Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

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

Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-443 Judge T. John Ward Jury

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Defendants Comcast Corp., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast Cable"), and Comcast of Plano, LP (collectively, "Comcast") move to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the judicial district in which the Plaintiff Rembrandt and all Defendants have their principal places of business. In fact, Rembrandt has its principal place of business a mere seven miles from Comcast's headquarters, which are, in turn, just a few blocks from the federal courthouse to which Comcast seeks to transfer this case. Public and private interests, as well as judicial efficiency, all favor transfer: Comcast's known potential engineering, marketing, and financial witnesses work in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; all the parties' known potential sources of proof are located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the Eastern District of Pennsylvania can exercise its subpoena power over key third-party witnesses, while this District cannot; the Eastern District of Texas has no interest in adjudicating this dispute between various Eastern District of Pennsylvania parties; and the average time to trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is only two weeks longer than in this District.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.

Plaintiff Rembrandt Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") has no connection to the Eastern

District of Texas. Rembrandt has its principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 1.) In addition, Rembrandt is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, which borders the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Rembrandt does not claim any offices or other facilities in the Eastern District of Texas. Nor does Rembrandt appear to have any employees, property, or assets in the Eastern District of Texas. In sum, Rembrandt apparently does no business in this District. B. Comcast Defendants The Comcast defendants have their principal places of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, only 6.8 miles away from Rembrandt. (Declaration of Matthias A. Kamber ¶ 3 ("Kamber Decl.").) Comcast Corp. is organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, Comcast Cable under the laws of nearby Delaware. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Both have their principal places of business in Philadelphia. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Notwithstanding its name, Comcast of Plano, LP also has its principal place of business in Philadelphia, the location of the general partner Comcast of Plano GP, LLP. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 4.) Comcast of Plano is organized under the laws of Delaware. (Compl. ¶ 2.) The Comcast defendants' likely witnesses, including engineering, marketing, and financial personnel, work in Philadelphia. With respect to the allegations that Comcast's highspeed internet services infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,852,631 ("the '631 patent"), Comcast may rely upon the following witnesses: (1) Greg Butz, Senior Vice President, Marketing and Business Development; (2) Cathy Avgiris, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration; (3) Robert Faught, Senior Vice President, Sales; (4) Rick Gasloli, Vice President, Engineering; and (5) David Urban, Principal Engineer, Product Engineering & Deployments. Further, as to

Rembrandt's claims that Comcast's Digital Voice VoIP services infringe U.S. Patent Nos.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

5,719,858 ("the '858 patent") and 4,937,819 ("the '819 patent"), Comcast may rely upon the following witnesses: (1) Cameron Gough, Comcast's Vice President of Communications

Engineering and head of Comcast's IP telephony services; (2) Jaime Jimenez, an engineer working on Comcast's IP telephony services; (3) Tom White, Comcast's Vice President of Marketing for Voice Services; and (4) Gary Rostick, Comcast's Vice President of Finance for Voice Services. Finally, with respect to Rembrandt's allegations that Comcast's digital cable offerings infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,243,627 ("the '627 patent"), Comcast may rely upon the testimony of Kip Compton, Vice President, Advanced Engineering. Comcast employs these potential witnesses--as well as most other potential witnesses--near the Eastern District of Pennsylvania courthouse in Philadelphia. C. Third-Party Witnesses 1. Inventors

The inventors of the asserted patents have no known connection to the Eastern District of Texas. Joseph Bentley King, the inventor listed on the '819 patent, lives in Saint Petersburg, Florida. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 5.) William Lewis Betts and Edward Sigmund Zuranski, the inventors listed on the '627 patent, live, respectively, in Saint Petersburg and Largo, Florida. (Kamber Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Wayne T. Moore, the inventor listed on the '858 patent, lives in New Port Richey, Florida. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 8.) And Robert Earl Scott, the inventor listed on the '631 patent, lives in Largo, Florida. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 9.) 2. Patent Prosecutors

Finally, the attorneys who prosecuted the asserted patents, who may appear as fact witnesses, have no known connection to the Eastern District of Texas. The firm of Kane, Dalsimer, Kurucz, Levy, Eisele and Richard, LLP, which prosecuted the '819 patent, is located in New York, New York. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 10.) Ronald D. Slusky and Gerard A. deBlasi, who prosecuted the '627 patent, are located in New York, New York, and Neshanic Station, New Jersey, respectively. (Kamber Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.) And the firm of Thomas, Kayden, Horstmeyer & Risley, LLP, which prosecuted the '631 and '858 patents, is located in Atlanta, Georgia, with

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

another office in Huntsville, Alabama. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 13.) II. LEGAL STANDARD

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any district where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) therefore requires an analysis of two separate issues. First, the Court must determine whether venue would be proper in the transferee forum, i.e., one where the plaintiff is competent to sue and there is personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960); see also In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 826 (2003). Second, the Court must determine whether transfer would allow the litigation to proceed more conveniently and better serve the interests of justice. As the Fifth Circuit has explained, "[t]he determination of `convenience' turns on a number of private and public interest factors, none of which are given dispositive weight." In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The private concerns include the cost of attendance for willing

witnesses, the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, and all other practical problems that make trial of a case "easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Id. The public concerns focus on the interest in having issues of localized interest decided locally, familiarity with the law to be applied, and administrative issues such as Court congestion. Id. III. A. ARGUMENT

Venue is Proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania As discussed, in evaluating whether to transfer this case to the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, the Court must first determine whether Rembrandt could have initially brought this action there. A plaintiff may bring a patent infringement suit "in [1] the judicial district where the defendant resides, or [2] where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Further, "[f]or purposes of venue . . . , a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced." Id. § 1391(c).

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

Thus, whether venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania depends on whether that Court can exercise jurisdiction over the defendants. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a forum where Rembrandt could have brought this case. Rembrandt and Comcast have their principal places of business in or near

Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Because all the defendants have their principal places of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that District can exercise personal jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, they all "reside" there for purposes of determining proper venue in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). B. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Provides a More Convenient Forum For the Parties and Witnesses and Transfer to That Forum Serves the Interest of Justice In accordance with section 1404(a), the Court should transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. First, the Court should not defer to Rembrandt's choice of forum because the action has no connection to this District. Second, the center of gravity of the alleged infringing activity is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Third, transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice. 1. Rembrandt's Choice of Forum Is Not Entitled to Deference From This Court Because Rembrandt Has No Connection to This District

Plaintiff's choice of forum can be relevant to deciding a section 1404(a) motion, but that choice is not determinative. In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2002). "Where the plaintiff's chosen forum has no factual nexus to the case, that choice carries little significance if other factors weigh in favor of transfer." Shoemake v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 233 F. Supp. 2d 828, 830-31 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (citing Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 673, 677 (E.D. Tex. 2001); Robertson v. Kiamichi R.R. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 651, 656 (E.D. Tex. 1999)). "[T]he plaintiff's choice of forum will be given close scrutiny where, as here, the plaintiff does not live within the [District]." Shoemake, 233 F. Supp. 2d at 831 (citations omitted). While the burden is on the defendants to show that convenience and justice would be served by a transfer, "the usual deference accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum is of minimal

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 5

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

value when none of the parties reside in this division of this District." Rock Bit Int'l v. Smith Int'l, 957 F. Supp. 843, 844 (E.D. Tex. 1997). In this case, neither the plaintiff nor the named inventors nor the patent prosecutors live in this District. In addition, neither the witnesses nor the sources of proof are located in the Eastern District of Texas. Given the absence of any connection to the Eastern District of Texas, the "choice of forum factor should not receive the deferential treatment" that a plaintiff might otherwise receive. Shoemake, 233 F. Supp. 2d at 832 (distinguishing situations where courts defer to a non-resident plaintiff's forum choice because their case has connections to the District). Thus, venue transfer analysis turns upon balancing the remaining public and private interest factors. That balance favors transfer for the reasons set forth below. 2. The Accused Infringing Activity Has Its Center of Gravity in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

The preferred forum for patent cases is at the center of gravity of the accused activity. Whistler Group v. PNI Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21968, *11 (N.D. Tex. 2003). "Indeed, `the trier of fact ought to be as close as possible to the milieu of the infringing device and the hub of activity centered around its production.'" Id. at *12 (quoting Minka Lighting v. Trans Globe Imports, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8862, *12 (N.D. Tex. 2003), and S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Gillette Co., 571 F. Supp. 1185, 1188 (N.D. Ill. 1983)). "In finding that center of gravity, a district court should consider the location of a product's development, testing, research, and production." Whistler, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21968 at *12. "The location of the alleged infringer's principal place of business, therefore, is often the critical and controlling consideration in adjudicating a motion to transfer venue." Id. (citing Houston Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 663, 668 (S.D. Tex. 1999). As the court explained in Houston Trial Reports, "[c]ourts have observed that `intellectual property infringement suits often focus on the activities of the alleged infringer, its employees, and its documents; therefore the location of the alleged infringer's principal place of business is often the critical and

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 6

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

controlling consideration' in adjudicating transfer of venue motions." 85 F. Supp. 2d at 668 (citations omitted). Here all of the defendants' principal places of business are located in Philadelphia. As explained above, the key employees with knowledge regarding the alleged infringing activity work there. As the "critical and controlling consideration in adjudicating a motion to transfer venue," this connection to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania favors transfer to that district. Whistler, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21968 at *12. Furthermore, the center of gravity for any injury to Rembrandt from the alleged infringing activity would be in its principal place of business, also in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 3. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transferring This Case a. A trial in this District would substantially increase the cost and burden of attendance for the parties and willing witnesses

A transfer will increase witness convenience for all parties. In this case, seemingly all of Rembrandt's and Comcast's potential witnesses work or reside in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As discussed, Rembrandt's principal--likely only--place of business is located in Bala Cynwyd, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This favors transfer. See Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., Inc., No. 2:03-CV-425, slip. op. at 3 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2004) (transferring under 1404(a) in part based on location of plaintiff's headquarters) ("Acco") (Kamber Decl., Ex. L). For that reason, one also expects that the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania provides the most convenience for Rembrandt's witnesses and therefore warrants transfer. See id. (transferring under 1404(a) in part based on location of plaintiff's witnesses). Similarly, the Court should transfer this case because the Comcast defendants have their principal places of business in Philadelphia. See id. (transferring under 1404(a) in part based on location of defendant's headquarters). As a result, many of the Comcast witnesses live and work in that forum, which consequently offers the most convenience. See id. (transferring under 1404(a) in part based on location of defendant's witnesses).

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 7

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

This is not a case where inconvenience would be shifted from one party to another. Here, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's increased convenience applies equally to all and weighs wholly in favor of transfer. b. No known witnesses reside within this Court's subpoena power, but key non-party witnesses may be subpoenaed by the transferee court

The parties cannot compel a non-party witness outside this Court's subpoena power to testify at trial. Therefore the existence of non-party, out-of-state witnesses weighs strongly in favor of transfer to a venue that could exercise its subpoena power over them. See Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 757, 775 (E.D. Tex. 2000). In this case, none of the potential identified witnesses, whether outside the control of a party or otherwise, live within the Eastern District of Texas's subpoena power. Particularly, neither the inventors of the patents-insuit nor the related prosecuting attorneys/firms reside within the subpoena power of the Eastern District of Texas. These witnesses are not employees of any party, and thus cannot be compelled to testify in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has greater ability to compel witnesses' appearance than this Court. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania may subpoena witnesses for trial who live within 100 miles of the courthouse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). This subpoena power would reach certain patent prosecuting attorneys and/or their firms. In particular, it could reach the firm of Kane, Dalsimer, Kurucz, Levy, Eisele and Richard, LLP, which prosecuted the '819 patent, in New York, New York. See Core Leasing, Inv. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8094 (E.D. Pa. July 2, 1990) (holding that New York City is situated within the subpoena power of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).1 It could also reach the attorneys listed as having prosecuted the'627 patent. Ronald D. Slusky is located in New York City and therefore subject to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's subpoena power. Id. And Gerard A. deBlasi also resides within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's 100-mile subpoena power. (Kamber Decl. ¶ 14.)
See also David L. Grove, One Hundred Miles, One Hundred Miles: For Subpoena Purposes, Just How Far Away is New York City, Anyway?, The Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 14, 2000) (noting that GPS technology proves that all of New York City is within 100-mile subpoena power).
1

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 8

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page of 12

Because transferring this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would increase the number of third-party witnesses over which the adjudicating court could exercise its subpoena power, with no corresponding loss of subpoena power resulting from the transfer out of the Eastern District of Texas, this factor favors transfer. See Acco, slip op. at 3 (transferring under 1404(a) in part based on the court's power to subpoena third-party witnesses). c. Overall practical considerations favor transferring this case

As noted above, a change of venue in this case will not shift inconveniences, but rather will increase convenience for all. Overall practical considerations therefore favor transferring this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This will not only ease the burden associated with discovery, it will also help coordinate witness availability at trial. Indeed, all the

convenience factors discussed above favor transfer. And, in any event, practicality does not favor trying a case in a district whose connection "to this case appears non-existent." Hanby, 144 F. Supp. 2d at 677. Indeed, two defendants, Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable, have few, if any, contacts with the Eastern District of Texas. Those entities could have brought a motion to dismiss for lack of proper venue or a motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). But because such motions would not result in transfer of the entire case, Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable have instead brought this motion for section 1404(a) transfer together with Comcast of Plano, LP. 4. The Public Interest Factors Favor Transferring This Case a. The Eastern District of Texas has no interest in deciding this controversy

This dispute involves an Eastern Pennsylvania plaintiff, Rembrandt, and Eastern Pennsylvania defendants, Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable, whose Texas municipal franchisee--a limited partner in a partnership centered in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania-- has been roped in for good measure. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has a strong interest in adjudicating this dispute between two local parties. Hanby, 144 F. Supp. 2d at 679; Robertson v.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 9

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 ofof 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 10 12

Kiamichi Railroad Co., L.L.C., 42 F. Supp. 2d 651, 659 (E.D. Tex. 1999). As the Robertson decision explains, "`both plaintiff and defendant are residents of Hugo, Oklahoma. These facts, coupled with plaintiff's allegation that his injuries occurred at the defendant's place of business in Hugo, Oklahoma clearly indicate a close nexus between the plaintiffs injury and the city of Hugo, Oklahoma. As such, the citizens of the Eastern District of Oklahoma have a strong local interest in resolving this controversy. There is no corresponding local interest in the Beaumont and Sherman divisions of the Eastern District of Texas.'" 42 F. Supp. 2d at 659. Similarly, the citizens of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have a strong local interest in resolving this controversy between the resident plaintiff and resident defendants. Moreover, there is a strong nexus between Rembrandt's alleged injuries and the defendant's businesses in Philadelphia. Because neither Rembrandt nor the Comcast defendants have a strong presence in the District, the burden and expense of added litigation and jury duty should not fall upon the people of the Eastern District of Texas.2 In the case of Morgan v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 161 F. Supp. 119 (S.D. Tex. 1958), the burden of jury duty was not justified even by the "coincidence of plaintiff's residence and five of his medical witnesses in Houston with nothing more." Id. at 121. This Court recognized the same concerns in Mortensen v. Maxwell House Coffee Co., 879 F. Supp. 54, 56-57 (E.D. Tex. 1995): "Additionally, it is only fair that residents of the Southern District bear the burden of jury duty in this case since its residents have more of an interest in ensuring that Defendant conducts itself properly than would a resident of the Eastern District." In the present case, there is no person damaged or threatened with harm in Texas, and therefore no reason to burden anyone in Texas with jury duty. "[T]he citizens of the Eastern District of Texas," who have "no factual connection with the events of this case," do not have "more of a localized interest in adjudicating this proceeding" than the citizens of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Volkswagen, 371 F.3d at 206. Quite the contrary; the citizens of the
2

This is especially true because Comcast will soon have no operations in Texas. As part of Comcast Corp.'s acquisition of the assets of Adelphia Communications with Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner will acquire and operate Comcast-affiliated cable systems in Texas. See Public Notice available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1591A1.pdf.

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 10

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 ofof 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 11 12

Eastern District of Pennsylvania have a "strong local interest in resolving this controversy," Hanby, 144 F. Supp. 2d at 679; Robertson, 42 F. Supp. 2d at 659, because both the plaintiff and the defendants have their principal places of business there. b. The remaining public interest factors do not favor retaining this case

The remaining public interest factors neither favor nor disfavor transfer. First, docket congestion considerations do not favor the Eastern District of Texas over the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Time to trial is roughly equal: a weighted average of 15.4 months to trial in this District versus 16.0 months in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania--a difference of approximately two weeks. (Kamber Decl., ¶ 16.) Furthermore, all possible forum choices have equal knowledge about the applicable law--federal patent law. Shoemake, 233 F. Supp. 2d at 835-836. Finally, because these parties have no history of litigation between them, there is no forum more familiar with the issues than another forum. IV. CONCLUSION

Comcast has demonstrated that a weighing of the relevant factors reveals that transfer would cause a substantial improvement in convenience for defendants and plaintiff and would favor the interests of justice, thus compelling the conclusion that this case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants therefore request this Court to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 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

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 11

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185 Document 10-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 ofof 12 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 12 12

Brian Ferral Leo Lam Asim M. Bhansali Matthias A. Kamber 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 CONFERENCE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I spoke with Otis Carroll, Jr., counsel for Plaintiff, who indicated that Plaintiff opposes this motion.

/s/ John P. Perkins

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 17th day of November, 2005.

/s/ Jennifer Haltom Doan

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE- Page 12

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185-2 Document 10-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185-2 Document 10-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185-2 Document 10-2

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-3 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-3

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-4 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-4 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-4

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-5 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-5

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-6 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-6

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-7 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-7

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-8 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-8

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-9 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-9

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-10 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-10

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-11 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-12 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-12

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-13 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-13

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-14 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-14

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-14 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-14

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-15 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-15

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 4 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-15 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-15

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-15 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-15

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-15 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-15

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 4 of 4 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-16 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-16

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-16 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 10-16

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 185-17 Document 10-17

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 11/17/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-18 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 11

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 11of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 v. Judge T. John Ward COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that attorney Robert M. Parker enters his appearance in this matter as additional counsel for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of receiving notices from the Court. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert M. Parker Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: 903-531-3535 Fax: 903-533-9687 E-mail: [email protected] Otis Carroll ­ Attorney in Charge State Bar No. 03895700 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 E-mail: [email protected] Jury Demanded

1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-18 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 11

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 22of 33

OF COUNSEL: Frank E. Scherkenbach Lawrence K. Kolodney FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Tel: (617) 542-5070 Fax: (617) 542-8906 Alan D. Albright State Bar No. 00973650 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. One Congress Plaza, 4th Floor 111 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 391-4930 Fax: (512) 391-6837 Timothy Devlin FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Tel: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607 Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, INC., P.C. 201 West Houston Street, Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Tel: 903-938-4395 Fax: 903-938-3360 E-mail: [email protected] S. Calvin Capshaw, III State Bar No. 03783900 BROWN MCCARROLL, L.L.P. 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220, P.O. Box 3999 Longview, Texas 75601-5157 Tel: 903-236-9800 Fax: 903-236-8787 E-mail: [email protected]

2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-18 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 11

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 33of 33

Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: 903/531-3535 Fax: 903/533-9687 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 21st day of November, 2005, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Robert M. Parker Robert M. Parker

3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-19 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 12

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 11of 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:05-CV-443 v. Judge T. John Ward COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that attorney Robert Christopher Bunt enters his appearance in this matter as additional counsel for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for the purpose of receiving notices from the Court. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert Christopher Bunt Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: 903/531-3535 Fax: 903/533-9687 E-mail: [email protected] Otis Carroll ­ Attorney in Charge State Bar No. 03895700 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 E-mail: [email protected] Jury Demanded

1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-19 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 12

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 22of 33

OF COUNSEL: Frank E. Scherkenbach Lawrence K. Kolodney FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Tel: (617) 542-5070 Fax: (617) 542-8906 Alan D. Albright State Bar No. 00973650 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. One Congress Plaza, 4th Floor 111 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512) 391-4930 Fax: (512) 391-6837 Timothy Devlin FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Tel: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607 Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, INC., P.C. 201 West Houston Street, Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Tel: 903-938-4395 Fax: 903-938-3360 E-mail: [email protected] S. Calvin Capshaw, III State Bar No. 03783900 BROWN MCCARROLL, L.L.P. 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220, P.O. Box 3999 Longview, Texas 75601-5157 Tel: 903-236-9800 Fax: 903-236-8787 E-mail: [email protected]

2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-19 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 12

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/21/2005 Page 33of 33

Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: 903-531-3535 Fax: 903-533-9687 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 21st day of November, 2005, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Robert Christopher Bunt Robert Christopher Bunt

3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-20 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 13

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/22/2005 Page 11of 33

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

REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., PLAINTIFF, V. COMCAST CORPORATION; COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; and COMCAST OF PLANO, LP DEFENDANTS

§ § § § § § § § § § § §

Case No. 2:05-CV-443 Honorable T. John Ward JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE NOTICE is hereby given that Franklin Jones, Jr. is entering his appearance as counsel for Plaintiff, Rembrandt Technologies, LP, for purposes of receiving notices from the Court. Dated this 21st day of November, 2005. BY:/s/ Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, Inc. P. O. Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 75671-1249 Telephone: (903)938-43395 Facsimile: (903) 938-3360 Email: [email protected] Otis Carroll, Attorney-in-Charge State Bar No. 03895700 Wesley Hill State Bar No. 24032294 1

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-20 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 13

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/22/2005 Page 22of 33

IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 Email: [email protected] Frank E. Scherkenbach Lawrence K. Kolodney FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617)542-5070 Facsimile: (617) 542-8906 Alan D. Albright State Bar No. 00973650 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Congress Plaza, 4th Floor 111 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512)391-4930 Facsimile: (512) 391-6837 Timothy Devlin FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 1114 Wilmington, Delaware 19899 Tel: (302) 652-5070 Facsimile: (302) 652-0607 S. Calvin Capshaw, III State Bar No. 03783900 BROWN MCCARROLL, L.L.P. 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220 Longview, Texas 75601-5157 Tel: (903) 236-9800 Facsimile: (903) 236-8787 Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 2

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-20 Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 13

Filed 06/28/2007 Page of Filed 11/22/2005 Page 33of 33

Tel: (903) 533-9288 Facsimile: (903) 53 3-9687 Attorneys for Plaintiff REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of November, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent to all counsel of record via the Court's electronic filing system.

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

3

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 2 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 3 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 4 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 5 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 6 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 7 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 8 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 9 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 10 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 11 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 12 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 13 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 14 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 15 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 16 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 17 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 18 of 19

Case 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 185-21 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CE Document 14-1

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 19 of 19

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-22 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 14-2

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-22 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 14-2

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-22 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Document 14-2

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 3 of 3

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-23 Document 14-3

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 2

Exhibit A

Welcome to Comcast of Dallas, TX 1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-23 Document 14-3

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 1 Page 2 of 2

Comcast.net
75023 Plano, Tx

Welcome to Comcast of Dallas, TX
SUPPORT PARENTAL CONTROLS NFL NETWORK

Understand My Bill FAQs and Answers My Channel Lineup My Account DIGITAL CABLE

Learn More about Parental Controls

Let Comcast and the NFL Network be your link this season! HIGH-SPEED INTERNET

Customer Servic
Contact informa your area.

DIGITAL TELEPHONE

At Your Fingertip
Channel Lineu Payment Loca Explanation of Moving? Send Site Feed User Manuals High-Speed In

Get more control with Advanced Services!
ON DEMAND HDTV DVR

Comcast Digital Telephone
Great Long Distance Rates Refer a Friend and Save Now!

100% Pure Broadband Power!
Faster, More Powerful More Convenient

High-Speed I Technical Sup

Get prices for p available in you and order online

© 2005 Comcast Corporation

Investor Relations

Press Room

Privacy Statement

http://www.comcast.com/LocalHomePage/default.asp?LocResult&&Zip=75023

12/1/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 1 of 160

Exhibit B

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4
10-K 1 a2141960z10-k.htm FORM 10-K

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 2 of 160 of 159 Page 1

Use these links to rapidly review the document COMCAST CORPORATION 2004 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORM 10-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549 (Mark One)

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 OR

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM Commission file number 000-50093 TO

COMCAST CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) PENNSYLVANIA (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA (Address of principal executive offices) 27-0000798 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 19102-2148 (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (215) 665-1700

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT: NONE

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 3 of 160 of 159 Page 2

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: Class A Common Stock, $0.01 par value Class A Special Common Stock, $0.01 par value

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this Form 10-K. Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes No

As of June 30, 2004, the aggregate market value of the Class A Common Stock and Class A Special Common Stock held by nonaffiliates of the Registrant was $38.160 billion and $23.744 billion, respectively. As of December 31, 2004, there were 1,359,680,364 shares of Class A Common Stock, 842,944,570 shares of Class A Special Common Stock and 9,444,375 shares of Class B Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Part III--The Registrant's definitive Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of Shareholders presently scheduled to be held in June 2005.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 4 of 160 of 159 Page 3

COMCAST CORPORATION 2004 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 4A Business Properties Legal Proceedings Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders Executive Officers of the Registrant PART II Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 7A Item 8 Item 9 Item 9A Item 9B Market for the Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities Selected Financial Data Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Financial Statements and Supplementary Data Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure Controls and Procedures Other Information PART III Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant Executive Compensation Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management Certain Relationships and Related Transactions Principal Accountant Fees and Services PART IV Item 15 Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules SIGNATURES

This Annual Report on Form 10-K is for the year ended December 31, 2004. This Annual Report modifies and supersedes documents filed prior to this Annual Report. The SEC allows us to "incorporate by reference" information that we file with them, which means that we can disclose important information to you by referring you directly to those documents. Information incorporated by reference is considered to be part of this Annual Report. In addition, information that we file with the SEC in the future will automatically update and supersede information contained in this Annual Report. Throughout this Annual Report, we refer to Comcast Corporation as "Comcast"; Comcast and its consolidated subsidiaries as "we", "us" and "our"; and Comcast Holdings Corporation as "Comcast Holdings." You should carefully review the information contained in this Annual Report and particularly consider any risk factors that we set forth in this Annual Report and in other reports or documents that we file from time to time with the SEC. In this Annual Report, we state our beliefs of future events and of our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify these so-called "forward-looking statements" by words such as "may," "will," "should," "expects," "plans," "anticipates," "believes," "estimates," "predicts," "potential," or "continue," or the negative of these words, and other comparable words. You should be aware that those statements are only our predictions. In evaluating those statements, you should specifically consider various factors, including the risks and uncertainties listed in our Risk Factors section beginning on page 13 and in other reports we file with the SEC. Actual events or our actual results may differ materially from any of our forward-looking statements.
1

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4
PART I ITEM 1 BUSINESS

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 5 of 160 of 159 Page 4

We are a Pennsylvania corporation and were incorporated in December 2001. Through our predecessors, we have developed, managed and operated broadband cable networks since 1963. We are involved in: · Cable--through the development, management and operation of broadband communications networks, including video, high-speed Internet and phone services, and regional sports and news networks, Content--through our consolidated programming investments, including our national cable television networks E! Entertainment Television, Style Network, The Golf Channel, Outdoor Life Network, G4 and International Channel Networks, and Other business and programming interests--primarily Comcast-Spectacor, our group of businesses that perform live sporting events and own or manage facilities for sporting events, concerts and other special events.

·

·

We have our principal executive offices at 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102-2148. Our telephone number is (215) 6651700. We also have a Web site at http://www.comcast.com. Copies of the annual, quarterly and current reports we file with the SEC, and any amendments to those reports, are available on our Web site as well as on the SEC's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. The information posted on our Web site is not incorporated into this Annual Report. The public may read and copy any material we file with the SEC at the SEC's Public Reference Room at 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT BUSINESS SEGMENTS Refer to Note 14 to our consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 for information about our operations by business segment.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENTS OF OUR BUSINESS We operate our businesses in an increasingly competitive, highly regulated and technologically complex environment. We are the largest video, broadband high-speed Internet and cable phone service provider in the United States. We have now substantially completed the upgrade of our broadband communications networks, allowing us to provide customers with new and improved products and advanced services in each of our video, high-speed Internet and phone services. We also have expanded our ownership and management of content businesses on a national, regional and local level. The following paragraphs review the more significant strategic transactions (and potential transactions) by segment since the beginning of 2004: Cable During 2004, we expanded our efforts to acquire and develop technology that will drive product differentiation and new applications and extend our nationwide fiber-optic network. We achieved these objectives in 2004 through strategic agreements signed with Gemstar-TV Guide and Microsoft Corporation, which enable us to control and develop the enhancement of the user interface and the functionality of our service offerings, such as our interactive programming guide and our Video on Demand ("VOD") and digital video recorder ("DVR") service. In December 2004, we also announced a long-term agreement with Level 3 Communications that is part of the extension of our fiber-optic network. This national network, or "backbone," provides a technically-advanced, nationwide broadband network over which we can deliver new and enhanced services. On September 27, 2004, we and Time Warner Inc. announced an agreement that provides us with an option to reduce our effective overall interest in Time Warner Cable Inc. ("TWC") from approximately 21% to 17% in exchange for stock of a subsidiary that will hold cable systems which will serve approximately 90,000 basic subscribers and hold approximately $750 million in cash. The

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 6 of 160 of 159 Page 5

agreement grants us the option to require TWC to redeem a portion of the TWC common stock held in trust in exchange for 100% of the common stock of the TWC subsidiary. The option may be exercised at any time prior to the 60th day (the "Termination Date") following a notice that may be given at any time by either party of termination of the option period. In addition, the trust that holds the TWC shares agreed not to request that TWC register the trust's shares in TWC for sale in a public offering prior to the Termination Date. On January 31, 2005, we and Time Warner submitted a joint proposal to acquire substantially all of the cable assets of Adelphia Communications Corporation, the fifth-largest cable television company in the United States. Content On May 10, 2004, we completed the acquisition of TechTV Inc. for approximately $300 million in cash. On May 28, 2004, G4 and TechTV began operating as one network that is available to approximately 47 million cable and satellite homes nationwide as of December 31, 2004, providing video and computer game-related programming.
2

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 7 of 160 of 159 Page 6

On July 28, 2004, we exchanged approximately 120 million shares of Liberty Media Corporation Series A common stock that we held, valued at approximately $1.022 billion, with Liberty for 100% of the stock of Liberty's subsidiary, Encore ICCP, Inc. Encore's assets consisted of cash of $547 million, a 10.4% interest in E! Entertainment Television and 100% of International Channel Networks, a cultural and heritage-related national cable network that is available to over 10 million cable homes nationwide as of December 31, 2004. On September 23, 2004, we announced that we entered into a definitive agreement with a consortium of investors led by Sony Corporation of America to acquire Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc ("MGM"). The investor group has committed a total of up to $1.6 billion of equity financing, of which our commitment would be $300 million. This transaction, which has been approved by MGM's Board of Directors and shareholders, is subject to various regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions. The transaction is expected to close during the first half of 2005. We have also reached a broad programming and distribution arrangement with Sony and the other equity partners that allows for the distribution of Sony Pictures' content (and MGM's upon the closing of the acquisition) on our VOD service and provides for joint ventures, which we will manage, establishing new cable channels featuring Sony Pictures and MGM content.

DESCRIPTION OF OUR BUSINESSES Cable We are the largest cable operator in the United States. As of December 31, 2004, our consolidated cable operations served 21.5 million subscribers in thirty-five states, passed 40.8 million homes, and provided digital cable to 8.7 million subscribers, highspeed Internet to 7.0 million subscribers and phone to 1.2 million subscribers. The table below summarizes certain information for our cable operations as of December 31 (homes and subscribers in millions):
2004 2003 2002(1) 2001(2) 2000(2)

Cable Homes Passed (3) Subscribers(4) Penetration Digital Cable "Digital Ready" Subscribers(5) Subscribers(6) Penetration High-Speed Internet "Available" Homes(7) Subscribers Penetration Phone(8) "Available" Homes(7) Subscribers Penetration

40.8 21.5 52.8% 21.5 8.7 40.2% 40.0 7.0 17.5% 10.4 1.2 11.7%

39.8 21.5 53.9% 21.5 7.7 35.7% 34.7 5.3 15.2% 9.4 1.3 13.5%

39.2 21.3 54.4% 21.3 6.6 31.1% 30.1 3.6 12.0% 8.7 1.4 16.5%

13.9 8.5 60.8% 8.4 1.7 20.8% 10.4 0.9 9.1%

12.7 7.6 60.0% 7.3 1.2 16.6% 6.4 0.4 6.3%

(1)

On November 18, 2002, we completed the acquisition of AT&T Corp.'s broadband business, which we refer to as "Broadband" and "the Broadband acquisition." The Broadband acquisition substantially increased the size of our cable operations, and direct comparisons of our cable information for periods prior to November 18, 2002, to subsequent periods are not meaningful. The information as of December 31, 2002, excludes the operating statistics for Broadband cable systems held for sale. On December 31, 2000, and January 1, 2001, we completed our cable systems exchanges with AT&T and Adelphia, respectively. In April and June 2001, we acquired cable systems serving an aggregate of approximately 697,000 subscribers from AT&T. The subscriber information as of December 31, 2000, excludes the effects of our exchange with AT&T. A home is "passed" if we can connect it to our distribution system without further extending the transmission lines. As described in Note 4 below, in the case of certain multiple dwelling units ("MDU"s), homes "passed" are counted on an

(2)

(3)

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 8 of 160 of 159 Page 7

adjusted basis. "Homes passed" is an estimate based on the best available information.
(4)

Generally, a dwelling or commercial unit with one or more television sets connected to a system counts as one cable subscriber. In the case of some MDUs, we count cable subscribers on an FCC equivalent basis by dividing total revenue received from a contract with an MDU by the standard residential rate where the specific MDU is located. A subscriber is "digital ready" if the subscriber is in a market where we have launched our digital cable service. A dwelling with one or more digital set-top boxes counts as one digital cable subscriber. On average, as of December 31, 2004, each digital cable subscriber had 1.5 digital set-top boxes.
3

(5) (6)

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4
(7)

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 9 of 160 of 159 Page 8

A home passed is "available" if we can connect it to our distribution system without further upgrading the transmission lines and if we offer the service in that area. Prior to the Broadband acquisition, the number of phone "available" homes and subscribers was not material.

(8)

Cable Services We offer a variety of services over our cable networks, including video, high-speed Internet and phone. Over the past several years, we have increased the reliability and capacity of our systems, enabling us to deliver new services, such as digital cable, high-speed Internet and phone. As of December 31, 2004, approximately 99% of our cable systems are capable of handling twoway communications. Although our upgrade is substantially complete, we expect to make significant capital expenditures during 2005 associated with the continued growth of these new services. Video Services We offer a full range of video services. We tailor both our basic channel lineup and our additional channel offerings to each system according to demographics, programming preferences and local regulation. Subscribers typically pay us on a monthly basis and generally may discontinue services at any time. Monthly subscription rates and related charges vary according to the type of service selected and the type of equipment subscribers use. Our video service offerings include the following: Basic and expanded basic. Our basic cable service typically consists of 10-20 channels of programming. This service generally consists of programming provided by national television networks, local broadcast television stations, locally-originated programming, including governmental and public access, and limited satellite-delivered programming. Our expanded basic cable service includes a group of satellite-delivered or non-broadcast channels, typically consisting of 50-60 channels in addition to the basic channel lineup. Premium channel programming. Our premium channel programming service, which includes cable networks such as Home Box Office, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax, generally offers, without commercial interruption, feature motion pictures, live and taped sporting events, concerts and other special features. Pay-per-view programming. Our pay-per-view service permits our subscribers to order, for a separate fee, individual feature motion pictures and special event programs, such as professional boxing, professional wrestling and concerts on an unedited, commercial-free basis. Digital cable. Subscribers to our digital cable service receive a digital cable set-top box, an interactive program guide, multiple channels of digital programming and music, and "multiplexes" of premium channels that are varied as to time of broadcast or programming content theme. Video On Demand (VOD). Our VOD service allows digital cable subscribers the opportunity to choose from a library of thousands of programs, start the programs at whatever time is convenient, and pause, rewind or fast-forward the programs. A substantial portion of our VOD content is available at no additional charge. High-Definition Television (HDTV). HDTV features improved, high-resolution picture quality, improved audio quality and a wide-screen, theater-like display. Our HDTV service offers a broad selection of high-definition programming of most major broadcast networks, leading cable channels, premium channels and regional sports networks. Digital Video Recorder (DVR). Our DVR service lets digital subscribers select, record and store programs and play them at whatever time is convenient. DVR service also provides the ability to pause and rewind "live" television. High-Speed Internet Services We offer high-speed Internet access via our cable modems, providing a service that is constantly connected. This service also includes our interactive portal, Comcast.net, which provides multiple e-mail addresses, online storage and a variety of value-added features and enhancements designed to take advantage of the speed of the Internet connection we provide. Phone Services In some areas, we offer traditional circuit-switched local phone service, a full array of associated calling features and third-party long-distance services. We are also beginning to offer a phone service delivered over our broadband communications networks

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4
involving voice transmissions using Internet protocol ("Digital Voice"). Advertising

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 10 of 160 of 159 Page 9

As part of our programming carriage agreements with non-broadcast networks, we often receive an allocation of scheduled advertising time into which we may insert commercials. We sell advertising time to local, regional and national advertisers for insertion on these channels.
4

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166691/000104746905004437/a2141960z10-k.htm

9/16/2005

1:07-cv-00398-GMS Case 2:05-cv-00443-TJW-CEDocument 185-24 Document 14-4

Filed 06/28/2007 12/02/2005

Page 11Page 10 of 159 of 160

We also coordinate the advertising sales efforts of other cable operators in certain markets. Utilizing these arrangements and similar arrangements with other companies, we have formed and operate advertising interconnects, which establish a physical, direct link between multiple cable systems and provide for the insertion primarily of regional and national advertising across larger geographic areas. Regional Sports and News Networks Our regional sports and news networks provide programming to our cable subscribers. These regional networks include Comcast SportsNet, Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic, Cable Sports Southeast, CN8--The Comcast Network, and launched in 2004, Comcast SportsNet Chicago and Comcast SportsNet West (Sacramento). These networks sell advertising time and enter into affiliation agreements with cable and satellite television companies. Other Revenue Sources We also generate revenues from installation services, commissions from third-party electronic retailing and from other services, such as providing businesses with Internet connectivity and networked business applications. Programming We generally acquire a license for the programming we sell to our subscribers by paying a monthly fee to the licensor on a per subscriber, per channel basis. Our