Google Matter should be rejected.
`
`B. The Court Should Deny Dr. Wicker’s References to Dr. Almeroth’s Reports and
`Testimony in the Google Matter.
`
`As to Charter’s argument about Dr. Wicker’s references to Dr. Almeroth’s reports and
`
`testimony in the Google Matter, Charter again ignores Touchstream’s representations about the
`
`scope of Dr. Wicker’s trial testimony and demands that the Court rule on an issue on which it need
`
`not rule prior to trial. Charter makes clear that its objection is not that any references to Dr.
`
`Almeroth’s opinions would be cumulative, and instead argues that Touchstream “wants to have Dr.
`
`Wicker testify that he and Dr. Almeroth reached the same conclusion on the same issue, so that the
`
`jury counts two technical experts for Touchstream, but only one for Charter.” (Reply at 3–4). But
`
`Touchstream made clear in its opposition brief that it does not intend to elicit testimony from Dr.
`
`Wicker about any opinion of Dr. Almeroth whatsoever. Nor will Dr. Wicker be “parrot[ing[]the
`
`opinions and conclusions of other experts” (Reply at 5)—as Touchstream argued, Dr. Wicker’s
`
`reports are based on his own independent analyses, and Dr. Wicker’s references to Dr. Almeroth
`
`in five paragraphs of his 238-paragraph rebuttal report cannot be fairly characterized as Dr. Wicker
`
`simply parroting Dr. Almeroth’s opinions. At base, Dr. Wicker’s mentions of Dr. Almeroth’s
`
`opinions in his report were meant to disclose his views on Dr. Almeroth’s opinions in the event
`
`Charter opens the door to such testimony. As Charter concedes, “this issue is resolved.” (Reply
`
`at 5).
`
`C. The Court Should Deny Charter’s Motion to Strike Dr. Wicker’s References to
`and Reliance on the CableLabs Specifications.
`
`As Charter concedes in its reply brief, Charter’s request to strike Dr. Wicker’s testimony to
`
`the extent that it references or relies on CableLabs Specifications is moot.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 10370
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 12 PagelD #: 10370
`
`Il.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Forall of the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Charter’s motionto strike certain
`
`of Dr. Wicker’s opinions.
`
`Date: September 3, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Ryan D. Dykal
`Lead Counsel
`
`Ryan D. Dykal (pro hac vice)
`Jordan T. Bergsten (pro hac vice)
`Mark Schafer (pro hac vice)
`Philip A. Eckert (pro hac vice)
`Anita Liu (TX State Bar No. 24134054)
`Botrs SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`1401 New York Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(t) 202-274-1109
`rdykal@bsfllp.com
`jbergsten@bsfllp.com
`mschafer@bsfllp.com
`peckert@bsfllp.com
`aliu@bsfllp.com
`
`John Michael Lyons (pro hac vice)
`Sabina Mariella (pro hac vice)
`Sophie Roytblat (pro hac vice)
`BorEs SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`55 Hudson Yards, 20" Floor
`New York, NY 10001
`jlyons@bsfllp.com
`smariella@bsfllp.com
`sroytblat@bsfllp.com
`
`Melissa Smith (TX State Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SmMiITH LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`(t) 903-934-8450
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 10371
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies,
`Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10372
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 10 of 12 PagelD #: 10372
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 10373
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on September 3, 2024, the foregoing was filed under seal with the
`
`Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a notice of this document via the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system. Further, I hereby certify that a courtesy copy of the foregoing was
`
`emailed to counsel for Defendants on September 3, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Comcast:
`
`Deron R Dacus
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: 903-705-1117
`Fax: 903-581-2543
`Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`/s/ Ryan D. Dykal
`Ryan D. Dykal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David J. Lisson
`Ashok Ramani
`James Park
`DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`1600 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Email: david.lisson@davispolk.com
`Email: ashok.ramani@davispolk.com
`Email: james.park@davispolk.com
`Email: dpw.comcast.touchstream@davispolk.com
`
`Alena Farber
`DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Email: alena.farber@davispolk.com
`
`Counsel for Charter:
`
`Deron R Dacus
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: 903-705-1117
`Fax: 903-581-2543
`Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Daniel Reisner
`David Benyacar
`Elizabeth A. Long
`Melissa A. Brown
`Robert Stout
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: 212-836-8000
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 196 Filed 09/12/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 10374
`
`
`
`Tel: 212-836-8000
`Fax: 212-836-8689
`Email: daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com
`Email: david.benyacar@arnoldporter.com
`Email: elizabeth.long@arnoldporter.com
`Email: melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com
`Email: robert.stout@arnoldporter.com
`Email: A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com
`
`Dina M. Hayes
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street
`Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Email: dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com
`
`Carson Anderson
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Bldg 5, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Email: carson.anderson@arnoldporter.com
`
`Marc A. Cohn
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Email: marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`