throbber
Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 2120
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2121
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`David P. Enzminger
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-3510
`
`October 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`- Original Filing Date
`
`November 10, 2016 - Redacted Filing Date
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 2122
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`THERE IS NO RESTRICTION
` ......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
` 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
` ............ 5
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 2123
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Canon Inc. v. Tesseron Ltd.,
`2015 WL 7308663 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2015) .................................................................... 4
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`High Point SARL v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`640 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2016) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ................................................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)............................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 2124
`
`illusory and so deprives it of constitutional standing. Acceleration Bay is incorrect both factually
`
` renders any injury to Acceleration Bay
`
`and legally
`
` are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286. All claims related to games
`
`, therefore, should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, Acceleration Bay’s procedural arguments regarding the propriety of
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(g) (D.I. 27 at 2 n.3)1 have been addressed in
`
`Defendants’ October 13, 2016 letter to the Court. (D.I. 26). As explained in that letter,
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is procedurally proper, particularly given
`
`“[t]he requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for
`
`a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). Additionally, Rule 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the
`
`court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
`
`action.”
`
`I.
`
`THERE IS NO RESTRICTION
`
`
` and Acceleration Bay’s assertions to the
`
`
`
`
`contrary are both factually and legally wrong. First, Acceleration Bay does not and cannot point
`
`to any language
`
`
`1
`All citations to docket entries refer to C.A. No. 16-453 unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 2125
`
`Second, Acceleration Bay is incorrect on the law;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceleration Bay cites Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456,
`
`1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998), but Ethicon is limited to the situation of co-owners of the entire patent,
`
`such as joint inventors or spouses. See Canon Inc. v. Tesseron Ltd., 2015 WL 7308663, at *4
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2015) (“[T]he arguments against retroactive patent licensing have real force
`
`only in the context of co-ownership.”). The holding of Ethicon is narrow: “Absent agreement to
`
`the contrary, a co-owner cannot grant a release of another co-owner’s right to accrued damages.”
`
`135 F.3d at 1467.
`
`
`
`
`
` See, e.g., Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1467 (noting
`
`“retroactive licenses” of patent rights have been enforced by the courts without specifically
`
`referring to them in this way.”); High Point SARL v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 640 F. App’x 917, 927
`
`(Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2016); Canon, 2015 WL 7308663, at *4.
`
`And the unpublished order in Adaptix cited by Acceleration Bay is incomplete and
`
`unpersuasive. The Report and Recommendation that the cited order addresses does not appear to
`
`be available on PACER, and the limited recitation of facts and arguments do not support
`
`Acceleration Bay’s arguments. At the very least, the case is distinguishable because it involved
`
`a “now-expired option to purchase the right to grant a sublicense to Ericsson.” Id. at 3. Thus, it
`
`appears that Samsung had at one time the ability to purchase extra rights that would have
`
`allowed it to sublicense the patent in suit to the Ericsson defendant. Here, in contrast,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 2126
`
`
`
`Even if Acceleration Bay was correct
`
`, its argument still fails.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “[T]he
`
`touchstone of constitutional standing in a patent infringement suit is whether a party 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 Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`631 F.3d 1257, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Where the defendant “has the ability to obtain . . . a
`
`license from another party,” the plaintiff “does not have an exclusionary right with respect to the
`
`alleged infringer and thus is not injured by that alleged infringer.” Id. at 1266. Acceleration Bay
`
`characterizes this portion of WiAV as dicta, but the Federal Circuit’s reasoning is necessary to the
`
`result and part of the holding.
`
`And any claims predating
`
` would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286
`
` Id. (“no
`
`recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of
`
`the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss all
`
`claims
`
` for lack of constitutional standing.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 2127
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`David P. Enzminger
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-3510
`
`October 31, 2016
`
`6
`
`- Original Filing Date
`
`November 10, 2016 - Redacted Filing Date
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket