Free Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Subject Jurisdiction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 1 17

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, L.P. Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, and COXCOM, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT COXCOM, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, PERSONAL JURISDICTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRANSFER, AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF Defendant CoxCom, Inc. ("Defendant" or "CoxCom") moves pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, L.P.'s ("Plaintiff" or "Rembrandt") claims against it on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. In the alternative, CoxCom moves to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware where there is already an action pending involving the same parties and same issues. I. INTRODUCTION CASE NO. 2:06-CV-507 [LED]

The "first-to-file" rule instructs a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when an action involving the same parties and same issues is already pending in another district.1 West Gulf Mar. Ass'n. v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985); Mann Mfg., Inc. v.
Other parties in similar cases have filed similar motions to dismiss in other jurisdictions under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than 12(b)(1). However, West Gulf Mar. Assoc. v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1985), suggests that Rule 12(b)(1) is the appropriate rule. Id. at 730 (noting that "the court with `prior jurisdiction over the common subject matter' should resolve all issues presented in related actions."). Therefore, CoxCom has filed the current motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and acknowledges that other rules may be equally applicable.
1

1
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 17

Hortex, 439 F.2d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 1971). Such is the case here. On November 30, 2006, before Rembrandt filed this action, CoxCom filed a declaratory judgment action against Rembrandt in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,008,903 (the "`903 Patent") (the "Delaware Action"). The instant action involves the very same issues. Namely, whether CoxCom's

activities of providing high-speed internet services infringe the `903 Patent. As the parties and issues involved in this second-filed case are the same as those in the first-filed Delaware Action, pursuant to the first-to-file rule, this Court must decline jurisdiction and either dismiss this action or transfer it to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware where it may be consolidated with the first-filed Delaware Action. As a second and independent basis for dismissal, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over CoxCom does not comport with federal due process. CoxCom, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia, does not do business in Texas such that it would be subject to this Court's general personal jurisdiction. Moreover, CoxCom does not own or operate any cable systems or provide high-speed internet services in Texas such that it would be subject to this Court's specific personal jurisdiction. In fact, CoxCom's only contact with Texas is a point of presence ("POP") node consisting of servers and routing equipment which is located in leased space in Dallas and which is unrelated to the accused methods and systems at issue in this case. Indeed, in another patent litigation matter pending in this judicial district, Judge Clark recently held that CoxCom did not have the minimum contacts with Texas sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. USA Video Tech. Corp. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., et al; civil action number 2:06-CV-239-RHC.2 Defendant CoxCom respectfully requests

2

A true and correct copy of Judge Clark's order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 3 17

that this Court similarly find that CoxCom has insufficient contacts with Texas to support jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Defendant CoxCom. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

CoxCom filed the Delaware Action against Rembrandt at 4:33 p.m. EST on November 30, 2006,3 seeking a declaration that its activities in providing high speed internet access do not infringe the `903 Patent. Four hours later, at 7:41 p.m. Central, Rembrandt filed the instant action, asserting that CoxCom's activities in providing high speed cable modem internet products and services to subscribers infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,710,761 (the "`761 Patent"), No. 5,778,234 (the "`234 Patent"), No. 6,131,159 (the "`159 Patent"), and No. 6,950,444 (the "`444 Patent"). (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16, 21, and 26.) The next day, acknowledging that the `761 Patent, `234 Patent, `159 Patent, `444 Patent and `903 Patent are related patents and alleging that the activity accused with respect to the `761 Patent, `234 Patent, `159 Patent and `444 Patent is the same activity accused with respect to the `903 Patent, Rembrandt amended its Complaint to include a claim for infringement of the `903 Patent (the `761 Patent, `234 Patent, `159 Patent, `444 Patent and `903 Patent are collectively referred to as the "Patents in Suit").4 (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-12.) CoxCom, a cable service provider that offers various cable services to subscribers, including high speed internet access, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. (Decl. of John Spalding in Supp. of Def. CoxCom, Inc.'s Mot. to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) ¶¶ 2, 4 [hereinafter Spalding Decl.].) CoxCom has no presence in Texas. CoxCom is not registered to do business in Texas and does not have any employees, does not maintain any place of business or office, and does not keep any

3 4

A true and correct copy of CoxCom's declaratory judgment complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. A true and correct copy of each of the Patents in Suit is attached hereto as Exhibits 3A-3E.

3
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 4 17

corporate books or records in Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 6.) CoxCom does not own or operate any cable systems in Texas and does not provide any high speed internet services in Texas or to residents of Texas, and does not derive any revenues from Texas. (Id. ¶ 4.) In fact, CoxCom's only contact with Texas is an internet Point of Presence (POP) node consisting of servers and routing equipment located in leased space in Dallas.5 (Id. ¶ 5.) The node carries internet protocol traffic and is not related to the accused methods and systems. (Id.) CoxCom's parent company, Cox Communications, Inc. ("Cox Communications"), recently was named a defendant in an action filed by USA Video Technology Corporation ("USA Video") and pending before Judge Clark of the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (civil action number 2:06-CV-239-RHC). Cox Communications moved to dismiss the action as to it on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. USA Video opposed the motion and moved to amend its complaint to add CoxCom as an additional defendant. CoxCom opposed the motion to amend on the grounds that the court lacked general and specific personal jurisdiction. After granting plaintiff jurisdictional discovery, Judge Clark issued an order finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over both Cox Communications and CoxCom, ordering that the claims asserted against Cox Communications be severed, transferring the claims to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and denying USA Video's motion to amend to add CoxCom. See Exhibit 1. In stark contrast to CoxCom, Rembrandt, a New Jersey limited partnership with its principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, is a non-practicing entity ("NPE")--a firm that invests in patents but does not practice them. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) As such,
With the exception of the POP node, all assets of CoxCom that were located in Texas were sold to Cox Southwest Holdings, L.P. ("Cox Southwest") on or about December 31, 2003 (Id. ¶ 7.) Thereafter, with the sole exception of a cable television franchise located in Henderson, Texas, Cox Southwest sold all of its assets to Cebridge Acquisition, L.P. ("Cebridge"). (Id.) Cox Southwest is an entity separate from CoxCom and maintains its own corporate formalities, including books, records, boards and corporate structure. (Id. ¶ 8.)
5

4
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 5 17

Rembrandt invests in patents for the purpose of litigating infringement royalties and licenses. According to its website, Rembrandt "shoulders the legal, financial, and business risks associated with pursuing patent pirates and provides the capital and expertise required to litigate complex patent infringements."6 http://www.rembrandtfund.com/about.html. In short, Rembrandt is an entity that has filed several lawsuits against many cable service providers, including CoxCom, alleging infringement of the Patents in Suit and other patents related to cable and internet services.7 With respect to geography, Rembrandt is amenable to suit in multiple venues,

including the District of Delaware--located in Wilmington, Delaware approximately 30 miles from Rembrandt's headquarters in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. See Exhibit 6 attached hereto. In fact, Rembrandt has filed in Delaware patent infringement actions involving the same patents and accused activity (providing high speed internet access) that are at issue in this action.8 In light of the facts that CoxCom is a Delaware corporation and Rembrandt is conveniently located to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and is amenable to suit there, CoxCom elected to file its declaratory judgment action in Delaware.
To pursue such patent infringement litigation, Rembrandt maintains a "staff of in-house professionals and outside consultants" that "includes scientists, inventors, financial analysts, lawyers, and researchers who are expert at identifying the validity and market value of patents and Intellectual Property (IP), and securing revenue for these inventors and companies as well as Rembrandt's investors." Id. Rembrandt claims to have raised $150 million "to acquire patents and litigate patent infringement." Id. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Rembrandt's Web site. 7 On June 1, 2006, Rembrandt filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Operating, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., CoxCom, Inc., Cox Enterprises, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, Inc. (case no. 2:06-CV-223-TJW), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,243,627; 5,852,631; 5,719,858; and 4,937,819 by operating digital cable systems in which they provide cable television, high speed internet, and Voice over IP services to their subscribers. On the same day and in the same court, Rembrandt filed a separate suit against Time Warner Cable, Inc. (case No. 2:06-CV-0224-TJW), alleging infringement of the same patents. On September 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed a second suit in this Court against Time Warner (case no. 2:06-CV-369-TJW), alleging infringement of the Patents in Suit by providing high speed cable modem internet products and services to subscribers. True and correct copies of the complaints are attached hereto as Exhibits 5A-5C. 8 On October 13, 2006, Rembrandt filed an action against Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al. (case no. 1:060CV-00635-GMS), asserting the same patents that are at issue in this action, as well as one additional patent. A true and correct copy of this complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. Rembrandt has also brought other patent infringement suits in Delaware against CBS (case no. 1:06-00727), ABC (case no. 1:06-00730), NBC (case no. 1:06-00729) and Fox (case no. 1:06-00731) for infringement of U.S Patent No. 5,243,627; true and correct copies of each complaint are attached hereto as Exhibits 8A-8D.
6

5
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 6 17

III. A.

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

This Second-Filed Action Should be Dismissed or Transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 1. The First-to-File Rule Avoids Duplicative Litigation.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and this Court recognize the "firs-to-file" rule. The first-to-file rule is a generally recognized doctrine of federal judicial comity which instructs a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and same issues has already been filed in another district. West Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir. 1985); Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 1971). "The concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result." Id. (citations omitted). In the context of patent litigation, the first-to-file rule is rigidly followed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the controlling circuit in patent cases, strongly favors the first-filed action. See Elecs for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 938 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("There must . . . be sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action"; otherwise, the first-filed suit should proceed to judgment). Thus, patent cases are adjudicated in the forum where jurisdiction first attaches. See Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F. Supp. 2d 1041, 1043 n.2 (N.D. Ohio 2001) ("The Federal Circuit has . . . held that the first to file rule will be applied more rigorously in patent cases . . . ."); GuthyRenker Fitness, L.L.C. v. Icon Health & Fitness, 179 F.R.D. 264, 269 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ([a]pplication especially important in patent cases, "where the risk of conflicting determinations as to the patent's validity and enforceability [is] clear.").

6
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 7 17

The Fifth Circuit and district courts within the Fifth Circuit similarly have given substantial deference to the court where the first action was filed in patent infringement disputes. See, e.g., Mann Mfg., Inc., 439 F.2d at 408 (remanding and ordering the district court in the second-filed infringement case to either dismiss or transfer the matter to the court hearing the first-filed declaratory judgment case); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 1000 (E.D. Tex. 1993) (denying reconsideration of an order transferring an infringement action to the forum where the first-filed declaratory judgment action was filed). CoxCom opted--as was its prerogative--to initiate its action against Rembrandt in Delaware. It was CoxCom's right to elect the Delaware forum to assert its rights to a declaration of noninfringement, it did so prior to commencement of this action, and its election should not be disturbed. 2. Because the Two Cases Involve Substantially Overlapping Issues, the Court Must Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer the Second-Filed Action.

In determining whether to apply the "first-to-file" rule, the courts must resolve two questions: (a) whether the pending actions are duplicative or involve substantially similar issues such that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions, and (b) which of the two courts should take the case. Cal. Sec. Co-Op, Inc. v. Multimedia Cablevision, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 316, 317 (E.D. Tex. 1995). The court presiding over the second-filed action may make an initial determination of whether there is a likelihood of substantial overlap of the issues warranting deference to the first-filed action. See Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997). However, once that determination is made, the second court must dismiss, transfer or stay the proceedings, and leave for the court presiding over the first action to decide whether or not the first-to-file rule applies. See Mann Mfg., Inc., 439 F.2d at 407-08 ("Once the likelihood of a substantial overlap between the two suits ha[s] been demonstrated, it [is] was no

7
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 8 17

longer up to the [second-filed court] to resolve the question of whether both should be allowed to proceed."); Texas Instruments, 815 F. Supp. at 999 ("This [c]ourt simply may not, consistent with the principles of comity and conservation of judicial resources, usurp the first-filed court's role."). The Fifth Circuit considers it an abuse of discretion for a district court in a second-filed case to refuse to dismiss, stay, or transfer the matter to the court handling the first-filed case once substantial overlap is determined to exist. See Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc., 125 F.3d 914, 950 (5th Cir. 1997), declined to follow on other grounds by Bill Harbert Const. Co., a Div. of Bill Harbert Intern., Inc. v. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., 169 F.3d 693; Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 952. In the context of patent litigation, "substantial overlap" is met where there is an infringement action and a declaratory judgment action based on the same patents, because "they involve the exact same determination, just sought through different procedural vehicles." Tape & Techs. Inc. v. Davlyn Mfg. Co., No. Civ. A. SA04CA-1150-XR, 2005 WL 1072169, at *3 (W.D. Tex. May 6, 2005); see also Genentec, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937-38 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that the first-to-file rule applies in the declaratory judgment context); Watershed Software Group, LLC v. Camping Cos., No. Civ. A. 02-2546, 2002 WL 31528464, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2002) (holding that substantial overlap existed between an action seeking a declaration of rights and an action seeking monetary damages for violation of the same rights); 800-FLOWERS, Inc. v. Intercontinental Florist, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 128 , 132 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Notably, identical litigation is not required, only "substantial" overlap between the issues. Save Power Ltd., 121 F.3d at 950. There may be substantial overlap between the cases even if one case involves additional claims and additional parties. Cal. Sec. Co-Op, Inc., 897 F. Supp. at 318

8
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 of of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 9 17

(holding that the addition of claims and parties that were not included in the first-filed action did not change the subject matter of the cases--which was the same in both cases). The parties in the first-filed Delaware action and in the instant action are the same9 and the issues substantially overlap. CoxCom filed the Delaware Action seeking a ruling that its high-speed internet and cable modem services do not infringe the `903 Patent. The `903 Patent is at issue in this action, as well as the other Patents in Suit, each of which Rembrandt alleges is infringed by the same accused activity--CoxCom's high-speed cable and internet services. In fact, acknowledging that the Patents in Suit are related, when Rembrandt amended its Complaint to specifically assert the `903 Patent, it did not allege any additional accused infringing activity or network components. (Compare Compl; First Am. Compl.) Therefore, the Delaware Action and this second-filed action are merely different procedural vehicles to determine the same issues--whether CoxCom's activities are infringing. Because the Delaware Action was filed first, involves the same parties and substantially overlapping issues, this Court must decline jurisdiction and either dismiss this action as to CoxCom or transfer it to the District of Delaware where it may be consolidated with the first-filed Delaware Action. B. This Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over CoxCom Violates Federal Due Process and, Thus, Provides a Second and Independent Basis for Dismissal. While CoxCom historically provided internet service in Texas, several years ago and before Rembrandt bought the rights to the Patents in Suit,10 CoxCom made a strategic business decision to exit from Texas. (Spalding Decl. ¶ 4.) As a result, CoxCom does no business in Texas, owns no assets in Texas, keeps no records in Texas, has no employees in Texas, and does
There are additional defendants in this action, but they are not related to, or required for, Rembrandt's patent infringement claims against CoxCom. 10 Rembrandt became the assignee of the `903 Patent on July 31, 2006; the `234 Patent on March 30, 2005; the `159 Patent on March 30, 2005; the '444 Patent on July 31, 2006; and the `761 Patent on March 30, 2005. A true and correct copy of each chain of assignments is attached hereto as Exhibit 9. (These assignments may be accessed from the United States Patent and Trademark office Web site ­ http://assignments.uspto.gov, follow "Patent Assignment" hyperlink, and enter the desired patent number in the search field.)
9

9
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1010 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

not own or operate any cable systems or provide any high speed internet services in Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 6.) Accordingly, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over CoxCom would violate federal due process. 1. Legal Standard

Personal jurisdiction in patent infringement cases is governed by Federal Circuit law, with guidance on due process principles supplied by the Supreme Court and other federal circuits. Pennington Seed, Inc. v. Produce Exch., No. 299, 457 F.3d 1334, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over a non-resident defendant involves two inquiries: whether personal jurisdiction exists under the forum's long-arm statute and, if so, whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If the forum's long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process, "the two inquiries collapse into a single inquiry: whether jurisdiction comports with due process." Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. v. CFMT, Inc., 142 F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1998). While Federal Circuit precedent controls the due process analysis, the law of the forum governs the interpretation of the forum's long-arm statute. HollyAnne Corp. v. TFT, Inc., 199 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999).11 The Texas Long Arm Statute has been construed to be coextensive with constitutional due process requirements. See Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 17.04. Due process concerns mandate that a court may only exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant where that defendant "has certain minimum contacts with the forum such

3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("While we defer to the interpretation of a state's long-arm statute given by that state's highest court, particularly whether or not the statute is intended to reach the limit of federal due process, when analyzing personal jurisdiction for purposes of compliance with federal due process, Federal Circuit law, rather than regional circuit law, applies.") (internal citations omitted).

11

10
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1111 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984) (internal citations and alterations omitted). This is because the defendant has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which it has no meaningful minimum "contacts, ties, or relations" and, out of fairness, defendants should not be "haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 475 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414 n.9. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must assume the truth of all factual allegations made in the complaint and construe all inferences from them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Elecs for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004); United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 2d 55, 59 (D.D.C. 2004). At the same time, however, jurisdiction may not be invoked solely on "bare allegations or conclusory statements." Id. at 60. When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff must "allege specific facts connecting [the] defendant with the forum." Id. 2. CoxCom Does Not Have Sufficient "Substantial and Continuous" Contacts With Texas to Justify the Exercise of General Jurisdiction.

In determining whether a defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum, in accordance with federal due process, a court will consider factors such as whether the defendant maintains an office in the forum, has been licensed to conduct business in the forum, has employees or agents in the forum, uses bank accounts in the forum, or markets or sells products in the forum. See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984) (holding there was no general jurisdiction where defendant did not have a place of business in the forum, was not licensed to do business in the forum and its only contacts

11
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1212 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

consisted of sending an officer to the forum for a contract-negotiation session, accepting checks drawn on a bank in the forum, purchasing products and services from the forum, and sending personnel to the forum for training). None of these factors are present in this case. CoxCom is a Delaware corporation that is not registered or qualified to do business in Texas because it does no business in Texas. (Spalding Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) CoxCom does not own or operate any cable systems in Texas and does not provide any television, internet or telephone services in Texas, and, therefore, does not derive revenues from any Texas transactions, activities, or connections. (Id. ¶ 4. ) CoxCom does not maintain any place of business, maintain any office, or keep any corporate books or records in Texas. (Id. ¶ 3.) CoxCom does not direct any activities to the residents of Texas. Finally, in another patent infringement action involving video on demand services, Judge Clark recently found that CoxCom had insufficient contacts with Texas to justify the exercise of general or specific personal jurisdiction. Exhibit 1 at 1. 3. The Exercise of Specific Jurisdiction Over CoxCom Would Not Comport With Due Process Given That CoxCom Has No Contacts with Texas Related to Plaintiff's Claims.

The Federal Circuit has developed a three-prong test to determine whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction over a nonresident comports with due process: (a) (b) (c) whether the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the residents of the forum; whether the claim arises out of or is related to those activities, and whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.

Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1545-46 (Fed. Cir. 1995); HollyAnne Corp. v. TFT, Inc., 199 F.3d 1304, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The plaintiff must prove all three prongs to establish jurisdiction. Akro, 45 F.3d at 1545. As stated above, CoxCom is not purposefully directing activities at the residents of Texas and, in fact, made a strategic business decision to exit from the state. (Spalding Decl. ¶ 4.) As a

12
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1313 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

result, CoxCom does not offer or otherwise provide in Texas the high speed internet services alleged to infringe the Patents in Suit. (Id. ¶ 4.) In fact, CoxCom's sole contact with Texas is an internet node that carries internet traffic for CoxCom's cable systems, which are located outside of Texas. (Id. ¶ 5.) The internet node is not related to the DOCSIS communications that occur between a cable modem and the cable modem termination system in the head-end (id.), which are the methods and systems at issue in this litigation (see First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 26 (describing the Patents in Suit)). The purpose of the node, which is implemented by computer servers in leased space in Dallas, is to connect with CoxCom's national internet backbone to carry traffic from and to its cable systems that are located in several (non-Texas) metro areas throughout the country. Interconnecting national or international networks through assets in Texas does not support personal jurisdiction. See Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI

Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 717-18 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that leasing [telephone] lines in Texas "for the purpose of connecting two points in Mexico . . . [did] not constitute doing business in Texas"); Applewhite v. Metro Aviation, Inc., 875 F.2d 491, 717-18 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding interconnections, even though crossing the border into a forum, are insufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause). The purchase of the computer servers used by the POP node or the purchase of related services (such as the space occupied by the servers) also do not establish personal jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) ("[m]ere purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals, are not enough to warrant a [S]tate's assertion of . . . jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation in a cause of action not related to those purchase transactions"); Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 213 (1977) (ownership of property in forum state unrelated to claim did not support jurisdiction).

13
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1414 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

Even if the Court were to find that CoxCom is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas (which CoxCom denies), the exercise of such jurisdiction would be both unreasonable and unfair. See HollyAnne Corp. v. TFT, Inc., 199 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Colida v. LG Elecs., Inc., 77 Fed. Appx. 523, 526 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In evaluating the reasonableness of personal jurisdiction, courts consider several factors including, inter alia, the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, and the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies. Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)). Generally speaking, Texas' "interest[s] [are] preventing patent infringement within its borders and in protecting the patent rights of its citizens. . . [and] . . . furthering commerce and scientific development, especially within its technology sector, which is promoted by patent laws." Marshall Packaging Co., LLC v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., No. 6:05CV295, 2006 WL 871015, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2006). However, unlike the plaintiff in Marshall Packaging (which was a Texas corporation doing business in Texas), Rembrandt is organized under the laws of New Jersey and with a principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Rembrandt has not attempted to practice, develop, or otherwise advance the technology covered by its patents in Texas. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction over CoxCom will do nothing to protect the patent rights of Texas citizens or to further commerce and scientific development in Texas. Finally, since CoxCom is not doing business in Texas, exercising

jurisdiction over CoxCom does nothing to prevent patent infringement within Texas. Simply, Texas has no interest in Rembrandt's claims against CoxCom.

14
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1515 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

When considering the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, courts examine "the convenience and effectiveness of relief from the plaintiff's perspective, as generally the first party to file suit chooses the forum." Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs, Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, when the plaintiff's and state's interest in litigating in a particular form is particularly attenuated, as in this case, the court should not exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. See Colida, 77 Fed. Appx. at 526. Here, Rembrandt was not the first party to file suit or choose a forum--CoxCom was, and it filed suit in Delaware. Moreover, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, located in Wilmington, Delaware, is approximately 30 miles from Rembrandt's headquarters. See Exhibit 6. Presumably, much more convenient than Texas. Furthermore, Rembrandt has already expressed its desire and willingness to litigate in Delaware, having filed multiple patent litigation matters there, including matters involving the same patents at issue in this case. See supra note 6. When considering the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, courts compare the alternative forums and may consider the case load of the courts as well as their familiarity with the type of litigation. Amoco Egypt Oil Co., v. Leonis Navigation Co., 1 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir. 1993); Breckenridge Pharm., Inc., 444 F.3d at 1368. In that regard, according to the Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, in 2005, there were 1,190 total filings in the District of Delaware for four judges, or 298 cases per judge; and 3,583 filings in the Eastern District of Texas for eight judges, or 448 cases per judge. Judicial Caseload Profile Reports for the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas, http://www.uscourts.gov/fcmstat/index.html. In the "other" category, which includes patent

litigation matters, 13 cases were filed in the District of Delaware and 110 in the Eastern District

15
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1616 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

of Texas. U.S. District Courts--Civil Cases Commenced, by Nature of Suit and District, During the 12-Month Period Ending June 30, 2005, http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/june05/index.html.12 The lighter case load of the Delaware court suggests that this case may be resolved just as efficiently in Delaware. Further, the time for disposition of the cases is almost identical--10.9 months in Delaware versus 10.3 months in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. Therefore, the statistics do not substantially favor Texas, and just as sound a resolution can be had in Delaware. CoxCom does not have systematic and continuous contacts with the State of Texas sufficient for this Court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over it. It ceased any business and operations in Texas in 2003, making any contacts non-existent. In addition, there are no minimum contacts with Texas to support specific jurisdiction with respect to the Patents in Suit. CoxCom has no activities, employees, operations, or assets in Texas that are directed to the technology of the Patents in Suit. The only asset, the POP node, supports internet backbone traffic and not any cable modem or high-speed internet traffic of Texas subscribers because there are none. However, if this Court should find sufficient minimum contacts to support personal jurisdiction, it should find that the assertion of such jurisdiction is both unfair and unreasonable based on the above factors. Rembrandt has no business or contacts with Texas, other than filing suit here, and does not practice or otherwise make use of its patents. CoxCom is no longer located, here, and Delaware can provide as just and efficient a resolution to the matter as this Court. V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, CoxCom respectfully requests that this Court decline jurisdiction and either dismiss this action or transfer it to the District Court for the District of Delaware.
12

The Judicial Caseload Reports are attached hereto as Exhibit 10A-10B.

16
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97 Document 45-1 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1717 of 17 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 17

This the 26th day of January 2007. /s/ Michael E. Jones Mitchell G. Stockwell Lead Attorney Georgia Bar No. 682912 KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree St NE Suite 2800 Atlanta GA 30309-4530 Telephone: 404-815-6214 Facsimile: 404-815-6555 [email protected] Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 [email protected] Allen F. Gardner State Bar No. 24043679 [email protected] POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) PO Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 Telephone: 903-597-8311 Facsimile: 903-593-0846 Attorneys for CoxCom, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and contemporaneously served upon all counsel who have consented to electronic service on this the 26th day of January 2007. Other counsel shall be served by first class mail on this same date. /s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones

17
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-2 Document 45-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 3 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Document 97-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 of 3 Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 45-2 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Document 97-2 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 of 3 Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 45-2 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-3 Document 45-3 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 9 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-4 Document 45-4 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 11 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 12 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 13 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 14 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 15 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 16 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 17 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 18 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 19 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 20 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 21 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 22 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 23 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 23 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-5 Document 45-5 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 24 of 24 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 24 of 24

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 11 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 12 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 13 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 14 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 15 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 16 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 17 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 18 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 19 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 20 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 21 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 22 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 23 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 23 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 24 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 24 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 25 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 25 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 26 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 26 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 27 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 27 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 28 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 28 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 29 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 29 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 30 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 30 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-6 Document 45-6 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 31 of 31 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 31 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-7 Document 45-7 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 2 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-7 Document 45-7 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 2 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 11 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 12 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 13 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 14 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 15 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 16 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 17 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 18 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 19 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 20 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 21 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 22 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 22 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 23 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 23 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 24 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 24 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 25 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 25 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-8 Document 45-8 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 26 of 26 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 26 of 26

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-9 Document 45-9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 5 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-9 Document 45-9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 5 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-9 Document 45-9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 5 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-9 Document 45-9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 5 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-9 Document 45-9 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 5 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-10 Document 45-10 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 8 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 8

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 11 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 12 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 13 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 14 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 15 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 15 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 16 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 16 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 17 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 17 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 18 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 18 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 19 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 19 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 20 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 20 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-11 Document 45-11 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 21 of 21 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 21 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 11 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 11 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 12 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 12 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 13 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 13 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-12 Document 45-12 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 14 of 14 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 14 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 2 2 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 3 3 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 4 4 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 5 5 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 6 6 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 7 7 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 8 8 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 9 9 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-13 Document 45-13 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 10 of 10 Filed 01/26/2007 Page 10 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-14 Document 45-14 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, L.P. Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, and COXCOM, INC., Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT COXCOM, INC. FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant CoxCom, Inc. be dismissed with/without prejudice from this action due to this Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over CoxCom. CASE NO. 2:06-CV-507 [LED]

18
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-15 Document 45-15 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 1

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, L.P. Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, and COXCOM, INC., Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT COXCOM, INC. FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant CoxCom, Inc. be dismissed with/without prejudice from this action due to this Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the action against CoxCom, Inc. CASE NO. 2:06-CV-507 [LED]

19
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049

Case 1:07-cv-00404-GMS Case 2:06-cv-00507-TJW-CE Document 97-16 Document 45-16 Filed 06/28/2007 Page 1 1 of 1 Filed 01/26/2007 Page of 1

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

REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, L.P. Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, and COXCOM, INC., Defendants. ORDER TRANSFERRING THE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT COXCOM, INC. TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the action against Defendant CoxCom, Inc. be transferred to the District of Delaware, where CoxCom, Inc. v. Rembrandt Technologies, L.P., Case No. 06-721, is currently pending. CASE NO. 2:06-CV-507 [LED]

20
US2000 9720059.5 C8490-331049