`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 11 PagelD #: 11812
`
`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 ARTSINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`NeeeeeeeeNe”NeNe”eeeeeeNeeeeeeeNe”Se’Ne”Seaeeeee
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`PARTIES’ JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`[VOLUME7 OF8]
`
`[Exhibit E 15-25]
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 11813
`
`Public Version Dated:
`
`April 25, 2017
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 11814
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 3 of 11 PagelD #: 11814
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTSINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`NeeeeNeeeNeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeSe”Se”NeneNeeNeeeeeeeeee”ee”Ne”
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`PARTIES’ JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant
`
`to § 6(e) of the Court’s February 27, 2017 Scheduling Order, Plaintiff
`
`Acceleration Bay and Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two
`
`Interactive Software Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”)
`
`submit their Joint Claim Construction Chart, attached as Exhibit 1, identifying for the Court the
`
`terms and phrases of the claims in issue and each party’s proposed construction of the disputed
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 4 of 11 PagelD #: 11815
`
`claim language with citations to the intrinsic evidence in support of their respective proposed
`
`constructions.!
`
`TheAsserted Patents are attached as Exhibits A-1 — A-6: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (the
`
`“*344 Patent), 6,714,966 (the ““966 Patent”), 6,732,147 (the “147 Patent”), 6,829,634 (the “‘634
`
`Patent”), 6,910,069 (the “‘069 Patent”) and 6,920,497 (the “‘497 Patent”).?
`
`Additional portions of the intrinsic record cited by the parties are identified in the
`
`following summarytable:
`
`
`Evidence
`
` USS. Pat. No. 6,714,966
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,732,147
`A-3
`
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,829,634
`A-4
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069
`A-5
`
`
`A-6 {es Pat. No. 6,920,497
`
`' Defendants’ Statement: On April 5, 2017, Plaintiff dropped various claims and attempted to
`add various claims. On April 13, 2017, Judge Andrewsheld that “[a]bsent good cause, Plaintiff
`cannotsubstitute different claims for the ones currently asserted ...” Therefore, it appears that
`certain terms do not have to be construed against certain claims anymore, and at least one term
`can be droppedin its entirety. Defendants will review thelist and offer a revision after it has
`conferred with Plaintiff. Additionally, various Inter Partes Review petitions are currently
`pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The followinglisting of claimsis not an
`admission that any particular claim is valid. Furthermore, Defendants reserve the right to modify
`this list of claims consistent with current and future rulings at the Patent and Trademark Office.
`? The Asserted Patents state that they are “related.” Many of the Asserted Patents have the same
`or similar disclosures, and each party’s citation to a disclosure in one patent shall be understood
`to encompass the sameor similar disclosures in the other Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 5 of 11 PagelD #: 11816
`
`File Histories of the Asserted Patents
`
` Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Decisions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966 _
`
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147
`
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497
`
`
`
`
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01972, Final Written Decision
`
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2015-01996, Final Written Decision
`
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01972, Institution Decision
`
`
`
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2016-00727, Institution Denial
`
`
`
`
`‘069 Patent, IPR2016-00726, Institution Denial
`
`
`
`
`
`C-1
`
`
`C-2
`‘066 Patent, IPR2015-01953, Final Written Decision
`
`
`C-3
`
`‘066 Patent, IPR2015-01953, Institution Decision
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2015-01996,Institution Decision
`
`
`
`
`‘147 Patent, IPR2016-00747, Partial Institution Decision
`
`
`
`‘497 Patent, IPR2016-00724, Institution Decision
`
`
`
`
`C-11|‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01970, Final Written Decision
`
`
`C-12|‘344 Patent, IPR2016-00931, Institution Denial
`
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2015-01951, Final Written Decision
`C-13
`
`
`
`[cM
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2016-00932,Institution Denial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 6 of 11 PagelD #: 11817
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2016-00936,Institution Decision
`
`C-16|‘634 Patent, IPR2015-01964, Final Written Decision
`
`
`C-17|‘634 Patent, IPR2016-00963, Institution Decision
`
`C-18|‘634 Patent, IPR2016-00964, Institution Decision
`
`C-19|°344 Patent, IPR2015-01970, Institution Decision
`
`
`C-20|‘966 Patent, IPR2015-01951, Institution Decision
`
`
`C-21|‘634 Patent: IPR2015-01964, Institution Decision
`
`IPR Papers?
`
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`D-1
`
`
`‘344 pat.: IPR2015-1970, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`D-2
`
`
`D-3
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Declaration of Virgil Bourassa
`
`
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Declaration of Michael Goodrich
`D-4
`
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-01972, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`D-5
`
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`D-6
`
`D-7
`‘A497 pat.: IPR2016-00724, Patent Owner Response, Paper 24
`
`
`3 Defendants’ Statement: Multiple IPRs have beeninstituted on the Asserted Patents. Unlike
`most other cases, the records for the IPRs are well-developed and voluminous. Defendants have
`endeavoredto cite the most relevant portions of those papers, and those citations to the papers
`would necessarily include the materials relating to that argument. When Defendantscite to
`Plaintiff’s statements regarding the meaning ofthe claims from the IPR proceedings, Defendants
`are in no way implicitly or explicitly agreeing with those meanings, but intend to argue that
`Plaintiff is bound by those statements. Further, because many of the patents have the same or
`similar disclosures, Plaintiff took the sameor simiiar positions in the IPRs. Defendants’ citation
`to one paper shall be understood to encompass the sameor similar disclosures in the other IPR
`papers. Dueto the volumeof paper, Defendants reserve the right to supplementits citations to
`the IPR papers, especially in response to any inconsistent positions Plaintiff may take now in
`these proceedings.
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 7 of 11 PagelD #: 11818
`
`‘A497 pat.: IPR2016-00724, Deposition of Michael Goodrich
`
`
`
`
`‘069 pat: IPR2016-00726, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`‘634 pat.: IPR2016-00727, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`D-15
`
`IPR2015-01970, Petitioner’s Petition for {nter Partes Review
`
`D-16|IPR2015-01970, 10/14/16 Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`D-17|IPR2015-01970, 1/20/17 Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`D-18|IPR2015-01972, Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`D-21|IPR2015-01951, 10/15/16 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2015-01953, 9/24/15 Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
` .. IPR2016-00747, Patent Owner Response
`‘147 pat
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Deposition of Dr. Goodrich
`|
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Deposition of Virgil Bourassa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D-19|IPR2015-01972, 10/15/16 Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`D-20|IPR2015-01951, 9/24/15 Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`D-22|IPR2015-01951, 1/20/17 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
` D-23
`
`
`D-24|IPR2015-01953, 10/15/16 Petitioners” Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`D-25|IPR2016-00932, 4/22/16 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`
`D-26|IPR2016-00936, 4/22/16 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`D-27|IPR2015-01964, 9/28/15 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`
`D-28|IPR2015-01964, 10/15/16 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`D-29|IPR2015-01964, 1/20/17 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 8 of 11 PagelD #: 11819
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01996, 9/28/15 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00963, 4/29/16 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`D-32|IPR2016-00964, 4/29/16 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`D-33|IPR2016-00726, 3/12/16 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`
`D-34|IPR2016-00747, 3/29/16 Petitioner’s Corrected Petition
`
`
`D-35|IPR2016-00724, 3/11/16 Petition
`
`D-36|IPR2016-00724,3/28/17 Corrected Replyin Support of Petition
`
`IPR2015-01996, 10/15/16 Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner Response
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00727, 3/12/16 Petition
`
`
`IPR2016-00747, 3/7/17 Reply in Support of Petition
`
`
`E-1 to E-14 Not Used
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Motion to Amend
`
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E-15|‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`
`
`E-19|‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`E-20|‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Motion to Amend
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`‘344 pat:
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Motion to Amend
`
`*344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`IPR2015-1970, Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`E-25|‘344 pat: IPR2015-1972, Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 9 of 11 PagelD #: 11820
`
`Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
` ‘344 pat: IPR2015-1972, Motion to Amend
`°344 pat:
`
`
`
`IPR2015-1972, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
` ‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Patent Owner Response
`
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Motion to Amend
`
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Patent Owner Response
`E-33|‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Motion to Amend
`
`
`E-34|‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`
`E-35|‘497 pat.: IPR2016-00724, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`
`E-36|IPR2016-00724, Deposition of Michael Goodrich, Ex. 1020
`
`
`IPR2016-00724, Deposition of Harry Bims, Ex. 1023 -
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00724, Ex. 2001
`
`
`IPR2016-00724, Ex. 2003
`
`
`Theparties’ identification of intrinsic evidence is preliminary. The parties base this
`disclosure on information currently known by and available to them. Theparties reserve the
`
`right to amend, modify, and/or supplementtheir identification of intrinsic evidence to take into
`
`account additional information that comestolight, including without limitation as additional
`
`contentions are made, facts are ascertained, analyses are made, and proposed constructions are
`
`provided. Further, the parties reserve the right to rely on the intrinsic evidenceidentified by
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 10 of 11 PagelD #: 11821
`
`opposing parties to support their constructions. Finally, the parties reserve the right to rely on
`
`the full content of the documents cited and attached as listed in the table above.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`KRAMERLEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M.Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 105 Filed 04/25/17 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11822
`
`Public Version Dated:
`5089712
`
`April 25, 2017
`
`