Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 30054
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ACTIVISION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”)
`
`moves for summary judgment of noninfringement, limitations on damages, no willful
`
`infringement, and invalidity.
`
`The grounds for this motion are set forth in Activision’s accompanying brief. The precise
`
`relief sought is detailed in a proposed order accompanying this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`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 Defendant
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ACTIVISION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”)
`
`moves for summary judgment of noninfringement, limitations on damages, no willful
`
`infringement, and invalidity.
`
`The grounds for this motion are set forth in Activision’s accompanying brief. The precise
`
`relief sought is detailed in a proposed order accompanying this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`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 Defendant
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 30055
`
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Michael Woods
`Paul N. Harold
`Joseph C. Masullo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`February 2, 2018
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 30056
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court, having consider Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment of Non-Infringement, Limitations on Damages, No Willful Infringement, and
`
`Invalidity
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of _______________, 2018, that
`
`Activision’s Motion is GRANTED:
`
`1) Activision does not infringe claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent and claims 12
`
`and 13 of the ‘966 Patent because Activision does not make, use, or sell the accused Call
`
`of Duty and Destiny Networks.
`
`2) Activision does not infringe claims 9 and 16 of the ’497 Patent because, for the accused
`
`Call of Duty and Destiny games, it does not make, use or sell the accused hardware
`
`component.
`
`3) Activision does not directly infringe method claim 1 of the ’147 Patent and method
`
`claims 1 and 11 of the ’069 Patent because, for the accused Call of Duty and Destiny
`
`games, it does not perform any of the steps alleged to cause infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 30057
`
`
`
`4) Activision does not infringe any of the asserted patents because, for the accused Call of
`
`Duty and Destiny games, Plaintiff has no evidence that Activision has infringed any
`
`asserted patent through testing.
`
`5) Activision does not infringe any asserted claim of the ’344, ’966, ’634, ’147, and ’069
`
`Patents because the accused networks are not m-regular and non-complete, they are not
`
`broadcast channels, and they do not meet the broadcast/rebroadcast requirements of these
`
`asserted patents.
`
`6) Activision’s Call of Duty and Destiny games do not infringe the asserted claims of the
`
`’069 and ’634 Patents, and the World of Warcraft game does not infringe the ’634 Patent.
`
`7) Activision’s Call of Duty and Destiny games do not infringe the asserted claims of the
`
`’147 Patent.
`
`8) Activision’s Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Destiny games do not infringe the
`
`asserted claims of the ’497 Patent.
`
`9) Activision’s Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Destiny games do not infringe any of
`
`the asserted patents under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`10) Any accused acts outside the United States do not infringe any of the asserted patents.
`
`11) Activision did not willfully infringe the asserted claims of the ’344, ’966, ’634, ’497,
`
`’147, and ’069 Patents.
`
`12) The asserted claims of the’634 Patent are indefinte and therefore invalid.
`
`13) The asserted claims of the ’344, ’966, ’634, ’147, and ’069 Patents are invalid for lack of
`
`written description.
`
`14) The asserted claims of the ’344, ’966 and ’497 Patents are invalid as covering non-
`
`statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they cover pure software.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 30058
`
`
`
`
`
`15) The “Computer Readable Media” claims (’634 Claims 19 And 22/’147 Claims 11, 15,
`
`16) are invalid as including non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`__________________________________
`Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 440 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 30059
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 2, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`February 2, 2018, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`________________________________
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`Greg Proctor, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
