Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 3934
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-228 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-282 (RGA)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-311 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`NOTICE REGARDING INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`This notice is to update the Court as to the status of various inter partes reviews as it
`
`relates to all of the asserted patents in the above captioned cases: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,701,344,
`
`6,714,966, 6,829,634, 6,732,147, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-228 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-282 (RGA)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-311 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`NOTICE REGARDING INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`This notice is to update the Court as to the status of various inter partes reviews as it
`
`relates to all of the asserted patents in the above captioned cases: U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,701,344,
`
`6,714,966, 6,829,634, 6,732,147, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 3935
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
` As explained below, inter partes reviews were instituted or are pending as to all of the
`
`asserted claims, with the exception of claims 13-15 of the ’344 and ’966 patents, which the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was “unable to construe.” Thus, of the 33 claims
`
`collectively asserted against all of the Defendants (32 Asserted Claims per Defendant):
`
` Instituted: 14 of the Asserted Claims are subject to inter partes review proceedings that
`
`were filed in 2015 and were recently instituted;
`
` Filed but not yet instituted: 15 of the Asserted Claims are challenged in inter partes
`
`review petitions that were filed in March 2016; and
`
` Not instituted: 4 of the Asserted Claims were challenged but the Board declined to
`
`institute because the PTAB was “unable to construe” these claims.
`
`STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`Recently, the Board instituted trial on six petitions relating to the ’344, ’966, and ’634
`
`patents. The following table summarizes the Board’s decision on these six petitions:
`
`IPR Number
`
`Patent Number
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2015-01951
`
`6,714,966
`
`IPR2015-01953
`
`6,714,966
`
`Claims 1–7 and 16 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a) by Lin;
`Claims 6–11 and 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Lin; and
`Claim 12 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`DirectPlay and Lin.
`
`Claims 1–7, 11 and 16 as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Shoubridge; and
`Claims 6–10 and 17 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Shoubridge.
`
`IPR2015-01970
`
`6,701,344
`
`Claims 1–12 and 16-19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over DirectPlay and Lin; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3936
`
`
`IPR Number
`
`Patent Number
`
`IPR2015-01972
`
`6,701,344
`
`IPR2015-01964
`
`6,829,634
`
`IPR2015-01996
`
`6,829,634
`
`Instituted Grounds
`Claims 1-11 and 16-19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Lin.
`
`Claims 1–11 and 16-19 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Shoubridge.
`
`Claims 10, 15, and 18 as anticipated under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a) by Lin; and
`Claims 1–18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Lin.
`
`Claims 10, 11, 15, and 18 as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Shoubridge; and
`Claims 1–18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Shoubridge.
`
`
`
`Last month, March 2016, inter partes review petitions were filed as to the ’634, ’147,
`
`’069, and ’497 patents; the following table summarizes the inter partes review petitions which
`
`are currently pending:
`
`IPR Number
`
`Patent Number Reasoning
`
`IPR2016-00724
`
`6,920,497
`
`Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 16 are invalid under
`§ 103(a) as obvious
`
`IPR2016-00726
`
`6,910,069
`
`Claims 1-17 are invalid under § 103(a) as obvious
`
`IPR2016-00727
`
`6,829,634
`
`Claims 19-24 are invalid under § 103(a) as obvious
`
`IPR2016-00747
`
`6,732,147
`
`Claims 1-16 are invalid under § 103(a) as obvious
`
`
`
`On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff served its preliminary election of asserted claims pursuant
`
`to the scheduling order. The following table summarizes Plaintiff’s election of asserted claims:
`
`Asserted Patent As to Activision
`
`As to EA
`
`As to Take Two
`
`6,701,344
`
`6,829,634
`
`1, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 18 1, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 18 1, 6-8, 13-15, and 18
`
`1, 4, 5, 19, and 22
`
`1, 4, 5, 19, and 22
`
`1, 4, 5, 6, 19, and 22
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 3937
`
`
`Asserted Patent As to Activision
`
`As to EA
`
`As to Take Two
`
`6,732,147
`
`6,714,966
`
`6,920,497
`
`6,910,069
`
`1, 11, 14, 15, and 16
`
`1, 11, 14, 15, and 16
`
`1, 11, 14, 15, and 16
`
`1, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`
`1, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`
`1, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`
`1, 8, 9, and 16
`
`1, 8, 9, and 16
`
`1, 8, 9, and 16
`
`1, 11, 12, and 13
`
`1, 11, 12, and 13
`
`1, 11, 12, and 13
`
`Therefore, as summarized in the following table, there are inter partes reviews either
`
`instituted or pending as to all of the asserted claims, with the exception of claims 13-15 of the
`
`’344 patent and claim 13 of the ’966 patent:1
`
`Asserted Patent Asserted Claims Subject to
`Instituted IPRs
`
`Remaining Asserted Claims
`Subject to Pending IPRs
`
`6,701,344
`
`6,829,634
`
`6,732,147
`
`6,714,966
`
`All asserted claims, with the
`exception of claims 13-152
`
`1, 4, 5, and 6
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`19 and 22
`
`All asserted claims
`
`All asserted claims, with the
`exception of claim 133
`
`N/A
`
`
`1 The Board stated the following when it decided not to institute trial for claims 13-15 of the
`’344 and ’966 patents:
` For these reasons, the parties have not sufficiently identified a structure
`corresponding to the function recited in claim 13 or a corresponding algorithm as
`required for such a computer-implemented function. Thus, we are unable to
`construe claim 13, and dependent claims 14 and 15, for purposes of this Decision.
`See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Enzo Biochem,
`Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“If a claim is
`indefinite, the claim, by definition, cannot be construed.”)).
`Decision, Paper 8 at 10, IPR2015-01953 (as to the ’966 patent); see also Decision, Paper 8 at 10,
`IPR2015-01972 (stating the same as to the ’344 patent).
`2 See Footnote 1.
`3 See Footnote 1.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 3938
`
`
`Asserted Patent Asserted Claims Subject to
`Instituted IPRs
`
`Remaining Asserted Claims
`Subject to Pending IPRs
`
`6,920,497
`
`6,910,069
`
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`All asserted claims
`
`All asserted claims
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`_____________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`5
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Daniel K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`April 18, 2016
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 124 Filed 04/18/16 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 3939
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 18, 2016, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`April 18, 2016, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`____________________________________
` Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
