Litigation Details for Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Docket		Date Filed	2023-02-16
Court	District Court, E.D. Texas	Date Terminated	2025-03-12
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	James Rodney Gilstrap
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Roy S. Payne
Patents	11,964,018; 12,013,403; 9,302,009
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2023-02-16				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Last updated: April 26, 2026

What Does the Touchstream v. Charter Case Cover (2:23-cv-00059)?

Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00059, is a federal patent case filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division). The docket reflects a patent infringement dispute targeting Charter’s communications services. The record ties the litigation to Touchstream’s asserted patent(s) and typical infringement allegations (use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of infringing systems and methods). The case is managed under the standard patent-infringement framework: pleadings, infringement contentions and claim construction, claim terms interpretation, and then dispositive motions and trial scheduling.

Case identification

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division)
• Case number: 2:23-cv-00059
• Plaintiff: Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Charter Communications, Inc.

What Procedural Posture Does the Docket Show?

The docket (as reflected for 2:23-cv-00059) tracks the case through the core stages common to ED Texas patent suits:

• Complaint filed (initiation of infringement claims)
• Service and responsive pleadings (defendant’s responses)
• Patent case management (scheduling orders and submission deadlines)
• Infringement contentions and invalidity/defense disclosures (typical patent-local-rules workflow)
• Claim construction process (Markman preparation and briefing)
• Motions stage (frequently includes early dismissal/venue-related issues, claim-construction-related disputes, and summary judgment or other dispositive motions if scheduled)
• Trial scheduling (if the case reaches that point)

Key point for business read-through: ED Texas manages these matters on a tight schedule, and the controlling driver for settlement and valuation typically becomes claim construction outcomes plus the infringement charting quality tied to accused products or services.

Which Patents and Claims Are Asserted?

The case record for 2:23-cv-00059 centers on Touchstream’s asserted patent(s). Patent infringement complaints in ED Texas generally:

• Identify specific claims of the asserted patent(s)
• Allege that the defendant’s products and services practice each element of at least one asserted claim
• Provide a theory of infringement linked to accused functionalities

Business implication: In valuation and licensing posture, the number of asserted claims and how they cluster around key technical features determines whether the case is mostly a “claim chart” dispute or a broader technical validity and claim-scope fight.

What Is Touchstream Alleging Against Charter?

Patent complaints in this posture typically assert that Charter infringes by:

• Using infringing systems or methods
• Selling or offering for sale infringing products or services
• Importing infringing systems or methods (if alleged)
• Practicing claimed functionality through network and/or service components

The asserted infringement theory generally connects claimed steps or system components to Charter’s communications infrastructure and/or service delivery stack.

Commercial read: In communications-sector cases, settlement leverage often comes from whether the asserted claims map cleanly to widely deployed network/service features that are hard to redesign quickly.

What Defenses Are Typically Raised in This Stage?

While the exact defenses in 2:23-cv-00059 are not fully enumerated in the docket snapshot provided here, Charter in patent suits of this type typically raises some combination of:

• Non-infringement (non-practice of claim elements)
• Invalidity (anticipation, obviousness, and possibly indefiniteness)
• Procedural defenses (where applicable, including early-stage challenges)
• Prosecution history and claim construction constraints (to narrow claim scope)

Business read-through: The outcome often hinges less on “bright-line” invalidity and more on claim construction plus a credible infringement mapping to accused products at the element level.

How Would Claim Construction Likely Drive Exposure?

In ED Texas patent cases like 2:23-cv-00059, claim construction is the gatekeeper for:

• Interpreting ambiguous terms in the asserted claims
• Determining whether accused functionality falls inside or outside claim scope
• Constraining both infringement and invalidity theories

Practical consequence for negotiations:

• If claim construction narrows the asserted claims to specific architectures or steps, Touchstream’s infringement position may weaken.
• If claim construction adopts broad interpretations, Charter’s non-infringement arguments usually compress into narrower “no element” or “no system” positions, raising settlement probability.

What Are the Litigation Levers for Touchstream vs. Charter?

Touchstream’s leverage (typical in this posture)

• Asserted claims with clearly chartable network/service features
• Prior art gaps that keep validity arguments weaker
• A claim construction record that supports broader interpretations

Charter’s leverage (typical in this posture)

• Element-level non-infringement tied to how services are actually implemented
• Prior art that maps strongly onto independent claims
• Narrow claim construction positions aligned with prosecution history and specification

Outcome driver: The strength of the infringement contentions and Chart-to-Product mapping typically determines whether the case is litigated through trial or resolves by settlement.

What Is the Economic Value of the Dispute?

Economic value in patent disputes is usually estimated through:

• Royalty rate benchmarks for the asserted technical feature
• Likelihood of injunction (often constrained in current jurisprudence depending on posture, but licensing leverage remains strong)
• Probability-weighted damages and litigation cost-to-close

For a communications defendant like Charter, valuations often assume:

• Multiple revenue sources potentially implicated by network/service functionality
• The possibility of design-around (if the claims target modifiable features)
• The possibility of licensing if claims target broadly used components

How to Track the Case Now (What to Watch on the Docket)?

To monitor litigation progress and infer settlement odds, the most probative docket events typically are:

• Claim construction orders and adopted interpretations
• Dispositive motion orders (summary judgment, dismissal)
• Trial date changes and scheduling order updates
• Settlement-related filings (stipulations, dismissals without prejudice, consent judgments)

Because ED Texas schedules tightly, these events often cluster and quickly shift bargaining power.

Case Snapshot Table

Item	Detail
Case	Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc.
Docket number	2:23-cv-00059
Court	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall)
Parties	Touchstream Technologies, Inc. (Plaintiff) vs. Charter Communications, Inc. (Defendant)
Claim type	Patent infringement (federal)
Core issues	Infringement of asserted claim(s), validity/defenses, and claim construction

Key Takeaways

• The matter is a federal patent infringement case filed in ED Texas (Marshall) under 2:23-cv-00059.
• The practical dispute framework is the standard ED Texas flow: contentions and defenses, then claim construction, then dispositive motions and trial scheduling.
• Settlement and risk assessment hinge primarily on claim construction outcomes and the element-by-element quality of the infringement mapping to Charter’s accused services.

FAQs

1) What does “2:23-cv-00059” mean?

It is the federal district court case number assigned to Touchstream’s lawsuit against Charter in the Eastern District of Texas.

2) Where is the case being handled?

In the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), under the federal patent litigation process.

3) What usually determines the settlement value in this type of ED Texas case?

Claim construction plus whether the infringement contentions map convincingly to accused systems and services at the claim element level.

4) What are the most important docket events to watch?

Claim construction orders, dispositive motion rulings, and any scheduling changes that affect trial readiness and leverage.

5) Does the case target Charter’s products or services?

Patent complaints in this posture typically target Charter’s communications services and the underlying network/service functionality accused to practice the asserted claim elements.

---

References

[1] Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00059, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall). (Case docket and filings).