Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 990
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 15-228 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.’S ANSWER TO
`AMENDED COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) submits the following answer and
`
`affirmative defenses to the Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed by Plaintiff
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”).
`
`As of July 13, 2015, there are two motions to dismiss relevant to this Answer. As
`
`referenced in this Answer, the Court has dismissed Acceleration Bay’s indirect infringement
`
`allegations (Counts IV, VII, and IX) (D.I. 19), and therefore the allegations concerning Counts
`
`IV, VII, and IX require no response. Additionally, Activision joined in and incorporated by
`
`reference Electronic Arts’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of joint infringement and its
`
`Opening Brief in support thereof. (D.I. 17.) Specifically, Activision seeks dismissal of Counts
`
`III, VI, and VIII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, asserting that Activision infringes the
`
`method claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147, 6,910,069 and 6,920,497 based on a theory of joint
`
`infringement. (Id.) Acceleration Bay did not oppose Activision’s joinder. (D.I. 18.) Despite the
`
`pending motion to dismiss Counts III, VI, and VIII, Activision will answer to allegations and
`
`seek to amend its answer at a later date.
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 991
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, Activision denies each and every allegation in the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`AS TO THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 and therefore, denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 and therefore, denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 and therefore, denies them.
`
`4.
`
`Activision admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware and that it has its principal place of business located in Santa Monica,
`
`California.
`
`5.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Paragraph 6 contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision admits that
`
`Acceleration Bay purports to be bringing an action for patent infringement allegedly under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq, and that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 provide the Court with subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over federal questions and patent infringement actions. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Activision denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 contains conclusions of law that are not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision does not contest
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 992
`
`that venue may lie in this District; however, venue may be more appropriate in another district
`
`for the convenience of the parties. Except as expressly admitted, Activision denies the remainder
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`Activision does not contest that the Court has personal jurisdiction in this action.
`
`Activision admits that it has transacted business in this district. Activision admits it is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Activision denies
`
`any acts of patent infringement have taken place in this district, or elsewhere. The remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 8 contains conclusions of law that are not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision denies the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 8.
`
`AS TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Activision admits that the Amended Complaint asserts the following six patents:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, 6,714,966, 6,732,147, 6,829,634, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`10.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 1), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on March 2, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 10 and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 993
`
`13.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966 (“the ’966 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 2), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on March 30, 2004. Activision lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`set forth in paragraph 13 and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`Denied.
`
`16.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147 (“the ’147 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“LEAVING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 3), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on May 4, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 16 and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`Denied.
`
`19.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“BROADCASTING NETWORK” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 4), and that the face of
`
`the patent indicates that it was issued on December 7, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 19 and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 994
`
`21.
`
`Denied.
`
`22.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069 (“the ’069 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“JOINING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 5), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on June 21, 2005. Activision lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 22 and therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 and therefore denies them.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`25.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497 (“the ’497 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“CONTACTING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 6), and
`
`that the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on July 19, 2005. Activision lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`set forth in paragraph 25 and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 and therefore denies them.
`
`AS TO THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`27.
`
`Denied.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 995
`
`31.
`
`Activision admits that certain World of Warcraft products include or have
`
`included features relating to multiple realms but denies that such technology has ever infringed
`
`any of the Patents-in-Suit. Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 31.
`
`32.
`
`Denied.
`
`33.
`
`Activision admits that at least one version of the World of Warcraft Downloader
`
`included features relating to peer-to-peer technology but denies that any such technology has
`
`ever infringed any of the Patents-in-Suit. Activision denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`35.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 35 and therefore denies them.
`
`36.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 and therefore denies them.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`38.
`
`Denied
`
`AS TO ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’S ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT
`OF ACCELERATION BAY’S PATENTS
`
`39.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 as it relates to Destiny and therefore denies
`
`them. Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 40 as it relates to Destiny and therefore denies
`
`them. Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 40.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 996
`
`AS TO COUNT I
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’344 Patent)
`
`41.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`42.
`
`Denied.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`46.
`
`Denied.
`
`47.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 47 and therefore denies them.
`
`48.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`50.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT II
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’966 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`53.
`
`Denied.
`
`54.
`
`Denied.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`56.
`
`Denied.
`
`57.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 57 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 997
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`59.
`
`Denied.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT III
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’147 Patent)
`
`61.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`62.
`
`Denied.
`
`63.
`
`Denied.
`
`64.
`
`Denied.
`
`65.
`
`Denied.
`
`66.
`
`Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 17 and 18). The remaining allegations in paragraph 66
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 66.
`
`67.
`
`Denied.
`
`68.
`
`Denied.
`
`69.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 69 and therefore denies them.
`
`70.
`
`Denied.
`
`71.
`
`Denied.
`
`72.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 998
`
`AS TO COUNT IV
`(Alleged Indirect Infringement of the ’147 Patent)
`
`73.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 73.
`
`74.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 74.
`
`75.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 75.
`
`76.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 76.
`
`77.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 77.
`
`78.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 78.
`
`79.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 79.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 999
`
`80.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 80.
`
`81.
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IV require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 81.
`
`AS TO COUNT V
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’634 Patent)
`
`82.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`83.
`
`Denied.
`
`84.
`
`Denied.
`
`85.
`
`Denied.
`
`86.
`
`Denied.
`
`87.
`
`Denied.
`
`88.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 88 and therefore denies them.
`
`89.
`
`Denied.
`
`90.
`
`Denied.
`
`91.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT VI
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’069 Patent)
`
`92.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`93.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1000
`
`94.
`
`Denied.
`
`95.
`
`Denied.
`
`96.
`
`Denied.
`
`97.
`
`Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 17 and 18). The remaining allegations in paragraph 97
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 97.
`
`98.
`
`Denied.
`
`99.
`
`Denied.
`
`100. Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 100 and therefore denies them.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`102. Denied.
`
`103. Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT VII
`(Alleged Indirect Infringement of the ’069 Patent)
`
`104. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 104.
`
`105. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 105.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1001
`
`106. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 106.
`
`107. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 107.
`
`108. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 108.
`
`109. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 109.
`
`110. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 110.
`
`111. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 111.
`
`112. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count VII require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 112.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1002
`
`AS TO COUNT VIII
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`113. Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`114. Denied.
`
`115. Denied.
`
`116. Denied.
`
`117. Denied.
`
`118. Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 17 and 18). The remaining allegations in paragraph 118
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 118.
`
`119. Denied.
`
`120. Denied.
`
`121. Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 121 and therefore denies them. Activision denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 121.
`
`122. Denied.
`
`123. Denied.
`
`124. Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT IX
`(Alleged Indirect Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`125. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 125.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1003
`
`126. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 126.
`
`127. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 127.
`
`128. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 128.
`
`129. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 129.
`
`130. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 130.
`
`131. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 131.
`
`132. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 132.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1004
`
`133. Pursuant to the Court’s Order (D.I. 19), all indirect infringement allegations are
`
`dismissed; therefore the allegations concerning Count IX require no response. To the extent any
`
`response is required, Activision denies the allegations of paragraph 133.
`
`AS TO PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`These Paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by Plaintiff, to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent that these paragraphs require a response, Activision denies
`
`that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested relief and denies any allegations contained herein.
`
`Activision requests that a take-nothing judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff on
`
`the entire Amended Complaint and its remaining counts.
`
`AS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`This section purports to request a trial by jury and does not require a response.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Further answering the Amended Complaint, Activision asserts the following affirmative
`
`defenses, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses required by law, regardless
`
`of how such defenses are denominated here. Activision reserves the right to amend its answer
`
`with additional affirmative defenses as further information is obtained. Activision asserts each
`
`of these affirmative defenses in the alternative, without admitting that Activision is in any way
`
`liable to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff has been or will be injured or damaged in any way, or that
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. As a defense to the Amended Complaint and each
`
`and every allegation contained in it, Activision alleges as follows:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)
`
`The Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against
`
`Activision, and fails to allege sufficient facts.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1005
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are invalid and void, at least, for failure to meet one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including but not limited to
`
`failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Provide Notice and/or Failure to Mark)
`
`By reason of Plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, Plaintiff is
`
`precluded from seeking damages from Activision for any and all alleged infringement prior to
`
`the filing of the Complaint. Any claim for damages is limited by the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287(a).
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Claim Is Not Entitled to Injunctive Relief)
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to them is not
`
`immediate or irreparable, and because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any claims it
`
`can prove.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Laches / Waiver / Estoppel)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims against Activision are barred and unenforceable against Activision, in
`
`whole or in part, by one or more of the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel.
`
`Activision reserves the right to rely upon any additional defenses that become available
`
`or apparent during discovery, and reserves its right to amend this Answer and to assert such
`
`additional defenses or, if appropriate, delete additional defenses as discovery proceeds, including
`
`the right to assert claims for inequitable conduct.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1006
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Activision respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in its
`
`favor and against Acceleration Bay as follows:
`
`A.
`
`An order declaring and entering judgment that Activision has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe directly (or under the doctrine of equivalents) any valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`An order declaring and entering judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid;
`
`An order dismissing with prejudice all of Acceleration Bay’s claims against
`
`Activision;
`
`D.
`
`An order declaring that Activision is a prevailing party and that this is an
`
`exceptional case, awarding Activision its costs, expenses, disbursements, and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285;
`
`E.
`
`An order compelling Acceleration Bay to pay all costs associated with this action;
`
`and
`
`F.
`
`An order granting Activision any such other and further relief as the Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant Activision demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Defendant
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`David P. Enzminger
`Dae Hee Cho
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`Daniel K. Webb
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`July 13, 2015
`9302169
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00228-RGA Document 21 Filed 07/13/15 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1008
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 13, 2015, 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
`
`July 13, 2015, 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
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9302169
`
`
`
`19

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket