Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 10 PagelD #: 1954
`
`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 BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee”ee”ee”NameNeeNeeeeoeeeeeeeee”NameSeeeNeeeeeeee”ee”ee”
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 10 PagelD #: 1955
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffAcceleration Bay LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James R. Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN 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
`
`Dated: October 21, 2016
`Public Version Dated: October 26, 2016
`1236418
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 10 PagelD #: 1956
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`I
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS .esscssssssssssssssssssstatsssansssutienssssse 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.....cccssssssssssssseresssssssseseesesssssesssssssssnvessssssnissessssssnerees 2
`
`TI,=STATEMENT OF FACTSvosecssssssssseessssssssessssesscsssssvesssssssnivessssssuversessssnnvvessssnsnssssssesnnvesss 2
`
`TV.
`
`ARGUMENT .vvcsccccccsscsssssessssevecesscssssssvesssssssunesessssssssssssessssssnsvessesssuvessesssssnveesestsssnveessessnavese 3
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION vissecsssssssesssssseesssssssssesessssssevscsesssssssvesssessssusessssssssivessssssssnnesssasunvessesasanvessesn 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 10 PagelD #: 1957
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00369, Memorandum Order (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2014)... .ccccccccssessecseesseesrersseeeenes 5
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir, 1998) oe ceesssssensesersessevsesevsevscsscsesseseesssessesseessessesasesesecsesseseeeness 3
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 15-691-LPS-CJB, (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2016) occ cccccecsecsscseessecsseessecseesecsessscssecsessstersenasens 5
`
`WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cit, 2010) cc icccccssessessessessesessstecsessesseeessecseseesssessesseessessessesseeareas 3, 4,5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Po Qi iscsessesssessesscescnseessecsccecsaensevevsecsessessevsssessessesassesssesasesesavatesssessessaseusetsnesneseeses 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. LO... cccecescsccssessscsesssssenevseescseesessssavsessessessssesssseesaesassecesesasssessssessesesasereesessuvaveneseeees 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 5 of 10 PagelD #: 1958
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC filed suits against Defendants in March and April 2015,
`
`alleging that Defendants’ video gamesinfringe Acceleration Bay’s patents. Discovery began in
`
`December 2015. After Defendants twice moved to dismiss those actions, the Court dismissed the
`
`2015-filed cases without prejudice in favor of these actions, so that Acceleration Bay could cure a
`
`purported defect in prudential standing. C.A. No. 15-228-RGA,D.I. 149.
`
`Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer these actions in favor of
`
`declaratory judgmentactions filed by Defendants in the Northern District of California (the “DJ
`
`Actions”). Defendants abandonedtheir third motion to dismiss as untenable after Judge Seeborg
`
`transferred the DJ Actions to this Court, finding that Acceleration Bay’s Delaware cases were
`effectively first filed, Defendants’ DJ Actions werefiled in anticipation oflitigation to preempt
`
`these suits and this Court was the most appropriate venueforthe parties’ dispute. D.I. 13-1! at 6-
`
`9 (Judge Seeborg’s Order); D.I. 14 (withdrawing Motion to Dismiss).
`
`Notwithstanding that
`
`they had already moved to dismiss,
`
`rather than respond to
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Complaints, Defendants improperly filed two additional motions to dismiss
`
`(their fourth and fifth), including the instant motion. Defendants movedforpartial dismissal as to
`
`Acceleration Bay’s infringement claims against the PlayStation versions of the accused products
`
`(but not any other version) and dismissal of some of the claims from three of the six asserted
`
`patents for purportedlack ofpatenteligibility. D.I. 18; D.I. 21.7
`
`' Docket citations herein are to Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., C.A. No. 16-
`453-RGA. The parties filed substantially similar pleadings in related actions Acceleration Bay
`LLC y. Electronic Arts Inc., C.A. No. 16-454-RGA and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two
`Interactive Software, Inc., C.A. No. 16-455-RGA.
`* Defendants’ argument concerning[ wasfirst raised in the 2015 actions. C.A. No.
`15-228-RGA, D.I 100. The Court ultimately did not reach QJ given its finding
`regarding prudential standing.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 6 of 10 PagelD #: 1959
`
`Because Defendants are not permittedto file serial motions to dismiss in lieu of answering
`
`and because Defendants’ Motions only apply to a subset of Acceleration Bay’s claims,
`
`Acceleration Bay requested that the Court order Defendants to answer the Complaints and
`
`schedule a Rule 16 conference so that discovery can begin in these actions. D.I. 25.
`
`i.
`
`SUMMARYOF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants concede that Acceleration Bay now hasprudential standing to pursueits patent
`
`infringement claims against them and constitutional standingasto all non-PlayStation versions of
`
`the accused products.
`
`Thus, at a minimum, Acceleration Bay’s claims for past infringement on the PlayStation games
`
`are non-illusory. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
`
`Il.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Boeing sold the Asserted Patents (and related unasserted patents) to Acceleration Bay via
`
`a December 10, 2014 patent purchase agreement, which was subsequently amended. [J
`
`3 For the reasons set forth in Acceleration Bay’s October 12, 2016 letter (D.I. 25), the Court
`should deny the Motion as an unauthorized serial motion to dismiss under Rule 12. Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 12(g)(2) (‘a party that makes a motion underthis rule must not make another motion under
`this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier
`motion.”’); see also D.I. 25 at 2-3 (collecting cases showing that Defendants’ prior motion to
`dismiss or transfer is a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12).
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 7 of 10 PagelD #: 1960
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`a v
`
`Acceleration Bay has constitutional standing to assert its patents against Defendants’
`
`PlayStation games because it“can establish that it has an exclusionary right in a patent that, if
`
`violated by another, would cause the party holding the exclusionary right to suffer legal injury.”
`
`WiAV Solutions LLC y. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257, 1265, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here,
`
`Acceleration Bay has an exclusionary right
`
`in its patents and suffered legal
`
`injury from
`
`Defendants’ past infringement.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 8 of 10 PagelD #: 1961
`
`1href0%¢, 2 2 minimum,
`
`Acceleration Bay has constitutional standing to pursue non-illusory claims against Defendants for
`
`past damagesfrom sales of the accused PlayStation products.
`
`Defendants’ entire theory is based on dicta in WiAV Solutions, where the Federal Circuit
`
`reversed a district court’s dismissal of an exclusive licensee’s claims for lack of constitutional
`
`standing. 631 F.3d at 1268. WiAV Solutions confirms Acceleration Bay’s standing by holding
`
`that, as is the case here with respect to Acceleration Bay’s claims for past damages (ET
`
`HE). “[i}f the accused neither possesses nor can obtain suchalicense, the exclusive
`
`licensee’s exclusionary rights with respect to that accused party are violated by any acts of
`infringementthat such partyis alleged to have committed, and the injury predicate to constitutional
`
`standing is met.” Id. at 1267.
`
`Defendants have not cited any authority holding thatPe
`
`* Defendants use a misleading snippet of the transcript from oral argument ontheir prior motion
`
`to dismiss to incorrectly suggest that
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 9 of 10 PagelD #: 1962
`
`EE, 201 clocs not dictate such an extreme and
`
`unprecedented result. The other cases cited by Defendants are similarly silent on the issue of past
`
`damages. For example, Magistrate Judge Burke denied a motion to dismiss for lack of standing
`
`and, in relevant part, simply quotes the portions of WiAV Solutions discussed above. D.I. 20-1,
`
`Ex. C, Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 15-691-LPS-CJB, D.1.
`
`91 at 18-20 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2016).
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ theory, one District Court has affirmatively found that fe
`
`nnn. 4!0p1ix,
`
`Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00369, Memorandum Order at 3-4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5,
`
`2014) (overruling objection to Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and denying motion
`
`to dismiss for lack of standing, even where licensee “Samsung[ had the] ability to grant royalty
`
`free sublicenses whenthese cases werefiled”) (attached as Exhibit 1 hereto). Accordingly,
`
`ee 0cnot renderillusory Acceleration Bay’s claim for
`
`Defendants’ past infringement.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 33 Filed 10/26/16 Page 10 of 10 PagelD #: 1963
`
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (# 3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Telephone: (302) 984-6000
`Facsimile: (302) 658-1192
`provner@potteranderson.com
`
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffAcceleration Bay LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`By:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James R. Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN 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
`
`Dated: October 21, 2016
`Public Version Dated: October 26, 2016
`1236418
`
`