Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity et al, No. 2:23-cv-00062 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2025)

Adopted in Part Report and recommendation adopted with modification
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00062, Dkt. No. 40
Decided
March 13, 2025
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER OVERRULING Objections and adopting Report and Recommendations
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. §

§

Plaintiff,

§

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00062-JRG-RSP

§

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,

§

LLC d/b/a XFINITY, et al.,

§

Defendants.

§

ORDER

Before the Court are the following objections (the “Objections”) filed challenging pretrial rulings issued by Magistrate Judge Payne in the above-captioned Case1:

1. Comcast’s Objections to the Memorandum Order Denying Comcast’s Motion to Strike

the Opinions of Dr. Russell W. Mangum III (Dkt. No. 263)

2. Comcast’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Payne’s Denial of Comcast MIL No. 3 (Dkt.

No. 243)

3. Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Objection to Ruling On Defendants

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.’s Motion in Limine No. 42 (Dkt. No. 246) 4. Plaintiff Touchstream’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Payne’s Evidentiary Rulings

on the Admissibility of PTX 85 and Certain Deposition Designations of Tony Werner (Dkt. No. 306)

5. Comcast’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Decision Overruling Comcast’s

Objections to Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 7 (Dkt. No. 309)

6. Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.’s Objection to Ruling Re Defendants

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al.’s Motion to Exclude and Strike the Opinions of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (Case No. 2:23-cv-00062, Dkt. No. 25)

2After reviewing Judge Payne’s rulings and the briefing on the Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided by Judge Payne and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Consequently, the Court:

1. OVERRULES Comcast’s Objections (Dkt. No. 263) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s

Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 239);

2. OVERRULES Comcast’s Objections (Dkt. No. 243) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s

rulings as announced into the record;

3. OVERRULES Touchstream’s Objections (Dkt. No. 246) and ADOPTS Judge

Payne’s rulings as announced into the record;

4. OVERRULES Touchstream’s Objections (Dkt. No. 306) and ADOPTS Judge

Payne’s rulings as announced into the record;

5. OVERRULES Comcast’s Objections (Dkt. No. 309) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s

rulings as announced into the record; and

6. OVERRULES Touchstream’s Objections (Case No. 2:23-cv-00062, Dkt. No. 25) and

ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Memorandum Order (Dkt. No. 329).

The Court therefore ORDERS the following: . 1. Comcast’s Motion to Strike the Opinions of Dr. Russell W. Mangum III (Dkt. No. 83)

is DENIED.

2. Comcast’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. No. 172) is GRANTED.

3. Comcast’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Dkt. No. 172) is DENIED.

4. Comcast’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Dkt. No. 172) is GRANTED.

5. Comcast’s ’s Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (Dkt. No. 84)

is GRANTED-IN-PART as explained in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 329).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

  1. 1 The rulings and objections were filed in then-lead case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP. The cases were thereafter deconsolidated. (Case No. 2:23-cv-00059, Dkt. No. 360). All docket citations are to docket entries in Case No. 2:23-cv-00059 unless otherwise noted.
  2. 2 While the title of this Objection indicates that Plaintiff only challenges Magistrate Judge Payne’s ruling on MIL No. 4, in this Objection, Plaintiff also challenges Magistrate Judge Payne’s ruling on MIL No. 1. (Dkt. No. 246 at 4.)

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity et al, No. 2:23-cv-00062 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2025).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00062-1
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_23-cv-00062-1

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.