`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC, a Delaware )
`Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 15-228-RGA
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO DISMISS
`JOINT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS FILED BY ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.
`
`On May 4, 2015, Defendant, Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”), filed a motion to
`
`dismiss the claims for induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147, 6,910,069 and
`
`6,920,497 (collectively the “Method Patents”) in Acceleration Bay LLC’s (“Acceleration Bay”)
`
`Amended Complaint (D.I. 7). D.I. 12. On June 1, 2015, Activision filed a joinder to Electronic
`
`Arts Inc.’s (“EA”) motion to dismiss filed in C.A. No. 15-282-RGA, D.I. 11-12 on May 21,
`
`2015. D.I. 17. By its joinder, Activision seeks to dismiss the claims for direct infringement of
`
`the Method Patents. While it incorporated EA’s motion to dismiss and supporting opening brief,
`
`Activision did not file a separate brief in support of its joinder.
`
`Therefore, Acceleration Bay hereby incorporates by reference its Opposition Brief filed
`
`against EA and requests that the Court deny Activision’s request to dismiss Acceleration Bay’s
`
`claims for direct infringement of the Method Patents. C.A. No. 15-282-RGA, D.I. 14. For the
`
`same reasons stated in its Opposition Brief filed against EA, Activision’s request to dismiss the
`
`direct infringement claims of the Method Patents should be denied because (1) Acceleration Bay
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 18 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 987
`
`plausibly pleads that Activision, acting alone, performs all of the steps of the claims of the
`
`Method Patents and thereby satisfies the requirements set forth in Form 18 for direct
`
`infringement; and (2) because Activision has direction and control over its users, developers and
`
`customers, giving rise to direct infringement under a joint infringement theory due to
`
`Activision’s vicarious liability.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James R. Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Dated: June 16, 2015
`1192985
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
`
`2