Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 12 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 13 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 14 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 15 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 16 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 93

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 17 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 61-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 04/06/2007 Page of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., et al. § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-224 [TJW/CE] JURY DEMANDED

TIME WARNER CABLE DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The Time Warner Cable Defendants ("Time Warner"), respectfully move the Court for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP's First Amended Complaint, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt"), filed its Amended

Complaint against Time Warner on or about March 14, 2007 [Dkt. 46]. 2. In a related case brought by Rembrandt pending before the Court, Rembrandt

Technologies, LP v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (No. 2:06-cv-369 [TJW/CE]), Plaintiff Rembrandt moved to amend its Original Complaint on February 23, 2007 [Dkt. 16]. Although the Court has not yet granted Rembrandt leave in the `369 case, the motion is not opposed by Time Warner in that case. 3. Time Warner respectfully requests an extension of time to answer or otherwise

respond to Rembrandt's First Amended Complaint in this case until and through the date that the Time Warner Defendants are required to move or otherwise respond to Rembrandt's First Amended Complaint in the `369 case. 4. Plaintiff is not opposed to this Motion for extension of time to answer or

otherwise respond.

{A48\7477\0002\W0323522.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 61-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 3 Filed 04/06/2007 Page of 3

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants pray that the Court grant this Motion for Extension of Time by extending the time period for the Time Warner Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint until and through the date that the Time Warner Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the `369 case. Dated: April 6, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/ Allen F. Gardner Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 Allen F. Gardner State Bar No. 24043679 POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P. O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 (903) 597 8311 (903) 593 0846 (Facsimile) [email protected] [email protected] David S. Benyacar KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689 ATTORNEYS FOR THE TIME WARNER CABLE INC. DEFENDANTS

{A48\7477\0002\W0323522.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 61-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 3 Filed 04/06/2007 Page of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on April 6, 2007. Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and first class mail.

/s/ Allen F. Gardner

{A48\7477\0002\W0323522.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 61-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 04/06/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-224 [TJW/CE] JURY DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING TIME WARNER CABLE DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON THIS DAY, came on to be heard the Time Warner Cable Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the First

Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP in the above-styled and numbered cause. After considering said Motion, and the entire record in this cause, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion shall be in all things GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Time Warner Defendants deadline to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in this action is extended until and through the date that the Time Warner Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the 2:06-cv-369 [TJW/CE] case pending before this Court.

{A48\7477\0002\W0323522.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 62-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 [TJW] JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND SUR-REPLY DATE On March 02, 2007, Time Warner Inc. ("Time Warner"), moved to consolidate this case for pretrial proceedings (Docket no. 39) with Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-443 (the "Comcast Case"), also pending before this Court. On the same day, the Defendants in Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-223 (the "Charter Case"), likewise moved to consolidate the Charter Case with the Comcast Case. Subsequently, Rembrandt Technologies, LP

("Rembrandt") filed responses in this case (Docket no. 47) and the Charter Case opposing the respective motions, and Time Warner in this case (Docket no. 68) and the Defendants in the Charter Case filed reply briefs. Rembrandt's sur-reply is due in this case on April 09, 2007 and due in the Charter Case on April 12, 2007. Rembrandt moves for leave to file its sur-reply in this case on April 12, 2007, the same date its sur-reply is due in the Charter Case. Time Warner does not oppose this motion.

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 62-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

DATED: April 9, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sam Baxter______________ 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] 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]

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 62-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 Patrick Kelley State Bar No. 11202500 Collin Maloney State Bar No. 00794219 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Telecopier: (903) 581-1071 [email protected] Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 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] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

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 9th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter________________________ Sam Baxter

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 62-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 [TJW] JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND SUR-REPLY DATE Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt"), has moved the Court to extend its date for filing a sur-reply to the Motion to Consolidate for Pretrial Proceedings filed by Time Warner, Inc. ("Time Warner") (Docket no. 39) . Rembrandt's sur-reply is presently due on April 9, 2007. Rembrandt seeks leave to file its sur-reply on April 12, 2007, the same date its sur-reply to a similar motion filed in Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-223 is due. Time Warner does not oppose the requested extension. The Court finds good cause to extend the date for Rembrandt to file its sur-reply in this case to April 12, 2007, and ORDERS that Rembrandt has until April 12, 2007 to file its sur-reply to the Motion to Consolidate for Pretrial Proceedings.

Dallas 236175v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 63-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 [TJW] JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND SUR-REPLY DATE On March 02, 2007, Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("Time Warner"), moved to consolidate this case for pretrial proceedings (Docket no. 39) with Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Comcast Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-443 (the "Comcast Case"), also pending before this Court. On the same day, the Defendants in Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-223 (the "Charter Case"), likewise moved to consolidate the Charter Case with the Comcast Case. Subsequently, Rembrandt Technologies, LP

("Rembrandt") filed responses in this case (Docket no. 47) and the Charter Case opposing the respective motions, and Time Warner in this case (Docket no. 50) and the Defendants in the Charter Case filed reply briefs. Rembrandt's sur-reply is due in this case on April 09, 2007 and due in the Charter Case on April 12, 2007. Rembrandt moves for leave to file its sur-reply in this case on April 12, 2007, the same date its sur-reply is due in the Charter Case. Time Warner does not oppose this motion.

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 63-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

DATED: April 9, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sam Baxter______________ 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] 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]

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 63-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 3 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 3

Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 Patrick Kelley State Bar No. 11202500 Collin Maloney State Bar No. 00794219 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Telecopier: (903) 581-1071 [email protected] Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 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] [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

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 9th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter________________________ Sam Baxter

Dallas 236169v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-7 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 63-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 04/09/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 [TJW] JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND SUR-REPLY DATE Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt"), has moved the Court to extend its date for filing a sur-reply to the Motion to Consolidate for Pretrial Proceedings filed by Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("Time Warner") (Docket no. 39) . Rembrandt's sur-reply is presently due on April 9, 2007. Rembrandt seeks leave to file its sur-reply on April 12, 2007, the same date its sur-reply to a similar motion filed in Rembrandt Technologies, LP, v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-223 is due. Time Warner does not oppose the requested extension. The Court finds good cause to extend the date for Rembrandt to file its sur-reply in this case to April 12, 2007, and ORDERS that Rembrandt has until April 12, 2007 to file its sur-reply to the Motion to Consolidate for Pretrial Proceedings.

Dallas 236175v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 64

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/10/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06-cv-224 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR MOVANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Movant, Time Warner Cable Inc., files this Notice of Appearance of Additional Counsel, and hereby notifies the Court that Allen F. Gardner of the law firm Potter Minton, A Professional Corporation, 110 N. College, Suite 500, Tyler, Texas 75702, is appearing as additional counsel for Time Warner Cable Inc. in the above-referenced matter. All pleadings, discovery, correspondence and other material should be served upon counsel at the address referenced above. Dated: April 10, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Allen F. Gardner Allen F. Gardner State Bar No. 24043679 [email protected] POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75702 903/597-8311 903/593-0846 Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

{A48\7477\0002\W0323521.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 64

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/10/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV5(a)(3) on this the 10th of April, 2007. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail. /s/Allen F. Gardner

{A48\7477\0002\W0323521.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-9 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 65-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 04/12/2007 Page of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 Judge T. John Ward Jury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-223 Judge T. John Ward Jury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC, et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-224 Judge T. John Ward Jury

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES ­ Page 1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-9 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 65-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 3 Filed 04/12/2007 Page of 3

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast of Plano, LP (collectively, "Comcast"), notes that Defendants Time Warner Cable, LLC, Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, Time Warner New York Cable, LLC, Coxcom, Inc., Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, CSC Holdings, Inc., and Cablevision Systems Corporation have moved to consolidate for pre-trial purposes only Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-223 (the "223 Case") and Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-224 (the "224 Case") with Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 (the "443 Case"). Comcast does not object to the consolidation of the 223 Case and the 224 Case with the 443 Case for pre-trial purposes. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan Jennifer Haltom Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 John Peyton Perkins, III Texas Bar No. 24043457 HALTOM & DOAN 6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: 903-255-1000 Facsimile: 903-255-0800 Brian Ferrall Leo Lam Asim M. Bhansali Matthias A. Kamber KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: 415-676-2235 Facsimile: 415-397-7188 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES ­ Page 2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-9 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 65-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 3 Filed 04/12/2007 Page of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). 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 certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 11th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan Jennifer Haltom Doan

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES ­ Page 3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-10 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 65-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/12/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 Judge T. John Ward Jury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-223 Judge T. John Ward Jury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff v. TIME WARNER CABLE, LLC, et al. Defendants § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-224 Judge T. John Ward Jury

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES ­ Page 1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-10 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 65-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/12/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). 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 certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 12th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan Jennifer Haltom Doan

COMCAST'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES ­ Page 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 9 Page 1 of 9

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:06-CV-224 [TJW]

PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 9 Page 2 of 9

I.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Rembrandt respectfully submits this sur-reply in response to Defendants' reply

to their motion to consolidate. [See TWC Dkt. Nos. 39, 47 ("Resp."), 50 ("Reply")]. Because there is no dispute that consolidation at this late stage would substantially delay resolution of the Comcast case, because Defendants were in no way prevented from moving for consolidation at an earlier date, and because proceeding with the Comcast case as planned would cause Defendants no unfair prejudice, the motion to consolidate should be denied. II. ARGUMENT A. Defendants Do Not Dispute That Consolidation at This Late Stage Would Substantially Delay the Comcast Case. The Court Can and Should Deny the Motion on That Ground.

The parties to the Comcast case will be ready to proceed with their Markman hearing, at the Court's convenience, before the month is out. [Resp. at 3; Comcast Dkt. No. 151]. In fact, that hearing would have been held in February if not for the disqualification of Fish & Richardson ("F&R"). [Resp. at 3]. The TWC and Charter cases, by great contrast, have their Markman hearing scheduled ten months from now, in February of 2008. [See Charter Dkt. Nos. 67, 71]. And those cases are scheduled for trial beginning six months after that hearing, in August of 2008. [See id.]. Even with the interruption caused by F&R's disqualification, the Comcast case should be ready for trial this year. There is thus no question that consolidating that case with the TWC and Charter cases at this late date would result in an additional and substantial delay in the resolution of the Comcast case. Indeed, TWC and Charter do not dispute that granting their motion would cause a substantial delay in the Comcast case. They simply urge the Court, with precious little

supporting caselaw, to treat that inevitable delay as an inconsequential factor--if a factor at all-- in its consolidation calculus. [Reply at 5-6]. Notwithstanding the accusations of

"misstate[ments]," "mischaracterizations," and "false" assertions, [id. at 1, 5], the caselaw fully supports Rembrandt's position in this case: the different stages of preparedness for trial can be

Austin 36640v1

1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 9 Page 3 of 9

the dispositive factor, and should be the dispositive factor here, [Resp. at 3]. See, e.g., Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 1989) ("Consolidation may properly be denied in instances where the cases are at different stages of preparedness for trial."). This is because, as explained in Rembrandt's response, [Resp. at 3-4], a central purpose of the rule permitting consolidation is to "avoid unnecessary . . . delay." Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). Defendants' motion should be denied precisely because it would cause the delay that consolidation is supposed to prevent. In its response, Rembrandt distinguished each of Defendants' cases, and demonstrated that only one of those--an unpublished opinion from a district court in Minnesota--suggested that granting consolidation could be appropriate when the cases are at different stages. [Resp. at 5]. Rembrandt then cited more than a dozen of its own cases--including two from the Fifth Circuit--in support of its position that denying consolidation is appropriate when the cases are at different stages, and consolidation would delay the more procedurally advanced case. [Resp. at 3-5, 4 n.1]. In their reply, TWC and Charter selectively address two of Rembrandt's cases-- Liqui-Box Corp. v. Reid Valve Co., Inc., No. 85-CV-2355, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17189, at *4 (W.D. Penn. Sept. 15, 1989), and In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative "ERISA" Litig., No. MDL1446, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8812, at *34 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2007)--and reurge two more cited in their initial briefing--Russo v. Alamosa Holdings, Inc., No. 5:03-CV-312, 2004 WL 579378, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2004), and 3M Co. v. Moldex-Metric, Inc., No. 06-CV-4044, 2006 WL 3759758, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2006). [Reply at 6]. Not one of these four cases supports Defendants' position. First, Russo in no way suggests that consolidation is appropriate when cases are at different stages of preparedness. In fact, one of the opinion's principal supporting citations is to St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Servs. Ass'n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1983), in which the Fifth Circuit held that it was proper to deny consolidation in such circumstances. See Russo, 2004 WL 579378, at *1; St. Bernard, 712 F.2d at 990. Second, while

2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 9 Page 4 of 9

the court in Liqui-Box did consider a number of other factors in its consolidation analysis, it concluded with this: "More importantly, these cases are at widely different stages of preparation. . . . `Proper judicial administration does not recommend consolidation where two actions are at such widely separate stages of preparation.'" 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17189, at *4 (emphasis added). Third, contrary to Defendants' suggestion, the court in Enron did not deny consolidation as a means to punish certain parties; it denied the motion because it found that "the procedural tracks of the cases are too disparate for consolidation." 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8812, at *34. Defendants' fourth case is 3M: the only cited case in which consolidation was granted even though the cases were at different stages of preparedness. As explained in Rembrandt's response, however, [Resp. at 5], the actions consolidated in 3M involved the same plaintiff, the same defendant, and the same products. Additionally, and critically, the Minnesota court also found that, notwithstanding their different stages of preparedness, consolidation would result in a quicker resolution of both cases. 2006 WL 3759758, at *2. TWC and Charter suggest in a footnote--without supporting citation--that "the proper way to measure delay is not by considering one case in isolation, but rather by considering the impact on all of the cases in combination." [Reply at 6 n.5]. Multiple cases cited in Rembrandt's response, however, hold directly to the contrary. [See Resp. at 4 n.1]. According to these cases, if consolidation would delay the more procedurally advanced case, then consolidation should be denied. [See id.]. 1
F F

And that is why the Court should deny this motion to consolidate.

1

E.g., Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 866 F. Supp. 1560, 1573 (D.N.M. 1994) ("Federal courts have declined to consolidate cases involving common questions of law or fact where the cases were at different stages of preparedness for trial and where consolidation would delay the case ready for disposition."); Henderson v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 118 F.R.D. 440, 441 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ("Consolidation with a recently filed case in which discovery is just beginning will obviously entail further delay. As a result, both litigants in [the first case] will suffer unnecessary delay in seeking judicial resolution of their dispute. Under such circumstances, consolidation . . . is inappropriate."); Transeastern Shipping Corp. v India Supply Mission, 53 F.R.D. 204, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) ("If the court were to order consolidation now, the cases which were ready for or close to trial would have to be held up pending completion of pretrial in the other cases. Such a result would delay rather than expedite the disposition of those cases which are now prepared for trial. In such a situation courts have consistently denied consolidation.").

3

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 9 Page 5 of 9

B.

Defendants Were Not Prevented From Filing for Consolidation at an Earlier Date.

Rembrandt brought suit against TWC and Charter in June of 2006. [Resp. at 2]. The Comcast case's scheduling order was entered that same month, setting the Markman hearing for February of 2007. [Id. at 2]. TWC moved to consolidate its case with the Charter case in September of 2006, but abandoned the motion later that same month when its case was transferred to this Court. [Id.]. Defendants have thus long been fully aware of the potential risks associated with proceeding separately in the same Court, yet waited until March of 2007 to seek consolidation with the Comcast case. [Id. at 9-10]. Rembrandt pointed out this fact in its response, and in reply Defendants allege--for the first time--that TWC could not have moved for consolidation prior to the disqualification of F&R because that "would have required TWC to litigate directly against its own law firm." [Reply at 1]. For at least three reasons, however, this argument is a red herring. First, TWC's later-abandoned motion to consolidate was filed one month after its August 2006 motion to intervene in the Comcast case to seek the disqualification of F&R. [Resp. at 2]. Therefore, contrary to TWC's suggestion, a motion to consolidate with the Comcast case would have created no new conflict with F&R in September of 2006. Second, F&R's representation of TWC in the Digital Packet case--which created the underlying conflict--was completely wrapped up by June of 2006. [Comcast Dkt. No. 144 at 2]. That representation thus could not have prevented TWC from moving to consolidate with the Comcast case at any point thereafter. Third, none of the Charter Defendants--also moving for consolidation--claims F&R as counsel. Thus, even if the argument had some merit as to TWC--which it does not--it would provide no justification for their delay in seeking consolidation with the Comcast case. C. Defendants Will Not Be Prejudiced By the Denial of Their Motion.

Defendants' reply suggests that it would be unfair to proceed as planned with the Markman hearing in the Comcast case because F&R was Rembrandt's lead counsel when the claim construction issues were briefed in that case. [Reply at 5]. The Court should reject this

4

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 9 Page 6 of 9

argument as well. The Defendants have made no showing that the Markman briefing was in any way based on, or influenced by, any TWC confidential information. Perhaps more importantly, claim construction is an issue of law based on the intrinsic patent record. See, e.g., Tex. Instruments v. Linear Techs., 182 F. Supp. 2d 580, 586-87 (E.D. Tex. 2002). The briefing before the Court thus addresses matters in the public domain, including the claims, specification, and file history of Rembrandt's patents, along with references to other widely available publications. With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that, when the Court disqualified F&R in the Comcast case, it did not direct that the Markman briefing be redone. [Comcast Dkt. No. 140]. In fact, to the contrary, the Court offered Rembrandt the option of proceeding with the Markman hearing on February 8, 2007, as already set and fully briefed. [See id.]. Defendants also accuse Rembrandt of mischaracterizing the "nature of [its] allegations" with respect to the industry standards implicated in these cases. [Reply at 1, 4]. The complaint in the Comcast case, however, speaks for itself: it seeks relief for infringement by Comcast's products and services. [Comcast Dkt. No. 1-1]. The industry standards are important, as they are highly relevant to determining whether those products and services infringe Rembrandt's patents. But Rembrandt's complaint does not seek a determination that the standards themselves infringe its patents. [Resp. at 7-8; Comcast Dkt. No. 1-1]. The Markman ruling in the Comcast case will bind neither the TWC nor the Charter Defendants. [Resp. at 8]. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Rembrandt respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to consolidate the Comcast, TWC, and Charter cases.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 9 Page 7 of 9

DATED: April 12, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sam Baxter 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]
H H

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]
H H

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]
H H

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]
H H H H

6

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 9 Page 8 of 9

Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 Patrick Kelley State Bar No. 11202500 Collin Maloney State Bar No. 00794219 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Telecopier: (903) 581-1071 [email protected]
H H

H

H

Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 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] [email protected]
H H H H

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

7

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 66

Filed 04/12/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 9 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service, both in the captioned case and in Rembrandt v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 2:05-CV-443 [TJW], are being served this 12th day of April, 2007, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). 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 12th day of April, 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter

8

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-12 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ )

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

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) )

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

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

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

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

US2000 9929402.1 C8490-331049

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-12 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3

) Defendant. ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ )

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

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

NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT Defendants Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC., CoxCom, Inc., and Time Warner Cable, Inc. provide this notice of development. Attached is a Notice of Hearing issued by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, calendaring for hearing on May 31, 2007, the motion of CoxCom, Inc. for transfer and consolidation of the Rembrandt Technologies, LP, patent litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.

US2000 9929402.1 C8490-331049

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-12 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3

Dated: April 18th, 2007. Respectfully Submitted /s/ Allen F. Gardner Michael E. Jones Texas State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Diane V. DeVasto Texas State Bar No. 05784100 [email protected] Allen F. Gardner Texas State Bar No. 24043679 [email protected] POTTER MINTON, P.C. 110 North College 500 Plaza Tower Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 ATTORNEYS FOR CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LLP, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, COXCOM, INC., AND TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 18th day of April, 2007, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail on this same date. /s/ Allen F. Gardner Allen F. Gardner

US2000 9929402.1 C8490-331049

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 1 of 44 Page 1 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 2 of 44 Page 2 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 3 of 44 Page 3 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 4 of 44 Page 4 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 5 of 44 Page 5 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 6 of 44 Page 6 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 7 of 44 Page 7 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 8 of 44 Page 8 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 9 of 44 Page 9 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 10 of 44 Page 10 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 11 of 44 Page 11 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 12 of 44 Page 12 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 13 of 44 Page 13 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 14 of 44 Page 14 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 15 of 44 Page 15 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 16 of 44 Page 16 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 17 of 44 Page 17 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 18 of 44 Page 18 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 19 of 44 Page 19 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 20 of 44 Page 20 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 21 of 44 Page 21 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 22 of 44 Page 22 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 23 of 44 Page 23 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 24 of 44 Page 24 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 25 of 44 Page 25 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 26 of 44 Page 26 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 27 of 44 Page 27 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 28 of 44 Page 28 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 29 of 44 Page 29 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 30 of 44 Page 30 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 31 of 44 Page 31 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 32 of 44 Page 32 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 33 of 44 Page 33 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 34 of 44 Page 34 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 35 of 44 Page 35 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 36 of 44 Page 36 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 37 of 44 Page 37 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 38 of 44 Page 38 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 39 of 44 Page 39 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 40 of 44 Page 40 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 41 of 44 Page 41 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 42 of 44 Page 42 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 43 of 44 Page 43 of 44

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-13 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 67-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/18/2007

Page 44 of 44 Page 44 of 44

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-14 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 68

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.

§ § § § §

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

ORDER REGARDING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-14 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 68

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

At the Scheduling Conference in the above five captioned cases, the Parties informed the Court that they were continuing to discuss the form of protective order to be entered in all five cases as well as the form of production for documents produced electronically and requested additional time to reach agreement or inform the Court of their disagreements. Pursuant to the Parties request, the Court hereby grants the Parties twenty-one (21) days from the date of Scheduling Conference, which is until Tuesday, April 24, 2007, to: 1. file an agreed upon Protective Order with the Court or inform the Court of the provisions in a proposed Protective Order on which the Parties cannot reach agreement and 2. inform the Court that the Parties have reached agreement on the form of production for documents produced electronically or inform the Court of the Parties' disagreements regarding electronic production.

SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2007.

___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 6 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. § § § § § § §

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

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL.

§ § § § §

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP V. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL.

§ § § § § §

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

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6

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 Court and e-mail the Court Reporter, Susan Simmons, at [email protected]. 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. 2

July 14, 2008

July 7, 2008

June 27, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6

May 28, 2008

Defendants to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Discovery Deadline

April 15, 2008

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 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. Parties submit technology tutorials to the Court.

February 1, 2008

3

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6

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 16, 2007).

November 16, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-3.

October 16, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-2.

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

June 11, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-3. 4

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6

May 3, 2007

Join Additional Parties

April 28, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-1

April 3, 2007

Scheduling Conference (All attorneys are directed to Local Rule CV-16 for scope of the Scheduling Conference).

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 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 5

2.

3.

(b)

(c)

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 93-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 69

Filed 04/19/2007 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 6 Page 6 of 6

demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.

SIGNED this 19th day of April, 2007.

___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 1 of 10 Page 1 of 10

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

§ § 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. § §

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

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)

NOTICE REGARDING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

At the Scheduling Conference, the Parties requested an additional three weeks to work on reaching an agreement with respect to a Protective Order in this case. In its April 19, 2007 Order Regarding Protective Order and Document Production (Doc. No. 68), the Court gave the parties

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 2 of 10 Page 2 of 10

three weeks to reach agreement on a Protective Order or inform the Court of any remaining disputes regarding the Protective Order. The Parties have reached agreement on a Protective Order and respectfully request that the Court enter the agreed upon Protective Order, which is attached hereto as Attachment A. DATED: April 24, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sam Baxter 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] 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]

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 3 of 10 Page 3 of 10

/s/ Brooke A. M. Taylor 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 Fax: 206-516-3883 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]

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 4 of 10 Page 4 of 10

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] 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] Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, INC. 201 W. Houston Street P. O. Drawer 1249 Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: 903-938-4395 Telecopier: 903-938-3360 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 5 of 10 Page 5 of 10

/s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 Diane DeVasto POTTER MINTON, P.C. 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.

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 6 of 10 Page 6 of 10

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan 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

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 7 of 10 Page 7 of 10

/s/ Michael E. Jones 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

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 8 of 10 Page 8 of 10

/s/ Michael E. Jones 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, P.C. 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 24th day of April 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 9 of 10 Page 9 of 10

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 24th day of April 2007.

/s/ Brooke A.M. Taylor Brooke A.M. Taylor

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 10 of 10 Page 10 of 10

Attachment A

Dallas 237130v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 1 of 22 Page 1 of 22

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)

PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEREAS, Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt"), and Defendants Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC (collectively, "Charter"), and CoxCom, Inc. ("CoxCom") in the 223 and 507 cases, Defendants Time Warner Cable, Inc., Time Warner Cable LLC, Time Warner New York Cable LLC, Time Warner

1
Dallas 236804v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 93-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 70-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 04/24/2007

Page 2 of 22 Pag