Litigation Details for Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc. (D. Del. 2007)

Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc. (D. Del. 2007)

Docket		Date Filed	2007-06-28
Court	District Court, D. Delaware	Date Terminated	2011-09-07
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Gregory Moneta Sleet
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To
Parties	COXCOM INC.
Patents	8,992,975
Attorneys	Edgar G. Sargent
Firms	Susman Godfrey, LLP
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc. (D. Del. 2007)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2007-06-28				External link to document

Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc. Patent Litigation Summary, Case No. 1:07-cv-00404

Last updated: August 26, 2026

Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00404, was a 2007 patent-infringement action involving Rembrandt’s telecommunications technology claims and Charter’s cable-communications business. The matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case did not produce a widely reported trial verdict, Federal Circuit decision, or published claim-construction opinion under the cited caption. Public docket information indicates that the litigation was resolved without a reported merits judgment.

What was Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications about?

The action was a patent dispute between Rembrandt Technologies LP, a patent-holding company, and Charter Communications Inc., a major U.S. cable and broadband operator.

Rembrandt’s litigation campaign targeted multiple communications companies during the same general period. The defendants operated networks using broadband, cable-modem, data-transmission, and related communications systems. The litigation therefore appears to have focused on alleged use of patented communications infrastructure rather than on a pharmaceutical product, medical device, or consumer software product.

The case was a conventional patent-infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Rembrandt would have been required to establish ownership or enforceable rights in the asserted patents, infringement of one or more claims, and entitlement to damages. Charter could have contested infringement, claim construction, validity, enforceability, standing, and damages.

Where was the Charter patent case filed?

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Case No. 1:07-cv-00404. The civil-action numbering is consistent with a 2007 Delaware filing.

Case element	Information
Plaintiff	Rembrandt Technologies LP
Defendant	Charter Communications Inc.
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Case number	1:07-cv-00404
Filing year	2007
Matter type	Patent infringement
Technology sector	Telecommunications and broadband communications
Public merits result	No widely reported trial or appellate merits decision under the caption
Commercial result	No publicly reported settlement amount or license terms

The Delaware venue was commercially significant. At the time, the district was a leading forum for patent litigation involving national technology companies. Its docket included experienced patent judges, established local patent rules, and a high volume of cases involving telecommunications, networking, and Internet technologies.

What patents and technology were at issue?

The publicly available caption and basic docket references do not establish a complete, reliable list of patent numbers for the Charter action. Rembrandt pursued a broader campaign against communications companies, but patent numbers should not be attributed to this specific case without the complaint, amended pleadings, or a verified docket entry.

The technology allegations were associated with communications-network operations. Potential technical categories in this type of action include:

• Broadband data transmission.
• Cable-modem communications.
• Network signaling and channel allocation.
• Error correction and data reliability.
• Digital communications between network equipment and subscribers.
• Transmission methods used in telecommunications infrastructure.

A reliable patent-by-patent analysis requires distinguishing patents asserted against Charter from patents asserted in parallel cases against other network operators. Campaign-level patent references are not sufficient evidence that every patent was asserted in Case No. 1:07-cv-00404.

What was the procedural history of the case?

The case was filed in 2007 as part of Rembrandt’s broader enforcement activity against communications companies. The public record does not show a reported final judgment after a jury trial or bench trial.

The procedural posture is important because the absence of a reported merits opinion limits conclusions about the parties’ positions. There is no established public holding from this case regarding:

• The meaning of disputed patent claims.
• Whether Charter’s network architecture infringed.
• Whether the asserted patents were anticipated or obvious.
• Whether the patents were enforceable.
• The reasonable royalty rate.
• The availability of lost profits.
• Whether Charter obtained a covenant not to sue.
• Whether the parties entered a portfolio license.

The docket’s closure indicates that the litigation ended, but a docket termination alone does not establish the economic terms of a negotiated resolution. Confidential settlements were common in patent cases involving telecommunications operators during this period.

Did Rembrandt win a judgment against Charter?

No widely reported public decision establishes that Rembrandt obtained a final infringement judgment against Charter in this case.

There is no commonly cited jury verdict, damages award, permanent injunction, or Federal Circuit affirmance associated with the cited caption. The case should therefore not be characterized as a litigated Rembrandt victory against Charter.

The more supportable characterization is that the action ended without a publicly reported merits determination. That outcome is materially different from a finding that Charter prevailed on invalidity or non-infringement. A closed docket, standing alone, does not identify which party achieved its preferred litigation result.

Was there a settlement agreement?

The public record does not establish publicly disclosed settlement terms for Rembrandt and Charter in Case No. 1:07-cv-00404.

If the case was resolved by negotiated agreement, the likely commercial mechanisms would have included one or more of the following:

1. A license to specified patents.
2. A release of past infringement claims.
3. A covenant not to sue for defined products or network services.
4. A dismissal with prejudice.
5. Confidential payment terms.
6. Restrictions on future enforcement or continued litigation.

No public source cited here establishes the payment amount, license scope, duration, royalty structure, geographic coverage, or treatment of Charter affiliates.

What was the litigation risk for Charter?

The principal risk was a royalty claim based on network deployment rather than a product-by-product sales model. For a cable operator, an infringement theory directed to network architecture can create exposure across a large installed base.

Potential damages issues would have included:

• The number of affected subscribers.
• The duration of alleged infringement.
• The portion of Charter’s network using the accused technology.
• Whether the patented feature was central or ancillary to broadband service.
• Comparable licenses in the telecommunications industry.
• The incremental value of the patented technology.
• Whether a per-subscriber, per-device, or lump-sum royalty was appropriate.

An injunction would have presented a separate risk. Because Charter provided essential communications services, a court would have had to consider the public-interest factor under 35 U.S.C. § 283. By 2007, monetary remedies were generally more commercially predictable than an injunction against a large operating network, particularly where a workaround or royalty could address the alleged infringement.

How strong was Rembrandt’s patent estate?

The Charter case does not provide a public merits record sufficient to rate Rembrandt’s patent estate as strong, weak, or industry-leading on a legal basis.

Patent strength normally depends on five factors:

Factor	Case-specific public showing
Claim scope	Not established by a reported claim-construction decision
Validity	No reported invalidity ruling located under the caption
Infringement proof	No reported trial finding
Remaining patent term	Requires verified patent numbers and priority dates
Licensing leverage	No public Charter license terms identified

Rembrandt’s leverage would have been greater if its patents covered mandatory or difficult-to-design-around features of broadband systems. Leverage would have been weaker if the claims depended on optional implementations, narrow network configurations, or patents nearing expiration.

The absence of a published merits ruling prevents a reliable conclusion on whether Charter’s defenses would likely have succeeded.

Did Charter file a Paragraph IV challenge?

No. Paragraph IV procedures are specific to the Hatch-Waxman framework for generic drug applications under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They do not apply to a telecommunications patent action involving Charter Communications.

The same distinction applies to:

• Orange Book listings.
• Abbreviated New Drug Applications.
• FDA marketing exclusivity.
• Generic drug launch rights.
• Biosimilar applications.
• Patent-term restoration for an approved drug.

There is no FDA regulatory issue associated with this litigation.

Were formulation or method-of-use patents involved?

No pharmaceutical formulation, composition-of-matter, method-of-use, biologic, delivery-system, or manufacturing patent issues are associated with the Charter case as identified.

The relevant patent categories were telecommunications and network-technology claims. The closest technical analogues to formulation or manufacturing barriers would have been system architecture, hardware implementation, software control, and network deployment requirements.

What was the competitive and commercial context?

Charter competed in the U.S. cable-broadband market against Comcast, Cox Communications, Cablevision and other operators. Rembrandt’s parallel enforcement activity against communications companies increased the possibility that a license obtained from one operator could affect negotiations with others.

For Charter, a campaign-level enforcement action created several commercial concerns:

• Potential royalty payments across a large subscriber base.
• Costs of technical discovery across network systems.
• Risk of inconsistent positions among co-defendants.
• Pressure to preserve interoperability.
• Possible effects on vendor relationships.
• Exposure from historical network deployments.
• Litigation costs relative to the value of a portfolio license.

For Rembrandt, suing multiple large operators could improve licensing leverage, but it also created validity and claim-construction risks. An adverse ruling in one coordinated or technically related case could weaken negotiations across the campaign.

What is the current litigation status?

The case is closed rather than an active litigation matter. No current trial, claim-construction proceeding, discovery schedule, or appeal is reflected in the publicly reported record associated with the cited case number.

The commercial obligations, if any, depend on the terms of the final resolution. Confidentiality prevents a public assessment of whether Charter paid a settlement, obtained a license, or secured a broader release.

How does this case compare with Rembrandt’s better-known patent cases?

Rembrandt was involved in other patent matters that generated appellate opinions and detailed rulings. Those decisions should not be imported into the Charter case without confirming that the same patent, claims, prosecution history, and accused technology were involved.

The Charter matter is best treated as a campaign-related telecommunications dispute with limited publicly reported merits analysis. It is not a useful standalone precedent for:

• Patent validity.
• Claim construction.
• Damages methodology.
• Injunction standards.
• Enforceability.
• Licensing rates.

Key Takeaways

• Rembrandt Technologies LP sued Charter Communications Inc. in the District of Delaware in 2007 under Case No. 1:07-cv-00404.
• The action concerned telecommunications and broadband-network technology.
• No widely reported trial verdict, damages award, or Federal Circuit merits decision is associated with the case.
• Publicly available information does not establish the asserted patent numbers, settlement amount, license scope, or royalty terms.
• The case is closed and should not be described as producing a public Rembrandt judgment against Charter.
• Paragraph IV, Orange Book, FDA exclusivity, biosimilar, formulation, and method-of-use issues are not applicable.
• The absence of a merits opinion limits conclusions about patent validity, infringement, and Rembrandt’s litigation strength.

FAQs About Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications

What court handled Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications?

The case was handled by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Case No. 1:07-cv-00404.

Did Rembrandt Technologies sue other cable companies?

Rembrandt pursued related patent-enforcement activity against other communications and cable operators during the same period. Each action must be analyzed separately because patent numbers, pleadings, procedural outcomes, and settlement terms may differ.

Can the Charter case be used as precedent for telecommunications patent damages?

No reported damages decision under the cited caption provides a developed damages methodology. The case therefore has limited precedential value for royalty calculations or network-wide infringement damages.

Is Charter still exposed to Rembrandt’s patents?

The public case record does not establish the scope of any release, license, covenant not to sue, or continuing obligations. The closed litigation indicates that the 2007 action is no longer pending, but it does not disclose the treatment of future conduct.

Did the litigation involve cable-modem technology?

The dispute was associated with telecommunications and broadband communications. A definitive cable-modem patent attribution requires the verified complaint or asserted-patent docket materials for Case No. 1:07-cv-00404.

References

1. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. (2007). Rembrandt Technologies LP v. Charter Communications Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00404. PACER docket record.

2. U.S. Congress. (2011). Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284.

3. U.S. Congress. (1952). Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 283, 284.

4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Orange Book: Approved drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations. https://www.fda.gov/drugsatfda.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Abbreviated new drug application process. https://www.fda.gov/drugs.