Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 10375
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TOUCHSTREAM’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
`CHARTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 10376
`
`
`I.
`
` Introduction
`
`Charter’s Reply underscores the numerous factual disputes underlying each of its bases for
`
`summary judgment. First, Charter’s non-infringement argument for Spectrum Guide STBs is
`
`premised on the alleged inability for its Spectrum TV App (“STVA”) to start playback of more
`
`than one of the following video content types—linear TV, VOD, and DVR. For linear TV, Charter
`
`admits the STVA can start playback. For VOD, Charter also does not deny that it represented for
`
`years in sworn testimony and interrogatory responses that its STBs all function in materially the
`
`same way for initiating VOD—that a physical STB remote is required to start playback. And
`
`Charter admits these representations were proven false as to one type of STB by Touchstream’s
`
`expert who was able to start VOD playback from the STVA for one guide creating a genuine fact
`
`issue as to the remaining guides that Charter has represented all work the same way. For DVR,
`
`Charter further admits that its 30(b)(6) witness testified that the STVA can start DVR playback in
`
`all STBs other than for “a very small percentage” of users, but Charter now claims that its corporate
`
`designee was wrong because he was merely “speculating.” Regardless, other documents and
`
`evidence support that the STVA can start DVR playback. Charter’s Motion thus relies on disputed
`
`facts and credibility determinations that are inappropriately decided on summary judgment.
`
`Second, Charter’s non-infringement arguments regarding the “synchronization code” and
`
`“unique identifier” terms in the Asserted Claims rely on factual disputes regarding whether
`
`Charter’s Accused Services satisfy these limitations under their plain and ordinary meaning to a
`
`POSITA. Charter seeks to avoid the jury’s resolution of these factual disputes by manufacturing
`
`belated claim construction arguments premised on alleged prosecution disclaimer. But
`
`Touchstream’s infringement allegations are based on the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms
`
`and, in any event, Charter cannot show clear and unmistakable prosecution history disclaimer.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 10377
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 14 PagelD #: 10377
`
`Touchstream’s infringementallegations rely on straightforward interpretations of the plain claim
`
`language. Touchstream respectfully requests the Court to deny Charter’s Motion.
`
`IL.
`
`Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment for Spectrum Guide STBs.
`
`The Court should deny Charter’s non-infringement argumentfor its Spectrum Guide STBs
`
`because each argument relies on disputed issues of material fact and fundamental credibility
`
`determinations of Charterandits witnesses.
`
`Forlinear TV, Charter argues there are no messages identifying a “piece of content” or a
`
`“video file” for linear TV broadcasts. To support this assertion, Charter argues that its 30(b)(6)
`
`witness, Mr. Frusciano,i” (Reply Br.
`
`at 1). But Mr. Frusciano’s verbatim testimonyis to the contrary:
`
`Q. And then, depending on the type of content that the user is attempting to play,
`there may be different identifiers that identify the content, is that correct?
`
`A. Yes,itis.
`
`(Resp. Ex. 5, at 29:15-30:7) (emphasis added). Charter cannot square its corporate witness
`
`testimony with its assertion that linear TV messages do notidentify a piece of content or a video
`
`file. Indeed, Touchstream’s expert’s testing demonstrated howa userselects a piece of content or
`
`video file on the STVAfor live TV, and how the STVA delivers the message to the STB:
`
`TeDees
`
`$2, E206 Live with Kelly
`PeLes
`
`a es)
`
`TLee
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 10378
`
`
`(Touchstream Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 176-178). Ample evidence refutes Charter’s assertion that linear TV
`
`messages do not identify a piece of content or video file.
`
`For VOD, Charter argues Touchstream cannot meet its burden of proof to show Spectrum
`
`Guide STBs support VOD playback from the STVA. (Reply Br. at 2-3). But Charter does not deny
`
`that it consistently told Touchstream and other parties for years—through verified interrogatory
`
`response and sworn corporate testimony—that its STBs all operated similarly with respect to VOD
`
`playback functionality, including that the STVA could not initiate playback of VOD but rather
`
`launched an asset details screen requiring confirmation through a physical remote. And Charter
`
`admits these representations were proven false through Dr. Wicker’s testing of the STVA on
`
`Charter’s ODN guide. (Reply Br. at 2). Yet Charter argues that Dr. Wicker’s VOD playback testing
`
`is insufficient because he did not use a Spectrum Guide STB. (See id.). Charter is wrong.
`
`In his infringement report, Dr. Wicker opined that his testing of VOD playback for ODN
`
`guide was representative of the other STB guides. In particular, Dr. Wicker opined that: (1) Charter
`
`consistently represented the STVA could not initiate playback of VOD on any guides, (2) his
`
`testing of the exemplary ODN guide proved this representation false, and (3) based on Charter’s
`
`consistent representations about the similarities among guides with respect to VOD playback, he
`
`believes the other guides operate similarly for VOD playback. (Touchstream Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 165-166).
`
`While Dr. Wicker observed certain differences throughout his report about other aspects of ODN
`
`and Spectrum Guide STBs (see, e.g., Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 144-145 (describing differences in the conversion
`
`step)), Dr. Wicker made explicit his understanding—based on his testing and Charter’s
`
`representations of similarities among guides—that VOD could be played directly from the STVA
`
`without use of a physical remote. (Touchstream Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 165-166). Charter fails to cite a single
`
`case requiring, as a matter of law, Dr. Wicker to test every STB guide to confirm similarities in
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 10379
`
`
`each accused functionality to prove infringement. This is particularly true where, as here, Charter
`
`maintained that VOD playback functionality was materially identical across all STBs.
`
`Rather, courts routinely find methodologies like Dr. Wicker’s sufficient to show
`
`infringement, including in circumstances where the defendant did not misrepresent the
`
`functionality of the accused products as Charter did here. See Kenexa Brassing, Inc. v. Taleo Corp.,
`
`751 F.Supp.2d 735, 747 (D. Del. 2010) (granting summary judgment of infringement, and rejecting
`
`defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to show representativeness of every product,
`
`reasoning in part that “Defendants cannot group their products together when asked whether they
`
`differ, then turn around and claim that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of showing that they
`
`operate in the same way.”); TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1308,
`
`85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 1814 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“While it is true that Dr. Gibson testified in detail with
`
`respect to only one type of device, there is nothing improper about an expert testifying in detail
`
`about a particular device and then stating that the same analysis applies to other allegedly
`
`infringing devices that operate similarly, without discussing each type of device in detail.”);
`
`Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation, No. 2:20-cv-351, 2022 WL 1837942,
`
`*2–*3 (E.D. Va. 2022) (“TWW asserts that Dr. Singhose does not rely on sufficient facts because
`
`he did not individually test each accused product, and while it concedes that ‘representative
`
`analysis is useful,’ it contends that this is only so when there is a reliable basis for comparison.
`
`However, Dr. Singhose's representative analysis and reliance on exterior features does provide a
`
`sufficient basis for his opinion; whether that basis is reliable or persuasive enough to be accepted
`
`by a jury must be considered to go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 10380
`
`
`For DVR, Charter argues, based on its own expert’s observed rebuttal testing through a
`
`previously undisclosed and thus unquestioned Charter engineer, that it is undisputed that the STVA
`
`could not play DVR on Spectrum Guide STBs. But there is ample evidence to the contrary.
`
`First, Charter does not deny that its technical 30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Frusciano, testified that
`
`only a “very small percentage” of Charter customers cannot use the STVA to play DVR on their
`
`STBs, despite Spectrum Guide STBs comprising approximately
`
`of Charter’s customer base.
`
`Instead, Charter argues Mr. Frusciano’s testimony on this topic was based on “speculation,”
`
`despite Mr. Frusciano’s designation as a 30(b)(6) witness on this topic and Charter’s other
`
`technical 30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Paiz, testifying that Mr. Frusciano is the subject matter expert.
`
`(Reply at 3; Touchstream Ex. 6 at 42:9-23). Charter also claims Mr. Frusciano’s testimony is
`
`inaccurate because only a small percentage of Spectrum Guide STBs have DVR hardware
`
`installed. (Reply at 3-4). But in support of this statement Charter identifies a single document, not
`
`cited in its opening brief, with ambiguous figures and no witness testimony interpreting them.
`
`Nothing in this document unequivocally shows that “a majority of Spectrum Guide STBs do not
`
`have DVR hardware and are incapable of DVR at all.” (Reply at 3-4).
`
`Second, Charter does not deny that it disclosed its contention that the STVA cannot play
`
`DVR on Spectrum Guide STBs for the first time in an interrogatory response served ten days after
`
`the close of fact discovery and one business day before the deadline for Dr. Wicker’s infringement
`
`report. Charter does not even offer an excuse for its late disclosure. Instead, Charter attempts to
`
`shift blame to Touchstream for providing vague infringement contentions. But Touchstream’s
`
`infringement contentions were clear: “Spectrum performs [the accused method claim]. For
`
`instance, Spectrum TV application users can control presentation of video content on a
`
`Spectrum TV set-top box (STB) that loads content from any one of a plurality of sources including
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 10381
`
`
`live TV channels, DVR recordings, and on-demand movies and television programs.” (Charter
`
`Ex. 20 at Ex. A, pp. 1). In response, Charter only stated that “the sources of media content are not
`
`media players,” as required by the claim language. (Charter Ex. 21 at Ex. A, pp. 2). Charter never
`
`stated that its Spectrum Guide STBs do not infringe because the Spectrum TV application does
`
`not support DVR playback on Spectrum Guide STBs. That contention was only provided in its
`
`supplemental interrogatory response well after the close of fact discovery. Given the timing of this
`
`disclosure, it raises more fact issue than it resolves, and further shows why the Court should deny
`
`Charter’s motion.
`
`Finally, Charter ignores Dr. Wicker’s testimony that Charter’s “new allegation is
`
`inconsistent with all of the other evidence I have reviewed in this case, including sworn testimony
`
`from Charter’s corporate witnesses . . ., Charter’s prior interrogatory responses, and the documents
`
`that I have reviewed indicating that DVR playback is available in [each of Charter’s STB guides].”
`
`(Touchstream Ex. 7 at ¶ 167). Indeed, similar to VOD, Dr. Wicker also pointed to his testing and
`
`source code review of the ODN STBs, as well as Charter’s misrepresentations about VOD, as
`
`further evidence supporting representativeness of the ODN guide. (See id.).
`
`Charter’s argument that Spectrum Guide STBs do not infringe relies heavily on disputed
`
`facts, contradictory evidence, and witness credibility. The Court should reject it.
`
`III.
`
`
`
` Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for the ’251
`Patent.
`
`A. Charter’s server system assigns a synchronization code.
`
`The ’251 patent requires “assigning, by a server system, a synchronization code to the
`
`display device.” ’251 Pat., 11:26-27. It does not require the server system to ‘generate’ a
`
`synchronization code. Nor does it require the synchronization code to be totally unique and never
`
`before used in another context. (See Reply at 5-7; ’251 Pat. Claims 9, 10, at 12:22-29). Charter
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 10382
`
`
`argues that Touchstream conflates “receiving” with “assigning.” (Reply at 5-6). But Charter
`
`ignores evidence that its
`
`
`
`
`
` (Touchstream Op. Br. at 21-23).
`
`Charter’s Reply seeks to frame this issue as a claim construction dispute. (Reply at 6). In
`
`doing so, Charter advances similar arguments the Court already rejected during Markman. (See
`
`Dkt. 40, at 40-2, 40-3). There, Charter—citing the same examiner amendment—argued the claims
`
`require user involvement in transferring the synchronization code from a display device to a
`
`personal computing device. (Id.). The Court disagreed. (Dkt. 74, at 14-15). Similarly, here Charter
`
`seemingly argues for a disavowal of claim scope without explicit demonstration of a “clear and
`
`unmistakable” statement narrowing the claims through prosecution history. See Ericsson Inc. v.
`
`TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., 161 F. Supp. 3d 438, 453 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (“Defendants do
`
`not identify any statement of alleged disclaimer or disavowal.”). Charter cannot meet its heavy
`
`burden to show the scope of the “assigning” language is narrower than its ordinary meaning.
`
`The prosecution history provides no such clear or unmistakable disavowal. For example,
`
`Touchstream never argued why the ‘assigning,’ ‘receiving,’ or ‘storing’ limitations differentiated
`
`the claims at issue from the prior art. The only prior appearance of “assigning” regarded another
`
`claim covering generation of random unique session identifiers. Charter Reply. Ex. 22, at 46.
`
`Nothing in the prior art required claim 1 to be limited to Charter’s idiosyncratic interpretation of
`
`“assigning,” and there is no evidence that claim 1 was allowed over the prior art because of this
`
`language. See Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A disclaimer
`
`must be ‘clear and unmistakable,’ and unclear prosecution history cannot be used to limit claims.”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 10383
`
`
`Charter’s cited cases are not to the contrary. Festo and Howlink both considered
`
`prosecution history estoppel in the context of Doctrine of Equivalents, which is not at issue here.
`
`(Reply at 6, citing Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733, 122
`
`S. Ct. 1831, 1838, 152 L. Ed. 2d 944 (2002); Howlink Glob. LLC v. AT&T, Inc., No.
`
`222CV00040JRGRSP, 2023 WL 4112111, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 30, 2023), report and
`
`recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-CV-0040-JRG-RSP, 2023 WL 4111382 (E.D. Tex. June 21,
`
`2023)). And Olaplex only underscores the impropriety of Charter’s reading out MAC addresses as
`
`synchronization codes, as the Court there explained it is disfavored to “render another limitation
`
`superfluous,” which is exactly what Charter seeks to do with dependent claim 9. Olaplex, Inc. v.
`
`L'Oreal USA, Inc., 845 F. App'x 943, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2021); ’251 Pat. at 12:22-25. Charter fails to
`
`show these amendments clearly and unmistakably disclaim scope of claim 1 to narrow the claim
`
`in a way that conforms to Charter’s interpretation of the “assigning” term.
`
`Finally, Charter’s Reply disputes the import of its expert’s testimony about using a MAC
`
`address of a display device to satisfy the “assigning” term for invalidity purposes. (Reply at 7).
`
`Such fact and credibility disputes, however, must be resolved by the jury. At bottom, Touchstream’s
`
`infringement allegations are based on a straightforward interpretation of the plain claim language,
`
`and the Court should reject Charter’s belated claim scope disclaimer argument.
`
`B. Charter’s sever system stores a record establishing an association between a personal
`computing device and display device.
`
`In its Reply, Charter does not dispute its server system stores a record of the user’s STB in
`
`a User Account, and Charter does not dispute a user must log into their account on their mobile
`
`application in order to use it. (Reply at 23-25). The user’s mobile device is thus associated with
`
`their chosen STB through the user account information stored in Charter’s server systems. Id.
`
`Charter states that “[t]he association between a user’s STBs and the user’s account is not an
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10384
`
`
`association between any STB and the user’s mobile device.” But Charter ignores the factual record
`
`that a user must use the same credentials stored in the server system to operate the STVA running
`
`on the user’s mobile device. (Touchstream Op. Br., ASOF ¶¶ 34-36).
`
`Charter’s argument implies that, in order to infringe, its servers must store a record
`
`assigning a unique identifier of a mobile device to the STB in a one-to-one correspondence. (Reply
`
`8). But that is not the plain meaning of establishing an association. There is no requirement that
`
`the stored record include a unique identifier for a particular mobile device—only that the record
`
`“establish[es] an association.” ’251 Pat. 11:32-34. By storing a record establishing an association
`
`between the Charter user’s account credentials—which that user provides to the STVA for using
`
`the “Send-to-TV” on his mobile device—with that user’s STB MAC address, Charter’s server
`
`system is able to route messages from the STVA. (Touchstream Op. Br., ASOF ¶¶ 34-36). Charter’s
`
`argument thus relies on fact disputes underlying the application of the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the “storing” limitation in claim 1. Charter’s argument is inappropriate for summary judgment.
`
`IV.
`
` Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for the ’751
`Patent.
`
`Charter’s Reply repeats its arguments regarding the ’251 Patent for the ’751 Patent. (Reply
`
`at 9). It fails for the same reasons described above and in Touchstream’s Opposition. As
`
`Touchstream identified in its Opposition, there are many instances where Charter’s STBs obtain a
`
`MAC address. (Touchstream Op. Br., ASOF ¶¶ 36-37).
`
`Charter takes issue with one of these instances, but its argument actually supports
`
`Touchstream’s infringement argument. Indeed, Charter argues “Touchstream’s
`
`(Reply at 9). Charter thus admits that its
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 10385
`
`
`. And while Charter
`
`appears to argue that the “obtaining” step can only be met through the receipt of a message from
`
`a different network component containing the MAC address, the ’751 Patent includes no such
`
`requirement that the “obtaining” step must be equivalent to “receiving by a separate network
`
`component.” The Court should reject Charter’s attempt to narrow the claim scope in this manner.
`
`V.
`
` Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for the ’934
`Patent.
`Charter’s admissions make denying summary judgment straightforward. Charter admits
`
`that the STBs in the Accused Services provide their MAC address to Charter’s server system.
`
`(Charter SOF ¶ 25). Charter also admits that the Charter server system forwards those same STB
`
`MAC addresses received from the STB to the mobile device running the STVA. (Charter SOF ¶¶
`
`28-29). Charter does not dispute that both the STB and STVA are in communication with its server
`
`system. Rather, Charter argues the STVA must be in communication with Charter’s server system
`
`at precisely the time that the STB sends the MAC address to the server system for forwarding.
`
`(Reply at 10). But that is not what claim 17 requires, and the Court should reject Charter importing
`
`a temporal element into this claim that is unsupported by the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Charter’s Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 10386
`
`
`Date: September 4, 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)
`BOIES 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)
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10001
`jlyons@bsfllp.com
`smariella@bsfllp.com
`sroytblat@bsfllp.com
`
`
`Melissa Smith (TX State Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`(t) 903-934-8450
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 10387
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 13 of 14 PagelD #: 10387
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on September43, 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/ECFsystem. Further, I hereby certify that a courtesy copy of the foregoing was emailed to
`counsel for Defendants on September 4, 2024.
`
`/s/ Rvan D. Dykal
`Ryan D. Dykal
`
`Counselfor Comcast:
`
`Deron R Dacus
`THE DacwusFirm, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: 903-705-1117
`Fax: 903-581-2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Thomas G. Saunders
`
`WILMER HALE
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20007
`Tel.: 202-663-6536
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`thomas.saunders@wilmerhale.com
`
`David J. Lisson
`Ashok Ramani
`James Park
`Micayla Hardisty
`Davis POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`1600 El Camino Real
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`david.lisson@davispolk.com
`ashok.ramani@davispolk.com
`james.park@davispolk.com
`micayla.hardisty@davispolk.com
`dpw.comceast.touchstream@davispolk.com
`
`Alena Farber
`
`Davis POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`alena.farber@davispolk.com
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 197 Filed 09/12/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 10388
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`Fax: 212-836-8689
`daniel.reisner@arnoldporter.com
`david.benyacar@arnoldporter.com
`elizabeth.long@arnoldporter.com
`melissa.brown@arnoldporter.com
`robert.stout@arnoldporter.com
`A&P_EDTX60_Charter@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`Dina M. Hayes
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street
`Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60602
`dina.hayes@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`Carson Anderson
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Bldg 5, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`carson.anderson@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`Marc A. Cohn
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`marc.cohn@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`13
`
`