Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 311 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21894
`
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
`302 984 6000
`www.potteranderson.com
`
`Philip A. Rovner
`Partner
`provner@potteranderson.com
`(302) 984-6140 Direct Phone
`(302) 658-1192 Fax
`
`November 8, 2017
`
`BY CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`U.S. Courthouse
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al.
`D. Del., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA, 16-454-RGA, 16-455-RGA
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(b), Plaintiff Acceleration Bay writes to submit the Federal
`Circuit’s recent decision in MasterMine Software Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2016-2465, 2017 WL
`4872706 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2017), subsequent authority bearing on the parties’ Joint Claim
`Construction Brief (Phase 1), and specifically Terms 38, 39 and 40. (C.A. 16-453, D.I. 281)
`(C.A. 16-454, D.I. 254) (C.A. 16-454, D.I. 250).
`
`In MasterMine Software, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s finding of patent
`invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. The Federal Circuit clarified and limited its holding in
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., a case of first impression, where the Federal Circuit
`held that a single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of use of that apparatus is
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In MasterMine Software,
`the Federal Circuit explained that, “[t]he concern underlying [its] holding in IPXL Holdings was
`that claiming both an apparatus and method of using the apparatus within a single claim can
`make it ‘unclear whether infringement ... occurs when one creates a[n infringing] system, or
`whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses [the system in an infringing manner].’”
`2017 WL 4872706 at *4. The Federal Circuit stated that in its subsequent cases it explained that,
`“apparatus claims are not necessarily indefinite for using functional language.” Id. at *5. The
`Federal Circuit narrowed the applicability of IPXL Holdings even further finding that apparatus
`claims that use functional language, including active verbs such as “presents a set of user-
`selectable database fields,” “receives from the user a selection of one or more of the user-
`selectable database fields,” and “generates a database query as a function of the user selected
`database fields,” are not invalid. Id. at *7 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit reasoned that
`these active verbs “do not explicitly claim the user’s act of selection, but rather, claim the
`system’s capability to receive and respond to user selection.” Id.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 311 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21895
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`November 8, 2017
`Page 2
`
`Similarly here, the claims asserted by Acceleration Bay (and Terms 38-40), are definite
`and not invalid under IPXL Holdings, as further confirmed by MasterMine Software.
`
`A copy of the MasterMine Software decision is attached at Exhibit A for the Court’s
`convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`
`PAR/mah
`cc:
`All Counsel of Record (Via ECF Filing, Electronic Mail)
`Attachment
`
`5555306
`
`