Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 17969
`
`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 ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Defendants.
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`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
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 17970
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South 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 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`Original Filing Date: July 24, 2017
`Redacted Filing Date: August 1, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 17971
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiff’s brief reconfirms for a third time that its construction for Term 4 is limited to a
`
`portion of Figure 8 that includes “black box” algorithms and does not incorporate other portions of
`
`the specification that actually carry out the functions of these “black boxes” and which are integral
`
`to the “connecting” function of this term. Plaintiff also relies heavily on a particular “black box”
`
`algorithm (block 806 in Fig. 8) that is not even relevant to the claimed function, as is evident from
`
`the specification and as was recently confirmed by inventor Bourassa. For Terms 1-3, Plaintiff
`
`relies on parts of the specification that simply do not support the recited functions.
`
`Seizing on Defendant’s response to a question from the Court, Plaintiff alleges that
`
`Defendants have changed their position and that “the parties now agree that the structures for the
`
`MPF terms are disclosed in the patents, but disagree as to what they are.” C.A. 16-453, D.I. 225,
`
`“Supp. Br.” at 1. This is incorrect. Defendants’ position regarding the disputed means-plus-
`
`function limitations has been consistent: the means-plus-function terms are indefinite because
`
`Plaintiff has failed to identify corresponding algorithms in the specification that support the
`
`claimed functions. See, e.g., D.I. 226, Colucci Decl., Ex. 1 (“Markman Tr.”) at 100:11-101:25
`
`(explaining that Defendants’ position remains that Term 4 is indefinite).
`
`Lastly, the Court should reject Plaintiff’s cursory fallback arguments that certain undefined
`
`“additional structural support” should be included in the construction of Terms 1-4 “to preserve the
`
`validity of the claim[s].” Supp. Br. at 7, 9, 10. Plaintiff was advised of this issue (Markman Tr. at
`
`105:16-106:8; 112:16-19) and was given 10 additional pages of briefing but still did not identify
`
`what additional structure would supposedly save the claims. The Court should decline Plaintiff’s
`
`invitation to scour the patents for a construction to save the validity of the patents when Plaintiff
`
`has steadfastly insisted on proposed constructions that render the claims indefinite. If, however,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 17972
`
`the Court chooses to address Plaintiff’s fallback position, Defendants believe that all necessary
`
`structures should be included, without reliance on indefinite “black box” algorithms.
`
`II.
`
`’344 and ’966 Patents: Term 4
`
`a. Plaintiff Continues to Advance the Wrong Function for this Term
`
`Plaintiff begins its analysis by, once again, misstating the claimed function as “connecting
`
`a [participant] to an identified broadcast channel.” Supp. Br. at 4 (emphasis added). Plaintiff does
`
`this despite admitting at the hearing that “the” is correct. Markman Tr. at 106:9-12. The use of the
`
`word “the” in the claim is important because it makes it clear that the broadcast channel to which
`
`the participant is connecting is not any broadcast channel, but is “the” broadcast channel identified
`
`in the preceding elements of the claim. D.I. 191, Ex. L (“Kelly Sur-Reply Declaration” or “KSR
`
`Decl.”) at ¶ 27. This broadcast channel is one that is “m-regular” and “non-complete” with “each
`
`participant” in the broadcast channel “having connections to at least three neighbor participants.”
`
`See, e.g., A-2 (’966 Patent) at 30:39-56 (claim 13). Thus, the function of “connecting” in Term 4
`
`is connecting to a previously identified broadcast channel having particular claimed features. Id.
`
`Beginning the analysis with the correct function is essential. ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346
`
`F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Correctly identifying the claimed function is critical, because
`
`‘an error in identification of the function can improperly alter the identification of the structure . . .
`
`corresponding to that function.’”) (citation omitted).
`
`This change from “the” to “an” is material and the basis for many of Plaintiff’s flawed
`
`arguments. Plaintiff repeats this misstatement throughout its brief. For example, Plaintiff alleges
`
`that a “POSA would understand that a processor programmed to perform at least one of the
`
`algorithms disclosed in steps 801 to 806 in Figure 8 is sufficient to perform the function of
`
`connecting a participant to a broadcast channel.” Supp. Br. at 4. Relying on this misstated
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 17973
`
`function, Plaintiff then identifies structure that falls short of performing the function of connecting
`
`a participant to the claimed broadcast channel. There are multiple reasons why steps 801-806 are
`
`clearly not an algorithm that will support the claimed function of Term 4, each addressed below.
`
`b. The Identified “Algorithms” Include “Black Boxes” that Improperly
`Cover a Range of Algorithms
`
`Plaintiff relies on six blocks in Fig. 8, two of which are mere “black boxes” that invoke
`
`other software algorithms. Allowing Plaintiff to limit the support to “black boxes” would
`
`impermissibly expand the scope of Term 4 to cover a range of potential algorithms. See, e.g.,
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding “black box”
`
`labeled “Purchase Orders” did not disclose sufficient structure for a “generate purchase orders”
`
`function); KSR Decl. at ¶ 33. Perhaps more significantly, the primary “black box” on which
`
`Plaintiff relies, block 806, is not even relevant to the claimed function because it is used only for
`
`the first participant to join a new network, before the network becomes m-regular and non-
`
`complete, as required by the claims. The relevance of block 806 is addressed in the next section.
`
`Regarding the “black box” issues, block 803 invokes a “seek portal computer routine” and
`
`the steps of that routine, which are disclosed in Fig. 9, are not included in the portion of the
`
`specification on which Plaintiff relies. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 19:5-8. Seeking, and then finding, a
`
`portal computer is unquestionably integral to the process of connecting a new participant to the
`
`broadcast channel. See, e.g., A-2 (’966 Patent) at 5:18-22; 6:41-46; 12:30-33; 12:63-13:3; 13:13-
`
`18; 15:20-23. A seeking participant cannot connect to a broadcast channel until it finds a portal
`
`computer through which it can connect. Id. And structure that is “integral to performing the stated
`
`function” constitutes corresponding structure. Gemstar–TV Guide Intern., Inc. v. International
`
`Trade Com'n, 383 F.3d 1352, 1362 (Fed.Cir. 2004). If the corresponding structure was merely
`
`limited to this “black box” the claim would effectively and impermissibly cover any algorithm for
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 17974
`
`identifying a portal computer. ePlus, Inc, 700 F.3d at 518.
`
`Block 806 suffers from this same “black box” defect. Block 806 invokes an “achieve
`
`connection routine” that is set forth in Fig. 13.1 See, e.g., B-2 (’966 Patent) at 19:21; 21:4-15.
`
`Plaintiff’s argument that “the flow diagram can proceed from block 801 to block 806 to ‘Achieve
`
`Connection’” wrongly implies that the connection in block 806 is achieved as a result of the steps
`
`in blocks 801-805. Supp. Br. at 4 (emphasis Plaintiff’s). However, the “achieve connection” in
`
`block 806 is not a result of steps 801 to 805; it is the result of implementing the “achieve
`
`connection routine” of Fig. 13. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 19:20-22; 21:46-57. Step 801 simply initiates
`
`the process by opening a call in port on the seeking computer “through which the process is to
`
`communicate with other processes when establishing external and internal connections.” Id. at
`
`18:19-22. Block 802 just “sets the connect time to the current time…” Id. at 18:24-27. Block
`
`803, as discussed above, invokes the “seek portal computer routine” to find a portal computer
`
`through which a connection can be established. Id. at 19:6-11; 19:32-20:9. Block 805 is a
`
`decision block which determines whether “no portal computer other than the portal computer on
`
`which the [seeking] process is executing was located.”2 Id. at 19:11-20. If the process branches to
`
`the right into block 806, block 806 invokes the “achieve connection routine.” Id. at 19:20-22.
`
`Plainly there is no connection achieved before transitioning to block 806. Prior to block 806 the
`
`process merely tries to identify a portal computer through which a connection can be established.
`
`Block 806 then invokes the “routine” for achieving a connection3, as set forth in Fig. 13. Allowing
`
`Plaintiff to limit the corresponding structure to blocks 801-806, without even incorporating the
`
`routines in Figs. 9 and 13, would improperly expand the claims to cover categories of algorithms,
`
`1 Defendants’ Markman slide no. 45 inadvertently identified the figure corresponding to block
`806 as Fig. 14.
`2 This “decision” step is explained further in the next section.
`3 As discussed in the next section, this “connection” is not even the connection of the claims.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 17975
`
`including any algorithm for “achieving a connection.” ePlus, Inc, 700 F.3d at 518. Further, as
`
`discussed next, Plaintiff does not include the most relevant portion of Fig. 8, i.e., blocks 808 and
`
`809.
`
`c. Block 806 Is Irrelevant to the Claimed “Connecting” and Cannot be the
`End of the Claimed Function
`
`Not only is block 806 a “black box” and therefore not a proper algorithm, it is not even
`
`relevant to, and cannot be the end point of, the claimed “connecting” function. Plaintiff argues that
`
`“at step 806 the participant has completed the function of connecting to the identified broadcast
`
`channel and has achieved a connection.” Supp. Br. at 4. This is not true for the connecting
`
`function that is claimed.
`
`Block 806 is only invoked when a new broadcast channel is being formed and a seeking
`
`participant is the first member of this new broadcast channel. However, Term 4 is plainly not
`
`directed to creating a new broadcast channel; it is directed to connecting a seeking participant to an
`
`already formed “m-regular” and “non-complete” broadcast channel with “each participant having
`
`connections to at least three neighbor participants” (i.e. “the” broadcast channel, not just any
`
`broadcast channel). A-2 (’966 Patent) at 30:40-54. Block 806 is only reached when there is a
`
`“yes” answer to the question posed in block 805, which is whether “contacts = 0.” In other words,
`
`this decision box asks whether the seek portal computer routine has resulted in zero contacts, i.e.,
`
`the answer is yes only when the seeking process has not identified a portal computer for the
`
`broadcast channel. KSR Decl. at ¶ 30. Thus, as explained in the specification, the flowchart of
`
`Fig. 8 will branch to the right, and into block 806, only if the seeking process is unable to find any
`
`portal computers in the broadcast channel, meaning that the seeking process “is the first process to
`
`fully connect to the broadcast channel,” i.e., the seeking process is going to create a new broadcast
`
`channel. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 19:11-20. Block 806 then invokes the “achieve connection routine”
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 17976
`
`
`
`shown in Fig. 13, which deems the seeking process to be “fully connected,” even though it has not
`
`actually connected to another process, as it is the first and only process in the broadcast channel
`
`and there are no other processes to which it can connect.
`
`A single-member new broadcast channel (the result of block 806), which will have no
`
`“neighbor” participants, cannot satisfy the claim requirement of “each participant having
`
`connections to at least three neighbor participants.” Id. at 30:43-45. Such a single-member
`
`broadcast channel also cannot be “non-complete,” which means that some participants in the
`
`broadcast channel are not connected to other participants. Id. at 30:50-54. When a seeking
`
`participant is connecting to the claimed broadcast channel the answer to the question posed in
`
`decision block 805 will always be “no,” i.e., the number of “contacts” achieved as a result of the
`
`seek portal computer routine will never be “0” because in an already existing m-regular, non-
`
`complete network, where each participant has “at least three” neighbors, there will be existing
`
`members of the broadcast channel. Id. at 19:11-20.
`
`Thus, the function recited in Term 4 of “connecting to the identified broadcast channel”
`
`must always include blocks 808 and 809 in Fig. 8, and will never include block 806, because a
`
`portal computer will have been identified by the “seek portal computer routine” invoked by block
`
`803 and the answer to the question posed in block 805 will always be “no.” Id. Then, in “block
`
`808, the routine installs an external dispatcher.” Id. at 19:27-28; KSR Decl. at ¶¶ 31-32. The
`
`“external dispatcher routine” is yet another algorithm, detailed in Fig. 14, which enables the
`
`seeking participant to receive and process messages, another integral component to the connection
`
`process. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 21:58-22:28. After the external dispatcher routine is completed, the
`
`process proceeds to block 809, which invokes the “connect request routine to initiate the process of
`
`identifying neighbors for the seeking computer.” Id. at 19:28-31. As is clear from the entire
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 17977
`
`
`
`specification, including e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B relied upon by Plaintiff for Term 4, identifying the
`
`new neighbors for the seeking participant is a critical part of connecting to an existing m-regular
`
`broadcast channel. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 3A and 3B; 5:52-6:7; Markman Tr. at 79:14-81:20. For
`
`example, as shown in Figs. 3A and 3B, joining node “Z” must identify neighbors E, B, D and C to
`
`enable it to join the broadcast channel. The “connect request routine” of block 809 is explained in
`
`Fig. 11 and will identify the neighbors for the seeking participant. This process includes block
`
`1112, which invokes the “add neighbor routine” to enable the seeking participant to make a
`
`connection to the identified neighbors. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 21:8-17. The “add neighbor routine”
`
`is disclosed in Fig. 17. Id. at 23:37-24:9. Furthermore, when the broadcast channel is in the “large
`
`regime,” this adding of the neighbor further requires the “random walk search” disclosed in Fig.
`
`18. Id. at 21:16-17; 24:10-49. The “large regime” is defined as any broadcast channel “[w]hen
`
`five or more computers are connected.” Id. at 5:28-30. Because the claims require an m-regular
`
`non-complete broadcast channel, wherein each neighbor has “at least three neighbor participants”
`
`it will always be in the large regime. Id. at 30:44-45. The “random walk” is integral to the
`
`connecting function because it solves a problem created by the “limited local knowledge” of the
`
`nodes in the system, i.e., “[t]his local knowledge makes it difficult for a portal computer to
`
`randomly select four neighbors for a seeking computer.” Id. at 13:20-32. Thus, in the claimed
`
`system connecting to the identified broadcast channel includes the steps shown in at least Figs. 9,
`
`11, 14, 17 and 18. Because Plaintiff chose to rely on none of this disclosure, Term 4 is indefinite.
`
`Although the specification is clear, as discussed above, the recent testimony of inventor
`
`Virgil Bourassa is informative.4 See Exh. A (“Bourassa Tr.”).
`
`
`
`
`4 Mr. Bourassa’s testimony here is offered not to interpret the claims but for his technical
`explanation as to how the embodiments in his patent function. Voice Techs. Grp., Inc. v. VMC
`Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 615 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“This court in Markman did not hold that the
`inventor cannot explain the technology and what was invented and claimed; the Federal Circuit
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 17978
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. Plaintiff’s Arguments Regarding “Partially” and “Fully” Connected States
`Misstate the Specification
`
`Plaintiff argues that Fig. 8 relates to a routine where the portal computer may be in a
`
`“partially connected state” which presumably distinguishes Fig. 8 from the Fig. 11 routine of
`
`connecting the seeking participant to a “fully connected” portal computer. Supp. Br. at 7
`
`(emphasis Plaintiff’s). Plaintiff misstates what is happening in these algorithms. First, a “partially
`
`connected” computer (participant) is “one that is connected to at least one neighbor, but not yet
`
`four neighbors” in an M=4 embodiment. A-2 (’966 Patent) at 5:48-52; 18:12-18. A “fully
`
`connected” computer is one that is “connected to four [i.e., M] neighbors.” Id. Plaintiff confuses
`
`the state of the seeking computer (the participant being connected) with the state of the portal
`
`computer through which the seeking computer will find its new neighbors and connect to the
`
`broadcast channel. A seeking participant will always seek out a “fully connected” portal computer
`
`held only that the inventor cannot by later testimony change the invention and the claims from
`their meaning at the time the patent was drafted and granted.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 17979
`
`
`
`to help it join a broadcast channel to avoid creating “disjoint broadcast channels.” Id. at 12:63-
`
`13:3. Thus, while the “connect request routine” of Fig. 11 involves the seeking computer
`
`connecting to the broadcast channel through a “fully connected” portal computer, the seeking
`
`computer itself transitions through three stages: 1) it is in the “seeking connection state” before the
`
`first neighbor is added in block 1112 of Fig 11; 2) it is in the “partially connected state” after one
`
`neighbor is added but before M neighbors are added; and 3) it becomes “fully connected” when M
`
`neighbors have been added (after the process passes through block 1112 M times to add M
`
`neighbors). See id. at 5:45-52; 18:12-18. Thus, Plaintiff conflates the states of the seeking
`
`computer (which will be “partially connected” during the process) with the state of the portal
`
`computer through which the seeking computer will join (which will always be fully connected).
`
`Id.;
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`’344 and ’966 Patents: Terms 1-3
`
`
`
`Term 1 relates to “identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest.” Term 2 is
`
`“identifying a game of interest…” Term 3 is similar to Term 1, but addresses a “topic” instead of a
`
`“game.” Plaintiffs continue to address Term 1 with Term 2, which have entirely different
`
`functions, as Defendants explained at the hearing. See Markman Tr. at 84:12-85:21. The only
`
`corresponding structure that relates to each of the identifying functions is a web site or web server
`
`that provides a “mapping between each game and the broadcast channel” or a “hierarchical
`
`organization of the various broadcast channels” but no algorithm for how that map or hierarchical
`
`organization is built or used to identify a “game” or to identify a “broadcast channel” for that
`
`game. Id. at 109:18-111:16. The PTAB reviewed this part of the specification and agreed that
`
`there is no algorithm disclosed for the claimed function. E.g., C-4 at 8-10, C-5 at 8-10.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 17980
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff previously alleged that the corresponding structure “involves connecting to a web
`
`server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for the
`
`game of interest.” Medvidovic Decl. at 14 (emphasis added). Defendants pointed out at the
`
`hearing that the “broadcaster component” is a software process and so the mere downloading of a
`
`software process cannot be an algorithm. Markman Tr. at 109:18-110:4. Plaintiff now changes its
`
`position to argue that the corresponding structure is “us[ing] the channel type and the channel
`
`instance to identify the broadcast channel.” Supp. Br. at 8 (emphasis added). But there is no
`
`disclosure of “using the channel type and channel instance” for this purpose in the specification.
`
`Also, this cannot be an algorithm for Term 2 (“identifying a game”) because the channel type and
`
`channel instance can only be determined after the game is identified and selected. Plaintiff has
`
`never addressed the difference between the function of “identifying a game” (Term 2) and
`
`“identifying a broadcast channel” (Term 1).
`
`For Term 1 Plaintiff acknowledges that the web server identifies the broadcast channel but,
`
`because there is clearly no algorithm for how the server identifies the channel, Plaintiff points to
`
`the subsequent step of downloading the identified channel from the server after it is identified. Id.
`
`(“[T]he web server would also provide the channel type and channel instance associated with the
`
`game….”) (emphasis Plaintiff’s). Providing the channel type and channel instance is not an
`
`algorithm for how the channel type and channel instance are identified in the first place. They
`
`must be identified before they can be provided. The specification is silent on this issue except to
`
`imply that it is somehow accomplished by the web server. The issue for Term 3 is the same as for
`
`Term 1.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 17981
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South 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 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`July 24, 2017
`
`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 Defendants
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 218 Filed 08/01/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 17982
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 1, 2017, 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
`
`August 1, 2017, 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
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`