`
`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 2, 2016
`
`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 submits the Federal Circuit’s
`recent decision in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom., Inc., 2015-1180 (Nov. 1, 2016),
`subsequent authority bearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Regarding U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344, 6,714,966 and 6,829,634 (16-455-RGA, D.I. 23 “Motion”).
`
`In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s finding of patent ineligibility for
`claims relating to monitoring activity on computer networks. The Federal Circuit held that the
`arrangements of the “arguably generic components” in a distributed architecture minimize
`network impact by collecting and processing data close to its source and reduce congestion.
`Amdocs, at *4, 22-25. As with the claims asserted by Acceleration Bay, the Amdocs claims are,
`therefore, patent eligible because “these generic components operate in an unconventional
`manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality,” providing “a technical
`improvement over prior art technologies and serv[ing] to improve the performance of the system
`itself.” Id.
`
`A copy of the Amdocs decision is attached at Exhibit A for the Court’s convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`
`All Counsel of Record (Via ECF Filing, Electronic Mail)
`cc:
`Attachment
`
`