Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 21855
`
`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.
`
`DECLARATION OF NENAD MEDVIDOVIĆ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING TERM 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 21856
`
`I, Nenad Medvidović, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I make this Declaration based upon my own personal knowledge, information,
`
`and belief, and I would and could competently testify to the matters set forth herein if called
`
`upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the Court has requested additional briefing for Term 4 on (1)
`
`whether there is a substantive difference between the algorithm/“process of new computer Z
`
`connecting to the broadcast channel” of Figure 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications and
`
`the algorithm/“process in the connect routine” of Figure 8 and corresponding specifications, and
`
`(2) if there is a difference, whether Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications
`
`constitute a separate algorithm.
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration regarding Term 4 (D.I. 191-1, Ex. F) (“First
`
`Declaration”), and provide below a more detailed explanation below of the process for
`
`connecting to the broadcast channel to address the questions by the Court.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications
`
`4.
`
`I incorporate by reference the “Qualifications” from my First Declaration.
`
`II.
`
`Materials Reviewed
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I incorporate by reference the “Materials Reviewed” from my First Declaration.
`
`In connection with submitting this declaration, I have also reviewed the Courts
`
`Opinion and Memorandum (D.I. 275), Claim Construction Order (D.I. 287), and Defendants’
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Brief Addressing Term 4.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 21857
`
`III.
`
`Description of Process for Connecting to Broadcast Channel (Term 4)
`
`7.
`
`I incorporate by reference the “Overview of the Technology” from my First
`
`Declaration.
`
`8.
`
`To address the Court’s questions regarding the process for connecting to a
`
`broadcast channel, I provide an additional overview of the connection process.
`
`9.
`
`The Asserted Patents include various features and multiple embodiments that may
`
`be used to practice the claimed inventions. In describing the broadcast technique, the Asserted
`
`Patents identify three features:
`
`The broadcast technique includes (1) the connecting of computers
`to the broadcast channel (i.e., composing the graph), (2) the
`broadcasting of messages over the broadcast channel (i.e.,
`broadcasting through the graph), and (3) the disconnecting of
`computers from the broadcast channel (i.e., decomposing the
`graph) composing the graph.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) at 5:11-16.
`
`10.
`
`The first feature of connecting computers to the broadcast channel (i.e.,
`
`composing the graph) relates to Term 4 and the process for connecting to the broadcast channel.
`
`The Asserted Patents identify broadcasting of messages over the broadcast channel and
`
`disconnecting a computer from the broadcast channel are identified as separate features from
`
`connecting to the broadcast channel. Id.
`
`11.
`
`The Asserted Patents describe at least two separate processes for connecting to the
`
`broadcast channel. The Asserted Patents describe that connecting to the broadcast channel
`
`involves contacting a portal computer and then connecting to at least four computers already
`
`connected to the broadcast channel. Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) at 5:17-33. Where the graph already
`
`has at least four computers that are connected, this is referred to as the “large regime.” Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 21858
`
`12.
`
`The Asserted Patents provides a First Embodiment for connecting to a broadcast
`
`channel where there are at least four computers. Where there are less than five computers
`
`connected to the graph, this is referred to as the “small regime.” The process for connecting to
`
`the broadcast channel in the small regime scenario is described below––later in the patent from
`
`the discussion of the First Embodiment:
`
`Composing the Graph
`
`To connect to the broadcast channel, the computer seeking the
`connection first locates a computer that is currently fully connected
`to the broadcast channel and then establishes a connection with
`four of the computers that are already connected to the broadcast
`channel. (This assumes that there are at least four computers
`already connected to the broadcast channel. When there are fewer
`than five computers connected, the broadcast channel cannot be a
`4-regular graph. In such a case, the broadcast channel is
`considered to be in a “small regime.” The broadcast technique for
`the small regime is described below in detail. When five or more
`computers are connected, the broadcast channel is considered to be
`in the “large regime.” This description assumes that the
`broadcast channel is in the large regime, unless specified
`otherwise.)
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) 5:17-33 (emphasis added).
`
`13.
`
`I refer to the second process, which includes various additional features and may
`
`be used in both the small and large regimes.
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`First Embodiment
`
`The Asserted Patents describe three main steps in the algorithm in the First
`
`Embodiment for connecting to the broadcast channel where there are at least four computers
`
`already connected to the graph:
`
`Thus, the process of connecting to the broadcast channel includes
`locating the broadcast channel, identifying the neighbors for the
`connecting computer, and then connecting to each identified
`neighbor.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) 5:33-37.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 21859
`
`15.
`
`The Asserted Patents provide details for each of the three steps explaining to a
`
`POSITA how to configure the system so a computer can connect to the broadcast channel (which
`
`is described in other portions of the Asserted Patents).
`
`1.
`
`Step 1
`
`16.
`
`The first step in the process requires a seeking computer to contact a portal
`
`computer as follows:
`
`Each computer is aware of one or more “portal computers” through
`which that computer may locate the broadcast channel. A seeking
`computer locates the broadcast channel by contacting the portal
`computers until it finds one that is currently fully connected to the
`broadcast channel.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) 5:37-42.
`
`17.
`
`A POSITA would understand that the seeking computer would have information
`
`(e.g., a list of network addresses or similar information associated with portal computers) to
`
`contact “portal computers.” The seeking computer will contact the various portal computers
`
`until it finds one that is fully connected. Once it finds a fully connected portal computer, the
`
`connection process proceeds to the next step.
`
`18.
`
`As noted above, the First Embodiment assumes there are already four connected
`
`computers. As such, a POSITA would understand that connecting to a portal computer is
`
`streamlined in that there should already be a fully connected portal computer. Moreover,
`
`“portals” were well known and the particular details of a “portal computer,” and a “fully
`
`connected portal computer” are described in other portions of the Asserted Patents relating to the
`
`portal computer. The description above, however, fully describes the first step of the connection
`
`process.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 21860
`
`2.
`
`Step 2
`
`19.
`
`In the next step of the process, the portal computer provides the seeking computer
`
`with a list of other computers that the seeking computer will connect to:
`
`The found portal computer then directs the identifying of four
`computers (i.e., to be the seeking computer's neighbors) to which
`the seeking computer is to connect.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) 5:42-45.
`
`20.
`
`A POSITA would understand that because there are already at least four
`
`computers connected to the graph, it is a streamlined and straightforward process for the portal
`
`computer to identify four computers to which the seeking computer can connect.
`
`3.
`
`Step 3
`
`21.
`
`The Asserted Patents then explain that third step in the process of the First
`
`Embodiment requires that each of the four computers to cooperate with the seeking computer to
`
`connect to the broadcast channel.
`
`Each of these four computers then cooperates with the seeking
`computer to effect the connecting of the seeking computer to the
`broadcast channel.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) 5:45-48.
`
`22.
`
`A POSITA would understand basic networking procedures for how computers
`
`can connect and disconnect with each other. The seeking computer and the four computers can
`
`connect with each other using basic networking procedures. Although the claims may include
`
`additional limitations, the third step fully describes the last step in the process for connecting to
`
`the broadcast channel where there are at least four computers already connected to the graph.
`
`23.
`
`Figures 3A and 3B illustrate a new computer connecting to a graph. In this
`
`particular illustration, the graph is both m-regular and incomplete (features that are not required
`
`for all claims in all of the Asserted Patents).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 21861
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent) Figures 3A and 3B.
`
`B.
`
`24.
`
`Second Embodiment
`
`The Second Embodiment is described in steps 801 to 809 in Figure 8 and at Ex.
`
`A-1 (‘344 Patent), 17:67-19:34, 19:66-20:44, 21:4-53, 22:61-24:6, and Figures 9, 11, 13, 14, 17
`
`and 18.
`
`25.
`
`The Asserted Patents explained that Figures 8-34 (Id.at 17:66-18:2) illustrate the
`
`broadcast technique for one embodiment and provides a brief summary of Figures 8, 9, 11, 13,
`
`14, 17 and 18 (Id.at 3:7-30):
`
`FIG. 8 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the connect
`routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 9 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the seek
`portal computer routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 11 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the connect
`request routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of the processing of the achieve
`connection routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 14 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the external
`dispatcher routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 17 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the add
`neighbor routine in one embodiment.
`
`FIG. 18 is a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the forward
`connection edge search routine in one embodiment.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 21862
`
`26.
`
`The Second Embodiments includes numerous additional steps in the process for
`
`connecting to the broadcast channel and may be used in particular circumstances where the
`
`streamlined process in the First Embodiment may not be used, including, for example, where the
`
`graph is in the small regime (i.e., less than five computers). Because of this, the process includes
`
`additional steps.
`
`27.
`
`Figure 8 is “a flow diagram illustrating the processing of the connect routine”:
`
`(801) “Open call in port,” (802) “Set connect-time,” (803) “Seek portal – computer (channel
`
`type channel instance), (804) if the steps 801-3 fail then “Return (false),” (805) if the steps
`
`succeeded, then “Contact[],” and (806) “Achieve connection,” if not then (808) “Install external
`
`dispatcher,” and send a (809) “Connection request”. See Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at Fig. 8; see
`
`also id. at 17:67-18:2; Ex. A-2 (‘966 Patent) at 18:3-5.
`
`28.
`
`Figure 9 copied below is a flow diagram further illustrating additional processes
`
`and steps associated with the connection routine in the Second Embodiment and portal computer.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 21863
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at Fig. 9.
`
`29.
`
`Because the Second Embodiment is more robust and does not assume there are
`
`already four connected computers, Figure 9 includes additional steps performed by additional
`
`modular software application routines compared to the First Embodiment such as (904) “All
`
`portal computer selected,” (902) “Select next depth,” (903) “All depth selected”, “Return
`
`(false)”). Id.
`
`30.
`
`In particular, the specification further elaborates that “[i]f no acceptable call-in
`
`port to the broadcast channel is found, then the seeking computer selects the next port number
`
`and repeats the process.” Id. at 12:52-54. According to the specification, the step of repeating
`
`the process may involve “a maximum search depth,” meaning that the seeking computer may
`
`iterate the process until successful. Id. at 12:58-60. Depth-first search is a commonly employed
`
`strategy in traversing graphs. In a depth-first search, a graph is explored along a selected path
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 21864
`
`commencing from a given start node as far as possible before backtracking in order to explore a
`
`different path, again as far as possible, until all commencing from the start node are exhausted.
`
`A POSITA would understand that if it is assumed there are already four connected computers,
`
`this additional checks/processes would not be necessary (and the more streamlined process
`
`described in the First Embodiment would be more efficient).
`
`31.
`
`Figure 11 copied below is a flow diagram further illustrating additional processes
`
`and steps associated with the connection routine in the Second Embodiment and neighbor
`
`computers.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at Fig. 11.
`
`32.
`
`Again, because the Second Embodiment is more robust than the First
`
`Embodiment and does not assume there are already four connected computers, Figure 11
`
`includes additional steps performed by additional modular software application routines
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 21865
`
`compared to the First Embodiment such as checks to restart the process if a fully connected
`
`portal computer can be found (1102) and setting the expected number of holes (1108) and
`
`adding of the answering process (1112). Id.
`
`33.
`
`In particular, the Asserted Patents describe the differences between the First
`
`Embodiment and Second Embodiment where the graph is in the large regime compared to small
`
`regime:
`
`In block 1108, the routine sets the expected number of holes (i.e.,
`empty internal connections) for this process based on the
`received response. When in the large regime, the expected
`number of holes is zero. When in the small regime, the expected
`number of holes varies from one to three. In block 1109, the
`routine sets the estimated diameter of the broadcast channel based
`on the received response. In decision block 1111, if the dialed
`process is ready to connect to this process as indicated by the
`response message, then the routine continues at block 1112, else
`the routine continues at block 1113. In block 1112, the routine
`invokes the add neighbor routine to add the answering process as
`a neighbor to this process. This adding of the answering process
`typically occurs when the broadcast channel is in the small
`regime. When in the large regime, the random walk search for a
`neighbor is performed. In block 1113, the routine hangs up the
`external connection with the answering process computer and then
`returns.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 Patent) at 20:27-44 (emphasis added).
`
`IV.
`
`There are Substantive Differences Between the First and Second Embodiments
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, there are substantive differences between the First and Second
`
`Embodiments because the First Embodiment is a process that is used where it is assumed that the
`
`graph is already connected to at least four computers. In making this assumption, the process in
`
`the First Embodiment is more streamlined and does not include the additional steps described in
`
`the Second Embodiment (for the reason I explained above).
`
`35. My opinion that two different processes are described in the Asserted Patents is
`
`further supported by the entirety of the intrinsic record describing the use of modular software
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 21866
`
`applications to perform specific functions. For example, the following portions of the
`
`specification describe the use of modular software applications that may be invoked as separate
`
`software functions such that the First Embodiment need not include or perform the additional
`
`functions in the Second Embodiment:
`
`The broadcaster component may be implement as an object that is
`instantiated within the process space of the application program.
`Alternatively, the broadcaster component may execute as a
`separate process or thread from the application program. In one
`embodiment, the broadcaster component provides functions (e.g.,
`methods of class) that can be invoked by the application
`programs. The primary functions provided may include a connect
`function that an application program invokes passing an indication
`-of the broadcast channel to which the application program wants
`to connect. The application program may provide a callback
`routine that the broadcaster component invokes to notify the
`application program that the connection has been completed, that is
`the process enters the fully connected state. The broadcaster
`component may also provide an acquire message function that the
`application program can invoke to retrieve the next message that is
`broadcast on the broadcast channel. Alternatively, the application
`program may provide a callback routine (which may be a virtual
`function provided by
`the application program)
`that
`the
`broadcaster component invokes to notify the application program
`that a broadcast message has been received. Each broadcaster
`component allocates a call-in port using the hashing algorithm.
`When calls are answered at the call-in port, they are transferred to
`other ports that serve as the external and internal ports.
`
`Ex. A-1 (‘344 patent), 15:32-57 (emphasis added).
`
`36.
`
`Additionally, it is my opinion that the algorithm/processes for each embodiment
`
`as described in the Asserted Patents are each fully described in specifications. Specifically, the
`
`process for the First Embodiment is fully described in Colum 5, lines 33 to 55, and the process of
`
`the Second Embodiment, including the additional steps/processes, are described steps 801 to 809
`
`in Figure 8 and described in the ‘344 Patent at 17:67-19:34, 19:66-20:44, 21:4-53, 22:61-24:6,
`
`and Figures 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 308 Filed 11/06/17 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 21867
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct. Executed on November 6, 2017 in San Jose, California.
`
`_______________________________
` Nenad Medvidović
`
`5540902
`
`12
`
`