Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1311
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Filed: January 21, 2016
`
`
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Filed: January 21, 2016
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1312
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 5 Page|D #: 1312
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`January 12, 2016
`Page 2
`
`
`
`s ecifications” that were located after a reasonable search.
`
`Plaintiffs contention that
`
`Defendants did not produce s11cl1 documents is inexplicable. Plaintiffs motion acknowledges EA’s
`production includes such docurnents. and.
`iii fact. during Plaintiffs inspection of EA’s source code
`materials. MS Word and PowerPoint were installed o11 the so1u‘ce code inspection computer at the
`request of Plaintiffs coiuisel just so he could View such documents.
`
`C. Defendants are not withholdin
`
`“core technical documents.”
`
`
`
`D. Plaintiffs complaints about burdens of inspecting source code are irrelevant and incorrect.
`Plaintiff. before even inspecting all of the code. argues both that the so1u‘ce code materials produced by
`Defendants are ( 1) too b111'(‘l€11SOl11€
`to review and (2) incomplete because they are filiihkely" to “fully
`disclose[]
`the accused network topology and functionality.”
`Plaintiffs burden argurnents are
`irrelevant: its incon1plete11ess argurnents are 1n1fo11nded.
`Indeed. Plaintiff had 11ot even connnenced its
`review of the so1u'ce code materials before it initiated this motion, it spent less than a day reviewing the
`so1u‘ce code materials for EA and Take-Two before it filed its letter. and it l1as yet to raise a single
`complaint about the sufficiency of any Defendant’s actual production of so1u‘ce code.
`
`discover
`
`011 these entities.
`
`1sc iarge De en ant’s
`t1e1r pro uct1o11
`a11
`
`initial discovery requirements. See, e. g., DX3, C_\'Z)erF0ne Svs, LLC v. Ce//co P(lI‘fIIeI‘.S'/lip, C .A. No.
`11-827-SLR. Tr. at 34 (D. Del. Sept. 20. 2012) (Source code is “where the rubber meets the road in a
`software case”).
`
`B.
`
`Defendants also
`
`roduced “o eration manuals
`
`roduct
`
`literature
`
`schematics
`
`and
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1313
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 3 of 5 Page|D #: 1313
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`January 12. 2016
`Page 3
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiff’ s Motion Is Premature And Unreasonable.
`
`Plaintiff made clear before it had reviewed anything that it was going to raise this issue with the
`Co111t. Plaintiff declined to inspect the documents produced to it and then to raise an issues with
`Defendants before seeking relief. and then misre resented Defendants’
`roduction.
`
`
`
`IH.
`
`Defendants Have Not Refused To Produce Any Documents And Plaintiff Has Identified
`No Specific Deficiencies In Defendants’ Production.
`
`Defendants complied with their C‘ore Technical Doc11111ent production obligations. Further.
`Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would continue to make reasonable inquiries for and produce
`technical documents. and they have been doing so. Additional productions were made after
`Defendants resumed operations on January 4. 2016. (DX5-6).
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiffs Motion Should Be Denied.
`
`Defendants confnmed the production of teclmical doc11111entatio11 that Plaintiff claimed to be
`missing witho11t reviewing the materials that were produced. Defendants are prepared to continue
`discussing any issues raised by Plaintiff alter it has reviewed their documents. But Defendants should
`not be ordered to produce imdefmed and undescribed additional technical docun1e11ts. Defendants
`respectfillly request the C otut deny Plaintiffs requested relief and award costs to Defendants.
`
`initial
`its
`time beyond February 17 for
`Plaintiff sl1o11ld also not be given additional
`infi'ingement contentions. Plaintiff should aheady l1ave good-faith infiingement co11tentio11s prepared
`as part of its basic
`re-filing due diligence 1111der Octane Fitness. The games themselves and the
`
`produced are everything Plaintiff needs to prepare its initial
`
`infringement
`
`contentions. and it l1as not shown that it needs anything more.
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1314
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`January 12, 2016
`Page 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`
`
`
`JBB/dlw
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of Court (Via Hand Delivery; w/ encl.)
`
`All Counsel of Record (Via Electronic Mail; w/ encl.)
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1315
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 59 Filed 01/21/16 Page 5 of 5 Page|D #: 1315
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Document Name
`
`DX1
`
`DX2
`
`DX3
`
`Afluo, LLC‘ v. Adobe S119. Inc. C.A. No. 12-1459-SLR. T1‘. (D. Del. Nov. 6. 2013)
`
`Chief Judge Sta1'k’s Revised Patent Fonn Sclleduling Order (Jun. 2014)
`
`Cvbeifone Sm, LLC‘ v. Ce//co P(lI‘I}leI‘S/Iij). C .A. No. 11-827-SLR. T1‘. (D. Del.
`Sept. 20. 2012)
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
`
`EA CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`TAKE-TVVO CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS
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
