Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 46 PageID #: 693
`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 46 PagelD #: 693
`
`EXHIBIT 17
`EXHIBIT 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 46 PageID #: 694
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`
`(1 of 45)
`
`No. _____________
`
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`_______________________________________
`
`IN RE: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________________
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`Case No. 22-CV-0125
`Hon. Rodney Gilstrap, United States District Judge
`____________________________________
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel Reisner
`Elizabeth Long
`Melissa Brown
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel.: (212) 836-8000
`Fax: (212) 836-8689
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 3 of 46 PageID #: 695
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(2 of 45)
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`March 2023
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`Instructions:
`
`In re Charter Communications, Inc.
`Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`1. Complete each section of the form and select none or N/A if appropriate.
`
`2. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed, and
`check the box to indicate such pages are attached.
`
`3. In answering Sections 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities
`the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance.
`
`4. Please do not duplicate entries within Section 5.
`
`5. Counsel must file an amended Certificate of Interest within seven days after
`any information on this form changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(c).
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`06/16/2023
`Date: _________________
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Daniel Reisner
`
`Name:
`
`Daniel Reisner
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 4 of 46 PageID #: 696
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(3 of 45)
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented by
`undersigned counsel
`in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`March 2023
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not list
`the real parties if they are
`the same as the entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations for
`the
`entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`Liberty Broadband Corporation
`
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 5 of 46 PageID #: 697
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(4 of 45)
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`March 2023
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already entered
`an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`David Benyacar
`(Arnold & Porter)
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`(The Dacus Firm, PC)
`
`Albert Boardman
`(Arnold & Porter)
`
`Amy L. DeWitt
`(Arnold & Porter)
`
`Michael Lynn
`(Arnold & Porter)
`
`Palak M. Parikh
`(Arnold & Porter)
`
`✔
`
`5. Related Cases. Other than the originating case(s) for this case, are there
`related or prior cases that meet the criteria under Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a)?
`(cid:1798) Yes (file separate notice; see below) (cid:1798) No (cid:1798) N/A (amicus/movant)
`If yes, concurrently file a separate Notice of Related Case Information that complies
`with Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Please do not duplicate information. This separate
`Notice must only be filed with the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if
`information changes during the pendency of the appeal. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b).
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 6 of 46 PageID #: 698
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(5 of 45)
`
`FORM 9A. Notice of Related Case Information Form 9A (p. 1)
`March 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED CASE INFORMATION
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`Instructions: Do not duplicate information. The notice must only be filed at the
`time of filing the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if information
`changes during the pendency of the appeal. See Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Attach
`additional pages as needed. This notice must not be included in a motion,
`petition, related response, or brief; please only include the Certificate of Interest
`(Form 9) in those documents.
`
`1. Related or prior cases. Provide the case title, case number, and originating
`tribunal for each case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b)(1).
`
`
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`Charter Communications, Inc.
`
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc., No. 2:23-CV-00050-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc., 2:23-CV-00051-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc., 2:23-CV-00052-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Comms., Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-00059-JRG
`(consolidated member case of lead case 23-cv-00060) (E.D. Tex.)
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 7 of 46 PageID #: 699
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(6 of 45)
`
`FORM 9A. Notice of Related Case Information Form 9A (p. 2)
`March 2023
`
`2. Names of all parties involved in the cases listed above. Do not duplicate
`the names of parties. Do not relist the case information. Fed. Cir. R.
`47.5(b)(2)(A).
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`
`3. Names of all law firms, partners, and associates in the cases listed above.
`Do not duplicate the names of law firms, partners, and associates. Do not relist
`case information and party names. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b)(2)(B).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`Name:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and complete
`to the best of my knowledge.
`
`Date:
`
`
` I
`
`
`
`06/16/2023
`
`/s/ Daniel Reisner
`
`Daniel Reisner
`
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (David Benyacar, Albert Boardman, Melissa
`Brown, Amy L. DeWitt, Dina Hayes, Elizabeth Long, Daniel Reisner, Robert Stout)
`Winston & Strawn (Krishnan Padmanabhan, Saranya Raghavan)
`The Dacus Firm, PC (Deron R. Dacus)
`Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Michael W. Gray)
`K&L Gates, LLP (James A Engel, Darlene Ghavimi, George Summerfield, James A.
`Shimota, Melissa Haulcomb, Peter Soskin)
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Andra L. Fair, Jack Wesley Hill)
`Bridges IP Consulting (Kenneth H. Bridges)
`
`Charter Communications, Inc.
`Entropic Communications, LLC
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 8 of 46 PageID #: 700
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(7 of 45)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page 
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`III.  FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES
`PRESENTED ................................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`CCI Maintains Corporate Separateness From the LLCs ....................... 5 
`C. 
`CCI Is The Manager of The Limited Liability Companies ................... 7 
`D. 
`CCI Does Not Have Any Employees And Does Not Own or
`Lease, or Maintain and Operate, Property In The District .................... 9 
`CCI Does Not Reside or Have a Physical Presence In The District ... 10 
`E. 
`Procedural History ............................................................................... 11 
`F. 
`IV.  REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE .................................................... 12 
`A. 
`The Right To A Writ Is Clear And Indisputable ................................. 13 
`The District Court Relied On an Erroneous Standard and
`1. 
`Erroneous Factual Findings To Impute the Presence Of
`Spectrum Gulf To CCI .............................................................. 13 
`The District Court Relied On Erroneous Factual and Legal
`Conclusions, and Misapplied the Cray Factors, To Find CCI
`Has a Regular and Established Place Of Business In the
`District ....................................................................................... 19 
`(a)  CCI Does Not Have a “Place Of Business” In the
`District ............................................................................ 20 
`(b)  CCI Has No Employees or Agents Conducting
`Business in the District ................................................... 21 
`(c)  CCI Has No Place of Business in the District ................ 27 
`
`2. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 9 of 46 PageID #: 701
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(8 of 45)
`
`The Other Mandamus Factors Are Satisfied ....................................... 31 
`B. 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 32 
`
`V. 
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 10 of 46 PageID #: 702
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(9 of 45)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Andra Group, L.P. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC.,
`6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................passim
`Bd. Of Regents v. Medtronic PLC,
`17-cv-0942, 2018 WL 4179080 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2018) ................................ 4
`Celgene Corporation v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................passim
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc.,
`2:23-cv-00050-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 12
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc.,
`2:23-cv-00051-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 12
`Entropic Comms., LLC v. Charter Comms., Inc.,
`2:23-cv-00052-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 12
`Entropic Communications LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`22-cv-00076-JRG, 2022 WL 19076758 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2022) ......... 3, 20, 26
`In re Cray,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................passim
`In re EMC Corp.,
`677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`In re Google LLC,
`949 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................ 21, 22, 26, 31
`In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 13, 31
`In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1008, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 29
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 11 of 46 PageID #: 703
`(10 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`Interactive Toybox, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co.,
`17-cv-1137, 2018 WL 5284625 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2018) .................... 3, 16, 21
`IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Broadvox Holding Co., LLC,
`11-cv-0575, 2012 WL 13012617 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2012) ........................ 5, 18
`Jacoby Donner, P.C. v. Aristone Realty Cap., LLC,
`17-cv-2206, 2020 WL 5095499 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2020) ............................... 8, 9
`Nat’l Steel Car Ltd. v. The Greenbrier Cos., Inc.,
`19-cv-00721, 2020 WL 42889388 (W.D. Tex. July 27, 2020) ...................... 4, 15
`Parallel Network Licensing LLC v. Arrow Elecs., Inc.,
`21-cv-0714, 2022 WL 1597364 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2022) ............................... 17
`Soverain IP, LLC v. AT&T, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-0293, 2017 WL 5126158 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017) ..............passim
`United States v. Bestfoods,
`524 U.S. 51 (1998) .............................................................................................. 30
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ..........................................................................................passim
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 18-101, et seq. ................................................................... 8
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-402 ................................................................................ 18
`Delaware LLC Act ............................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ...................................................... 1, 11, 12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 12 of 46 PageID #: 704
`(11 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`I. RELIEF SOUGHT
`Petitioner Charter Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) respectfully seeks a writ of
`
`mandamus directing the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss
`
`the case for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
`
`12(b)(3).
`
`II.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Whether the district court misstated the applicable legal standard for
`
`imputation and reached a patently erroneous result when it found that venue under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) was proper in the Eastern District of Texas solely on the basis
`
`that a separate and distinct subsidiary and its parent “act[ed] as a single enterprise.”
`
`2. Whether the district court reached a patently erroneous result and
`
`abused its discretion by misapplying the law to the facts and commingling concepts
`
`of agency, ratification and imputation under In re Cray, 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017), contrary to this Court’s precedents, to conclude that a parent company has a
`
`regular and established place of business in the district based on the presence of a
`
`subsidiary in the district.
`
`III.
`
`FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES PRESENTED
`A. Introduction
`CCI seeks mandamus relief to review the application and interpretation of the
`
`patent venue statute by a district court in the Eastern District of Texas. CCI is a
`
`holding company, is not incorporated in Texas, and does not own or lease property,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 13 of 46 PageID #: 705
`(12 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`does not offer any products or services, and does not have any employees in the
`
`district. It is the ultimate parent over numerous subsidiary limited liability
`
`companies (“the LLCs” or “LLC subsidiaries”), each of which performs specific
`
`business functions in support of the Spectrum brand. Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC
`
`(“Spectrum Gulf”) is a separate and distinct LLC subsidiary that leases or owns and
`
`maintains and operates four Spectrum-brand stores in the district, and is the LLC
`
`that provides internet and video services under the Spectrum brand to customers in
`
`the district. CCI maintains all corporate formalities as a parent and as a manager of
`
`the LLCs, including Spectrum Gulf, under the Delaware LLC Act. It has not ratified
`
`any location in the district as its own, nor are the employees of the LLCs agents of
`
`CCI. CCI is not subject to venue in the district under Section 1400(b).
`
`The district court found that venue is proper by disregarding the corporate
`
`forms without satisfying the stringent test for piercing the corporate veil. It ruled
`
`that “the appropriate inquiry” to determine whether a “regular and established place
`
`of business of a subsidiary to be imputed to a parent” is if CCI and “and its
`
`subsidiaries ‘act as a single enterprise.’” Appx16, Appx19 (quoting Soverain IP,
`
`LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 17-cv-0293, 2017 WL 5126158, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017)
`
`report and recommendation adopted 2017 WL 6452802 (Dec. 18, 2017)). Under
`
`Andra Group, L.P. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC., 6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021),
`
`and Celgene Corporation v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 14 of 46 PageID #: 706
`(13 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`2021), that is not the “appropriate inquiry.” The district court should have
`
`considered the “threshold inquiry” of whether CCI and the LLCs “maintained
`
`corporate separateness” as dictated in Andra and again in Celgene, and the many
`
`factors that are required to find a lack of corporate separateness, or alter ego, under
`
`Fifth Circuit law. That did not happen here.
`
`The district court separately concluded that all three Cray requirements were
`
`satisfied because “[CCI] is Spectrum and Spectrum is [CCI]” or CCI and the LLCs
`
`are “the same singular entity.”1 Appx5, Appx12, Appx15-16. The district court’s
`
`conclusions under the Cray factors would make legal or logical sense had it
`
`determined that CCI and the LLCs lack corporate separateness. Yet, in reaching this
`
`conclusion, the district court disclaimed any “need to pierce the corporate veil.”
`
`Appx12. With this disclaimer, the district court should have followed “[s]ettled law”
`
`and “presume[d] that corporations exist as separate entities.” Interactive Toybox,
`
`LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., 17-cv-1137, 2018 WL 5284625, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct.
`
`24, 2018) (citation omitted). The district court did not apply that presumption.
`
`Instead, it misapplied this Court’s test for venue by looking past the corporate forms
`
` 
`1 The district court relied heavily on its decision in Entropic Communications LLC
`v. DIRECTV, LLC (“DIRECTV”), 22-cv-00076-JRG, 2022 WL 19076758 (E.D.
`Tex. Oct. 24, 2022), which involved a similarly flawed analysis of the patent venue
`statute with respect to a group of related companies on a motion to transfer.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 15 of 46 PageID #: 707
`(14 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`to find each Cray factor satisfied without actually determining whether an alter ego
`
`relationship, or lack of corporate separateness, exists.
`
`Not only is the district court’s decision contrary to this Court’s prior decisions,
`
`but it is also contrary to other district court decisions in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`and within the Fifth Circuit regarding the application of agency, ratification, and
`
`imputation under Section 1400(b). E.g., Andra, 6 F.4th at 1288-90 (discussing
`
`agency and ratification in context of the parent-subsidiary relationship under Cray,
`
`finding a parent did not ratify a subsidiary’s location where they “work[ed] together
`
`in some aspects,” maintained a “unified business model,” and the parent advertised
`
`a place of business or set up an office in the district); Nat’l Steel Car Ltd. v. The
`
`Greenbrier Cos., Inc., 19-cv-00721, 2020 WL 42889388, at *2, *3-5 (W.D. Tex.
`
`July 27, 2020) (noting courts in the Fifth Circuit apply an alter ego analysis when
`
`considering whether to impute the acts of a subsidiary to a parent/defendant under
`
`the patent venue statute; the plaintiff did not meet “its heavy burden of showing a
`
`sufficient degree of control [] to impute the [] subsidiaries’ property to [the parent]”);
`
`Bd. Of Regents v. Medtronic PLC, 17-cv-0942, 2018 WL 4179080, at *2 (W.D. Tex.
`
`July 19, 2018) (no lack of corporate separateness or ratification, holding “the use of
`
`the common or generic name . . . on the exterior of the building, as well as the press
`
`releases announcing the business to be conducted in the district by [subsidiaries],
`
`which are separate and distinct corporate entities, are insufficient to establish that
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 16 of 46 PageID #: 708
`(15 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`venue” is proper); Soverain, 2017 WL 5126158, at *1 (rejecting argument that a
`
`parent and subsidiary “should be considered a single entity for purposes of [patent]
`
`venue” where the parent was a holding company, was a “legally and factually
`
`separate corporate entity, distinct from its subsidiaries,” and subsidiaries “maintain[]
`
`[their] own independent corporate, partnership, or limited liability company status,
`
`identity, and structure”); IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Broadvox Holding Co., LLC,
`
`11-cv-0575, 2012 WL 13012617, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2012) (rejecting
`
`argument that parent-defendant “must control [its subsidiary-LLC that conducts
`
`business in this district] because” the parent-defendant manages “its subsidiary”
`
`because “the control exerted by [the parent-defendant] is [no] greater than that
`
`‘normally associated with common ownership and directorship.’” (citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`Mandamus is therefore warranted to correct the district court’s ruling that has
`
`the effect of expanding the patent venue statute to corporate affiliates that have no
`
`regular and established place of business in the district.
`
`B. CCI Maintains Corporate Separateness From the LLCs
`The district court referred to CCI as “Charter,” suggesting every LLC
`
`subsidiary is one in the same. However, CCI does not have any business operations
`
`of its own. Appx384. It is a holding company, not an operating company, and is the
`
`ultimate corporate parent of the LLCs that each perform separate, distinct business
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 17 of 46 PageID #: 709
`(16 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`functions in support of the Spectrum brand. Appx355-356 (collecting testimony
`
`explaining the different functions of various LLCs). For example, there are different
`
`LLCs that provide customers with cable or Voice over IP services under the
`
`Spectrum brand in separate geographic regions. Appx384-385.
`
`This means that CCI does not sell any products or provide any services,
`
`including the Accused Services and Products,2 in the district. Appx376-377,
`
`Appx384. CCI is not licensed by the State of Texas to provide the Accused Services.
`
`Instead, only one LLC is licensed to provide this service in Texas: Spectrum Gulf.
`
`Appx397. The Public Utility Commission of Texas requires “any entity that
`
`proposes to provide cable or video service anywhere in the State of Texas . . . to
`
`obtain a SICFA [State-Issued Certificate of Franchise Authority],”3 and Spectrum
`
`Gulf, not CCI, holds a SIFCA. The customer service documentation reflects this
`
`reality. When a customer in the district purchases an internet or video package, the
`
`customer accepts terms and conditions with Spectrum Gulf. Appx390-392,
`
`Appx404-405, Appx407-408. The customers are treated as customers of the relevant
`
`entity that provides the specific services, such as Spectrum Gulf in Texas. CCI is
`
`not a party to any of those agreements. Appx386, Appx392, Appx404-405.
`
` 
`2 The operative complaint alleges patent infringement related to cable television and
`internet services (“Accused Services”) through the lease, sale or distribution of
`certain set top boxes and cable modems (“Accused Products”). Appx160.
`3 https://www.puc.texas.gov/industry/communications/business/sicfa/sicfa.aspx.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 18 of 46 PageID #: 710
`(17 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`Moreover, CCI does not own or lease the Accused Products. Those products
`
`are owned by Charter Distribution LLC and leased to the various LLC subsidiaries,
`
`including Spectrum Gulf, for a fee pursuant to lease agreements. Appx406.
`
`Spectrum Gulf then leases (or subleases) the products to Spectrum customers for a
`
`fee.4 Appx406. Spectrum Gulf, not CCI, is the entity that provides or ships devices,
`
`such as the Accused Products, to customers. Appx406, Appx412, Appx421-423.
`
`Further, CCI’s corporate records are maintained separate from the LLCs and
`
`care is taken to ensure that any actions taken by CCI are separate from those taken
`
`by the LLC subsidiaries. Appx382-383, Appx385, Appx402, Appx409-411. Costs
`
`among the LLCs are allocated based on entity accounting and their activities.
`
`Appx388, Appx405, Appx409-410. Each LLC operates pursuant to a delegation of
`
`authority policy, Appx385, and they act in accordance with their operative formation
`
`documents, including governing agreements, and pursuant to the pertinent Delaware
`
`statute governing limited liability corporations.
`
`C. CCI Is The Manager of The Limited Liability Companies
`Each of the relevant LLCs were set up pursuant to, and in conformity with,
`
`the Delaware LLC Act (the “LLC Act”). Appx356-358 (discussing the LLC act).
`
`Under the LLC Act, CCI has been appointed as a manager of the different LLCs
`
` 
`4 CC LLC sets products and service prices, and the individual stores are permitted to
`operate and set prices within that framework. Appx406.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 19 of 46 PageID #: 711
`(18 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 18 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`(through their respective members) that perform the separate business functions as
`
`discussed above. Appx385.
`
`For example, Spectrum Gulf is an LLC incorporated under the laws of
`
`Delaware and is a separate, indirect subsidiary of CCI. Spectrum Gulf provides
`
`internet and video (i.e., cable) services under the Spectrum brand to customers in
`
`certain regions within the United States, including Texas. Consistent with the LLC
`
`Act, the sole member of Spectrum Gulf appointed CCI as the manager of Spectrum
`
`Gulf pursuant to an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement.5
`
`Appx383, Appx349, Appx425. That agreement sets out the “governance” of the
`
`LLC and includes the powers and limitations of CCI as a manager. Appx385,
`
`Appx425-428.
`
`The Spectrum Gulf management agreement provides, inter alia, that CCI, in
`
`its role as manager, is authorized to engage in certain conduct, including to elect or
`
`remove Spectrum Gulf board members or to execute or endorse any contract or
`
`agreement “on behalf of [Spectrum Gulf] without the consent of any Member or
`
`other person.” Appx427 (emphasis added). Consistent with the LLC Act, the
`
`agreement states that “[n]o annual or regular meetings of the Manager or the
`
`Members are required.” Appx427; Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 18-101, et seq.; Jacoby
`
` 
`5 The Spectrum Gulf management agreement is between Texas Warner Cable Texas
`LLC (“TWCT”) and Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, the sole member of
`TWCT. Spectrum Gulf was formerly TWCT. Appx452.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 20 of 46 PageID #: 712
`(19 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`Donner, P.C. v. Aristone Realty Cap., LLC, 17-cv-2206, 2020 WL 5095499, at *15
`
`(E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2020) (“[M]ember meetings are not required by . . . [the LLC
`
`Act].”). Further, under the agreement, Spectrum Gulf cannot act unilaterally, and
`
`must obtain CCI’s consent as the manager for certain business activities. Appx427-
`
`428.
`
`CCI has also been appointed as the manager of Charter Communications
`
`Operating, LLC (“CCO LLC”) pursuant to a different management agreement.
`
`Appx441. Under that agreement, “Company Entities,” such as Spectrum Gulf for
`
`example, “shall seek the advice of the Manager regarding the business, properties,
`
`operations and activities . . . , and subject to the direction, control and general
`
`supervision of the Company Entities, the Manager agrees to provide such advice.”
`
`Appx442 (emphases added). It also provides that CCI, as manager, shall provide
`
`“management services,” which includes categories that CCI shall provide “advice,”
`
`or “consultation” or “review” or “recommendations” or “assistance” or “guidance.”
`
`Appx442-443.
`
`D. CCI Does Not Have Any Employees And Does Not Own or
`Lease, or Maintain and Operate, Property In The District
`CCI does not have any employees. Appx416, Appx388-389, Appx394,
`
`Appx403. Rather, Charter Communications, LLC (“CC LLC”), a separate and
`
`distinct LLC, employs the individuals who work for the LLC subsidiaries that
`
`provide various business functions in support of the Spectrum brand. Appx388,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 21 of 46 PageID #: 713
`(20 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`Appx402. CC LLC, as the employer, allocates employees to the different LLCs and
`
`charges those operating companies, like Spectrum Gulf, for those employees to carry
`
`on the Spectrum brand-related business. Appx402, Appx405, Appx407, Appx409-
`
`410, Appx412. CCI does not participate, nor is it consulted, in the hiring and firing
`
`of CC LLC employees. Appx416, Appx403-404.
`
`CCI also does not own, lease, maintain, or operate any property in the district.
`
`Appx418-419. Instead, each location identified in the complaint is owned or leased
`
`by Spectrum Gulf. Id. CCI does not have any employees who work at those
`
`locations, nor does it maintain or operate those stores. The CC LLC employees are
`
`allocated to Spectrum Gulf to operate the stores on a day-to-day basis. Appx391.
`
`Each LLC subsidiary, through CC LLC employees, decides the needs of the LLC
`
`subsidiary, such as the amount of products or equipment to lease. Appx412.
`
`E. CCI Does Not Reside or Have a Physical Presence In The District
`As the district court recognized, CCI does not reside in the district because it
`
`is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`
`Appx376-378. Not only does CCI not have a physical place in the district, but CCI
`
`does not hold itself out to the public as having a presence in the district or providing
`
`services there. Although the district court questioned the relevance of the Spectrum
`
`brand name, neither CCI, nor the LLC subsidiaries, market any products or services
`
`or buildings under CCI’s name. Appx406, Appx413, Appx392-Appx393. The LLC
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG Document 25-3 Filed 03/25/24 Page 22 of 46 PageID #: 714
`(21 of 45)
`Case: 23-136 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 06/16/2023
`
`subsidiaries use the Spectrum brand “for all customer-facing functions in all retail
`
`stores” and any customer-facing employee uses a Spectrum signature block in email
`
`correspondence. Appx413, Appx406, Appx392.
`
`To that end, “multiple entities,” not including CCI, are responsible for
`
`advertising and marketing of the