Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 17724
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PARTIES’ SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s July 5, 2017 Order (D.I. No. 206, C.A. No. 16-453) and the
`
`Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing (D.I. No. 215, C.A.
`
`No. 16-453), 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 Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Chart, attached
`
`as Exhibit 2, identifying for the Court the terms and phrases of the claims in issue and each
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 17725
`
`party’s proposed supplemental construction of the disputed claim language with citations to the
`
`intrinsic evidence in support of their respective proposed constructions.
`
`The parties incorporate by reference the Asserted Patents1 and portions of the intrinsic
`
`record (shown in the following summary table) that were previously filed with the Court (D.I.
`
`Nos. 117-124, C.A. No. 16-453):
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`A-4
`
`A-5
`
`A-6
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497
`
`File Histories of the Asserted Patents
`
`B-1
`
`B-2
`
`B-3
`
`B-4
`
`B-5
`
`B-6
`
`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
`
`1 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 same or similar disclosures in the other Asserted Patents. See also Docket
`Numbers 220 and 222 in C.A. No. 16-453.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 17726
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`Inter Partes Review Decisions
`
`C-1
`
`C-2
`
`C-3
`
`C-4
`
`C-5
`
`C-6
`
`C-7
`
`C-8
`
`C-9
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01972, Final Written Decision
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2015-01953, Final Written Decision
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2015-01996, Final Written Decision
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01972, Institution Decision
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2015-01953, Institution Decision
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2015-01996, Institution Decision
`
`‘634 Patent, IPR2016-00727, Institution Denial
`
`‘069 Patent, IPR2016-00726, Institution Denial
`
`‘147 Patent, IPR2016-00747, Partial Institution Decision
`
`C-10
`
`‘497 Patent, IPR2016-00724, Institution Decision
`
`C-11
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2015-01970, Final Written Decision
`
`C-12
`
`‘344 Patent, IPR2016-00931, Institution Denial
`
`C-13
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2015-01951, Final Written Decision
`
`C-14
`
`‘966 Patent, IPR2016-00932, Institution Denial
`
`C-15
`
`‘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
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 17727
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`IPR Papers2
`
`D-1
`
`D-2
`
`D-3
`
`D-4
`
`D-5
`
`D-6
`
`D-7
`
`D-8
`
`D-9
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`‘344 pat.: IPR2015-1970, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Declaration of Virgil Bourassa
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Declaration of Michael Goodrich
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-01972, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`‘497 pat.: IPR2016-00724, Patent Owner Response, Paper 24
`
`‘497 pat.: IPR2016-00724, Deposition of Michael Goodrich
`
`‘069 pat: IPR2016-00726, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`D-10
`
`‘634 pat.: IPR2016-00727, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`D-11
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`D-12
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Patent Owner Response
`
`D-13
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Deposition of Dr. Goodrich
`
`D-14
`
`‘147 pat.: IPR2016-00747, Deposition of Virgil Bourassa
`
`2 Defendants’ Statement: Multiple IPRs have been instituted on the Asserted Patents. Unlike
`most other cases, the records for the IPRs are well-developed and voluminous. Defendants have
`endeavored to cite the most relevant portions of those papers, and those citations to the papers
`would necessarily include the materials relating to that argument. When Defendants cite to
`Plaintiff’s statements regarding the meaning of the 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 same or similar positions in the IPRs. Defendants’ citation
`to one paper shall be understood to encompass the same or similar disclosures in the other IPR
`papers. Due to the volume of paper, Defendants reserve the right to supplement its citations to
`the IPR papers, especially in response to any inconsistent positions Plaintiff may take now in
`these proceedings.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 17728
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`D-15
`
`IPR2015-01970, Petitioner’s Petition for Inter 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-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-21
`
`IPR2015-01951, 10/15/16 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`D-22
`
`IPR2015-01951, 1/20/17 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`D-23
`
`IPR2015-01953, 9/24/15 Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`D-30
`
`IPR2015-01996, 9/28/15 Petitioner’s Petition
`
`D-31
`
`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 Reply in Support of Petition
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 17729
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`D-37
`
`IPR2015-01996, 10/15/16 Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner Response
`
`D-38
`
`IPR2016-00727, 3/12/16 Petition
`
`D-39
`
`IPR2016-00747, 3/7/17 Reply in Support of Petition
`
`E-1 to E-14 Not Used
`
`E-15
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`E-16
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`E-17
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Motion to Amend
`
`E-18
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01951, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`E-19
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Patent Owner’s Response
`
`E-20
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Motion to Amend
`
`E-21
`
`‘966 pat.: IPR2015-01953, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`E-22
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Patent Owner Response
`
`E-23
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Motion to Amend
`
`E-24
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1970, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`E-25
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1972, Patent Owner Response
`
`E-26
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1972, Motion to Amend
`
`E-27
`
`‘344 pat: IPR2015-1972, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`E-28
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`E-29
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Patent Owner Response
`
`E-30
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Motion to Amend
`
`E-31
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01964, Reply In Support of Motion to Amend
`
`E-32
`
`‘634 pat: IPR2015-01996, Patent Owner Response
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 17730
`
`Ex.
`
`Evidence
`
`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
`
`E-37
`
`IPR2016-00724, Deposition of Harry Bims, Ex. 1023
`
`E-38
`
`IPR2016-00724, Ex. 2001
`
`E-39
`
`IPR2016-00724, Ex. 2003
`
`The parties’ identification of intrinsic evidence is preliminary. The parties base this
`
`disclosure on information currently known by and available to them. The parties reserve the
`
`right to amend, modify, and/or supplement their identification of intrinsic evidence to take into
`
`account additional information that comes to light, 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 evidence identified by
`
`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
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
` FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`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
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 204 Filed 07/24/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 17731
`
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
` FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. 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
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Dated: July 24, 2017
`5319817
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`By: /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
`
`- 8 -
`
`