Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 12 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 13 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 14 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 15 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 16 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 92

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 17 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 43

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/12/2007

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. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-224 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Time Warner Cable Inc. respectfully notifies the Court of its non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Original Complaint (Docket No. 38, which was filed on February 23, 2007). DATED: March 12, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Diane V. DeVasto Michael E. Jones Texas State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Diane V. DeVasto Texas State Bar No. 05784100 [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 TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

{A53\7477\0002\W0321282.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 43

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/12/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served on March 12, 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 U.S. mail on this same date.

/s/ Diane V. DeVasto Diane V. DeVasto

{A53\7477\0002\W0321282.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 44

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 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 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CAME ON TO BE CONSIDERED the Motion of Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") for Leave to Amend the Original Complaint. The Court hereby GRANTS this motion. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint attached as "Exhibit A" to Rembrandt's Motion for Leave is hereby accepted for filing.

SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dallas 233518v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

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. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. § § § § §

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

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, PROPOSED DEADLINES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER AND DISCOVERY ORDER The court, sua sponte, issues this Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Deadlines for Docket Control Order and Discovery Order. Notice of Scheduling Conference Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and Local Rule CV-16, the Scheduling Conference in this case is set for April 3, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Marshall, Texas. The parties are directed to meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) prior to the conference. The parties are excused from the requirement of filing a written proposed discovery plan in this case. Proposed Deadlines for Docket Control Order The proposed deadlines for docket control order set forth in the attached Appendix A shall be discussed at the Scheduling Conference. The court will not modify the proposed trial date except for good cause shown. Discovery Order After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action and in furtherance of the management of the court's docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 2 of 22 Page 2 of 22

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 indemnify 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 to the other party or parties: a. b. c. the expert's name, address, and telephone number; the subject matter on which the expert will testify; 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 provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 3 of 22 Page 3 of 22

expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and (b) the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26. d. 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 the request of any party before or after the Scheduling

Conference, the court shall issue the Protective Order in the form attached as Appendix B. 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; within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference, 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 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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 4 of 22 Page 4 of 22

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, a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party to the action, 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. At the Scheduling Conference, the court shall also amend this discovery order to limit discovery in this cause to the disclosures described in Paragraphs 1 and 3 together with 60 interrogatories, 60 requests for admissions, the depositions of the parties, depositions on written questions of custodians of business records for third parties, depositions of three (3) expert witnesses per side and forty (40) hours of additional depositions per side. "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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 5 of 22 Page 5 of 22

information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, with 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 sixty (60) days after the Scheduling Conference. 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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 6 of 22 Page 6 of 22

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 (B), and (2) any objections, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph (c). Objections not so disclosed, other than 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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 7 of 22 Page 7 of 22

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 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.

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 8 of 22 Page 8 of 22

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.

SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 9 of 22 Page 9 of 22

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED DEADLINES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER

PROPOSED DEADLINES TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE APRIL 3, 2007

Monday, August 4, 2008

Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas

July 24, 2008

Pretrial Conference - 11:00 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].

July 14, 2008

July 7, 2008

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 10 of 22 Page 10 of 22

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

Defendant to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses

May 14, 2008

Discovery Deadline

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

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

15 Days after claim construction ruling 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, 2008

Claim construction hearing 9:00 a.m., Marshall, Texas.

January 22, 2008

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

January 14, 2008

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

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 11 of 22 Page 11 of 22

December 31, 2007

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

December 7, 2007

Discovery deadline­claims 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.

May 18, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-3.

June 4, 2007

Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties (or a letter to the Court stating that there are no disputes as to claims of privileged documents).

May 3, 2007

Join Additional Parties

April 13, 2007

Comply with P.R. 3-1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 12 of 22 Page 12 of 22

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 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;

2.

3.

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 13 of 22 Page 13 of 22

(b)

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.

(c)

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 14 of 22 Page 14 of 22

APPENDIX B

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

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

STANDARD PROTECTIVE ORDER The Court, sua sponte, issues this Protective Order to facilitate document disclosure and production under the Local Rules of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unless modified pursuant to the terms contained in this Order, this Order shall remain in effect through the conclusion of this litigation. In support of this order, the court finds that: 1. Documents or information containing confidential proprietary and business information

and/or trade secrets ("Confidential Information") that bear significantly on the parties' claims or defenses is likely to be disclosed or produced during the course of discovery in this litigation; 2. The parties to this litigation may assert that public dissemination and disclosure of

Confidential Information could severely injure or damage the party disclosing or producing the Confidential Information and could place that party at a competitive disadvantage; 3. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Confidential Information are presently without

sufficient information to accept the representation(s) made by the party or parties producing Confidential Information as to the confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret nature of such Confidential Information; and

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 15 of 22 Page 15 of 22

4.

To protect the respective interests of the parties and to facilitate the progress of disclosure

and discovery in this case, the following Order should issue: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Documents or discovery responses containing Confidential Information disclosed or produced by any party in this litigation are referred to as "Protected Documents." Except as otherwise indicated below, all documents or discovery responses designated by the producing party as "Confidential" and which are disclosed or produced to the attorney's for the other parties to this litigation are Protected Documents and are entitled to confidential treatment as described below. 2. Protected Documents shall not include (a) advertising materials, (b) materials that on their face show that they have been published to the general public, or (c) documents that have submitted to any governmental entity without request for confidential treatment. 3. At any time after the delivery of Protected Documents, counsel for the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents may challenge the Confidential designation of all or any portion thereof by providing written notice thereof to counsel for the party disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. If the parties are unable to agree as to whether the confidential designation of discovery material is appropriate, the party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall certify to the Court that the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the confidential nature of all or a portion of the Protected Documents. Thereafter, the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents shall have ten (10) days from the date of certification to file a motion for protective order with regard to any Protected Documents in dispute. The party or parties producing the Protected Documents shall have the burden of establishing that the disputed Protected Documents are entitled to confidential

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 16 of 22 Page 16 of 22

treatment. If the party or parties producing the Protected Documents do not timely file a motion for protective order, then the Protected Documents in dispute shall no longer be subject to confidential treatment as provided in this Order. All Protected Documents are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to the terms of this Order until and unless the parties formally agree in writing to the contrary, a party fails to timely move for a protective order, or a contrary determination is made by the Court as to whether all or a portion of a Protected Document is entitled to confidential treatment. 4. Confidential Treatment. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated to anyone for any purpose whatsoever, except as provided for below. 5. Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be disclosed only to the following persons ("Qualified Persons"): (a) Counsel of record in this action for the party or party receiving Protected Documents or any information contained therein; Employees of such counsel (excluding experts and investigators) assigned to and necessary to assist such counsel in the preparation and trial of this action; and The Court.

(b)

(c)

Protected Documents and any information contained therein shall be used solely for the prosecution of this litigation. 6. Counsel of record for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents may create an index of the Protected Documents and furnish it to attorneys of record representing or having represented parties involved in litigation involving the claims alleged in this suit against the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The index may only identify the document, date, author, and general subject matter of any Protected Document,

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 17 of 22 Page 17 of 22

but may not reveal the substance of any such document. Counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall maintain a current log of the names and addresses of persons to whom the index was furnished. 7. The term "copy" as used herein means any photographic, mechanical or computerized copy or reproduction of any document or thing, or any verbatim transcript, in whole or in part, of such document or thing. 8. To the extent that Protected Documents or information contained therein are used in depositions, at hearings, or at trial, such documents or information shall remain subject to the provisions of this Order, along with the transcript pages of the deposition testimony and/or trial testimony referring to the Protected Documents or information contained therein. 9. Any court reporter or transcriber who reports or transcribes testimony in this action shall agree that all "confidential" information designated as such under this Order shall remain "confidential" and shall not be disclosed by them, except pursuant to the terms of this Order, and that any notes or transcriptions of such testimony (and any accompanying exhibits) will be retained by the reporter or delivered to counsel of record. 10. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents or information containing Confidential Information which are not designated "confidential" shall not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for confidential treatment. 11. The party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall not under any circumstances sell, offer for sale, advertise, or publicize Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 12. After termination of this litigation, the provisions of this Order shall continue to be binding, except with respect to those documents and information that become a matter of public

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 18 of 22 Page 18 of 22

record. This Court retains and shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties and recipients of the Protected Documents for enforcement of the provisions of this Order following termination of this litigation. 13. Upon termination of this action by dismissal, judgment, or settlement, counsel for the party or parties receiving Protected Documents shall return the Protected Documents to the counsel for the party or parties disclosing or producing the Protected Documents. The party or parties receiving the Protected Documents shall keep their attorney work product which refers or relates to any Protected Documents. Attorney work product may be used in subsequent litigation provided that such use does not disclose Protected Documents or any information contained therein. 14. This Order shall be binding upon the parties and their attorneys, successors, executors, personal representatives, administrators, heirs, legal representatives, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, employees, agents, independent contractors, or other persons or organizations over which they have control. 15. The Court anticipates and encourages the parties to file a motion to modify the terms hereof with respect to the sharing of Protected Documents with experts and consultants; shifting the cost burden of production equitably; and other terms that may be reasonably required to protect a party as provided in Rule 26(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So ORDERED AND SIGNED this ______ day of ______________________, 2007.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 19 of 22 Page 19 of 22

APPENDIX C

ORDER RELATING TO PATENT CASES BEFORE JUDGE T. JOHN WARD The Court issues certain modifications to the Eastern District Patent Rules. The

modifications relate to three issues: (1) Notice Requirements, (2) Infringement and Invalidity Contentions for Software, and (3) Deadlines Related to Claim Construction. I. Notice Requirements The Court has seen a dramatic increase in the number of disputes related to parties serving "supplemental," "additional," or "revised" P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures. In the past, parties were not required to provide notice to the Court regarding compliance with P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3. Thus, certain parties attempted to avoid the rule that Preliminary Contentions are final except as provided in P.R. 3-6 and P.R. 3-7. Accordingly, the Court modifies P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3 in the following manner: P.R. 3-1(g): Any time a party claiming patent infringement serves Preliminary Infringement Contentions on an opposing party, the party claiming patent infringement shall also file with the Court a Notice of Compliance with P.R. 3-1. P.R. 3-3(e): Any time a party opposing patent infringement serves Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on an opposing party, the party opposing patent infringement shall also file with the Court a Notice of Compliance with P.R. 3-3.

Under this Court's interpretation of the Patent Rules, leave of Court is required for serving "amended," "supplemental," or "revised" P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures. The Court will strike "amendments," "supplements," or "revisions" of P.R. 3-1 or P.R. 3-3 disclosures that do not comply with P.R. 3-6 or P.R. 3-7. II. Infringement and Invalidity Contentions for Software Additional modifications to the Patent Rules regarding P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3 are being made

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 20 of 22 Page 20 of 22

to reduce discovery disputes and motion practice resulting from patents that contain software claim limitations. The Patent Rules require a party asserting claims of patent infringement to take a firm position in the litigation as it relates to infringement early on in the case. This and other courts in the Eastern District of Texas, however, recognize that software claim limitations present unique challenges for the parties because parties claiming patent infringement do not typically have access to an opposing party's source code before filing suit. At the same time, parties opposing a claim for patent infringement are hampered in their ability to prepare a defense absent specific infringement contentions from the party asserting claims of patent infringement. The lack of access to source code coupled with an opponent's right to prepare a defense has led to numerous discovery disputes. To alleviate these disputes and to provide clear direction to the parties as to their rights and responsibilities under the Patent Rules, the Court modifies the Patent Rules in a manner consistent with such cases as American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 558 (E.D. Tex. 2005). The Court's modifications to P.R. 3-1and P.R. 3-3 are set out below. P.R. 3-1 (h): If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element is a software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each asserted claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements. P.R. 3-3(f): If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the provisions of P.R. 3-1(g), the party opposing a claim of patent infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a P.R. 3-1(g) disclosure, supplemental "Preliminary Invalidity Contentions" that amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations by the party claiming patent infringement. Thus, if a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element (or the entire claim) is software, that party need only identify the element as a software limitation in its initial compliance

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 21 of 22 Page 21 of 22

with P.R. 3-1, but does not need to identify where such limitation is met in the Accused Instrumentality. After receipt of the source code for an Accused Instrumentality, the party is permitted 30 days to supplement its P.R. 3-1 disclosure to identify, with specificity, the source code of the Accused Instrumentality that allegedly satisfies the software claim elements. P.R. 3-1(g) does not allow Plaintiff the opportunity to modify or amend any non-software claim contentions. Likewise, once a party opposing a claim of patent infringement is in receipt of a P.R. 3.1(g) disclosure, the party is allowed 30 days to modify its initial P.R. 3-3 disclosures, but only to the extent the modifications relate to the software claim elements identified by the party claiming patent infringement. P.R. 3-3(e) does not allow a party opposing a claim of infringement an opportunity to modify or amend any non-software contentions. III. Claim Construction Deadlines The final amendments to the Patent Rules relate to claim construction deadlines. In the Eastern District Patent Rules, claim construction deadlines are triggered by the filing of the parties' Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. The increase of patent cases before this Court has resulted in a large number of Claim Construction hearings and, as a result, strict application of the Patent Rules yields a P.R. 4-5 deadline approximately three months or more before Court could accommodate a Claim Construction Hearing. To facilitate the case, resolve discovery disputes, and have claim construction hearings a reasonable time after briefing is complete, the Court modifies the deadlines in P.R. 4-1 and P.R. 4-3 as set forth below: 4-1. Exchange of Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction. (a) Not later than 140 days before the date set for the Claim Construction Hearing, each party shall simultaneously exchange a list of claim terms, phrases, or clauses which that party contends should be construed by the Court, and identify any claim element which that party contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 45

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 22 of 22 Page 22 of 22

4-3. Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Not later than 30 days after "Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence" in compliance with P.R. 4.2, the parties shall complete and file a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, which shall contain the following information: Thus, the Court's modifications will make the trigger of P.R. 4-1 through P.R. 4-5 the date of the Claim Construction Hearing. For clarification, the Court notes that the "140 days" set forth in P.R. 4-1 was not chosen to confuse the parties but was instead chosen so as to be evenly divisible by 7. Thus, whatever the date of the Claim Construction Hearing, the deadline for complying with P.R. 4-1 will always fall on a weekday. If that weekday is a Federal Holiday, the deadline for complying with P.R. 4-1 is extended to the first day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or other Federal Holiday.

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 1 of 10 Page 1 of 10

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") files this First Amended Complaint for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,243,627; 5,852,631; 5,719,858; and 4,937,819 under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Rembrandt is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the state

of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 401 City Avenue, Suite 815, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. 2. Defendant Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") is a corporation organized under the

laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06092. TWC's registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. TWC answered the original Complaint and asserted counterclaims. 3. Defendant Time Warner Cable LLC ("TWCL"), is a corporation organized under

the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 290 Harbor Drive, 1
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 2 of 10 Page 2 of 10

Stamford, Connecticut 06902. TWCL's registered agent for service of process is the Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. 4. Defendant Time Warner New York Cable LLC ("TWNY") is a corporation

organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06902. TWNY's registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 5. Defendant Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("TWE") is a limited

partnership organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 in care of Time Warner Cable. TWE's registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 1021 Main Street, Suite 1150, Houston, Texas 77002. 6. Defendant Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership

("TWE/AN") is a partnership organized under the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, Connecticut 06902 in care of Time Warner Cable. TWE/AN's registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 7. TWC is the direct or indirect parent of each of TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-

A/N. Through one or more of its subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or other related parties, TWC owns and/or operates cable systems throughout the United States and in the State of Texas (as Time Warner Cable and/or Road Runner). TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-A/N, each directly or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or other related parties own and operate 2
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 3 of 10 Page 3 of 10

cable systems in Texas and elsewhere (as Time Warner Cable and/or Road Runner). TWC, TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-A/N (collectively, the "Defendants"), directly or through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or other related parties, as set forth herein, have each committed and continue to commit tortuous acts of patent infringement within and outside of Texas and within this judicial district. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This is an action for patent infringement, arising under the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35, United States Code. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all named Defendants. Defendants have

conducted and continue to conduct business in the State of Texas and within this district. Defendants, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, offer for sale, sell, advertise, and market products and services that infringe the patents-in-suit as described more specifically below. Therefore, because Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in this state and district, or are otherwise present or doing business in this state and district, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 10. 1400(b). COUNT I -- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,243,627 11. above. Rembrandt refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of Paragraphs 1-10 Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and

3
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 4 of 10 Page 4 of 10

12.

Rembrandt is the owner of all right, title and interest, including the right to sue,

enforce and recover damages for all infringements, in U.S. Patent No. 5,243,627, entitled "Signal Point Interleaving Technique" ("the `627 patent"). 13. The `627 patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on September 7, 1993, after full and fair examination. 14. Texas. 15. Defendants have directly or indirectly infringed, and are continuing to infringe, Defendants operate cable television systems throughout the United States and in

directly or indirectly, the `627 patent by practicing or causing others to practice (by inducement and contributorily) the inventions claimed in the `627 patent, in this district or otherwise within the United States. For example, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the `627 patent by their receipt and retransmission over their cable television systems of digital terrestrial broadcast signals that comply with the ATSC Digital Television Standard. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the `627 patent

unless enjoined by this Court. Upon information and belief, such infringement has been, and will continue to be, willful, making this an exceptional case and entitling Rembrandt to increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. COUNT II -- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,852,631 17. above. Rembrandt refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of Paragraphs 1-16

4
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 5 of 10 Page 5 of 10

18.

Rembrandt is the owner of all right, title and interest, including the right to sue,

enforce and recover damages for all infringements, in U.S. Patent No. 5,852,631, entitled "System and Method for Establishing Link Layer Parameters Based on Physical Layer Modulation ("the `631 patent"). 19. The `631 patent was duly and legally issued by the United Stats Patent and

Trademark Office on December 22, 1998, after full and fair examination. 20. Defendants operate cable systems and provide Internet service throughout the

United States and in Texas. 21. Defendants have directly or indirectly infringed, and are continuing to infringe,

directly or indirectly, the `631 patent by practicing or causing others to practice (by inducement and contributorily) the inventions claimed in the `631 patent, in this district or otherwise within the United States. For example, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the `631 patent by providing high speed internet service to subscribers. 22. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the `631 patent

unless enjoined by this Court. Upon information and belief, such infringement has been, and will continue to be, willful, making this an exceptional case and entitling Rembrandt to increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. COUNT III -- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,719,858 23. above. Rembrandt refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of Paragraphs 1-22

5
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 6 of 10 Page 6 of 10

24.

Rembrandt is the owner of all right, title and interest, including the right to sue,

enforce and recover damages for all infringements, in U.S. Patent No. 5,719,858, entitled "TimeDivision Multiple-Access Method for Packet Transmission on Shared Synchronous Serial Busses" (the `858 patent"). 25. The `858 patent was duly and legally issued by the United Stats Patent and

Trademark Office on February 17, 1998, after full and fair examination. 26. Defendants operate cable systems and provide Internet service throughout the

United States and in Texas. 27. Defendants have directly or indirectly infringed, and are continuing to infringe

directly or indirectly, the `858 patent by practicing or causing others to practice (by inducement and contributorily) the inventions claimed in the `858 patent, in this district or otherwise within the United States. For example, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the `858 patent by provision of high speed internet services, including such services as Voice over IP (VoIP) to subscribers. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the `858 patent

unless enjoined by this Court. Upon information and belief, such infringement has been, and will continue to be, willful, making this an exceptional case and entitling Rembrandt to increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. COUNT IV -- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,937,819 29. above. Rembrandt refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of Paragraphs 1-28

6
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 7 of 10 Page 7 of 10

30.

Rembrandt is the owner of all right, title and interest, including the right to sue,

enforce and recover damages for all infringements, in U.S. Patent No. 4,937,819, entitled "Time Orthogonal Multiple Virtual DCE for Use in Analog and Digital Networks" (the `819 patent"). 31. The `819 patent was duly and legally issued by the United Stats Patent and

Trademark Office on June 26, 1990, after full and fair examination. 32. Defendants operate cable systems and provide Internet service throughout the

United States and in Texas. 33. Defendants have directly or indirectly infringed, and are continuing to infringe

directly or indirectly, the `819 patent by practicing or causing others to practice (by inducement and contributorily) the inventions claimed in the `819 patent, in this district or otherwise within the United States. For example, Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the `819 patent by provision of high speed internet services, such as Voice over IP (VoIP) services, to cable television subscribers. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the `819 patent

unless enjoined by this Court. Upon information and belief, such infringement has been, and will continue to be, willful, making this an exceptional case and entitling Rembrandt to increased damages and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Rembrandt prays that it have judgment against Defendants TWC, TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-A/N for the following: (1) An order that each Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit;

7
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 8 of 10 Page 8 of 10

(2)

A permanent injunction enjoining and restraining each Defendant and its agents,

servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, and subsidiaries, and those in association therewith, from making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing into the United States any product, or using, offering to sell, or selling any service, which falls within the scope of any claim of the patents-in-suit; (3) (4) (5) (6) entitled. JURY DEMAND Rembrandt hereby demands a jury trial on all issues appropriately triable by a jury. DATED: March 14, 2007 Respectfully submitted, An award of damages; An award of increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; An award of all costs of this action, including attorneys' fees and interest; and Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Rembrandt is justly

/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]

8
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 9 of 10 Page 9 of 10

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 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]

9
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 46

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/14/2007

Page 10 of 10 Page 10 of 10

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 14th day of March, 2007.

/s/ Sam Baxter________________________ Sam Baxter

10
Dallas 232443v3

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 1 of 18 Page 1 of 18

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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 2 of 18 Page 2 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. II. III.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 3 A. Consolidation in the Late Stages of the Comcast Case Would Cause Unnecessary Delay and Unfairly Prejudice Rembrandt............................................................... 3 1. 2. B. Consolidation with the TWC and Charter cases would unduly delay resolution of the Comcast case. .................................................................. 3 The disqualification of F&R does not justify unnecessary delay and additional prejudice to Rembrandt.............................................................. 6

TWC and Charter Will Not Be Prejudiced By a Denial of Their Motion. ............. 7 1. 2. The Court's holdings in the Comcast case will not bind TWC and Charter......................................................................................................... 7 TWC voluntarily abandoned an opportunity to seek consolidation at an earlier stage. ................................................................................................ 9

IV.

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 10

i

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 3 of 18 Page 3 of 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES 3M Co. v. Moldex-Metric, Inc., No. 06-CV-4044, 2006 WL. 3759758 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2006)........................................5 Aerotel, Ltd. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 23 F.R.D. 64 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .............................................................................................5 Bruno v. Borough of Seaside Park, No. 04-CV-5084, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56758 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2006) ..........................4 DuPont v. S. Pac. Co., 366 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1966) ...............................................................................................6 In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative "ERISA" Litig., No. MDL-1446, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8812 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2007) ........................4, 6 Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571 (5th Cir. 1973) ...........................................................................................3, 4 Henderson v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 118 F.R.D. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1987).......................................................................................4, 7 Interdigital Tech. Corp. v. OKI Am., Inc., 845 F. Supp. 276 (E.D. Penn. 1994) ....................................................................................8 Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Nicor, Inc., No. 04-CV-0424, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8920 (D.N.M. Jan. 8, 2007) ..............................5 Liqui-Box Corp. v. Reid Valve Co., Inc., No. 85-CV-2355, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17189 (W.D. Penn. Sept. 15, 1989)..................5 Madison v. Hennepin Cty., No. 02-CV-4756, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11709 (D. Minn. July 1, 2003) .........................4 Magnavox Co. v. APF Elecs., Inc., 496 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ill. 1980) ..........................................................................................5 Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1989) ...........................................................................................3, 7 NRDC v. Norton, No. 1:05-CV-01207, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94689 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2007) ....................4

ii

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 4 of 18 Page 4 of 18

Ovadia v. Top Ten Jewelry Corp., Nos. 04-CV-2690/2692, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10966 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2005)..............5 Paxonet Commc'ns, Inc. v. Transwitch Corp., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ...............................................................................5 Perez v. Wis. Dept. of Corrections, No. 04-CV-1181, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79187 (E.D. Wisc. Oct. 28, 2006) ....................4 Phelps v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka Unified Sch. Dist. #501, No. 79-CV-1556, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25518 (D. Kan. May 14, 1986).........................4 Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Marine Nat'l Exchange Bank, 55 F.R.D. 436 (E.D. Wis. 1972) ..........................................................................................4 Richard v. Doe, No. 93-CV-0590, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1936 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 1994) ..........................4 Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 148 F.R.D. 213 (N.D. Ill. 1993)...........................................................................................5 Servants of the Paraclete, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 866 F. Supp. 1560 (D.N.M. 1994) .......................................................................................4 Solaia Tech., Inc. v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., No. 03-CV-566, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15285 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2003) ...........................5 Southwest Marine, Inc. v. Triple Mach. Shop, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Cal. 1989) ......................................................................................4 St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Servs. Ass'n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1983) ...............................................................................................3 Stalnaker v. Amtrak, Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 97-CV-3765, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8173 (E.D. La. May 29, 1998)..........................4 Sunbeam Corp. v. S.W. Farber, Inc., No. 62-CV-4200, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6854 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 1965) ........................5 Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., No. 02-CV-1331, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17821 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2004) .........................5 Tex. Instruments v. Linear Techs., 182 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. Tex. 2002).................................................................................8 Transeastern Shipping Corp. v India Supply Mission, 53 F.R.D. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) .......................................................................................4, 9

iii

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 5 of 18 Page 5 of 18

Wright v. United States, No. 92-CV-1290, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11385 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 1993) .....................4 Zapata v. IBP, Inc., No. 93-CV-2366, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10788 (D. Kan. July 26, 1995) .........................4

RULES FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) ....................................................................................................................3, 7

iv

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 92-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 47

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/19/2007

Page 6 of 18 Page 6 of 18

I.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") respectfully submits this response

in opposition to Defendant's motion to consolidate Case No. 2:06-CV-223 (the "Charter case"), [Charter Dkt. No. 63], and Case No. 2:06-CV-224 (the "TWC case"), [TWC Dkt. No. 39], with Case No. 2:05-CV-443 (the "Comcast case"). Because the TWC and Charter cases are at a vastly different stage of development than the Comcast case, consolidating all three cases would require a substantial delay in the resolution of the Comcast case. The courts are uniform in finding consolidation inappropriate in such circumstances. The timing of this motion is significant. The complaints against TWC and Charter were filed in June of 2006, approximately nine months ago, and this motion comes almost six months after TWC filed, and then withdrew, a motion to consolidate its case with the case against Charter. The reason for this timing is apparent. TWC and Charter are trying to piggy-back on the recent disqualification of Rembrandt's former counsel in the Comcast case. Thus, in addition to the consequences Rembrandt is suffering as a result of that disqualification, these Defendants are trying to use the disqualification to further prejudice Rembrandt by depriving it of its right to a prompt Markman hearing and trial in the Comcast case. It is Rembrandt's intention, with its new counsel, to proceed as quickly as possible in the Comcast case. While the disqualification will necessarily entail some movement in that case's schedule, the Court issued its disqualification Order with confidence that it would not thereby cause any "undue delay" in the resolution of that case. [See Comcast Dkt. No. 144]. Granting the present motion will cause just the delay that the Court was confident could be avoided. To ensure that the Comcast case proceeds without unnecessary delay, and to minimize any further prejudice to Rembrandt, Defendant's motion should be denied. II. BACKGROUND Rembrandt sued Comcast Corporation and related entities (collectively, "Co