`
`
`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)