Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 12 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 13 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 14 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 15 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 16 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS

Document 89

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 17 of 17

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 1 of 7 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 3 of 7 Page 3 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 4 of 7 Page 4 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 5 of 7 Page 5 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 6 of 7 Page 6 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-2 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 7 of 7 Page 7 of 7

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-3 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-4 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 1-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 06/01/2006

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-5 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 2

Filed 06/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-6 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 3

Filed 07/06/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP VS. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

§ § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Otis Carroll, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for purposes of receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this 6th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, BY: /s/ Otis Carroll Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-6 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 3

Filed 07/06/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 6th day of July, 2006. /s/ Otis Carroll Otis Carroll

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-7 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 5

Filed 07/14/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-7 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 5

Filed 07/14/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-8 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 6

Filed 07/14/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-8 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 6

Filed 07/14/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-9 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 7

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. Defendant. § § § § § Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED § § JURY TRIAL REQUESTED § §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF LEAD COUNSEL COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, in the above-referenced matter, and gives notice to the Court and all Parties that the following counsel is appearing as lead counsel for Rembrandt Technologies, LP: 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] Dated this 19th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /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]

Austin 30119v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-9 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 7

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

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] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Austin 30119v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-10 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 8

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11of 22 Page of

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 LED § § JURY TRIAL REQUESTED § §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Bradley W. Caldwell, Texas State Bar No. 24040630, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of representing Plaintiff and receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this 19th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /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]

Austin 30124v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-10 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 8

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 22of 22 Page of

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] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Austin 30124v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 9

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11of 22 Page of

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 LED § § JURY TRIAL REQUESTED § §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Jeffrey A. Carter, Texas State Bar No. 03919400, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of representing Plaintiff and receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this 19th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /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]

Austin 30122v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-11 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 9

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 22of 22 Page of

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] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Austin 30122v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-12 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 10

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. Defendant. § § § § § Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED § § JURY TRIAL REQUESTED § §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Travis Gordon White, Texas State Bar No. 21333000, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of representing Plaintiff and receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this19th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /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]

Austin 30121v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-12 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 10

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

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] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Austin 30121v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-13 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 11

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. Defendant. § § § § § Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED § § JURY TRIAL REQUESTED § §

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, John Garvish, Texas State Bar No. 24043681, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of representing Plaintiff and receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this 19th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. /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]

Austin 30125v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-13 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 11

Filed 07/19/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

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] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Austin 30125v1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-14 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 12

Filed 07/21/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP VS. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

§ § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Collin Maloney, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for purposes of receiving notices and orders from the Court. Dated this 21st day July, 2006. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Collin Maloney____________________ Collin Maloney State Bar No. 00794219 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax; (903) 581-1071 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF REMRBANDT TECHNOLGIES, LP

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-14 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 12

Filed 07/21/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of this document via electronic delivery or United States mail this 21st day of July, 2006.

/s/ Collin Maloney__________________ Collin Maloney

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 13

Filed 07/25/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP VS. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

§ § § § §

Case No. 2:06-CV-224 LED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney, Patrick Kelley, enters his appearance in this matter for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for purposes of receiving notices and orders from the Court. DATED this 25th day of July, 2006. Respectfully submitted, BY: /s/ Patrick Kelley Patrick Kelley State Bar No. 11202500 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-15 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 13

Filed 07/25/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 25th day of July, 2006. /s/ Patrick Kelley Patrick Kelley

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 07/27/2006

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 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TIME WARNER CABLE INC. ("TIME WARNER"), moves the Court for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP'S Complaint, and would show the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiff, REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP ("REMBRANDT"), filed its

complaint against TIME WARNER on or about June 1, 2006 [Dkt. 1]. 2. The issues involved in this case are such that TIME WARNER requires additional

time to prepare a response. 3. TIME WARNER respectfully requests a thirty (30) day extension of time to

answer or otherwise respond in any manner whatsoever to Plaintiff's complaint up to and including August 23, 2006. 4. Plaintiff, REMBRANDT, is not opposed to this Motion for extension of time to

answer or otherwise respond. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that the Court grant this Motion for Extension of Time by extending the time period for TIME WARNER to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint until on or before August 23, 2006.

{A07\7477\0002\W0308883.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-16 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Dated: July 27, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/ Michael E. Jones 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 (903) 597 8311 (903) 593 0846 (Facsimile) [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that Mike Jones, counsel for TIME WARNER CABLE INC, has conferred with Chris Bunt, counsel for REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP and that Mr. Bunt is not opposed to the relief sought in this motion. /s/ Michael E. Jones

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on July 27, 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and first class mail.

/s/ Michael E. Jones

{A07\7477\0002\W0308883.1 }

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-17 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 14-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 07/27/2006

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 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND ON THIS DAY, came on to be heard Defendant TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint of Plaintiff, REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP in the above-styled and numbered cause. After considering said Motion, and the entire record in this cause, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion shall be in all things GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant TIME WARNER CABLE INC. to Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to, and including August 23, 2006.

{A07\7477\0002\W0308883.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-18 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of of 1 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 1415 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:06-cv-00224-LED Document Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 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 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND ON THIS DAY, came on to be heard Defendant TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint of Plaintiff, REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP in the above-styled and numbered cause. After considering said Motion, and the entire record in this cause, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion shall be in all things GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant TIME WARNER CABLE INC. to Answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is extended to, and including August 23, 2006. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of July, 2006.

__________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

{A07\7477\0002\W0308883.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-19 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 16

Filed 08/21/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-19 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 16

Filed 08/21/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 8 Page 1 of 8

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 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC"), by its undersigned counsel, responds to the allegations asserted in the Complaint of Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") as follows: 1. TWC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. 2. TWC admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint that it is a Delaware corporation, that its "registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT Corporation System, 350 North St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201," and that it conducts business in Texas and within this judicial district. TWC denies the remaining allegations made in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. TWC is not infringing, and has not in the past infringed, any of the patents identified in the Complaint. 3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions for which no

response is required. To the extent paragraph 3 contains factual allegations to which a response is required, those allegations are denied.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 8 Page 2 of 8

4. TWC admits the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it, and that "TWC has conducted and does conduct business within the State of Texas." TWC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint. TWC is not infringing, and has not in the past infringed, any of the patents identified in the Complaint. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint sets forth legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent paragraph 5 contains factual allegations to which a response is required, those allegations are denied.

COUNT I 6. TWC restates and realleges its responses to paragraphs 1-5 of the Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 7. TWC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. 8. TWC admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,243,627 (the "'627 patent") was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("the PTO") on September 7, 1993. TWC denies the remaining allegations made in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. TWC admits that it operates cable television systems in the United States. TWC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint. COUNT II

2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 8 Page 3 of 8

12. TWC restates and realleges its responses to paragraphs 1-11 of the Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 13. TWC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. 14. TWC admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,852,631 (the "'631 patent") was issued by the PTO on December 22, 1998. TWC denies the remaining allegations made in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. TWC admits that it operates cable television systems and is an Internet service provider in the United States. TWC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 16. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 17. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint. COUNT III 18. TWC restates and realleges its responses to paragraphs 1-17 of the Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 19. TWC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. 20. TWC admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,719,858 (the "'858 patent") was issued by the PTO on February 17, 1998. TWC denies the remaining allegations made in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 8 Page 4 of 8

21. TWC admits that it operates cable television systems and is an Internet service provider in the United States. TWC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 23. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint. COUNT IV 24. TWC restates and realleges its responses to paragraphs 1-23 of the Complaint and incorporates them herein by reference. 25. TWC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations. 26. TWC admits that U.S. Patent No. 4,937,819 (the "'819 patent") was issued by the PTO on June 26, 1990. TWC denies the remaining allegations made in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. TWC admits that it operates cable television systems and is an Internet service provider in the United States. TWC denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. TWC denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF TWC denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in its prayer, and to the extent that such prayer contains factual allegations, such allegations are denied.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 8 Page 5 of 8

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES TWC sets forth the following affirmative and other defenses. TWC does not intend hereby to assume the burden of proof with respect to those matters as to which, pursuant to law, Plaintiff Rembrandt bears the burden. FIRST DEFENSE 30. Each of the claims of the '627, '631, '858 and '819 patents is invalid for failure to satisfy the provisions of one or more of sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. SECOND DEFENSE 31. TWC does not manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import into the United States any product or method that infringes any claim of the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and it has not done so in the past. TWC also does not contribute to or induce infringement of the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and it has not done so in the past. TWC does not infringe, and has not in the past infringed, either directly or indirectly, the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents. THIRD DEFENSE 32. The Complaint's claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. FOURTH DEFENSE 33. The Complaint's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. COUNTERCLAIMS PARTIES 1. Counterclaimant Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") is a Delaware corporation having its corporate headquarters at 290 Harbor Drive, Stamford, CT 06902.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 8 Page 6 of 8

2. Counterclaim defendant Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") purports to be 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. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. These counterclaims seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 4. This Court has jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367. 5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. 6. A justiciable controversy exists between Counterclaimant TWC and Rembrandt with respect to the invalidity and noninfringement of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,243,627 (the "'627 patent"), 5,852,631 (the "'631 patent"), 5,719,858 (the "'858 patent"), and 4,937,819 (the "'819 patent"). FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 7. TWC hereby repeats and reiterates the allegations made in paragraphs 1-6 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein. 8. Each of the claims of the '627, '631, '858 and '819 patents is invalid for failure to satisfy the provisions of one or more of sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM 9. TWC hereby repeats and reiterates the allegations made in paragraphs 1-8 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.

6

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 8 Page 7 of 8

10. TWC does not manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import into the United States any product or method that infringes any claim of the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and it has not done so in the past. TWC also does not contribute to or induce infringement of the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and it has not done so in the past. TWC does not infringe, and has not in the past infringed, either directly or indirectly, the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant and Counterclaimant TWC prays that: a) The Court dismiss all of Rembrandt's claims against TWC with prejudice; b) The Court declare invalid each of the claims of the '627, '631, '858 and '819 patents; c) The Court declare that TWC does not manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import into the United States any product or method that infringes any of the claims of the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and has not done so in the past, and that TWC therefore and otherwise does not directly infringe the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and has not done so in the past; a. The Court declare that TWC does not contribute to or induce infringement of the

'627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and it has not done so in the past, and that TWC therefore and otherwise does not indirectly infringe the '627, '631, '858 or '819 patents and has not done so in the past; b. TWC be awarded its costs in this action;

c. TWC be awarded its attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and TWC be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems is just and proper.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-20 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 17

Filed 08/23/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 8 Page 8 of 8

Date: August 23, 2006

Respectfully submitted, POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P.O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 (903) 597-8311 (903) 593-0846 (facsimile) By: /s/ Michael E. Jones MICHAEL E. JONES State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service 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 23rd day of August, 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class U.S. mail on this same date. /s/ Michael E. Jones

8

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-21 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 18

Filed 08/23/2006 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 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 7.1, defendant Time Warner Cable Inc. states that it is a Delaware corporation which is owned by Adelphia Communications Corporation and, through indirect subsidiaries, by Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc. and Adelphia Communications Corporation are publicly held companies.

Date: August 23, 2006

Respectfully submitted, POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P.O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 (903) 597-8311 (903) 593-0846 (facsimile) By: /s/ Michael E. Jones MICHAEL E. JONES State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service 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 23rd day of August, 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class U.S. mail on this same date. /s/ Michael E. Jones

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 14 Page 1 of 14

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 PATENT CASE

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER, AND PROPOSED DATES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER The Court, sua sponte, issues this Notice of Scheduling Conference, Proposed Dates for Docket Control Order and Proposed 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 September 20, 2006 at 10:30 am at the United States Courthouse, 211 West Ferguson, 3rd Floor, Judge Leonard Davis's Court, Tyler, Texas. The parties are directed to meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and P.R. § 2-1 no later than fourteen (14) days before the conference. The parties are excused from the requirement of filing a written proposed discovery plan in this case. Stipulation of the Parties with Notice of Agreement - No Court Appearance Required The Court does not require the parties to attend the Scheduling Conference if the parties agree to the following and file a Notice of Agreement containing this information at least seven days before the conference date. IF THE PARTIES FAIL TO FILE AN AGREEMENT NOTICE WITH THE COURT SEVEN (7) DAYS BEFORE THE CONFERENCE DATE, THE

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 2 of 14 Page 2 of 14

PARTIES MUST ATTEND THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON THE DATE SET FORTH ABOVE. Upon receipt of the Notice of Agreement, the Court will issue a Docket Control Order, Discovery Order, and Mediation Order without the necessity of the parties' appearance. The Notice of Agreement is to contain the following information: a. b. c. d. e. The guidelines contained in the Discovery Order as outlined in Appendix A; The proposed dates for the Docket Control Order as outlined in Appendix B; A mediator (name, address and phone number); Deadline by which to complete mediation; and Length of trial.

PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER If the parties do not file a Notice of Agreement with the Court seven days before the Scheduling Conference date, the proposed Discovery Order set forth in the attached Appendix A will be discussed at the conference. The parties should also be prepared to discuss whether the Court should authorize the filing under seal of any documents containing confidential information.

PROPOSED DATES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER If the parties do not file a Notice of Agreement with the Court seven days before the Scheduling Conference date, the proposed dates for the Docket Control Order set forth in the attached Appendix B will be discussed at the Scheduling Conference. The Court sits in Marshall only during the months of February, April, August, and November. The Court sits in Tyler the remaining eight months of the year. Because the Court is in Marshall only four months each year, the Court can often offer the parties an earlier trial date if the parties agree to try the case in Tyler. The proposed Docket Control Order reflects the Court's available trial dates in both Marshall and Tyler. Prior to the Scheduling Conference, the parties are to confer as to whether they would like to try the case in Tyler or Marshall. If the parties cannot agree, the trial will be in Marshall since that
2

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 3 of 14 Page 3 of 14

is where the complaint was filed. The parties are to then fill in the remaining dates of the Docket Control Order according to the descriptions given in the form. The parties may modify these dates, but only to the extent the modifications do not affect the Markman hearing, dispositive motion, or trial dates. The parties are to file their joint proposed Docket Control Order with the Court no fewer than three (3) days before the Scheduling Conference. The parties' proposed Docket Control Order will be discussed at the Scheduling Conference. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st day of September, 2006.

__________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 4 of 14 Page 4 of 14

APPENDIX A PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE After 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, the Court enters the following Discovery Order: 1. Disclosures. Within thirty (30) days after the Scheduling Conference, and without awaiting a discovery request, each party shall disclose to every other party the following information: A. B C. the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit; the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties; the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party's claims or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial); 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 such person; any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity 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; any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; any statement of any party to the litigation;

D.

E.

F. G. 2.

Additional Disclosures. Each party shall provide to every other party the following information: A. B. the disclosures required by the Court's Patent Rules in accordance with the deadlines set forth in said rules and the Court's Docket Control Order; to the extent that any party pleads a claim for relief or defensive matter other than those addressed in the Patent Rules1, within forty-five (45) days after the Scheduling Conference and without awaiting a discovery request, a copy of all documents, data compilations and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party that are relevant to those additionally pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action. By written agreement of all parties, alternative forms of disclosure may be provided in lieu of paper copies. For example, the parties may agree to exchange images of documents electronically or by means of computer disk; or the parties may agree to review and copy disclosure materials at the offices of the attorneys representing the parties instead of requiring each side to furnish paper copies of the

The Patent Rules are Appendix M to the Local Rules which are available on the Court's website at www.txed.uscourts.gov.
4

1

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 5 of 14 Page 5 of 14

C.

disclosure materials; and 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 (See Local Rule CV-34), the documents or other evidentiary materials on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and those documents and authorizations described in Local Rule CV-34.

3.

Testifying Experts. By the date provided 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; the general substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the disclosing party, documents reflecting such information; if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the disclosing party; (1) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert's testimony; and the expert's current resume and bibliography.

D.

(2) 4.

Discovery Limitations. Discovery is limited in this cause to the disclosures described in Paragraphs 1 - 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 two expert witnesses per side or the parties may agree on a number of hours of depositions. "Side" means a party or a group of parties with a common interest. 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. By the date provided in the Docket Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, with enable the other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. A party may move the Court for an order compelling the production of any privileged documents or information identified on any other party's privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall 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 file a notice so stating by the date provided in the Docket Control Order.
5

5.

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 6 of 14 Page 6 of 14

6.

Pre-trial Disclosures. By the date provided in the Docket Control Order, each party shall provide to every other party the following disclosures regarding the evidence that the disclosing party intends to present at trial: 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. 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. An appropriate identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence, separately identifying those which the party expects to offer and those which the party may offer if the need arises.

B.

C.

By the date provided in the Docket Control Order, 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." above; and (2) any objections, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph "C." above. 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. Exchange of Disclosures. 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. Notification of the Court. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under this order have taken place. 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. Protective Orders. A copy of the Court's standard protective order is available on the Court's website at www.txed.uscourts.gov entitled "Judge Davis Standard Protective Order." A party may request that the Court issue the Protective Order. However, a party may propose the issuance of or move to modify the terms of the Protective Order for good cause. Rules of Practice. The Court's rules of practice for patent cases are on the Court's website at www.txed.uscourts.gov.
6

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 7 of 14 Page 7 of 14

13.

Discovery Disputes. Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any "hot-line" disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV26(f). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance with Local Rule CV-26(f). 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. Parties asserting the defense of qualified immunity may submit a motion to limit disclosure to those materials necessary to decide the issue of qualified immunity. E-Filing. Except for good cause shown or as provided in the Local Rules, all documents (with exception of those documents referenced in the local rules) in cases pending in this Court shall be filed electronically. This includes notices of disclosure, notices of no privilege issues, proposed orders, and mediator's reports. The file in each case is maintained electronically. Neither the clerks office nor the Court will maintain a paper file except as provided in the local rules. When filing electronically, the Court prefers: (i) (ii) (iii) that documents be published to PDF and then filed with the Court rather than filing scanned documents; proposed orders be included as attachments to motions filed rather than incorporated within the body of the filed motion; proposed orders should NOT contain an "it is so ordered" designation, signature line, or date line since this information is contained in the Judge's electronic signature stamp and proposed orders should NOT contain the word "Proposed" in the title of the document.

14.

15.

(iv)

16.

Courtesy Paper Copies. In cases pending before this Court, the parties are exempt from complying with Local Rule CV-5 which requires that paper copies be provided to the presiding judge's chambers if a document exceeds five pages in length. Paper copies will not be accepted by this Court unless specifically requested or as provided below. Hearing Notebooks. Within ten days following the filing of responses to dispositive or Daubert motions, the movant is to provide the Court with an original and one copy of a hearing notebook containing the motion, any response, any reply and any surreply with the corresponding docket numbers on each and all pleadings and exhibits appropriately tabbed. Wireless Internet Access. Wireless internet access is now available in the Tyler Courthouse. To access the wireless network, users will need a login ID and password, which
7

17.

18.

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 8 of 14 Page 8 of 14

are changed weekly. The current login ID and password will be available at the security desk in the lobby, through Chambers, or through the Clerk's office. 19. Requests for Production. Because documents relevant to any claim or defense are to be produced pursuant to the Patent Rules and paragraphs one and two of this Order, requests for production are unnecessary. However, should a party believe that certain relevant documents have not been produced, that party may request said documents by letter. The Court will entertain a motion to compel documents without the necessity of a movant propounding formal requests for production. Sealed Documents. In cases pending before this Court, the parties are notified that, unless a motion requesting otherwise is received from one or both of the parties within ten (10) days from the date of this notice, the Court will issue an order directing the Clerk's office to docket the "title" of all sealed documents (this does not include the substance of the document) on the Court's case management system.

20.

8

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 9 of 14 Page 9 of 14

APPENDIX B PROPOSED DEADLINES FOR DOCKET CONTROL ORDER TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 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 Plaintiff's or Defendant's Exhibit Number and Case Number. For example:
Plaintiff's Exhibit Exhibit No. ______________ Case No. ________________ Defendant's Exhibit Exhibit No. _______________ Case No. _________________

Day of Trial

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)

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

9

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 10 of 14 Page 10 of 14

2 days before pretrial

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. 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.

3 days before pretrial

5 days before pretrial 20 days before pretrial 25 days before pretrial

35 days before pretrial

55 days before pretrial

At least 15 days after dispositive motion date below

August 20, 2007
Court designated date ­ not flexible without good cause ­ Motion Required 3 days before Dispositive Motions

10

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 11 of 14 Page 11 of 14

14 days before Dispositive Motions

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. Parties designate rebuttal expert witnesses (non-construction issues), Rebuttal expert witness reports due. Refer to Local Rules for required information. Parties with burden of proof designate expert witnesses (non-construction issues). Expert witness reports due. 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 WordPerfect 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.

28 days before Dispositive Motions 58 days before Dispositive Motions

68 days before Dispositive Motions

98 days before Dispositive Motions

April 19, 2007

10 days before Markman Hearing

14 days before Markman Hearing

11

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 12 of 14 Page 12 of 14

21 days before Markman Hearing

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. 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).
12

35 days before Markman Hearing

42 days before Markman Hearing

49 days before Markman Hearing 63 days before Markman Hearing 70 days before Markman Hearing

77 days before Markman Hearing

80 days before Markman Hearing 110 days before Markman Hearing

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 13 of 14 Page 13 of 14

65 days from Sched Conference 55 days from Sched Conference

Comply with P.R. 4-1 - Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction. Comply with P.R. 3-3 - 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. 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.

10 days from Sched Conf

Deadline Date

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

No. of trial 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 "[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 15 days in which to serve and file supporting documents and briefs after which the Court will consider the submitted motion for decision.

13

Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 89-22 Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 19

Filed 09/01/2006 Filed 06/28/2007

Page 14 of 14 Page 14 of 14

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 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.

(b)

(c)

(iii)

14

Case 2:06-cv-00224-TJW-CE Document 89-23 Case 1:07-cv-00401-GMS Document 20-1

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

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. 2:06cv224 [LED] JURY DEMANDED

AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rem