Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 12 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 13 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 14 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 15 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 16 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 90

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 17 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 5

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

Civil Action No. 2:06cv224 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") and Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Time Warner") hereby file this Joint Notice of Conference Regarding Proposed Docket Control Order to inform the Court of the results of the parties' conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and P.R. § 2-1. Plaintiff's Submission Rembrandt has proposed that Rembrandt and Time Warner agree to the proposed Docket Control Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.1 Rembrandt opposes the motion for consolidation. Further, Rembrandt agrees to a trial in Tyler, Texas. It is Rembrandt's understanding that Time Warner does not agree to any terms in the proposed Docket Control Order because Time Warner intends to file a motion for consolidation.

This proposed Docket Control Order follows the Court's deadlines except where dates are marked by an asterisk. The Court's deadlines for the Markman hearing, trial, and dispositive motion remain unchanged, and any other changes to any deadlines are unintended. Rembrandt understands that a trial in Tyler, Texas could result in an earlier trial date. JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 1
Dallas 225605v1

1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 5

Defendant's Submission Time Warner Cable Inc. has filed a Motion to Consolidate Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-224 with Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-223 pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and included within said motion, a Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference. In that motion, Time Warner Cable Inc. shows why this matter should be consolidated with Cause No. 2:06-cv-223 and that a scheduling conference in this matter and appropriate docket control orders and discovery orders should only occur after said consolidation and after defendants in both of those cases are involved. This motion is hereby fully incorporated and by reference into this Joint Conference Report. Due to the fact this matter should be consolidated with said other action, Time Warner Cable Inc. does not agree to the proposed schedule and other discovery matters set forth by Rembrandt Technologies, LP. Despite this lack of agreement, Time Warner Cable Inc. has discussed at the appropriate Rule 26(f) conference the proposals with regard to schedule and discovery matters set forth in Plaintiff's recommendations. Time Warner Cable Inc. respectfully disagrees with selected matters set forth in Rembrandt Technologies, LP's proposals.

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 2
Dallas 225605v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 5

DATED: September 15, 2006

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] JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 3
Dallas 225605v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 5

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]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

_/s/ Michael E. Jones (w-perm CJH)_____ Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P. O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Telecopier: (903) 593-0846 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC. JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 4
Dallas 225605v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 5

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 15th day of September, 2006.

_/s/ Sam Baxter__________

JOINT NOTICE OF CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPOSED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 5
Dallas 225605v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

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

Civil Action No. 2:06cv224 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER February 11, 2008
Court designated date not flexible without good cause - Motion Required

9:00 a.m. JURY TRIAL as reached at the United States District Court, Visiting Judge/Magistrate Courtroom, 100 East Houston, Marshall, Texas. EXHIBITS & EXHIBIT LISTS: Each party is requested to provide the Court with an original and two courtesy copies of exhibits and exhibit lists. The Court's preferred format for Exhibit Lists is available on the Court's website at www.txed.uscourts.gov under "Judges' Orders & Information." If exhibits are voluminous, provide only specific pages that pertain to the issues on the two courtesy copies. The original exhibits that are agreed upon by the parties, should be ready to be tendered to the Clerk of the Court at the beginning of trial. Other exhibits that are admitted during trial should be tendered to the Clerk of the Court immediately after admission. The parties are further requested to have all exhibits labeled with the following information on each label: Designation of Plaintiffs or Defendant's Exhibit Number and Case Number. For example:

Day of Trial

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 1
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

Plaintiff's Exhibit Exhibit No. _________ Case No. ___________

Defendant's Exhibit Exhibit No. _________ Case No. ___________

February 5, 2008
Court designated date not flexible without good cause - Motion Required

9:00 a.m. JURY SELECTION at the United States District Court, Visiting Judge/Magistrate Courtroom, 100 East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas. 9:00 a.m. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE at the United States District Court, 211 W. Ferguson, 3rd Floor, Courtroom of Judge Leonard Davis, Tyler, Texas. (Tyler trial) Parties to file estimates of the amount of time they request at jury selection and trial for (1) voir dire, (2) opening statements, (3) direct and cross examinations, and (4) closing arguments. Motions in Limine due. 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. Pretrial Objections due. Objections to Rebuttal Deposition Testimony due. Rebuttal Designations and Objections to Deposition Testimony due. Cross examination line and page numbers to be included. In video depositions, each party is responsible for preparation of the final edited video in accordance with their parties' designations and the Court's rulings on objections. Pretrial Disclosures due. Video and Stenographic Deposition Designation due. Each party who proposes to offer deposition testimony shall file a disclosure identifying the line and page numbers to be offered.

January 24, 2008
Court designated date not flexible without good cause - Motion Required

Tuesday January 22, 2008 Friday * January 18, 2008

Friday January 18, 2008 Friday * January 18, 2008 Monday * January 7, 2008

Thursday December 20, 2007

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 2
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

Friday November 30, 2007

Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions with citation to authority and Form of the Verdict for jury trials due. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with citation to authority for bench trials. Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting of Court Proceedings due. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial or hearings, the party or parties making said request shall file a notice with the Court and email the Court Reporter, Shea Sloan, at [email protected]. Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions) due. 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). Dispositive Motions due from all parties and any other motions that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions); Motions for Summary Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV-56 (Marshall trial). Parties to Identify Rebuttal Trial Witnesses. Parties to Identify Trial Witnesses; Amend Pleadings (after Markman Hearing). It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the deadline. However, except as provided in Patent Rule 3-6, if the amendment would effect preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final invalidity contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7 irrespective of whether the amendment is made prior to this deadline. Discovery Deadline. Defendant designates rebuttal damages expert witness. Rebuttal damages expert report due. Refer to Local Rule for required information. Plaintiff designates damage expert. Parties designate rebuttal expert witnesses except for rebuttal damages expert (non-construction issues). Damage and rebuttal expert witness reports due except for rebuttal damages report. Refer to Local Rules for required information.

Tuesday September 4, 2007

August 20, 2007
Court designated date not flexible without good cause - Motion Required

Friday August 17, 2007 Monday August 6, 2007

Monday July 23, 2007 Monday July 9, 2007 The later of Monday June, 25, 2007 or 14 days after the "burden of proof" expert reports are exchanged.

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 3
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

* The later of Monday June 11, 2007 or 30 days after the Court issues its Markman ruling. Monday June 11, 2007 April 19, 2007

Parties with burden of proof designate expert witnesses except for damages (non-construction issues). Expert witness reports due except on damages. Refer to Local Rules for required information.

Comply with P.R.3-8 - Furnishing documents and privilege logs pertaining to willful infringement. Markman Hearing at 9:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 211 West Ferguson, 3rd Floor, Courtroom of Judge Leonard Davis, Tyler, Texas. Parties shall jointly submit a claim construction chart on computer disk in Word Perfect format or in such other format as the Court may direct in accordance with P.R. 4-5(d). Parties to file a notice with the Court stating the estimated amount of time requested for the Markman Hearing. The Court will notify the parties if it is unable to accommodate this request. Comply with P.R 4-5(c) - Reply brief and supporting evidence due re response to claim construction. The moving party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their reply brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor.

Friday * April 13, 2007 Thursday April 5, 2007

Thursday March 29, 2007

Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) - Responsive brief and supporting evidence due to party claiming patent infringement. The moving party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their Markman brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their Markman brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor. Comply with P.R. 4-5(a) - The party claiming patent infringement shall serve and file an opening brief and any evidence supporting its claim construction. The moving party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their Markman brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their Markman brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor.

Thursday March 15, 2007

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 4
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

Thursday March 8, 2007

Deadline for parties, if they desire, to provide Court with tutorials concerning technology involved in patent. If a technical advisor has been appointed, each party that provides a tutorial shall provide a copy to the advisor. Discovery Deadline - Claim Construction Issues. Respond to Amended Pleadings. Parties to provide name, address, phone number, and curriculum vitae for three (3) agreed technical advisors and information regarding the nominees' availability for Markman hearing or a statement that they could not reach an agreement as to any potential technical advisor. Amended Pleadings (pre-claim construction) due from all parties. It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the deadline. However, if the amendment would affect preliminary infringement contentions or preliminary invalidity contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7 irrespective of whether the amendment is made prior to this deadline. Comply with P.R. 4-3 - Filing of Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Comply with P.R. 4-2 - Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence. 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). Comply with P.R. 4- 1 - Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction. Comply with P.R. 3-3 and P.R. 3-4 - Preliminary Invalidity Contentions due. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add and/or amend invalidity contentions, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7. Add any inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings. It is not necessary to file a motion for leave to add inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings.

Thursday March 1, 2007 Thursday February 15, 2007 Thursday February 8, 2007

Thursday February 1, 2007

Monday January 29, 2007 Friday * January 5, 2007

Friday * December 1, 2006 Tuesday November 14, 2006

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 5
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

Monday October 2, 2006

Comply with P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-2 - Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions due. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add and/or amend infringement contentions, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7. Join Additional Parties. It is not necessary to file a motion to join additional parties prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to join additional parties. Add new patents and/or claims for patents-in-suit. It is not necessary to file a motion to add additional patents or claims prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add patents or claims. Mediation. The Court refers most cases to mediation. The parties should discuss proposed mediators and timing of mediation prior to the Scheduling Conference and be prepared with a recommendation for the Court.

April 13, 2007

Mediation to be completed. (Name), (address), and (phone number) is appointed as mediator in this cause. 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 in accordance with this order. General Order 99-2. EXPECTED LENGTH OF TRIAL

7 days

In the event that any of these dates fall on a weekend or Court holiday, the deadline is modified to be the next Court business day. The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that "[iln 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 15 days in which to serve and file supporting documents and briefs after which the Court will consider the submitted motion for decision. OTHER LIMITATIONS (a) 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

(b)

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 6
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 26-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 7 Filed 09/15/2006 Page of 7

(c)

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: (i) (ii) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case; The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.

(iii)

DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - PAGE 7
Dallas 225235v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 27

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/18/2006

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 vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Defendant ORDER Before the Court is Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Consolidate this action with 2:06cv223 (Docket No. 24). The Court ORDERS Rembrandt Technologies to respond to this motion by 5 p.m. on Friday, September 22, 2006. Time Warner may file a reply no later than noon on Tuesday, September 26. The Court will hear this motion at 9 a.m., Wednesday, September 27, 2006. The Court also RESCHEDULES the scheduling conference for that time. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2006. § § § § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06 CV 224 PATENT CASE

__________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-5 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 28

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/20/2006

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 vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Defendant ORDER The Court TRANSFERS this case to the Honorable T. John Ward. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of September, 2006. § § § § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06 CV 224 PATENT CASE

__________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 29

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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-00224-TJW

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that attorney Robert Christopher Bunt enters his appearance in this matter as additional counsel for Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP for the purpose of receiving notices from the Court.

Dated: September 21, 2006

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert Christopher Bunt Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 903/531-3535 903/533-9687 - Facsimile E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-6 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 29

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/21/2006

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this September 21, 2006, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Robert Christopher Bunt Robert Christopher Bunt

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-7 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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-00224-TJW

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that attorney Charles Ainsworth enters his appearance in this matter as additional counsel for Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP for the purpose of receiving notices from the Court.

Dated: September 21, 2006

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles Ainsworth Charles Ainsworth State Bar No. 00783521 Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 903/531-3535 903/533-9687 - Facsimile E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-7 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 30

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/21/2006

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this September 21, 2006, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Charles Ainsworth Charles Ainsworth

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 5 Filed 09/21/2006 Page of 5

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 Demanded

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND EXPEDITED BRIEFING ON MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies LP ("Rembrandt") files this Motion to Vacate Order Setting Scheduling Conference and Expedited Briefing on Motion to Consolidate. By this Motion, Rembrandt seeks to vacate the scheduling conference and expedited briefing schedule that Judge Davis ordered in Case No. 2:06-CV-224 ("the Time Warner case") prior to Judge Davis' decision to transfer both the Time Warner Case and Case No. 2:06-CV-223 ("the Charter case") to Judge Ward. Upon the granting of this Motion, the briefing on Time Warner's Motion to Consolidate will occur pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, rather than on the expedited schedule set by the Order of Judge Davis.

Austin 31141v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 5 Filed 09/21/2006 Page of 5

I. On September 15, 2006, Time Warner filed its "Motion to Consolidate This Action With No. 2:06-CV-223 Pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference" (Docket Number 24). Time Warner requested that the Scheduling Conference be continued due to unavailability of its counsel. On September 18th, Judge Davis issued an Order resetting the Scheduling Conference to Wednesday, September 27, 2006. In order to complete briefing on Time Warner's Motion to Consolidate in advance of that scheduling conference, Judge Davis also ordered that Rembrandt's Opposition to Time Warner's Motion to Consolidate be filed by 5:00 P.M., Friday, September 22, 2006. On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, Judge Davis issued two Orders transferring the Time Warner and Charter Cases to Judge Ward (Docket Nos. 28 and 41 respectively). In light of this transfer, Rembrandt believes that the September 18, 2006 Order setting a Scheduling Conference and Expedited Briefing is now moot, and requests that this Order be vacated. Defendant Time Warner does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, Rembrandt requests that the Court grant this Motion to Vacate Order Setting Scheduling Conference and Expedited Briefing on Motion to Consolidate.

2
Austin 31141v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 5 Filed 09/21/2006 Page of 5

Dated: September 21, 2006

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]

3
Austin 31141v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 5 Filed 09/21/2006 Page of 5

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

4
Austin 31141v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-8 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 31-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 5 Filed 09/21/2006 Page of 5

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 21st day of September, 2006.

/s/ Sam Baxter____________________________ Sam Baxter

5
Austin 31141v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-9 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 32

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/22/2006

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, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Defendant. § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-224 (TJW) § § § § §

ORDER The Court vacates Judge Davis' September 18, 2006 order (#27) as a result of the transfer of this case to Judge Ward. The hearing set for September 27, 2006 on Time Warner Cable, Inc.'s motion to consolidate and the scheduling conference is hereby canceled. The response to Time Warner Cable, Inc.'s motion to consolidate (#24) will be due in accordance with the local rules.
SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-10 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 33

Filed 09/20/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-10 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 33

Filed 09/20/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 34

Filed 09/20/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 34

Filed 09/20/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-12 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 35-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/25/2006

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 §

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THIS ACTION WITH NO. 2:06-CV-223 PURSUANT TO FRCP 42 and CV 42 AND MOTION TO CONTINUE THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE COMES NOW Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") and files this, its Unopposed Motion to Withdraw its Motion to Consolidate this Action with No. 2:06-cv-223 pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference, and in support, presents to the Court the following: 1. Motion. 2. Since the filing of said Motion, the Honorable Leonard E. Davis has entered an TWC filed said Motion on September 15, 2006 [Dkt. 24]. Plaintiff opposed said

Order transferring this action to this Honorable Court [Dkt. 28]. 3. An Unopposed Motion to Vacate Order Setting Scheduling Conference and

Expedited Briefing on Motion to Consolidate was filed by Plaintiff on September 21, 2006 [Dkt. 31]. 4. An Order vacating Judge Davis's Order [Dkt. 27] was entered by this Honorable

Court on September 22, 2006 [Dkt. 32]. 5. TWC hereby moves to withdraw its Motion to Consolidate this Action with No.

2:06-cv-223 pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference without prejudice to refile at a later time in these proceedings.

{A53\7477\0002\W0312341.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-12 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 35-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/25/2006

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Dated: September 25, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

Michael A. Rogoff David S. Benyacar KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 836-8000 Facsimile: (212) 836-8689

/s/ Diane V. DeVasto Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Diane V. DeVasto 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.

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 25th day of September 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail on this same date.

/s/ Diane V. DeVasto

2
{A53\7477\0002\W0312341.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-13 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 36

Filed 09/26/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 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] § JURY DEMANDED §

ORDER GRANTING TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THIS ACTION WITH NO. 2:06-CV-223 PURSUANT TO FRCP 42 and CV 42 AND MOTION TO CONTINUE THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Having read and considered the foregoing Unopposed Motion to Withdraw its Motion to Consolidate this Action with No. 2:06-cv-223 pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED and Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Consolidate this Action with No. 2:06-cv-223 pursuant to FRCP 42 and CV 42 and Motion to Continue the September 20, 2006 Scheduling Conference is withdrawn without prejudice to refile said Motion.
SIGNED this 26th day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

{A53\7477\0002\W0312341.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 90-14 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 37

Filed 09/29/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

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,

TIME WARNER CABLE INC. DEFENDANT

§ § § § § § § §

CASE No. 2:06CV-224 Honorable Leonard E. Davis Case No. 2:06-CV-224 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE NOTICE is hereby given that Franklin Jones, Jr. is entering his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for purposes of receiving notices from the Court. Dated this 29th day of September, 2006. BY:/s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, Inc. P. O. Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Telephone: (903)9338-43395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 29th day of September, 2006, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent to all counsel of record via the Court's electronic filing system.

/s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. Franklin Jones, Jr.

1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-15 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") moves for leave to amend the Original Complaint to add four subsidiaries of Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC") as defendants. In support of this motion, Rembrandt would show the Court the following:

1.

Prior to March 2003, TWI Cable ("TWI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Time

Warner Inc., and Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.("TWE") owned all of Time Warner's cable systems.1 In March 2003, Time Warner created TWC as a majority owned subsidiary, and consolidated the assets and liabilities of Time Warner's cable operations under TWC.2 After the consolidation, TWI ceased to exist, but TWE continued to own cable systems under TWC.

AOL Time Warner, Inc. 2001 Form 10K at 8 (13) (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit B). The excerpt pages in Exhibits B, C, D, and E contain two page numbers: (i) a page number that appears in the text of the page about onethird of the way in from the left hand margin which number reflects the page number in the actual document and (ii) a page number in the upper right hand corner of the page which reflects the page number of the source from which Rembrandt obtained the document. The citations herein cite first to the page number in the actual document, the page number that appears in the text of the page. The numbers in the parentheticals refer to the numbers in the upper right hand corner of the pages. Time Warner Inc. 2003 Form 10K at 1-2 (4-5) (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit D); AOL Time Warner Inc. 2002 10K at 1 & 7 (5 & 13-14) (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit C) (All of Time Warner's cable interests,
2

1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - PAGE 1
Dallas 232716v2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-15 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5

2.

Today, TWC is the second largest cable operator in the United States with over 14

million cable subscribers.3 In a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, TWC identified four entities as owning the cable systems that serve TWC's subscribers: Time Warner Cable LLC ("TWCL") which owns cable systems that serve approximately 1.0 million subscribers; Time Warner New York Cable LLC ("TWNY") which owns cable systems that serve approximately 4.4 million subscribers; TWE which owns cable systems that serve approximately 3.4 million subscribers; and Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership ("TWE-A/N") which own cable systems that serve approximately 4.7 million subscribers.4 Each of TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-A/N is a direct or indirect subsidiary of TWC.5 The four subsidiaries have owned cable systems that provided, and continue to own cable systems that provide, services to residents of Texas and elsewhere that Rembrandt contends infringed and continue to infringe the patents-in-suit. 3. Based on TWC's public statements, Rembrandt seeks to add the four subsidiaries,

TWCL, TWNY, TWE, and TWE-A/N, as defendants to ensure that Rembrandt has the proper parties before the Court in order to reach all of TWC's cable operations during the infringing period. 4. Rembrandt seeks leave to amend, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Granting Rembrandt leave to add the four

Civil Procedure, because TWC has answered.

subsidiaries will not prejudice either TWC or the four subsidiaries. The case is not yet set for a
including those wholly owned and those that were held through Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., are now controlled by TWC).
3

December 7, 2006 Amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 Registration Statement of Time Warner Cable, Inc. at 1 (7-8) (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit E). Id. at 5 (16) (Exhibit E). Id. at Exhibit 21.1 (Exhibit F attached hereto).

4 5

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - PAGE 2
Dallas 232716v2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-15 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5

scheduling conference. Moreover, at the scheduling conference or shortly thereafter, the Court enters a Docket Control Order which typically grants the parties a certain period of time in which to add additional parties without the need to seek leave of this Court. Rembrandt is seeking to add the four subsidiaries before the time for freely adding parties has commenced. Rembrandt moves for leave of this Court to amend its Original Complaint, as attached hereto as Exhibit A, to add Time Warner Cable LLC, Time Warner NY Cable LLC, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., and Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership as named defendants. DATED: February 23, 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] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - PAGE 3
Dallas 232716v2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-15 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5

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] 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

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - PAGE 4
Dallas 232716v2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-15 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 5 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Counsel for Rembrandt Technologies, L.P. contacted Mr. Michael E. Jones, counsel for Time Warner Cable, Inc., on February 23, 2007 regarding the motion. Counsel for TWC stated that he was unable to respond at this time.

_/s/ Jeffrey A. Carter____________ Jeffrey A. Carter

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 23rd day of February, 2007.

_/s/ Sam Baxter________________________ Sam Baxter

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - PAGE 5
Dallas 232716v2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 12 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 12 Page 2 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 12 Page 3 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 12 Page 4 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 12 Page 5 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 12 Page 6 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 12 Page 7 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 8 of 12 Page 8 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 9 of 12 Page 9 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 10 of 12 Page 10 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 11 of 12 Page 11 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 12 of 12 Page 12 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 16 Page 1 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 16 Page 2 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 16 Page 3 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 16 Page 4 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 16 Page 5 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 16 Page 6 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 16 Page 7 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 8 of 16 Page 8 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 9 of 16 Page 9 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 10 of 16 Page 10 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 11 of 16 Page 11 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 12 of 16 Page 12 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 13 of 16 Page 13 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 14 of 16 Page 14 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 15 of 16 Page 15 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 16 of 16 Page 16 of 16

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 18 Page 1 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 18 Page 2 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 18 Page 3 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 18 Page 4 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 18 Page 5 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 18 Page 6 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 18 Page 7 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 8 of 18 Page 8 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 9 of 18 Page 9 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 10 of 18 Page 10 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 11 of 18 Page 11 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 12 of 18 Page 12 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 13 of 18 Page 13 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 14 of 18 Page 14 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 15 of 18 Page 15 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 16 of 18 Page 16 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 17 of 18 Page 17 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-18 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 18 of 18 Page 18 of 18

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 12 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 12 Page 2 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 12 Page 3 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 12 Page 4 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 12 Page 5 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 12 Page 6 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 12 Page 7 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 8 of 12 Page 8 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 9 of 12 Page 9 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 10 of 12 Page 10 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 11 of 12 Page 11 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-19 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 12 of 12 Page 12 of 12

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 17 Page 1 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 17 Page 2 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 17 Page 3 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 17 Page 4 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 17 Page 5 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 17 Page 6 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 17 Page 7 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 8 of 17 Page 8 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 9 of 17 Page 9 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 10 of 17 Page 10 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 11 of 17 Page 11 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 12 of 17 Page 12 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 13 of 17 Page 13 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 14 of 17 Page 14 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 15 of 17 Page 15 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 16 of 17 Page 16 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-20 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 17 of 17 Page 17 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 1 of 7 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 3 of 7 Page 3 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 4 of 7 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 5 of 7 Page 5 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 6 of 7 Page 6 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-21 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

Page 7 of 7 Page 7 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-22 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 38-8

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 02/23/2007

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.

Dallas 233518v1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-23 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 39-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/02/2007

Page 1 of 8 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION __________________________________________ REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 2:06 CV 223 [TJW] § CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., § CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, § LLC, COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., § COXCOM, INC., COX ENTERPRISES, INC., § CSC HOLDINGS, INC., and CABLEVISION § SYSTEMS CORPORATION, § § Defendants. § __________________________________________§ REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 2:06 CV 224 [TJW] § TIME WARNER CABLE INC., § § Defendant. § __________________________________________§ DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS

{A53\7477\0002\W0321111.2 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-23 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 39-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/02/2007

Page 2 of 8 Page 2 of 8

Charter Communications, Inc., CoxCom, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, and all other defendants in Case No. 2:06 CV 223 (collectively, "Charter")1 and Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"), the defendant in Case No. 2:06 CV 224, hereby move the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), to consolidate these actions with Case No. 2:05 CV 443 (in which Comcast Corporation and its related entities (collectively, "Comcast") are the defendants) for all pretrial proceedings. As shown below, pretrial consolidation of these three cases, which involve identical infringement allegations regarding the same four patents, will promote efficiency, will conserve the resources of the Court and the parties, and will allow each of the similarly situated defendants to have a full opportunity to address this Court on critical pretrial matters such as patent claim construction. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") filed three separate, identical lawsuits in this Court. On September 16, 2005, Rembrandt filed suit against Comcast alleging that Comcast infringes four patents by virtue of its compliance with the DOCSIS and ATSC industry standards. On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt filed two new, separate complaints in this Court against Charter and TWC alleging infringement of the same four patents at issue in the Comcast litigation by virtue of Charter's and TWC's compliance with the exact same two industry standards. In all three complaints, compliance with the ATSC standard is alleged to infringe United States Patent No.

Cox Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc. were dismissed from the 2:06cv223 action. CoxCom, Inc. has moved to dismiss the 2:06cv223 action because it believes this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over CoxCom. Nonetheless, without prejudice to its pending motion and in the event that the Court denied CoxCom's motion to dismiss, CoxCom believes that the Court should consolidate these matters for the reasons stated herein. In addition, although still listed in the caption for the 2:06cv223 action, Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, Inc. ("Cablevision") are no longer parties to this action. In an Order dated October 16, 2006, this Court granted Rembrandt's motion to dismiss its claims against Cablevision in this action. Rembrandt filed a separate action against Cablevision in the District of Delaware on October 13, 2006; that action is currently pending before Judge Sleet as case number 1:06cv635.

1

{A53\7477\0002\W0321111.2 }

1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-23 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 39-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/02/2007

Page 3 of 8 Page 3 of 8

5,243,627, and compliance with the DOCSIS standard is alleged to infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,852,631, 4,937,819, and 5,719,858. See Comcast Complaint && 11, 23, 29; Charter Complaint && 17, 29, 35; TWC Complaint && 10, 22, 28. Accordingly, based on the complaints, the infringement, validity and enforceability issues raised by all three cases are identical. On August 30, 2006, TWC filed a motion to disqualify Rembrandt's counsel in the Comcast case, Fish & Richardson ("F&R"), after obtaining leave to intervene for the limited purpose of filing that motion. TWC argued that F&R had a conflict of interest because, inter alia, F&R would be advancing positions on behalf of Rembrandt in the Comcast case that, if successful, would undoubtedly be used by Rembrandt in its action against TWC. (F&R also initially represented Rembrandt in the Charter case, but voluntarily withdrew from that action after TWC objected to F&R's participation.) By Order dated February 8, 2007, the Court granted TWC's motion and disqualified F&R. The Court recognized that: The practical significance of Rembrandt's infringement theory is to indict for patent infringement all major cable companies who follow the industry standards. A finding of infringement and an injunction issued by this court against a cable company for compliance with industry standards would have a significant practical effect on Time Warner. Order at 6. The Court further pointed out that: Rembrandt filed its cases in the same district. Its case against Time Warner is pending before the same judge at roughly the same time as this case, but this case was filed first. Although it is true that the claim construction rulings in this case would not be binding on Time Warner, there is a likelihood that the positions taken by F&R in this case could, as a practical matter, prejudice Time Warner in subsequent proceedings. The parties to the Comcast action have fully briefed their claim construction positions, but the Court

{A53\7477\0002\W0321111.2 }

2

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 90-23 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 39-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 03/02/2007

Page 4 of 8 Page 4 of 8

has continued the Markman hearing in view of the F&R disqualification.2 ARGUMENT Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) empowers the Court to consolidate "any or all the matters in issue" in actions having "a common question of law or fact." These actions plainly satisfy the requirement of a "common question of law or fact," because Rembrandt is asserting the same patents against all of the defendants based on all of the defendants' use of the same industry-wide standards using equipment supplied by the same group of vendors. The Fifth Circuit has recognized that Rule 42(a) "is a broad grant of authority" and "has been applied liberally." In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades, 549 F.2d 1006, 1013 (5th Cir. 1977). District Courts in the Fifth Circuit are encouraged to consolidate actions to promote efficiency. "In this Circuit, district judges have been `urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) . . . in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.'" Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973) (citation omitted). Accord, Attala Hydratane Gas, Inc. v. Lowry Tims Co., 41 F.R.D. 164, 165 (N.D. Miss. 1966) (Rule 42(a) "is designed and intended to encourage the consolidation of actions"). This Court has consolidated actions involving claims based on the same patents. See Epicrealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc. Orders dated November 2 and 16, 2005, attached as Exhibit A. Similarly, in 3M Co. v. Moldex-Metric, Inc., 2006 WL 3759758, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 21, 2006), the court recently consolidated