Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In Re: REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP PATENT LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MDL Docket No. 07-md-1848 (GMS)

MOTOROLA, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., ARRIS GROUP, INC., THOMSON, INC., AMBIT MICROSYSTEMS, INC., and NETGEAR, INC., Plaintiffs, v. REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 07-752-GMS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, and REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC d/b/a REMSTREAM, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. MOTOROLA, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., ARRIS GROUP, INC., THOMSON, INC., AMBIT MICROSYSTEMS, INC., and NETGEAR, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE LLC, TIME WARNER NEW YORK CABLE LLC, TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, LP, COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, COXCOM, INC., COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COX ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Civil Action No. 07-752-GMS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 2 of 27

CSC HOLDINGS, INC., CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS, LP, CENTURY-TCI HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF FLORIDA/PENNSYLVIANIA, L.P. (f/k/a PARNASSOS, LP), COMCAST OF PENNSYLVANIA II, L.P. (f/k/a CENTURY-TCI CALIFORNIA, L.P.), PARNASSOS COMMUNICATIONS, LP, ADELPHIA CONSOLIDATION, LLC, PARNASSOS HOLDINGS, LLC, and WESTERN NY CABLEVISION, LP, Counter-Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC'S ANSWER TO REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP'S AND REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC'S COUNTERCLAIM Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating LLC (collectively "Charter") answer Rembrandt Technologies, LP's ("Rembrandt") and Rembrandt Technologies, LLC's ("Remstream") Counterclaim For Patent Infringement as follows: PARTIES 1. Upon information and belief, Charter admits that Rembrandt is a limited

partnership organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey with its principal place of business at 401 City Avenue, Suite 900, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. 2. Upon information and belief, Charter admits that Rembrandt Technologies, LLC,

a Delaware LLC, is wholly owned by Rembrandt and does business as "Remstream." Upon information and belief, Charter admits that Remstream has its headquarters at 401 City Avenue, Suite 900, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

2

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 3 of 27

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 and demands strict proof thereof. 3. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 3 and demands strict proof thereof. 4. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 4. 5. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 5. 6. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 6. 7. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 7. 8. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 8. 9. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 9. 10. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 11 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased 3

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 4 of 27

some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 11. 12. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 12. 13. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 13. 14. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 14. 15. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 15. 16. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 16. 17. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 17. 18. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 18. 19. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 19. 20. Charter admits that Charter Communications, Inc. is a corporation organized

under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 12405 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO 63131 and that its registered agent for service of process in 4

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 5 of 27

Delaware is Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Charter further admits, for purposes of this litigation only, that Charter Communications, Inc. is a national provider of cable television and internet products and services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 20. 21. Charter admits that Charter Communications Operating, LLC is a limited liability

company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business at 12405 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO 63131, that it is a subsidiary of Charter Communications, Inc, and that its registered agent for service of process in Delaware is Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Charter further admits, for purposes of this litigation only, that Charter Communications, Inc. is a national provider of cable television and internet products and services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21. 22. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 22. 23. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 23. 24. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 24. 25. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 25. 26. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 26.

5

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 6 of 27

27.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 27. 28. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 28. 29. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 29. 30. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 30. 31. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 31. 32. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 32. 33. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 33. 34. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 34. 35. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 35. 36. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 36.

6

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 7 of 27

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 37. 38. claims. 39. Charter admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Charter admits that this action invokes the United States patent laws. Charter admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent law

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants because they have submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant action. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 39. 40. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 40 to the extent that they relate to other MSO CounterDefendants. Charter admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC because they are Delaware entities. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 40. 41. Charter admits the allegations of paragraph 41 for purposes of this litigation only. COUNT I ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,937,819 42. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-41. 43. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 4,937,819 ("the `819 patent")

entitled "Time Orthogonal Multiple Virtual DCE Device for Use in Analog and Digital Networks" was attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 43 and demands strict proof thereof.

7

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 8 of 27

44.

Charter admits that the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")

issued the `819 patent on June 26, 1990. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `819 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 45. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 45 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 45. 46. 47. 48. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 46. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 47. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 48. COUNT II ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,008,903 49. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-48. 50. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,903 ("the `903 patent")

entitled "Adaptive Transmit Pre-Emphasis for Digital Modem Computed from Noise Spectrum" was attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 50 and demands strict proof thereof.

8

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 9 of 27

51.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `903 patent on April 16, 1991. Charter

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `903 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 52. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 52 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 52. 53. 54. 55. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 53. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 54. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 55. COUNT III ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,710,761 56. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-55. 57. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,710,761 ("the `761 patent")

entitled "Error Control Negotiation Based on Modulation" was attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 57 and demands strict proof thereof.

9

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 10 of 27

58.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `761 patent on January 20, 1998.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `761 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 59. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 59 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 60. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 61. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 62. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 63. COUNT IV ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,719,858 64. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-63. 65. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,719,858 ("the `858 patent")

entitled "Time-Division Multiple-Access Method for Packet Transmission on Shared Synchronous Serial Buses" was attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 65 and demands strict proof thereof. 10

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 11 of 27

66.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `858 patent on February 17, 1998.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `858 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 67. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 67 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 67. 68. 69. 70. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 68. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 69. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 70. COUNT V ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,778,234 71. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-70. 72. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,778,234 ("the `234 patent")

entitled "Method for Downloading Programs" was attached as Exhibit E to Plaintiff/CounterDefendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 72 and demands strict proof thereof.

11

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 12 of 27

73.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `234 patent on July 7, 1998. Charter

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `234 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 74. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 74 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 75. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 76. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 77. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 78. COUNT VI ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,852,631 79. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-78. 80. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,852,631 ("the `631 patent")

entitled "System and Method for Establishing Link Layer Parameters Based on Physical Layer Modulation" was attached as Exhibit F to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 80 and demands strict proof thereof. 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 13 of 27

81.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `631 patent on December 22, 1998.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `631 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 82. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 82 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 82. 83. 84. 85. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 83. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 84. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 85. COUNT VII ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,131,159 86. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-85. 87. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,131,159 ("the `159 patent")

entitled "System for Downloading Programs" was attached as Exhibit G to Plaintiff/CounterDefendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 87 and demands strict proof thereof.

13

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 14 of 27

88.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `159 patent on October 10, 2000.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the `159 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 89. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 89 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 90. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 91. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 92. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 93. COUNT VIII ­ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,950,444 94. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations of

paragraphs 1-93. 95. Charter admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,444 ("the `444 patent")

entitled "System and Method for a Robust Preamble and Transmission Delimiting in a SwitchedCarrier Transceiver" was attached as Exhibit H to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Complaint. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 95 and demands strict proof thereof. 14

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 15 of 27

96.

Charter admits that the USPTO issued the `444 patent on September 27, 2005.

Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether the '444 patent was "duly and legally issued" because these terms are not defined. 97. Charter lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations of paragraph 97 to the extent that they are directed to other CounterDefendants. Charter admits that Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants sell or sold cable equipment, including cable modems, to Charter. Charter admits that it sells or sold and/or leases or leased some of that cable equipment and/or includes or included that equipment in its networks for the provision of high speed internet, cable broadband, and/or other services. Charter denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 98. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 99. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 100. Charter denies the allegations of paragraph 101. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Further answering the First Amended Complaint, Charter asserts the following defenses. Charter reserves the right to amend its Answer with additional defenses as further information is obtained. 1. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `819 patent. 2. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `903 patent. 15

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 16 of 27

3.

Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `761 patent. 4. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `858 patent. 5. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `234 patent. 6. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `631 patent. 7. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `159 patent. 8. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `444 patent. 9. The claims of the `819 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 10. The claims of the `903 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 11. The claims of the `761 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 12. The claims of the `858 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code.

16

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 17 of 27

13.

The claims of the `234 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 14. The claims of the `631 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 15. The claims of the `159 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 16. The claims of the `444 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the

requirements of Sections 101, 102, 103 and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. 17. Rembrandt's and Remstream's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

doctrines of laches or estoppel. COUNTERCLAIMS Charter, for its Counterclaims against Rembrandt and Remstream, states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. These Counterclaims arise under the United States patent laws and the declaratory

judgment statute. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a), 1367, 2201 and 2202. 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rembrandt and Remstream because they

have submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing their Counterclaim for Patent Infringement in the instant action. 3. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 1400. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

17

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 18 of 27

4.

Rembrandt and Remstream have accused Charter of infringing the `761, `234,

`159, and `444 patents, directly and/or indirectly. 5. Rembrandt has accused Charter of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,243,627 ("the

`627 patent") entitled "Signal Point Interleaving Technique" (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the `819, `903, `858, and `631 patents, directly and/or indirectly. 6. The `819, `903, `761, `858, `234, `631, `159, `444, and `627 patents are invalid,

and have not been and are not infringed by Charter, either directly or indirectly. 7. Consequently, there is an actual case or controversy between the parties over the

infringement, validity, and/or enforceability of the `819, `903, `761, `858, `234, `631, `159, `444, and `627 patents. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 8. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 9. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `819 patent. 10. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `819 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM 11. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims.

18

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 19 of 27

12.

Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `903 patent. 13. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `903 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. THIRD COUNTERCLAIM 14. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 15. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `761 patent. 16. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `761 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM 17. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 18. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `858 patent. 19. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `858 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim.

19

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 20 of 27

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM 20. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 21. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `234 patent. 22. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `234 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM 23. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 24. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `631 patent. 25. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `631 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM 26. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 27. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `159 patent.

20

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 21 of 27

28.

This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `159 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM 29. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 30. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `444 patent. 31. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `444 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. NINTH COUNTERCLAIM 32. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 33. Charter has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid

and enforceable claim of the `627 patent. 34. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `627 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. TENTH COUNTERCLAIM 35. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims.

21

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 22 of 27

36.

The claims of the `819 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 37. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `819 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM 38. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 39. The claims of the `903 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 40. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `903 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM 41. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 42. The claims of the `761 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 43. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `761 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim.

22

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 23 of 27

THIRTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 44. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 45. The claims of the `858 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 46. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `858 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. FOURTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 47. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 48. The claims of the `234 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 49. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `234 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. FIFTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 50. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 51. The claims of the `631 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112.

23

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 24 of 27

52.

This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `631 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. SIXTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 53. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 54. The claims of the `159 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 55. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `159 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. SEVENTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 56. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims. 57. The claims of the `444 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 58. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt and

Remstream filed suit against Charter alleging infringement of the `444 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. EIGHTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM 59. Charter restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of

its Counterclaims.

24

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 25 of 27

60.

The claims of the `627 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,

102, 103 and 112. 61. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 because Rembrandt filed suit

against Charter alleging infringement of the `627 patent with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Charter respectfully requests that this Court order judgment in its favor on each and every Counterclaim set forth above, and award it relief including, but not limited to, the following: (a) prejudice; (b) Entry of judgment declaring that the claims of the `819, `903, `761, `858, `234, Dismissal of all of Rembrandt's and Remstream's claims against Charter with

`631, `159, `444, and `627 patents are not infringed by Charter; (c) Entry of judgment declaring that the claims of the `819, `903, `761, `858, `234,

`631, `159, `444, and `627 patents are invalid; (d) An injunction permanently enjoining Rembrandt and Remstream and their

officers, agents, servants, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from bringing or threatening to bring any suit or charge against Charter relating to alleged infringement of the `819, `903, `761, `858, `234, `631, `159, `444, and `627 patents; (e) A declaration that this action is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an

award to Charter of its attorneys' fees incurred in defending this action; and

25

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 26 of 27

(f) circumstances.

Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the

Dated: February 7, 2008

/s/ Bradford P. Lyerla__________________ Bradford P. Lyerla, Attorney in Charge Email: [email protected] Kevin D. Hogg Email: [email protected] Charles E. Juister Email: [email protected] Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP 6300 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6357 Tel: (312) 474-6300 Fax: (312) 474-0448 Attorneys for Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC

26

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 27 of 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 7, 2008, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I further certify that I caused to be served copies of the foregoing document on February 7, 2008 upon the following in the manner indicated: VIA EMAIL Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esquire Francis DiGiovanni, Esquire CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] [email protected] David S. Benyacar, Esquire KAYE SCHOLER LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 [email protected] Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL LLP 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 [email protected] [email protected] John W. Shaw, Esquire YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 [email protected] John M. DesMarais, Esquire KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4611 [email protected]

Eric R. Lamison, Esquire KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

/s/ Charles E. Juister__________________ Attorney for Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating, LLC

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 1 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 2 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 3 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 4 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 5 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 6 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 7 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 8 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 9 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 10 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 11 of 12

Case 1:07-md-01848-GMS

Document 75-2

Filed 02/07/2008

Page 12 of 12