Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 71 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § § § § Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 [TJW] § § § JURY § § §

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF BECK, REDDEN & SECREST, LLP AS COUNSEL FOR FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

Fish & Richardson, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, hereby notifies the Court that David J. Beck (as lead attorney) and Geoff A. Gannaway (as of counsel) of the law firm of Beck, Redden & Secrest, L.L.P., One Houston Center, 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500, Houston, Texas 77010, are appearing on behalf of Fish & Richardson, P.C. in the above-referenced matter for the limited purpose of opposing Time Warner Cable Inc. s Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. All pleadings, discovery, correspondence and other material should be served upon counsel at the address referenced above.

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 71 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 2 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted, BECK, REDDEN & SECREST A Registered Limited Liability Partnership

By:__/s/ Geoff Gannaway with permission of David. J. Beck__________________ David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY APPEARING FOR FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. OF COUNSEL APPEARING FOR FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. Geoff A. Gannaway Texas Bar No. 24036617 BECK, REDDEN & SECREST A Registered Limited Liability Partnership 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 Email: [email protected] 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 electronic mail on September 11, 2006. I also hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a notice of filing of this document, under seal, pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7) on September 11, 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail on this same date. /s/ Geoff Gannaway__________________

1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 72

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/12/2006

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

§ § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

FILED

UNDER

SEAL

ORDER ON TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S MOTION TO INTERVENE CAME ON THIS DATE TO BE CONSIDERED Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Intervene in this matter. The Court, after reviewing and considering the motion and opposition, if any, made by the Parties, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Intervene be GRANTED. SIGNED this 11th day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

{A07\7477\0002\W0310937.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-3 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 73

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/12/2006

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP § § Plaintiff § § v. § Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443-TJW § Jury COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST § CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and § COMCAST OF PLANO, LP § ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT Defendants Comcast Corp., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast Cable"), and Comcast of Plano, LP (collectively, "Comcast"), filed an Agreed Motion to Exceed the Page Limit in Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court, having reviewed the motion, and being well-advised, finds that the motion should the GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Comcast shall be allowed to exceed the page limit in Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Clerk of Court is to file Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as attached as Exhibit "A" to Defendants' Agreed Motion to Exceed Page Limit. SIGNED this 11th day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 74-1 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-4

Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 1 of 4 06/28/2007 Page of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § § § § Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 [TJW] § § § JURY § § §

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants.

FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Fish & Richardson, P.C. files this Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Time Warner Cable Inc. s Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. On August 30, 2006, Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a SEALED PATENT Motion for

Leave to Exceed Page Limits (Motion to Exceed) regarding Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. Attached to that Motion to Exceed was a Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support (Motion to Disqualify). It is not clear, because the Motion to Disqualify was filed only as an attachment to the Motion to Exceed, what date should be considered the filing date of the Motion to Disqualify. If the filing date of the Motion to Disqualify is treated as August 30, 2006, Fish & Richardson, P.C. s response to the Motion to Disqualify, under the local rules, is currently due on September 14, 2006.

1021.00001/325992.1

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 74-1 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-4

Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 2 of 4 06/28/2007 Page of 4

2.

David J. Beck, the lead counsel appearing on behalf of Fish & Richardson, P.C., is

out of the United States until September 20, 2006. Accordingly, Fish & Richardson, P.C. is seeking an extension of time in which to respond until September 28, 2006. 3. 4. This motion is not sought for delay, but so that justice may be done. Counsel for Fish & Richardson P.C. has conferred with counsel for Time Warner

Cable Inc. regarding the substance of this motion. Counsel for Time Warner Cable Inc. was unable to represent either opposition or agreement on the day he was contacted, as he was not able to contact his client. 5. While it is not clear that the response to the Motion to Disqualify is due on

September 14, 2006, Fish & Richardson P.C. files this motion out of an abundance of caution to ensure that it complies with the local deadlines. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Fish & Richardson, P.C. pray that the Court extend the deadline to September 28, 2006 by which they must respond to the Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support.

Dated: September 12, 2006

2
1021.00001/325992.1

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 74-1 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-4

Filed 09/12/2006 Page 3 3 of 4 06/28/2007 Page of 4

Respectfully submitted, BECK, REDDEN & SECREST A Registered Limited Liability Partnership

By:__/s/ Geoff Gannaway with permission of David. J. Beck__________________ David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY APPEARING FOR FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.

OF COUNSEL APPEARING FOR FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. Geoff A. Gannaway Texas Bar No. 24036617 BECK, REDDEN & SECREST A Registered Limited Liability Partnership 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 Email: [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE This certifies that counsel for Fish & Richardson P.C. conferred with counsel for the parties in a good faith attempt to resolve the matter without court intervention. Counsel for Time Warner Cable Inc., Mike Jones, was unable to represent either opposition or agreement on the day he was contacted, as he was not able to contact his client. Counsel for Defendants, Brian Ferrall of Keker & Van Nest, indicated that Defendants are not opposed to this motion. /s/ Geoff A. Gannaway__________________

3
1021.00001/325992.1

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 74-1 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-4

Filed 09/12/2006 Page 4 4 of 4 06/28/2007 Page of 4

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 electronic mail on September 12, 2006. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class mail on this same date.

/s/ Geoff A. Gannaway__________________

4
1021.00001/325992.1

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 74-2 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-5

Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 1 of 1 06/28/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § § § § Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 [TJW] § § § JURY § § §

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

It is the opinion of the Court that the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support ( motion ) filed by Fish & Richardson, P.C. is well taken and should be granted. It is therefore, ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and Fish & Richardson, P.C. shall have until September 28, 2006, to file its response to Time Warner Cable Inc. s Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support.

1021.00001/326001.1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 11of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 27

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 22of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP § § Plaintiff § § v. § Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443-TJW § Jury COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST § CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and § COMCAST OF PLANO, LP § DEFENDANT COMCAST'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast of Plano, LP (collectively, "Comcast") respectfully file this Surreply to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION

In its reply brief, Rembrandt fails to respond to every major issue raised by Comcast's Opposition. First, Rembrandt ignores the fact that Comcast has already produced more than 59,000 e-mails and attachments to date in this litigation, and that the remainder of Comcast's emails will likely be produced before this motion is even heard. Second, Rembrandt does not, and cannot, dispute that Comcast does not design the devices that are accused in this case, and as such, does not maintain or have access to any third-party source code. Third, nothing Rembrandt cites suggests that Rembrandt raised the relevance of so-called "configuration files" prior to Rembrandt's letter of July 27, 2006 ­ mere days before this motion was filed. Fourth,

Rembrandt makes no showing of prejudice from Comcast's production of those files in the next few weeks, as Comcast is in the process of doing. Finally, Rembrandt says nothing about Comcast's efforts to produce as many third party confidential documents as possible without violating contractual obligations, including Comcast's sending notice letters to over 20
DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 33of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 3 of 27

companies on May 19, 2006, and spending thousands of dollars to review documents from the objectors. Instead, Rembrandt devotes the bulk of its reply brief to the timing of the production that Comcast already completed, which has no bearing whatsoever on the issues raised (or the relief requested) in Rembrandt's Motion. Rembrandt has not been seriously inconvenienced from the minor delays in Comcast's document production, and this motion should never have been filed. II. A. ARGUMENT

Comcast Is Producing All Relevant E-Mail Communications

As explained in its opposition brief, Comcast has made diligent efforts to produce all email communications responsive to Rembrandt's search terms. In fact, Comcast has produced over 59,000 e-mails and attachments to date, and the remainder are currently being formatted by Comcast's outside vendor and will be produced shortly. Contrary to Rembrandt's apparent beliefs, however, it takes time to process and format an e-mail production of this magnitude, and the speed at which this is completed is not entirely in Comcast's control. Rembrandt will have all responsive e-mail communications in a matter or days, which is the same timeframe Comcast has said from the beginning. Further, Rembrandt has made no showing of prejudice from this short delay.1 Consequently, Rembrandt's motion should be denied. B. Comcast Has No Source Code for the Accused Devices And Has Responded Diligently To Rembrandt's Request for Configuration Files.

Based on interviews with several Comcast custodians, Comcast has confirmed that it does not have possession of any source code or firmware, as those terms are commonly used, relevant to the operation of the accused devices. Furthermore, based on a review of agreements

1

Contrary to the stance it has taken in this motion, Rembrandt itself has been producing documents on a "rolling" basis throughout this litigation. For example, Rembrandt produced approximately 800 pages of responsive documents on September 1, 2006, with no explanation for their delay. Similarly, Rembrandt produced 6,400 pages on July 10th, and another 800 on July 31st ­ both times well after the discovery deadline of June 16, 2006. Rembrandt can hardly be heard to complain about such conduct by Comcast.

DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 44of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 4 of 27

with key vendors, Comcast is satisfied that it does not have the right to request or inspect any third-party source code relating to these devices. Once again, this is what Comcast has said from the beginning, and Rembrandt, who is in possession of the same agreements with the key equipment vendors, has not cited any provision to the contrary. Perhaps sensing that source code is a dead issue, Rembrandt shifts course in its reply brief and argues that Comcast has delayed in producing so-called "configuration files" for the accused devices. (Reply brief at 2-3.) As the evidence makes clear, Rembrandt never raised the configuration files prior to Rembrandt's letter of July 27, 2006. (See Ex. L to Rembrandt's opening brief.) Since Rembrandt's July 27th letter, Comcast has diligently investigated this issue and has identified certain configuration files used in Comcast's network. These files, which are quite voluminous (approximately 400,000 pages), are currently being collected and will be produced shortly. Any claim that Comcast has delayed unnecessarily in collecting these

documents is simply not true. And again, given the state of this case, Rembrandt has not identified any prejudice from the production of these files in September, as Comcast now anticipates. The motion should be denied as moot as to these files. Much of Rembrandt's motion in this regard is dedicated toward attempting to show how these configuration files were requested long ago. While irrelevant to the motion itself,

Rembrandt's accusations require correction. Rembrandt claims that its letter of January 9, 2006 requesting all documents "evidencing the extent to which the Comcast cable network ... complies with any version of the [relevant] standard" was sufficient to identify the relevance of these particular files. (Reply at 2.) Apart from the dubiousness of this claim on its face, Rembrandt ignores the fact that it did not even identify which aspects of Comcast's network were at issue in this case until May of 2006 when it served its first set of interrogatories and preliminary infringement contentions. Rembrandt's January 9 letter was so impossibly vague, with potential application to an enormous network of equipment and devices, that Comcast could

DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 55of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 5 of 27

not possibly know that cable modem configuration files were demanded.

Indeed, if

configuration files are so "highly relevant", as Rembrandt now contends, it is odd that Rembrandt waited over 10 months after this case was filed before making any specific mention of this. Similarly, Rembrandt's statement that Comcast "does not dispute that it is in possession of source code for servers that likely generate such configuration files" (Reply at 2) is just wrong, both as to what Comcast has said previously on this issue, and as to whether Comcast does in fact have possession of such source code. Based on Comcast's recent investigation, it has learned that certain vendors do provide Comcast with the software that is used to generate these configuration files. Comcast does not possess or have access to the source code underlying this operation, however. Comcast only has copies of executable code, and only for some vendors. And, even though such software does not seem relevant, Comcast has already offered to produce whatever executable code it has in order to resolve this issue. (See Ex. 1.) C. Comcast Did Not Delay In Its Document Collection Efforts

Despite having no bearing on the relief requested in this motion, Rembrandt takes issue with the timing of Comcast's document collection efforts as deduced from a recent statement from Comcast's 30(b)(6) witness. (Reply at 4-5) Here again, Rembrandt presents a very skewed version of the facts. In the months leading up to the Court's scheduling conference on May 2, 2006, Comcast's outside attorneys were engaged in collecting thousands of documents for this case in conjunction with collection efforts for other ongoing litigations, including Caritas Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation (Civil Action No. 2-05CV-339DF.) At the time, it was thought that the Caritas document collection would overlap with this case, based on Rembrandt's identification in the complaint of high speed data services and VoIP as accused services. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 23, 29.) VoIP is at the center of the Caritas case, and shares some of the same

DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 66of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 6 of 27

equipment as the high speed data network. Consequently, when Comcast's outside counsel stated at the scheduling conference that a large volume of documents had already been collected for this case, he was referring to the ongoing efforts to search for and review documents collected for the Caritas case, and from the Caritas production. Comcast's 30(b)(6) witness has not been involved with this aspect of the Caritas matter or with outside counsel's efforts in this regard, and thus had no way of knowing. Comcast began its internal document collection for this case on May 8, 2006. While Rembrandt tries to portray this as delinquent or tardy, Comcast could not realistically have started its collection any sooner. Until Rembrandt served its first set of interrogatories on May 3, 2006, and its preliminary infringement contentions on May 12, 2006, Comcast was not even aware of the devices or products that were at issue in this case. (See Exhs. A and B to

Rembrandt's First Set of Interrogatories, attached hereto as Ex. 2.) Indeed, prior to the initial Scheduling Conference in this case, counsel for Comcast asked if Rembrandt's counsel could provide its infringement contentions earlier than the rules allowed to allow Comcast to begin document collection earlier. Rembrandt's counsel declined. Thus, May 3, 2006 marked the first time in this case that Rembrandt specified with any measure of detail which components of Comcast's network it was accusing of infringement. Comcast began its internal document collection promptly thereafter. That Rembrandt seeks to portray Comcast's efforts in this regard as "late" is altogether mystifying. III. CONCLUSION

Comcast respectfully requests that the Court deny Rembrandt's Motion to Compel Production of Documents.

DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 77of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 7 of 27

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 John Peyton Perkins, III Texas Bar No. 24043457 HALTOM & DOAN, LLP 6500 N. Summerhill Road, Suite 1A P. O. Box 6227 Texarkana, TX 75505-6227 Telephone: 903-255-1000 Facsimile: 903-255-0800 E-mail: [email protected] Brian L. Ferrall Leo L. Lam Eric H. MacMichael Steven K. Yoda Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: 415-676-2235 Facsimile: 415-397-7188 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 6th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan

DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ­ Page 6

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 88of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 8 of 27

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 99of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 9 of 27

September 1, 2006

VIA E-MAIL Tom Brown, Esq. Fish & Richardson, P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Facsimile #: (617) 542-8906 [email protected] Michael Bunis, Esq. Fish & Richardson, P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Facsimile #: (617) 542-8906 [email protected]

Re: Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Comcast Corporation, et al. Dear Michael and Tom: I write in regards to several discovery issues that have been raised recently. Source Code Comcast has confirmed that it does not have possession of any source code or firmware, as those terms are traditionally used, that run on the accused devices. Furthermore, based on a review of agreements with key vendors, as well as interviews with several Comcast custodians, Comcast does not believe it has the right to request or inspect any third-party source code. Configuration Files for CMTS / Cable Modem Products Based on your letter of July 27th, Comcast has investigated the existence of so-called configuration files for its Cable Modem Termination Systems or Cable Modems (collectively, "cable modem products"). We have identified the existence of electronic files used to configure those cable modem products that are currently deployed in Comcast's network. Because the number of files is quite large, we are currently determining the most efficient way of gathering this information to produce. We will inform you shortly as to when you can expect it, but we anticipate that it will be ready for production by Friday, September 15th. Additionally, while Comcast does not possess any software relating to the operation of the cable modem products, it has learned that certain vendors do provide Comcast with software that is used to generate these configuration files. Comcast does not possess or have access to the source code underlying this software, however. Comcast only has copies of executable code, and only for some vendors. While we do not see the relevance of software used to generate configuration files, if you would like copies of this executable code, we will make every effort to collect it.
379595.01

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 10 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 10 of 27
September 1, 2006 Page 2

Configuration Files for 8VSB Digital Receiver Products Comcast does not possess or maintain software or configuration files for its 8VSB Digital Receivers. The receivers are configured manually when they are installed at the head-end, and subsequent software or firmware upgrades are typically installed directly on the device by the vendor and/or through web-based access that is hosted on the device itself. Comcast has no right (or business reason) to maintain copies of these software / firmware upgrades and, accordingly, it does not. Agreements with Content Providers During our conversation on August 28, 2006, you requested copies of all agreements with content / service providers dating as far back as the earliest issue date of the patents-in-suit. Before Comcast undertakes the burden of searching for and collecting such agreements, we would ask Rembrandt to articulate more fully the contemplated relevance of these agreements. As I'm sure you realize, the accused digital receivers play no part in the distribution of most of the video content on Comcast's network. In it's letter of August 16, 2006, Rembrandt makes the bare assertion that these agreements are "relevant because they relate to the revenues that Comcast receives for analogous services." Such is a fairly liberal standard for relevance that, if applied across the board, would result in very few aspects of Comcast's business being considered irrelevant. Please explain Rembrandt's theory as to how these agreements are relevant to this case, and Comcast will evaluate in a timely manner. Cable Franchise Agreements As explained during our conversation on August 28, 2006, although these agreements do not seem relevant at all, Comcast has produced a sample-set of franchise agreements. Given the uniform nature of these agreements, it is not clear to Comcast why Rembrandt needs a copy of every agreement for each region across the country, which number in the hundreds if not thousands. Please explain the relevance of a complete set of these agreements. Further, I noted that these are public documents which Rembrandt can obtain directly from the appropriate city / municipality grantor. Therefore, it seems that the burden of collecting these documents is the same for both parties. License and Royalty Agreements During our conversation on August 28, 2006, you requested copies of all license and royalty agreements involving Comcast that relate to the accused products or services. We note that many of the vendor agreements that we have already produced contain the relevant licenses for these products. We are currently searching for any additional agreements, and will produce them as soon as we are able to.

379595.01

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 11 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 11 of 27
September 1, 2006 Page 3

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Eric H. MacMichael EHM:dc cc: Kim Kilbey Michael Forman

379595.01

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 12 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 12 of 27

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 13 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 13 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-00443-TJW

PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP requests that Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast of Plano, LP answer the following interrogatories separately, fully, and under oath, within 30 days of service of this request. Defendants are subject to a duty to timely supplement all responses to these interrogatories in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A.

DEFINITIONS 1. "Plaintiff" or "Rembrandt" shall mean Rembrandt Technologies, LP including

without limitation all of its corporate locations, and all predecessors, and affiliates, and all past or present directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, consultants, and attorneys. 2. "Defendants," "Comcast," "you," or "your" means Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Comcast of Plano, LP, individually and collectively, including without limitation all of their corporate locations, and all predecessors, and affiliates, and all past or present directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, consultants, and attorneys,

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 14 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 14 of 27

entities acting in joint-venture or partnership relationships with any one or more of them, and others acting on behalf of any one or more of them. 3. Any reference to any individual person, either singularly or as a part of a defined group, includes that individual person's employees, agents, successors, assignees, heirs, and representatives. 4. The term "all" includes and encompasses "any." 5. The words "and" and "or" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, whichever makes the request most inclusive. 6. The "'627 patent" shall mean U.S. Patent No. 5,243,627. 7. The "'631 patent" shall mean U.S. Patent No. 5,852,631. 8. The "'858 patent" shall mean U.S. Patent No. 5,719,858. 9. The "'819 patent" shall mean U.S. Patent No. 4,937,819. 10. "Identify" means: (a) (with respect to Persons) to give, to the extent known, the Person's full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural Person, additionally, the present or last known place of employment. (b) (with respect to Documents) to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of Document, (ii) general subject matter, (iii) date of the Document, and (iv) author(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s). 11. "Person" means any natural person or any business, legal, or governmental entity or association. 12. "Document" shall be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the broadest meaning provided by Rule 34 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, including, without limitation, electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate Document within the meaning of this term.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 15 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 15 of 27

13. "Thing" means any tangible object other than a Document including, without limitation, objects of every kind and nature, as well as prototypes, models, drafts, or specimens thereof. 14. "Communication" means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise, and without limitation as to means or method). 15. "Prior Art" means that information which is defined by the broadest interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, including, without limitation, information or knowledge that is accessible to a person of ordinary skill in the art, including that which would be obvious from such information or knowledge. 16. The terms "concern" and "concerning" mean relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing, constituting, embodying, containing, comprising, indicating, identifying, describing, discussing, involving, evidencing, or otherwise pertaining to the referenced subject. 17. The phrase "state in detail" means to state and describe, with specificity, each and every fact, circumstance, incident, act, omission, event, date, and/or legal contention relating to the matters inquired of in said interrogatory. 18. An "instrumentality" includes, without limitation, a method, process, system or apparatus. 19. A patent claim "covers" an instrumentality if the instrumentality infringes the claim, or would infringe the claim but for the existence of a license. 20. Used in reference to a patent or patent application, the term "related" means a patent or patent application that is related to the referenced patent in any way, including any parent, continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional, reexamination, reissue, or foreign counterpart patent or application. 21. The "patents-in-suit" refer to the '627 patent, the '631 patent, the '858 patent, the '819 patent, as well as U.S. Patent No. 5,710,761, U.S. Patent No. 5,103,227, and any patents or patent applications related to these patents.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 16 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 16 of 27

22. "Infringed," "infringement" or "infringe" refers to any form of infringement actionable under United States law, including direct infringement, contributory infringement, inducement to infringe, literal infringement, and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 23. The singular and masculine form of any noun or pronoun shall embrace and be read and applied as embracing the plural, the feminine and the neuter, except where circumstances clearly make it inappropriate. 24. The "Relevant DOCSIS-Compliant Instrumentalities" are Comcast's cable network, and methods of delivering data over Comcast's cable network, and the instrumentalities associated with delivering data over Comcast's cable network, including those products listed on Exhibit A, and any other cable modems or cable modem termination systems that comply with any of the DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1 or 2.0, as used in connection with Comcast's cable network. 25. The "Relevant ATSC Instrumentalities" are the system and method used by Comcast to receive and rebroadcast digital television signals, and the instrumentalities associated with receiving and rebroadcasting digital television signals, including the products listed on Exhibit B, and any other digital television equipment compliant with the ATSC standard, as used in connection with Comcast's cable network. 26. The "Accused Instrumentalities" are the Relevant DOCSIS-Compliant Instrumentalities and the Relevant ATSC Instrumentalities. 27. The "DOCSIS 1.0 standard" means Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (Engineering Committee, Data Standards Subcommittee), Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification, DOCSIS 1.0 Radio Frequency Interface (RFI) (ANSI/SCTE 22-1 2002). 28. The "DOCSIS 1.1 standard" means the Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications and Radio Frequency Interface Specification, SP-RFI-v1.1-I01-990311. 29. The "DOCSIS 2.0 standard" means the Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications and Radio Frequency Interface Specification, SP-RFI-v2.0-I04-030730.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 17 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 17 of 27

30. The "ATSC standard" means the "ATSC Standard: Digital Television Standard (A/53), Revision B, and, where appropriate in context, specifically Section 4 of Annex D of that standard. B. INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State in detail all facts upon which Comcast relies in asserting each of Comcast's Affirmative Defenses set forth in Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims and provide the identity of all individuals with knowledge of any such facts and the identity of all documents and things concerning any such facts. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State in detail all facts upon which Comcast relies in asserting each of Comcast's Counterclaims set forth in Defendants' Answer and Counterclaims and provide the identity of all individuals with knowledge of any such facts and the identity of all documents and things concerning any such facts. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you contend that Comcast has not infringed any claim of Plaintiff's patent-in-suit, explain the specific basis for each such contention, including which specific claim limitation(s) Comcast alleges are not met literally or equivalently by the Accused Instrumentalities, the reasons why Comcast so alleges, and the identity of each person with information concerning such contention and the production numbers of all documents that support such contentions. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State in detail the circumstances under which Comcast first became aware of each of the patents-in-suit, identifying each person who first gained knowledge of each patent-in-suit and the circumstances under which that person became aware of the patent. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Identify each cable modem, cable modem termination system, digital television receiver, and any other Accused Instrumentality that Comcast has made, used, sold, imported, or caused

5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 18 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 18 of 27

any of these acts, or any such device used in connection with any data network or cable television network owned or operated by Comcast, since June 26, 1990, and identify three persons affiliated with Comcast with the most knowledge concerning the information sought by this interrogatory. For each product identified, include the manufacturer and model number, state whether Comcast makes, uses, sells, imports, or causes any of these acts. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: For each cable modem and cable modem termination system identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 (collectively the "cable modem products"), state whether the cable modem product is compliant with any version of DOCSIS, and, if so, which version or versions, and explain in detail the basis for your contention, if any, that the cable modem or cable modem termination system is either (a) not compliant with DOCSIS 2.0, or (b) not compliant with any version of DOCSIS. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each digital television receiver identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 (collectively the "ATSC products"), state whether the digital television receiver receives and/or decodes signals generated by equipment that is compliant with the ATSC Digital Television Standard. Explain in detail the basis for your contention, if any, that the digital television receiver does not receive and/or decode signals generated by equipment that is compliant with the ATSC Digital Television Standard. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: For each product identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 used by Comcast or used in connection with any data or cable network owned or operated by Comcast, explain in detail the manner in which the product is used. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: For each product identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5, explain in detail the manner in which the product is acquired by Comcast and, where applicable, distributed to an

6

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 19 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 19 of 27

end-user, including an identification of each step in the supply chain, beginning with the manufacturer of the product, and ending with the installation at the end-user's location. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: For each applicable product identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5, identify the person or persons involved in the design or development of the product's software, firmware, or other instructions intended to be executed by a processor or microprocessor. If a natural person is identified, identify the person's employer (if any), and state the person's address and telephone number. If a corporate person is identified, state the person's principal place of business, the address at which the software or firmware development takes place, and identify the natural person or persons responsible for such development. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each product identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5, identify all communications between Comcast and the manufacturer of the product relating to the product. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State with specificity Comcast's revenues derived from each cable modem product (specified by manufacturer and model), including the revenues by month Comcast derives from the provision of data service through the specified cable modem product, separately including equipment rental fees, service provision fees, and any other type of fee or charge for the use of Comcast's cable modem network, cable modem, or cable modem head-end, and identify three persons affiliated with Comcast with the most knowledge concerning the information sought by this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: State with specificity Comcast's revenues derived from each ATSC product, including a list of ATSC products (specified by manufacturer and model), including the revenues by month Comcast derives from customers who receive signals originally received from the specified ATSC product, separately including equipment rental fees, service provision fees, and any other type of fee or charge for cable television service, or any tier or service level thereof, and identify

7

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 20 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 20 of 27

three persons affiliated with Comcast with the most knowledge concerning the information sought by this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Explain in detail all manners in which Comcast receives over-the-air TV signals according to the Terrestrial Broadcast provisions of the ATSC Digital TV Standard, and transmits such signals to its customers since September 7, 1993, and identify three persons affiliated with Comcast with the most knowledge concerning the information sought by this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: For each Accused Instrumentality identified in response to Interrogatory No. 5, identify all persons involved in the conception, design or development of any such product, whether or not such persons are currently or were previously employed by Comcast, and state the role that each such person played in the conception, design or development. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: To the extent that persons other than Comcast sell or offer for sale any of the cable modem products or ATSC products on behalf of Comcast, or for use with any data network or cable television network owned or operated by Comcast, identify the persons, providing the address, telephone number, and person at each entity in charge of such activities, and the dates during which each entity performed such activities since June 26, 1990. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify all persons involved in Comcast's marketing, accounting, design, and development of any of the cable modem products and ATSC products, including the provision of cable modem service, indicating for each person which activity each person is associated with. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: List every patent that includes one or more claims that cover any of the cable modem products or ATSC products, and for each listed patent, include the name and address of the patent owner, identify the cable modem or ATSC product(s) covered by the patent, and identify

8

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 21 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 21 of 27

the claim or claims covering the cable modem or ATSC product(s), and identify with specificity any licensing agreement Comcast has entered with respect to the patent.

9

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 22 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 22 of 27

Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 3, 2006 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By: /s/ Thomas A. Brown Otis Carroll State Bar No. 03895700 Wesley Hill State Bar No. 24032294 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Email: [email protected] Frank E. Scherkenbach Lawrence K. Kolodney Michael H. Bunis Denis Ticak Thomas A. Brown FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617-542-5070 Fax: 617-542-8906 Timothy Devlin FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 Tel: 302-652-5070 Fax: 302-652-0607 Alan D. Albright State Bar # 00973650 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. One Congress Plaza, 4th Floor 111 Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 Tel: 512-391-4930 Fax; 512-591-6837 Attorneys for Plaintiff REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

10

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 23 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 23 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 23 of 27

PROOF OF SERVICE On May 3, 2006, I caused a copy of the following document(s): PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES to be served by FedEx and electronic mail on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as follows: Brian L. Ferrall, Esq. Leo L. Lam, Esq. Keker & Van Nest, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast of Plano, LP

I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 3, 2006, at Boston, MA. /s/ Thomas A. Brown Thomas A. Brown
21267806.doc

11

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 24 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 24 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 24 of 27

EXHIBIT A

Relevant DOCSIS-Compliant Instrumentalities

Note: "CM" and "CMTS" below identify a product as a cable modem or a cable modem termination system, respectively.

Vendor ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Ambit Microsystems Inc.

Product Identification Cuda 12000 (CMTS) 600740EUW (CM) U10C018 (CM) Cadant C4 (CMTS) CM450A (CM) F5D5530-W (CM) CMX300v2 (CM) Cuda 12000 (CMTS) 8601 (CM) CXC150 (CM) CXC250 (CM) DP1110XB2 (CM) uBR7246 (CMTS) uBR10012 (CMTS) DP1110XB (CM) DCM-202 (CM) DCM-201 (CM) DHT-PS-NA-02 (CM) DHT-PS-NA-01 (CM)

Arris Group Inc.

Belkin Corporation Best Data Products, Inc. BigBand Networks, Inc. Broadxent Inc. CastleNet Technology Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc.

Com21, Inc. D-Link Corporation

Electroline Equipment Inc.

12

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 25 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 25 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 25 of 27

Linksys

WCG200 (CM BEFCMU10 (CM) BEFCMU10 ver. 2 (CM) BEFCMU10 ver. 3 (CM) BEFCMU10 ver. 4 (CM) BEFCMUH4 (CM) SB3100 (CM) SB4100 (CM) SB4200 (CM) SB4220 (CM) SB5100 (CM) SB5101 (CM) SB5120 (CM) SBG900 (CM) SBG1000 (CM) CVG824G (CM) CG814WG (CM) CG814Mv2 (CM) TDC775D (CM) SCM-140U (CM) DPX100 (CM) DPX2100 (CM) DPC2100 (CM) SMC8004CM (CM) SMC8013WG (CM) ECM615 (CM) TJ715 (CM) TJ715X (CM) TJ716X (CM) BW3500 (CMTS)

Motorola, Inc.

Netgear Inc.

Pace Micro Technology plc Samsung Telecommunications America LLP Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

SMC Networks Inc. Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

13

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 26 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 26 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 26 of 27

Thomson Inc.

DHG525 (CM) DCW725 (CM) DCM425 (CM) DCM325 (CM) DCW615 (CM) DCM315 (CM) DCM305 (CM) DCM245 (CM) PCX2000 (CM) PCX1100U (CM) PCX2600 (CM) PCX2200 (CM) PCX2500 (CM) 5241 (CM)

Toshiba America, Inc.

Zoom Technologies Inc.

14

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-6 Filed 09/06/2006 Page 27 of 27 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 27 of 27 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 70-2 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW Document 75 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 27 of 27

EXHIBIT B

Relevant ATSC Instrumentalities

Vendor Harmonic Inc. KTech Telecommunications, Inc. Motorola, Inc. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

Product Identification ProView ATSC 8VSB Receiver PVAR 6000 DVM-150E Professional DTV Receiver/Decoder HDD1100 High Definition Decoder D6238 Demodulator D6239 Demodulator/Multiplexer CP 7585 Dual 8VSB to ASI Demodulator DTV742 8VSB 4 Channel Multiplexer DTV744 8VSB 4 Channel Demodulator DTV720 Transport Stream Multiplexer

Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Wegener Communications, Inc.

15

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 188-7 Document 76-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/13/2006

Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO FISH & RICHARDSON'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (DOCKET NO. 74) AND AGREED MOTION TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE Time Warner Cable Inc. respectfully notifies the Court of its non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. (Docket No. 74, which was filed yesterday, September 12, 2006). Additionally, in conference concerning this issue, please be advised that the parties have agreed concerning the following briefing schedule, and Time Warner Cable Inc. respectfully requests that the Court set the following briefing schedule concerning Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson (Dkt. No. 66). Briefing Plaintiff's Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. Consistent with Local Rules, Intervenor's, Time Warner Cable, Inc., Reply to Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P. C. Consistent with Local Rules, Plaintiff's, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Sur-Reply to Intervenor Time Warner Cable, Inc. Reply to Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. Deadline

September 28, 2006

October 16, 2006

November 3, 2006

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Time Warner Cable Inc. respectfully notifies the Court of its non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Docket No.

{A48\7477\0002\W0311746.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 188-7 Document 76-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/13/2006

Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3

74) and respectfully requests that the Court set the proposed briefing schedule concerning Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion to Disqualify as indicated herein. DATED: September 13, 2006 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Diane V. DeVasto Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Diane V. DeVasto State Bar No. 05784100 [email protected] POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 North College 500 Plaza Tower Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 David Benyacar [email protected] Michael Rogoff [email protected] KAYE SCHOLER 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-3598 Tel: (212) 836-8000 Fax: (212) 836-8689 ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

{A48\7477\0002\W0311746.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 188-7 Document 76-1

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/13/2006

Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 13th day of September, 2006, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by First Class U.S. mail on this same date. /s/ Diane V. DeVasto Diane V. DeVasto

{A48\7477\0002\W0311746.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 188-8 Document 76-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/13/2006

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

ORDER On this day, the Court considered the Agreed Motion to Set Briefing Schedule for Parties to Respond to Intervenor's, Time Warner Cable Inc., Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. The Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the briefing schedule concerning Time Warner Cable Inc.'s motion, Docket No. 66, is as follows: Briefing Plaintiff's Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. Consistent with Local Rules, Intervenor's, Time Warner Cable, Inc., Reply to Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P. C. Consistent with Local Rules, Plaintiff's, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Sur-Reply to Intervenor Time Warner Cable, Inc. Reply to Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. Deadline

September 28, 2006

October 16, 2006

November 3, 2006

{A48\7477\0002\W0311746.1 }

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-9 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 77

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

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 [TJW] JURY DEMANDED

FILED

UNDER

SEAL

ORDER GRANTING TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT REGARDING ITS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Before the Court is Time Warner Cable Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit Regarding its Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. and Memorandum of Law in Support. Having considered the Motion, the Court finds it is meritorious and should be

GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that Time Warner Cable Inc. is authorized to exceed the usual page limits and to file, under seal, its Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson, P.C. and Memorandum of Law in Support. SIGNED this 14th day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS

Document 188-10

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

SEALED DOCUMENT

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 79 Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-11

Filed 09/18/2006 Page 1 of 1 1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § § § § Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 [TJW] § § § JURY § § §

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

It is the opinion of the Court that the Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support ( motion ) filed by Fish & Richardson, P.C. is well taken and should be granted. It is therefore, ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and Fish & Richardson, P.C. shall have until September 28, 2006, to file its response to Time Warner Cable Inc. s Motion to Disqualify and Memorandum of Law in Support.

SIGNED this 14th day of September, 2006.

__________________________________________ T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1021.00001/326001.1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-12 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 80

Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 2 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-12 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 80

Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-13 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 81

Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of 2 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-13 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 81

Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-14 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 82

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 09/25/2006 Page 11of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL. Defendant. § § § § § § § § §

C. A. No. 2:05cv443TJW

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; AND COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

Notice is hereby given that Harry L. Gillam, Jr. of Gillam & Smith, LLP enters his appearance on behalf of Defendants, COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP, in this matter as additional counsel. Harry L. Gillam, Jr. may receive all communications from the Court and from other parties at Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670; Telephone: (903) 934-8450; Facsimile: (903) 934-9257. Respectfully submitted, GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

/s/ Harry L. Gillam, Jr. State Bar No. 07921800 GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-14 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 82

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 09/25/2006 Page 22of 22

Telephone: (903) 934-8450 Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this notice was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 25th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-15 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 83-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/28/2006

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-15 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 83-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/28/2006

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-15 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 83-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/28/2006

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-15 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 83-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/28/2006

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 188-15 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 83-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/28/2006

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS

Document 188-16

Filed 06/28/2007

Page 1 of 1

SEALED DOCUMENT

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 188-17 Document 85-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:05-CV-443-TJW COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS; LLC; and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP, Defendants. JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DOCKET CONTROL ORDER Defendants Comcast Corporation; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; and Comcast of Plano, LP (collectively, "Comcast") submit this joint motion to modify the docket control order to extend the deadline for the parties to amend their pleadings from November 9, 2006 until November 26, 2006, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. On September 16, 2005, Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") filed its Complaint in this Court alleging that Comcast committed acts of patent infringement. (Dkt. #1). 2. On June 15, 2006, the Court entered a Docket Control Order, (see Dkt. #52), which set the deadline for the parties to amend their pleadings for November 9, 2006. 3. The parties request that the Court modify the Docket Control Order to permit an additional two weeks, or up to and including November 27, 2006, for the parties to amend their pleadings. Also, in necessity thereof, the parties request that the deadline to respond to amended pleadings be extended two weeks until December 11, 2006. Jury

JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DOCKET CONTROL ORDER ­ Page 1

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 188-17 Document 85-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

4. The Court can modify a Docket Control Order on a showing of good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b); S&W Enters. V. South Trust Bank, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003). There is good cause to modify the current Docket Control Order to accommodate the extension of time for the parties to amend their pleadings, in order for additional discovery to be conducted prior to the deadline. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed Modified Docket Control Order, which provides the parties with an additional two weeks to amend their pleadings, and to respond to those amended pleadings.

By:______/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan_________ Jennifer Haltom Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 John Peyton Perkins, III Texas Bar No. 24043457 HALTOM & DOAN, LLP 6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 1A P.O. Box 6227 Texarkana, TX 75505-6227 Telephone: (903) 255-1000 Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 Brian L. Ferrall Leo L. Lam Matthew M. Werdegar Eric H. MacMichael KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1724 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; AND COMCAST OF PLANO, LP
JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DOCKET CONTROL ORDER ­ Page 2

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 188-17 Document 85-1

Filed 06/28/2007 09/29/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this 29th day of September, 2006. /s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan Jennifer Haltom Doan

JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY DOCKET CONTROL ORDER ­ Page 3

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 188-18 Document 85-2

Filed 06/28/2007 09/29/2006

Page 1 of 4

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

CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-443(TJW)

MODIFIED DOCKET CONTROL ORDER In accordance