Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 10 Page 1 of 10

CLOSED, DISCMAG, JURY, PATENT

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Eastern District of TEXAS LIVE (Marshall) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE

Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Comcast Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge T. John Ward Referred to: Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP

Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 830 Patent Jurisdiction: Federal Question

represented by Max Lalon Tribble, Jr Susman Godfrey LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Ste 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 713/651-9366 Fax: 17136546666 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Andrew Wesley Spangler Brown McCarroll - Longview 1127 Judson Rd - Ste 220 PO Box 3999 Longview, TX 75606-3999 903-236-9800 Fax: 19032368787 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Brooke Ashley-May Taylor Susman Godfrey, LLP - Seattle 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 206/516-3880 Fax: 206/516-3883 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Charles Ainsworth Parker Bunt & Ainsworth 100 E Ferguson Suite 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 US

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 10 Page 2 of 10

903/531-3535 Fax: 903/533-9687 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Collin Michael Maloney Ireland Carroll & Kelley 6101 S Broadway Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 903/561-1600 Fax: 9035811071 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Edgar G Sargent Susman Godfrey, LLP - Seattle 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 206/516-3804 Fax: 206/516-3883 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Elizabeth L DeRieux Brown McCarroll 1127 Judson Rd - Ste 220 PO Box 3999 Longview, TX 75606-3999 903/236-9800 Fax: 9032368787 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Franklin Jones, Jr Jones & Jones - Marshall 201 W Houston St PO Drawer 1249 Marshall, TX 75670 903/938-4395 Fax: 9039383360 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED James Patrick Kelley Ireland Carroll & Kelley 6101 S Broadway Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 10 Page 3 of 10

903/561-1600 Fax: 9035811071 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Joseph Samuel Grinstein Susman Godfrey - Houston 1000 Louisiana Street Ste 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 713/651-9366 Fax: 7136546666 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Matthew R Berry Susman Godfrey, LLP - Seattle 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 206/373-7394 Fax: 206/516-3883 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Otis W Carroll, Jr Ireland Carroll & Kelley 6101 S Broadway Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 903/561-1600 Fax: 9035811071 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert Christopher Bunt Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 903/531-3535 Fax: 903/533-9687 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Robert M Parker Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. 100 E Ferguson Suite 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 903/531-3535

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 10 Page 4 of 10

Fax: 9035339687 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III Brown McCarroll - Longview 1127 Judson Rd - Ste 220 PO Box 3999 Longview, TX 75606-3999 903/236-9800 Fax: 19032368787 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Tibor L. Nagy Susman Godfrey - Houston 1000 Louisiana Street Ste 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 713/653-7850 Fax: 713/654-6102 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Defendant Comcast Corporation Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC Defendant Comcast of Plano, LP Movant Coxcom, Inc., Counter Claimant Comcast Corporation represented by Jennifer Haltom Doan Haltom and Doan LLP 6500 North Summerhill Road Crown Executive Center Suite 1 A P O Box 6227 Texarkana, Tx 75505 903/255-1000 Fax: 903/255-0800 Email: [email protected]

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 10 Page 5 of 10

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC represented by Jennifer Haltom Doan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Counter Claimant Comcast of Plano, LP represented by Jennifer Haltom Doan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Counter Defendant Rembrandt Technologies, LP represented by Brooke Ashley-May Taylor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Joseph Samuel Grinstein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Matthew R Berry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/30/2006

#

Docket Text 1 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP (Filing fee $ 350.) , filed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 Civil Cover Sheet)(ehs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006) 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006) 3 Form mailed to Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006) E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Issued as to Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP. (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/01/2006) 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT (First Amended Complaint) against all defendants, filed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A# (2) Exhibit B# (3) Exhibit C# (4) Exhibit D# (5) Exhibit E)

11/30/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006

12/01/2006

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 10 Page 6 of 10

(DeRieux, Elizabeth) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/1/2006 (ehs, ). (Entered: 12/01/2006) 12/04/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/07/2006 12/12/2006 12/12/2006 Filing fee: $ 350.00, receipt number 2-1-2127 (ch, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006) 5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert M Parker on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Parker, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Christopher Bunt on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Bunt, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Charles Ainsworth on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Ainsworth, Charles) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Franklin Jones, Jr on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Jones, Franklin) (Entered: 12/12/2006) 9 E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC served on 12/4/2006, answer due 12/26/2006. (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006) 10 E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. Comcast Corporation served on 12/4/2006, answer due 12/26/2006. (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/15/2006) 11 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against Rembrandt Technologies, LP by Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP.(Doan, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/21/2006) 12 E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. Comcast of Plano, LP served on 12/13/2006, answer due 1/2/2007. (ehs, ) (Entered: 12/27/2006) 13 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Matthew R. Berry on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Berry, Matthew) (Entered: 01/03/2007) 14 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Brooke Ashley-May Taylor on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Taylor, Brooke) (Entered: 01/03/2007) 15 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Joseph Samuel Grinstein on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Grinstein, Joseph) (Entered: 01/03/2007) 16 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Tibor L. Nagy on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Nagy, Tibor) (Entered: 01/09/2007) 17 Plaintiff's ANSWER to Counterclaim by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. (Tribble, Max) (Entered: 01/09/2007) 21 APPLICATION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Edgar G Sargent for Rembrandt Technologies, LP. (ch, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

12/12/2006

12/21/2006

12/26/2006

01/03/2007

01/03/2007

01/03/2007

01/09/2007 01/09/2007 01/12/2007

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 10 Page 7 of 10

01/12/2007 01/15/2007 01/15/2007 01/15/2007 03/09/2007

Pro Hac Vice Filing fee paid by Sargent; Fee: $25, receipt number: 2-12206 (ch, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007) 18 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Otis W Carroll, Jr on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Carroll, Otis) (Entered: 01/15/2007) 19 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Collin Michael Maloney on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Maloney, Collin) (Entered: 01/15/2007) 20 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by James Patrick Kelley on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Kelley, James) (Entered: 01/15/2007) 22 NOTICE by Coxcom, Inc., of Filing Motion for Transfer and Consolidation of Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407 (Attachments: # 1 MDL Motion for Transfer and Consolidation# 2 Motion Ex. A# 3 Motion Ex. B# 4 MDL Memorandum# 5 MDL Exhibit List# 6 MLD Notice of Appearance# 7 MDL Corporate Disclosure# 8 MDL Certificate of Service)(Stockwell, Mitchell) (Entered: 03/09/2007) 23 Additional Attachments to Main Document: 22 Notice (Other), Notice (Other).. (Attachments: # 1 MDL Ex. 1# 2 MDL Ex. 2# 3 MDL Ex. 3# 4 MDL Ex. 4# 5 MDL Ex. 5# 6 MDL Ex. 6# 7 MDL Ex. 7# 8 MDL Ex. 8# 9 MDL Ex. 9# 10 MDL Ex. 10# 11 MDL Ex. 11# 12 MDL Ex. 12# 13 MDL Ex. 13# 14 MDL Ex. 14# 15 MDL Ex. 15# 16 MDL Ex. 16# 17 MDL Ex. 17# 18 MDL Ex. 18# 19 MDL Ex. 19# 20 MDL Ex. 20# 21 MDL Ex. 21# 22 MDL Ex. 22# 23 MDL Ex. 23# 24 MDL Ex. 24# 25 MDL Ex. 25# 26 MDL Ex. 26# 27 MDL Ex. 27# 28 MDL Ex. 28# 29 MDL Ex. 29# 30 MDL Ex. 30# 31 MDL Ex. 31# 32 MDL Ex. 32# 33 MDL Ex. 33# 34 MDL Ex. 34# 35 MDL Ex. 35# 36 MDL Ex. 35# 37 MDL Ex. 37# 38 MDL Ex. 38# 39 MDL Ex. 39# 40 MDL Ex. 40# 41 MDL Ex. 41# 42 MDL Ex. 42# 43 MDL Ex. 43)(Stockwell, Mitchell) (Entered: 03/09/2007) 24 NOTICE by Rembrandt Technologies, LP Joint Notice of Conference Regarding Proposed Discovery Order and Docket Control Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Discovery Order and Docket Control Order) (Taylor, Brooke) (Entered: 03/30/2007) 25 NOTICE by Rembrandt Technologies, LP re 23 Additional Attachments to Main Document,,,, 22 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Notice of Filing Opposition to CoxComs Motion for Transfer and Consolidation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Rembrandts Brief in Opposition# 2 Exhibit Exhibit list# 3 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 1# 4 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 2# 5 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 3# 6 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 4# 7 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 5# 8 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 6# 9 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 7# 10 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 8# 11 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 9# 12 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 10# 13 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 11# 14 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 12# 15 Exhibit Opposition Brief Exh 13# 16 Exhibit Response to CoxComs Motion# 17 Exhibit Reason Why Oral Argument Should Be Heard# 18 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Taylor,

03/09/2007

03/30/2007

04/05/2007

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 10 Page 8 of 10

Brooke) (Entered: 04/05/2007) 04/11/2007 26 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Wesley Spangler on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Spangler, Andrew) (Entered: 04/11/2007) 27 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III on behalf of Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Capshaw, Sidney) (Entered: 04/11/2007) 28 ORDER - referring case to Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham in accordance with the assignments made by General Order 07-03. The magistrate judge shall conduct pre-trial proceedins pursuant to 28 USC 636. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 4/18/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 04/18/2007) 29 NOTICE by Coxcom, Inc., Notice of Development (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Hearing)(Gardner, Allen) (Entered: 04/18/2007) 30 ORDER - REGARDING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION. Signed by Judge Charles Everingham on 4/19/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007) 31 DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Respond to Amended Pleadings 11/30/07. Amended Pleadings due by 11/16/2007. Discovery due by 5/14/2008. Joinder of Parties due by 5/3/2007. Claims Construction Hearing set for 2/13/2008 - 2/14/08 9:00 AM before Judge T. John Ward. Motions in limine due by 7/21/2008. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 7/21/2008. Jury Selection set for 8/4/2008 9:00AM before Judge T. John Ward. Pretrial Conference set for 7/24/2008 9:30 AM before Judge T. John Ward. Privilege Logs are to be exchanged by 6/4/07. All other deadlines are set forth herein. Signed by Judge Charles Everingham on 4/19/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007) 32 NOTICE by Rembrandt Technologies, LP Of Proposed Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Protective Order)(Taylor, Brooke) CORRECTED PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER added on 4/25/2007 (mpv, ). Modified on 4/25/2007 (mpv, ). (Entered: 04/24/2007) 33 NOTICE by Rembrandt Technologies, LP Re Electronic Production (Taylor, Brooke) (Entered: 04/24/2007) NOTICE re 32 Notice (Other) CORRECTED PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER ADDED BY CLERK (mpv, ) (Entered: 04/25/2007) 34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles Everingham : Scheduling Conference held on 4/30/2007. (Court Reporter Debbie Latham.)(delat, ) (Entered: 04/30/2007) TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings Scheduling Conference held on 4/3/07 before Judge Chad Everingham. Court Reporter: Transcriber/Susan Simmons. (lss) (Entered: 05/03/2007)

04/11/2007

04/18/2007

04/18/2007 04/19/2007

04/19/2007

04/24/2007

04/24/2007 04/25/2007

04/30/2007

05/03/2007

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 10 Page 9 of 10

05/04/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/23/2007 06/04/2007

36 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Charles Everingham on 5/4/07. (ehs, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007) 37 NOTICE of Disclosure by Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Berry, Matthew) (Entered: 05/07/2007) 38 NOTICE of Disclosure by Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Doan, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/07/2007) 39 NOTICE of Disclosure by Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Taylor, Brooke) (Entered: 05/23/2007) 40 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Docket Control Order by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Motion to Amend)(Taylor, Brooke) (Entered: 06/04/2007) 41 ORDER granting 40 Motion to Amend/Correct. Docket Control Order is amended to move date to exchange privilege logs to 7/10/07. Signed by Judge Charles Everingham on 6/5/07. (ch, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007) 42 NOTICE of Disclosure by Rembrandt Technologies, LP Regarding Compliance with Paragraph 3(b) of the Discovery Order (Berry, Matthew) (Entered: 06/12/2007) 43 NOTICE by Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP Notice of Multi-District Litigation Developments Pursuant to Local Rule CV-42 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Doan, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/21/2007) 44 NOTICE by Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP of Multi-District Litigation Developments Pursuant to Local Rule CV-42 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gardner, Allen) (Entered: 06/21/2007) 45 Interdistrict transfer to the District of Delaware, Wilmington DE. Pursuant to letter Elizabeth Dinan was notified. Certified copy of Docket Sheet, Complaint, Transfer Order and letter were mailed to the Federal Blding, Lockbox 18,844 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE (ch, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/28/2007 (ch, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 6/28/2007 (ch, ). Modified on 6/28/2007 (ch, ). (Entered: 06/27/2007)

06/06/2007

06/12/2007

06/21/2007

06/21/2007

06/25/2007

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/02/2007 13:27:26 PACER Login: Description: ud0037 Docket Report Client Code: Search Criteria: 2:06-cv-00506-TJWCE

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txed - Docket Report Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 48 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 10 Page 10 of 10

Billable Pages: 5

Cost:

0.40

https://ecf.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?684707263651257-L_923_0-1

7/2/2007

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.

§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-223(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-224(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-369(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-506(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-507(TJW)

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") and Defendants Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, CoxCom, Inc., Time Warner JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 1
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

Cable Inc., and Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast of Plano, LP, hereby file this Joint Notice of Conference in each of the above captioned cases. The parties have conferred regarding the Court's proposed Discovery Order and proposed Docket Control Order and have reached agreement on discovery limitations, a schedule for the cases, and other matters in the cases. The agreements of the parties are contained in the proposed Discovery Order and Docket Control Order attached hereto as Exhibit A. If the orders are acceptable to the Court, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the Discovery Order and the Docket Control Order in each of the above captioned cases. By reaching the agreements contained in the Discovery Order and the Docket Control Order, neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiff are intending to waive any rights they may have to seek or oppose consolidation of one or more of the Rembrandt cases. DATED: March 30, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brooke A. M. Taylor ________________ Brooke A.M. Taylor State Bar No. 33190 (Washington) E-mail: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Fax: (206) 516-3883 Sam Baxter State Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 505 E. Travis, Suite 105 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 927-2111 Telecopier: (903) 927-2622 [email protected] JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 2
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

Jeffrey A. Carter State Bar No. 03919400 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4006 Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 [email protected] Travis Gordon White State Bar No. 21333000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 [email protected] Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Telecopier: (903) 533-9687 [email protected] [email protected] Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 Patrick Kelley State Bar No. 11202500 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Telecopier: (903) 581-1071 [email protected]

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 3
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 Andrew W. Spangler State Bar No. 24041960 BROWN McCARROLL LLP 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220 P.O. Box 3999 (75606-3999) Longview, Texas 75601-5157 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 Telecopier: (903) 236-8787 [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Brooke A.M. Taylor (w-perm SFB) Max L. Tribble, Jr. State Bar No. 20213950 Tibor L. Nagy State Bar 24041562 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 713-651-9366 Fax: 713-654-6666 OF COUNSEL: Edgar Sargent WA State Bar No. 28283 Email: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101-3000 Tel: 206-516-3880 Fax: 206-516-3883 Brooke A.M. Taylor WA State Bar No. 33190 Email: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101-3000 Tel: 206-516-3880 JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 4
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

Fax: 206-516-3883 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

/s/ Michael E. Jones (w-perm SFB) Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 Diane DeVasto POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P. O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Telecopier: (903) 593-0846 [email protected] David S. Benyacar Michael A. Rogoloff KAYE SCHOLER 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: 212-836-8000 Fax: 212-836-8689 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 5
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan (w-perm SFB) Jennifer Haltom Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 John Peyton Perkins, III Texas Bar No. 24043457 HALTOM & DOAN, LLP 6500 N. Summerhill Road, Suite 1A P. O. Box 6227 Texarkana, TX 75505-6227 Tel: 903-255-1000 Fax: 903-255-0800 Brian Ferral Leo Lam Asim M. Bhansali Matthias A. Kamber KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 9411-1704 Tel: 415-676-2235 Fax: 415-397-7188 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE, COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 6
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

/s/ Michael E. Jones (w-perm SFB) Bradford P. Lyerla, Attorney in Charge [email protected] Kevin D. Hogg [email protected] William J. Kramer [email protected] Paul B. Stephens [email protected] MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 6300 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6357 Tel: 312-474-6300 Fax: 312-474-0448 Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 POTTER MINTON, PC 110 North College 500 Plaza Tower Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: 903-597-8311 Fax: 903-593-0846 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 7
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-2 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 8 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 8

/s/ Michael E. Jones (w-perm SFB) Mitchell G. Stockwell Lead Attorney Georgia Bar No. 682912 KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street NE Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Tel: 404-815-6214 Fax: 404-815-6555 Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Allen F. Gardner State Bar No. 24043679 [email protected] POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P. O. Box 359 Tyler, TX 75710 Tel: 903-597-8311 Fax: 903-593-0846 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT COXCOM, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by U.S. mail, on this the 30th day of March 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER - PAGE 8
Dallas 235692v1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-223(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-224(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-369(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-506(TJW)

CIVIL NO. 2:06-CV-507(TJW)

DISCOVERY ORDER Based on the agreement of the parties in the above captioned cases, and in accordance with the Scheduling Conference held on April 3, 2007, and in furtherance of the management of the court's docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, its is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

Dallas 235486v3

1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

1.

Disclosures. Except as provided by paragraph 1(h), and, to the extent not already disclosed, within thirty (30) days after the Scheduling Conference, each party shall disclose to every other party the following information: (a) (b) (c) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit; the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties; the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party's claims or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial); (d) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case, and a brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person; (e) any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered in this action or to indemnity or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment; (f) (g) (h) any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; any statement of any party to the litigation; for any testifying expert, by the date set by the court in the Docket Control Order, each party shall disclose, subject to Paragraph 4(i) herein, to the other party or parties: 1. 2. the expert's name, address, and telephone number; the subject matter on which the expert will testify;

Dallas 235486v3

2

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

3.

if the witness is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose duties as an employee of the disclosing party regularly involve giving expert testimony: (a) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been relied on by the expert for his opinions; and (b) the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26.

4.

for all other experts, the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them or documents reflecting such information;

Any party may move to modify these disclosures for good cause shown. 2. Protective Orders. Upon receipt of any party before or after the Scheduling Conference, the court shall issue the Protective Order in the form attached as Appendix B. The Parties anticipate submitting a proposed Protective Order to the Court for its consideration and entry in the above captioned cases if the proposed order is acceptable to the Court. Any party may oppose the issuance of or move to modify the terms of the Protective Order for good cause. 3. Additional Disclosures. In addition to the disclosures required in Paragraph 1 of this Order, at the Scheduling Conference, the court shall amend this discovery order and require each party, without awaiting a discovery request, to provide, to the extent not already provided, to every other party the following: (a) (b) the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; by June 11, 2007, a copy of all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to the case, except
Dallas 235486v3

3

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

to the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. By written agreement of all parties, alternative forms of disclosure may be provided in lieu of paper copies. For example, the parties may agree to exchange images of documents electronically or by means of computer disk; or the parties may agree to review and copy disclosure materials at the offices of the attorneys representing the parties instead of requiring each side to furnish paper copies of the disclosure materials; (c) within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, any party with a damages claim will produce its damage calculation formula (e.g. whether the party is seeking a reasonable royalty, lost profits, or both), and within 45 days after the opposing party produces its financial documents, the party with the damages claim will produce with respect to that opposing party, a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by the party with the damages claim, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, the documents or other evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and (d) within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, those documents and authorizations described in Local Rule CV-34; and The court shall order these disclosures in the absence of a showing of good cause by any party objecting to such disclosures. 4. Discovery Limitations. Discovery is limited to the disclosures described in Paragraphs 1 and 3 together with:

Dallas 235486v3

4

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

(a)

Interrogatories. In each case, each party will have sixty (60) interrogatories to serve on each adverse party.

(b)

Requests for Admissions. In each case, each party will have sixty (60) substantive requests for admissions to serve on each adverse party and an unlimited number of requests for admissions directed to the authenticity and/or admissibility of documents and other material things.

(c)

Party Depositions. In each case, each party may depose each adverse party for up to fifty-six (56) hours.

(d)

Inventor Depositions. The Defendants, collectively, may depose each inventor up to nine (9) hours. The Plaintiff may depose each inventor up to three (3) hours.

(e)

Third-Party Depositions. The Defendants, collectively, may depose each supplier, each party with prior art knowledge, and each prosecuting attorney up to fourteen (14) hours. The Plaintiff may depose each supplier, each party with prior art knowledge, and prosecuting attorney up to ten (10) hours. In addition to the foregoing, the Defendants, collectively, and the Plaintiff will each have an

additional sixty (60) hours for deposing third-parties, including suppliers, parties with prior art knowledge, and prosecuting attorneys. (f) Third-Party Documents. The parties will serve each other with copies of any subpoena or deposition notice directed to a third-party on the same day the subpoena or notice is served on the third-party. Any party that receives documents from a third-party will provide copies of the third-party documents to all other parties within five (5) business days of receipt of those documents. No party will schedule the

Dallas 235486v3

5

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

deposition of a third-party earlier than five (5) business days after providing the other parties with copies of any documents received from that third-party. (g) (h) Experts. In each case, each side may have up to five (5) testifying experts. Expert Depositions. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, collectively, in the 223 and 224 cases may depose each of the other side's experts for up to fourteen (14) hours. Similarly, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, collectively, in the 369, 506, and 507 cases may depose each of the other side's experts for up to fourteen (14) hours. (i) Expert Discovery. The Parties agree to the following with respect to Expert Discovery: 1. Oral and written communication between an expert witness for any party or parties, and the party or parties, or their attorneys or representatives employing such expert which are made in connection with the expert witness' engagement for this case shall not be discoverable, except to the extent that the expert relies upon them for his opinions. 2. Drafts of a report of an expert witness for any party or parties that are prepared in connection with the expert witness' engagement for this case shall not be discoverable. 3. All notes, memoranda and other writings of an expert witness that are prepared in connection with the expert witness' engagement for this case shall not be discoverable, except to the extent that the expert consults them while testifying at a deposition or at trial.

Dallas 235486v3

6

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

4.

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) regarding the content of a report of an expert report are not changed by this Stipulation, except that "considered" shall be replaced by "relied upon."

(j)

Documents in Electronic Format. The parties are continuing to discuss how to produce documents electronically.

"Side" means a party or a group of parties with a common interest. Any party may move to modify these limitations for good cause. 5. Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged documents or information after the Scheduling Conference. Within sixty (60) days after the Scheduling Conference, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the court for an order compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other party's privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the motion within the time period provided by Local rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege shall then file with the Court within thirty (30) days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection. If the parties have no disputes concerning privileged documents or information, then the parties shall inform the court of that fact within 120 days after the Scheduling Conference. No Party has to list on its privilege log any communication between that party and its counsel which
Dallas 235486v3

7

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

occurred after the filing of the lawsuit. In addition, the Plaintiff does not have to list any communications between it and its counsel in Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Comcast Corporation, et al., civil action no. 2:05-CV-443-TJW (E.D. Tex.) ("Comcast I") that occurred after the filing of the complaint in Comcast I. 6. Pre-trial disclosures. Absent a showing of good cause by any party, the court shall require the following additional disclosures: Each party shall provide to every other party regarding the evidence that the disclosing party may present at trial as follows: (a) The name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number, of each witness, separately identifying those whom the party expects to present at trial and those whom the party may call if the need arises. (b) The designation of those witnesses whose testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent portions of the deposition testimony. (c) An appropriate identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence, separately identifying those which the party expects to offer and those which the party may offer if the need arises. Unless otherwise directed by the court, these disclosures shall be made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days thereafter, unless a different time is specified by the court, a party may serve and file a list disclosing (1) any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under subparagraph 6 herein, and (2) any objections, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph 6 (c) herein. Objections not so disclosed, other than
Dallas 235486v3

8

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page of 16

objections under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, shall be deemed waived unless excused by the court for good cause shown. 7. Signature. The disclosures required by this order shall be made in writing and signed by the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this order; otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the court that the disclosures required under this order have taken place. 8. Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this order, each party is under a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true. 9. Disputes. (a) Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive disclosures may, after the deadline for making disclosures, serve upon a party required to make disclosures a written statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the party entitled to receive disclosures believes that the disclosures are insufficient. The written statement shall list, by category, the items the party entitled to receive disclosures contends should be produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, then the party required to make disclosures shall, within fourteen (14) days after service of the written statement upon it, serve upon the party entitled to receive disclosures a written statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that
Dallas 235486v3

9

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 10 of 16

will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be disclosed. The party entitled to receive disclosures may thereafter file a motion to compel. (b) Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any "hot-line" disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance with Local Rule CV-26(e). 10. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures, or because another party has not made its disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue. 11. Filings. Any filings in excess of twenty (20) pages, counsel is directed to provide a

courtesy copy to Chambers, simultaneously with the date of filing. 12. Modifications to Patent Rules. The attached Appendix C applies to this case and supplements the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. These modifications are not intended to apply to any other case except as may be expressly provided by order of this Court. 13. Mediation. In lieu of mediation, the parties will provide the Court with a report on the status of any settlement discussions or the likelihood of settlement by April 3, 2008. 14. Claim Construction Briefs. The parties have not agreed on the size of their respective claim construction briefs. The Defendants propose that each Defendant have ten pages per patent and that the Plaintiff have ten pages per patent for their respective, initial claim
Dallas 235486v3

10

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 11 of 16

construction briefs. The Plaintiff proposes that it have the same number of pages in its initial claim construction brief as the Defendants will have combined in their briefs. For example, the Plaintiff would amend the Defendants' proposal to provide that the Plaintiff and the Defendants, collectively, each have ten (10) pages per patent for their respective, initial claim construction briefs.

SIGNED this _____ day of April, 2007.

_____________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dallas 235486v3

11

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 12 of 16

APPENDIX A DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The Parties have agreed to the following schedule for all of the above captioned cases. By agreeing to this schedule, the Defendants are not waiving any rights they have to seek consolidation of any Rembrandt cases, for any purposes, including their respective motions to consolidate currently pending before the Court, and the Plaintiff is not waiving any rights it has to oppose those motions or any other consolidation of any of its cases. Monday, August 4, 2008 Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas for the initial case to be tried.

July 24, 2008

Pretrial Conference - 9:30 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

July 21, 2008

Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Form of the Verdict.

July 21, 2008

Motions in Limine (due three days before final Pre-Trial Conference). Three (3) days prior to the pre-trial conference provided for herein, the parties shall furnish a copy of their respective Motions in Limine to the Court by facsimile transmission, 903/935-2295. The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court on or before 3:00 o'clock p.m. the day before the pre-trial conference which paragraphs are agreed to and those that need to be addressed at the pre-trial conference. The parties shall limit their motions in limine to those issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the cause, would be so prejudicial that the Court could not alleviate the prejudice with appropriate instruction(s). Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions) Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting of Court Proceedings. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file a notice with the 12

July 14, 2008 July 7, 2008

Dallas 235486v3

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 13 of 16

Court and e-mail the Court Reporter, Susan Simmons, at [email protected]. June 27, 2008 For Filing Dispositive Motions and any other motions that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions) Responses to dispositive motions filed prior to the dispositive motion deadline, including Daubert Motions, shall be due in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e). Motions for Summary Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV56.

May 28, 2008

Defendants to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Discovery Deadline

_____________

Conference to determine the case that will be tried August 4, 2008, the order in which the remainder of the cases will be tried and, if possible, a trial setting for the remaining cases.

April 7, 2008

or 30 Days after the claim construction ruling, whichever occurs later, Designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

April 3, 2008

Status Report to Court in lieu of mediation

_________________

15 Days after claim construction ruling Comply with P.R. 3-8.

March 24, 2008

or 15 Days after claim construction ruling, whichever occurs later, Party with the burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses 13

Dallas 235486v3

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 14 of 16

other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.

February 13 and 14, 2008

Claim construction hearing or hearings 9:00 a.m., Marshall, Texas. The Parties prefer to hold sequential claim construction hearings on February 13 and 14, 2008. If the Court's schedule does not allow for a claim construction hearing on February 14, 2008, then the parties propose claim construction hearings on February 6 and February 13, 2008. The Parties have not reached agreement on whether there should be one claim construction hearing or two hearings.

February 1, 2008

Parties submit technology tutorials to the Court.

January 21, 2008

Comply with P.R. 4-5(c).

January 11, 2008

Comply with P.R. 4-5(b).

December 24, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-5(a).

December 7, 2007

Discovery deadline-claims construction issues

November 30, 2007

Respond to Amended Pleadings

November 16, 2007

Amend Pleadings (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after November 9, 2007).

November 16, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-3.

October 16, 2007
Dallas 235486v3

Comply with P.R. 4-2. 14

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 15 of 16

September 26, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-1.

August 3, 2007

Letter to the Court stating that there are no disputes as to claims of privileged documents.

June 11, 2007

Comply with Paragraph 3(b) of the Discovery Order

June 4, 2007

Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties

May 18, 2007 June 11, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-3. The Parties have not reached agreement on the date for compliance with P.R. 3-3. The Plaintiff proposes May 18, 2007. The Defendants propose June 11, 2007.

May 3, 2007

Join Additional Parties

April 13, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-1

To be discussed at Scheduling Conference

Mediation to be completed If the parties agree that mediation is an option, the Court will appoint a mediator or the parties will mutually agree upon a mediator. If the parties choose the mediator, they are to inform the Court by letter the name and address of the mediator. The courtroom deputy will immediately mail out a "mediation packet" to the mediator for the case. The mediator shall be deemed to have agreed to the terms of Court Ordered Mediation Plan of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas by going forth with the mediation. General Order 99-2. Scheduling Conference (All attorneys are directed to Local Rule CV-16 for scope of the Scheduling Conference).

April 3, 2007

The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that "[i]n the event a party fails to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein the court will assume that the party has no opposition." Local Rule CV-7(e) provides that a party opposing a motion has 12 days, in
Dallas 235486v3

15

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-3 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 24-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 16 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 16 of 16

addition to any added time permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), in which to serve and file a response and any supporting documents, after which the court will consider the submitted motion for decision.

OTHER LIMITATIONS 1. All depositions to be read into evidence as part of the parties'case-in-chief shall be EDITED so as to exclude all unnecessary, repetitious, and irrelevant testimony; ONLY those portions which are relevant to the issues in controversy shall be read into evidence. The Court will refuse to entertain any motion to compel discovery filed after the date of this Order unless the movant advises the Court within the body of the motion that counsel for the parties have first conferred in a good faith attempt to resolve the matter. See Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-7(h). The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline: (a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case; The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.

2.

3.

(b)

(c)

Dallas 235486v3

16

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-4 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 5 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST ) CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ) COMCAST OF PLANO, LP ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST ) CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ) COMCAST OF PLANO, LP ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SHARP CORPORATION and SHARP ) ELECTRONICS CORP. ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Case No. 2:05-CV-443-TJW

Case No. 2:06-CV-506-TJW

Case No. 2:06-CV-047-TJW

741081v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-4 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 5 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 5

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ) OPERATING, LLC, COXCOM INC., CSC ) HOLDINGS, INC., and CABLEVISION ) SYSTEMS CORPORATION ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Case No. 2:06-CV-369-TJW

Case No. 2:06-CV-224-TJW

Case No. 2:06-CV-507-TJW

741081v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-4 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 5 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 5

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS ) OPERATING LLC, COXCOM, INC., CSC ) HOLDINGS, INC., and CABLEVISION ) SYSTEMS CORPORATION ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Case No. 2:06-CV-223-TJW

NOTICE OF FILING OPPOSITION TO COXCOM'S MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATION OF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION
Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Rembrandt) notifies the Court that it has opposed CoxCom's Motion for Transfer and Consolidation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. Enclosed with this Notice are copies of the opposition and all documents in support thereof.

Dated: April 5, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Brooke A.M. Taylor ___________________ Max L. Tribble, Jr. Lead Attorney State Bar No. 20213950 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Fax: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: [email protected] Brooke A.M. Taylor State Bar No. 33190 (Washington) E-mail: [email protected]
741081v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-4 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 5 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 5

Edgar Sargent State Bar No. 28283 (Washington) E-mail: [email protected] Matthew R. Berry State Bar No. 37364 (Washington) E-mail: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Fax: (206) 516-3883 Tibor L. Nagy State Bar No. 24041562 E-mail: [email protected] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 590 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022-8521 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Fax: (212) 516-3883

741081v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-4 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 5 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on _______________________, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, using the electronic filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a "Notice of Electronic Filing" to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: /s/ Brooke A. M. Taylor Brooke A. M. Taylor

741081v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ____________________________________) In re: Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation

MDL Docket No. 1848 In re: Rembrandt Technologies, LP Patent Litigation ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

REMBRANDT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO COXCOM'S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE

740881v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Rembrandt's Actions Are Logically Grouped As filed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Group I Cable Company Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. 2. 3. Comcast I, Filed in September 2005, is at the Markman stage . . . . . . . . . 3 Group I Cases Against Charter, CoxCom and Time Warner . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rembrandt v. Cablevision, 01:06-cv-365 (D. Del.), filed October 13, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

B. C.

Rembrandt v. Sharp, 2:06-cv-047-TJW (E.D. Tex.), filed February 3, 2006 . . . . 5 Group II Cable Company Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. 2. Case Pending in the Eastern District of Texas before JudgeWard . . . . . . 6 Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Adelphia Communications Corporation, Adv. Proc. No. 06-01739 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006), filed September 13, 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

D.

Group III Television Broadcaster Litigation Stayed By Judge Sleet in the District of Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CoxCom's Decision to File in a Second Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

E. II.

Transfer and Consolidation Is Unnecessary and Counterproductive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A. B. Comcast I is Far Too Advanced To Be Consolidated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Comcast I Negates The Need of Consolidation of any Case Involving the Same Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 CoxCom Argues that 9 of the 14 Cases Should Not Be Consolidated . . . . . . . . 10 The Patents-in-Suit Relate to Different Technology, Weighing Against Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Inconsistent Rulings are Not a Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alternative to Transfer and Consolidation Exist and Are More Appropriate . . . 12

C. D.

E. F. III.

The Eastern District of Texas is the Most Logical Transferee Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 i

740881v1/9758

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

A. B. C.

The Pendency in that District of a Number of the Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Court's Familiarity with the Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The District Court Judge's Willingness to Accept Responsibility for Conducting Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Eastern District of Texas Docket is More Favorable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Place of Incorporation Is Irrelevant to the Location for an MDL Proceeding . . . 17

D. E. IV.

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

740881v1/9758

ii

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES

In re Acacia Media Technolgoies Corp., Patent Litigation, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 28 L. Ed. 2d 788, 91 S. Ct. 1434 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 In re Bourns Patent Litigation, 385 F. Supp. 1260 (J.P.M.L. 1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation, 452 F. Supp.2d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2006) . . . 15 In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F. Supp. 242 (J.P.M.L. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 10, 12, 14 Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 In re Motion Picture Licensing Antitrust Litigation, 479 F. Supp. 581 (J.P.M.L. 1979) . . . . . . . 9 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 In re Solaia Technology LLC Patent & Antitrust Litigation, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FEDERAL STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1407 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11, 14

740881v1/9758

iii

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

In its effort totransfer the New York and Texas cases to Delaware for MDL Consolidation, CoxCom, Inc. (CoxCom) has inaccurately described the Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Rembrandt) litigations. Rembrandt respectfully submits that, when

accurately understood, given the very different procedural postures of the cases, different patents, and different defendants who are competitors, coordination of the common issues can best be accomplished under the existing structure rather than through MDL consolidation. See In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978) (holding that "consultation and cooperation among the three concerned district courts, if deemed appropriate by those courts, coupled with the cooperation of the parties, would be sufficient to minimize the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings."). In addition to conceding that consolidation of the majority of the cases would be inefficient1, CoxCom ignores the fact that the oldest case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, is too far advanced to benefit from transfer and consolidation. The first of Rembrandt's suits, Rembrandt v. Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast of Plano, LP, 2:06-cv-443-TJW (E.D. Tex.) (Comcast I), was filed over eighteen months ago in September 2005. Claim construction has been fully briefed, and the case will likely go to trial before the end of this year. In fact, centralization would not serve the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 not only because Comcast I is nearly trial-ready, but also because eight other cases involving the same patents could be mooted in whole or in part by its resolution. Moreover, delaying the

CoxCom's motion asserts that these cases should be consolidated, then informs the Panel that claims from nine of the fourteen cases should be "severed from the consolidation action" because they involve "completely different technology and activity." CoxCom Memo. at 1, fn 2.
740881v1/9758

1

1

Case 2:06-cv-00506-TJW-CE Document 48-5 Case 1:07-cv-00403-GMS Document 25-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 23 Filed 04/05/2007 Page of 23

Comcast I trial date by transfer and consolidation to another court would unfairly prejudice Rembrandt and cause inefficiency by forcing another court to re-learn the Comcast I issues. The fourteen actions in dispute are already logically grouped in the appropriate forums with no defendant subject to multiple jurisdictions, save CoxCom which subjected itself to this fate when it chose to file an improper declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware. CoxCom's presence in dual forums will likely be resolved by the Court's rulings on pending motions to dismiss or transfer. For these reasons and those below, Rembrandt

respectfully submits that Section 1407 transfer and consolidation is not necessary or the most appropriate means by which to provide whatever coordination of common issues may be desirable. If the Panel nevertheless determines that Section 1407 consolidation is desirable, Rembrandt respectfully submits that t