Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 26, 2025

Comcast Cable Commce’ns Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc.

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:23-cv-04436
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Comcast v. MaxLinear, Judge Hellerstein ordered Comcast to produce consolidated financial information and required a protective order.

Who this affects

MaxLinear receives an order requiring Comcast to produce consolidated operational financial information; the parties must address confidentiality through a protective order.

What happened

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC disputed MaxLinear’s requests for financial information related to FDX technology and FDX amplifiers. MaxLinear sought Comcast’s actual and projected earnings, while Comcast said the requested information did not exist and offered an approximation.

The court’s order states that Comcast must produce consolidated financial information combining income and expenses from its operational activities. The parties must also agree to a protective order covering sources of income and expenses that are not relevant.

Judge Hellerstein also directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 202 and 203. The order does not expressly state whether either filing was granted or denied.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Comcast Cable Commce’ns Mgmt., LLC, et al. v. MaxLinear, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04436
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Sept. 26, 2025

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter concerning MaxLinear’s Requests for Production Nos. 66 and 67. Request No. 66 sought documents showing Comcast’s yearly, quarterly, and monthly earnings—including revenues, expenses, and profits—concerning services, solutions, or products implementing DOCSIS 4.0, FDX technology, or the FDX Amplifier. Request No. 67 sought documents concerning projected future earnings and revenues related to those services, solutions, or products.

MaxLinear argued that the information was relevant to its trade-secret misappropriation claim and potential damages theories, including unjust enrichment and a reasonable royalty. It asked the court to require Comcast to produce earnings from FDX technology and projected FDX earnings, including broader financial information that MaxLinear said could help measure the value of the alleged misappropriation.

Comcast argued that its ordinary business records did not track earnings or projections specifically tied to FDX technology or FDX amplifiers. Comcast said it had produced responsive information relating to FDX amplifier technology to the extent that such information existed. It also said that broader FDX-related financial information did not relate to the FDX amplifier at issue and that total revenues from its overall cable network were outside the requests. Comcast offered to produce an approximation based on service fees paid by customers identified as having equipment, infrastructure, and service plans capable of receiving FDX services.

Court’s Order

The final order states: “Comcast shall produce consolidated financial information, consolidating the sources of its income and expenses from its operational activities.” The parties must agree on a protective order covering non-relevant sources of income and expenses.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 202 and 203. The supplied text does not expressly identify those filings or state that either party’s motion was granted or denied. It shows the required production and protective-order terms, but it does not provide further reasoning from the court.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.