Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 63 PageID #: 38850
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANT ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS UNDER FRE 702
`
`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 Defendant
`
`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
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 2 of 63 PageID #: 38851
`
`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
`
`Original Filing Date: February 2, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: February 13, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 3 of 63 PageID #: 38852
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
`I.
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ‘344 And ‘966 Patents Because
`Activision Does Not Make, Use Or Sell The Accused Networks (CoD,
`Destiny). .................................................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Activision Does Not Make, Use, Or Sell The Accused “Destiny”
`Networks. .................................................................................................... 4
`Activision Does Not Make, Use, Or Sell The Accused “CoD”
`Networks. .................................................................................................... 4
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ’497 Patent Because It Does Not Make,
`Use Or Sell The Accused Hardware Component (CoD, Destiny). ......................... 6
`Activision Does Not Directly Infringe The Method Claims Because It
`Does Not Perform Any Of The Steps Alleged To Cause Infringement
`(CoD, Destiny). ....................................................................................................... 7
`Plaintiff Has No Evidence That Activision Infringed Any Patent Through
`Testing (CoD, Destiny). .......................................................................................... 9
`Activision Does Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology 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. ................................................................. 10
`A.
`The Accused WoW Network Does Not Infringe Any Topology
`Patent......................................................................................................... 10
`The Accused CoD Networks Do Not Infringe Any Of The
`Topology Patents. ..................................................................................... 14
`The Accused Destiny Networks Do Not Infringe Any Topology
`Patent......................................................................................................... 19
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe The ’069 And ’634 Patents (CoD,
`Destiny, WoW (’634 only)). ................................................................................. 22
`A.
`CoD Does Not “Identify[] A Pair Of Participants Of The Network
`That Are Connected” Or “Disconnect[] The Participants Of The
`Identified Pair From Each Other.” ............................................................ 22
`CoD Does Not Infringe The Asserted Claims Of The ’069 And
`’634 Patents Because CoD Does Not Include The “Fully
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 4 of 63 PageID #: 38853
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`VII.
`
`Connected Portal Computer” And “Located Portal Computer”
`Required By The Asserted Claims. ........................................................... 23
`There Is No “Edge Connection Request” Sent To “Randomly
`Selected Neighboring Participants” In CoD. ............................................ 24
`Destiny does not “identify[] a pair of participants of the network
`that are connected” or “disconnect[] the participants of the
`identified pair from each other.” ............................................................... 24
`There is no “edge connection request” sent to “randomly selected
`neighboring participants” in Destiny. ....................................................... 25
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe The ’147 Patent (CoD
`andDestiny). .......................................................................................................... 25
`VIII. The Accused Products Do Not Infringe The ’497 Patent (CoD, Destiny,
`WoW). ................................................................................................................... 26
`A.
`The Accused Products Do Not Repeatedly Try To Establish A
`Connection. ............................................................................................... 26
`The Accused Games Do Not Use A “Port Ordering Algorithm.” ............ 28
`B.
`Activision Does Not Infringe Any Claim Under The Doctrine Of
`Equivalents. ........................................................................................................... 29
`Accused Acts Outside The United States Do Not Infringe Any Patent. ............... 31
`Acceleration Bay Cannot Show Willful Infringement. ......................................... 32
`The Asserted Claims Of The ’634 Patent Are Indefinite And Therefore
`Invalid. .................................................................................................................. 32
`XIII. The ’344, ’966, ’634, ’147, And ’069 Patents Are Invalid For Lack Of
`Written Description. .............................................................................................. 33
`A.
`The Patents Do Not Contain A Written Description Supporting An
`M That Changes For Any Established Broadcast Channel ....................... 33
`The Patents Do Not Describe The “Non-Routing Table Based”
`Limitations. ............................................................................................... 35
`XIV. The ’344, ’966 And ’497 Patents Are Invalid If They Cover Pure
`Software. ............................................................................................................... 36
`The “Computer Readable Media” Claims (’634 Claims 19 And 22/’147
`Claims 11, 15, 16) Are Invalid As Including Non-Statutory Subject
`Matter. ................................................................................................................... 37
`XVI. Dr. Medvidovic And Dr. Mitzenmacher’s Opinions That The Accused
`Products “Use Various Rules And Constants” To Converge On M-Regular
`And Create A Broadcast Channel Should Be Excluded As Unsupported
`By Their Expert Reports. ...................................................................................... 38
`
`X.
`XI.
`XII.
`
`IX.
`
`B.
`
`XV.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 5 of 63 PageID #: 38854
`
`XVII. The Opinions Of Dr. Meyer, Dr. Bims, And Dr. Valerdi Should Be
`Excluded. .............................................................................................................. 40
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 6 of 63 PageID #: 38855
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................................7
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC v. USC, Inc.,
`2016 WL 8222619 (E.D. Tex.Nov. 7, 2016) ...........................................................................47
`
`Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC v. Reckitt Benkiser LLC,
`No. 15-CV-915-RGA, 2018 WL 620968 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) ...........................................33
`
`Ariad Pharm, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ...............................................................................33
`
`Arthur A. Collins v. Northern Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`2014 WL 5741870 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014) .............................................................................42
`
`BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.,
`498 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................7
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................4, 5, 6
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc.,
`No. CV 14-183-RGA, 2017 WL 3730617 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017)................................3, 9, 34
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co.,
`46 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................31
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .............................................................................................................1, 39
`
`Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................37
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC,
`2018 WL 385497 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018) .......................................................................45, 48
`
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1303643 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015) ............................................................................41
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
`2018 WL 341882 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018) .................................................................42, 44, 48
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 7 of 63 PageID #: 38856
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4268659 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) ........................................................................46
`
`Fleming v. Escort, Inc.,
`2012 WL 12539337 (D. Idaho May 23, 2012) ........................................................................40
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`2016 WL 9282314 (E.D. Tex.Aug. 5, 2016) ...........................................................................42
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1494247 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) .........................................................................45
`
`ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Systems, Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................34
`
`Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
`331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................41
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................6, 32
`
`Intelligent Verification Sys., LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2015 WL 1518099 (E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2015) ..........................................................................44
`
`Kumho Tire, Inc. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) ...........................................................................................................39, 45
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................ passim
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................44
`
`MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.,
`420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................32
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................38
`
`MiiCs & Partners, Inc. v. Funai Elec. Co.,
`No. CV 14-804-RGA, 2017 WL 6268072 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017) ..........................................46
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .............................................................................................................33
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................38
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 8 of 63 PageID #: 38857
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`609 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................33
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................47
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`2017 WL 1405155 (D. Del. Apr. 17, 2017) .............................................................................39
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................34
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................33
`
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`Rivera v. ITC,
`857 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................34
`
`Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2014 WL 2622233 (D. Del. June 11, 2014) .............................................................................39
`
`Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.,
`215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................................4, 5, 6
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`802 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................30
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC,
`2015 WL 410342 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2015) ................................................................................39
`
`Superspeed, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`64 F. Supp. 3d 987 (S.D. Tex.2014) ........................................................................................40
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc.,
`2017 WL 4772565 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2017) .........................................................42, 43, 44, 45
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................................................38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .................................................................................................................4, 7, 32
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 9 of 63 PageID #: 38858
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344 (D.I. 1, Ex.1)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966 (D.I. 1, Ex.2)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634 (D.I. 1, Ex.4)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069 (D.I. 1, Ex.5)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147 (D.I. 1, Ex.3)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497 (D.I. 1, Ex.6)
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration Of David R. Karger, Ph.D, In Support Of Defendants’ Motion For
`Partial Summary Judgment Of Invalidity For Lack Of Written Description
`
`Declaration Of Dr. John P. J. Kelly In Support Of Defendant Activision
`Blizzard Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,714,966; 6,829,634 And 6,920,497
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’344 patent
`
`’966 patent
`
`’634 patent
`
`’069 patent
`
`’147 patent
`
`’497 patent
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Karger Decl.
`
`Kelly Decl.
`
`Declaration Of Dr. Michael R. Macedonia In Support Of Defendant
`Activision Blizzard Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of Non-
`Infringement Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147 And 6,910,069
`
`Macedonia Decl.
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Ex.
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`Description
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft)
`
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement (Destiny)
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Med.Rep’t.
`
`Mitz.Rep’t.
`
`Excerpts of Reply Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D.,
`Regarding Infringement (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft)
`
`Med.Reply.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 10 of 63 PageID #: 38859
`
`Ex.
`
`A-4
`
`A-5
`
`A-6
`
`A-7
`
`A-8
`
`A-9
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts of Reply Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher,
`Ph.D., Regarding Infringement (Destiny)
`
`Excerpts of Supplemental Reply Expert Report of Nenad
`Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement (Call of Duty,
`World of Warcraft)
`
`Excerpts of Supplemental Reply Expert Report of Michael
`Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement (Destiny)
`
`Source code printouts for Call of Duty (“CoD”)
`
`Source code printouts for World of Warcraft (“WoW”)
`
`Source code printouts for Destiny
`
`A-10 Excerpts of exemplary DoE argument by Drs. Medvidovic and
`Mitzenmacher
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Mitz.Reply.
`
`Med.Supp.
`
`Mitz.Supp.
`
`CoD.Code
`
`WoW.Code
`
`Destiny.Code
`
`DoE.Excerpt
`
`INVALIDITY AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Ex.
`
`B-1
`
`B-2
`
`B-3
`
`B-4
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts of Expert Report of David R. Karger, Ph.D. Regarding
`Invalidity and List of Expert Witness Testimony
`
`Excerpts of Expert Report of Michael Goodrich, PH.D.,
`Regarding Validity
`
`Excerpts of Reply Expert Report of David R. Karger, Ph.D.
`Regarding Invalidity
`
`Excerpts of Supplemental Expert Report of David R. Karger,
`Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Karger.Rep’t.
`
`Goodrich.Rep’t.
`
`Karger.Reply.
`
`Karger.Supp.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 11 of 63 PageID #: 38860
`
`DAMAGES AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Ex.
`
`C-1
`
`C-2
`
`C-3
`
`C-4
`
`Description
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Bims.Rep’t.
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Regarding Cost Estimates
`& Errata
`
`Val.Rep’t.
`
`Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D. & Errata
`
`Reply Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology
`of the Asserted Patents
`
`Meyer.Rep’t.
`
`Bims.Reply.
`
`C-5
`
`Reply Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D.
`
`Meyer.Reply.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Ex.
`
`D-1
`
`D-2
`
`D-3
`
`Ex.
`
`E-1
`
`E-2
`
`E-3
`
`E-4
`
`E-5
`
`E-6
`
`Description
`
`Summary of Asserted Claims
`
`Chart Summarizing Non-Infringement Arguments Impact On
`Asserted Claims
`
`Chart Summarizing Invalidity Arguments Impact On Asserted
`Claims
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Virgil Bourassa (February
`13, 2017)
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Claim.Summary
`
`N.I.Chart
`
`Inv.Chart
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Bour.Tr. (2/13/17)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Virgil Bourassa (Jul. 18,
`2017)
`
`Bour.Tr. (7/18/17)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Roger Wolfson
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Pat Griffith
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of John Kirk
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Fred Holt
`
`Wolf.Tr.
`
`Griff.Tr.
`
`Kirk.Tr.
`
`Holt.Tr.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 12 of 63 PageID #: 38861
`
`Ex.
`
`E-7
`
`E-8
`
`E-9
`
`Description
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Michael Goodrich
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Kurtis McCathern
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Pat Dawson
`
`E-10 Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Christine Meyer
`
`E-11 Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi
`
`E-12 Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Goodrich.Tr.
`
`McCath.Tr.
`
`Dawson.Tr.
`
`Meyer.Tr.
`
`Val.Tr.
`
`Med.Tr.
`
`E-13 Excerpts of Transcript of Markman Hearing (Nov. 11, 2017)
`
`Hrg.Tr (11/11/17)
`
`E-14 Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Michael Mitzenmacher
`
`Mitz.Tr.
`
`E-15 Excerpts of Bims Deposition Transcript
`
`
`
`Bims Errata, served 2/1/2018.
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`Description
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opposition to Motion for Sanctions (July 12,
`2017)
`
`Bims.Tr.
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Sanctions.Opp.
`
`Ex.
`
`F-1
`
`F-2
`
`F-3
`
`F-4
`
`F-5
`
`F-6
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Objections & Responses to Activision’s First Set of
`Party Specific Interrogs.
`
`Party.Rog.Resp
`
`ATVI0031301-15
`
`IPR2016-00747, Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`’344 Patent, File History, 9/15/03 Amendment
`
`IPR2015-01964, Declaration of Michael Goodrich, Ph.D
`
`Bungie.Agmt
`
`IPR2016-
`00747.POPR
`
`344.Amend.
`
`IPR2015-
`01964.Goodrich
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 13 of 63 PageID #: 38862
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that four video games published and sold by
`
`Activision Blizzard Inc. (“Activision”) infringe six U.S. patents relating to a network broadcast
`
`channel: World of Warcraft (“WoW), Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare and Call of Duty: Black Ops
`
`III (collectively, “CoD”), and Destiny, a game designed, developed, and operated by a third-party
`
`Bungie, Inc. Activision moves for summary judgment of non-infringement on all claims, for
`
`summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of the ’344, ’966, ‘634, ’147, and ’069 patents, and for
`
`a ruling that certain opinions of Plaintiff’s experts are inadmissible.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`The Court should grant summary judgment for Activision of noninfringement, no willful
`
`infringement, and invalidity for all asserted claims for the reasons explained below. Further, the
`
`Court should exclude, in whole or in part, Plaintiff’s experts Dr. Medvidovic, Dr. Mitzenmacher Dr.
`
`Meyer, Dr. Bims and Dr. Valerdi under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579 (1993). Exhibit D-1 is a summary of Asserted Claims and Exhibits D-2 and D-3 are summaries
`
`of how each non-infringement and invalidity argument impacts each claim.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Activision is a video game developer that publishes the software for the accused games.
`
`These games can be played on customers’ personal computers or on Microsoft Xbox video game
`
`consoles. Activision does not sell or offer to sell Xboxes or computers.
`
`The asserted patents all relate to a specific implementation of a broadcast channel in a
`
`computer network by employing an m-regular, non-complete structure. The five “Topology Patents”
`
`relate to the claimed m-regular, incomplete topology of the broadcast channel/network itself,
`
`including broadcasting through the channel (‘344, ‘966), using a portal computer to join it (‘634,
`
`’069), and leaving the broadcast channel (’147). The sixth patent (’497) claims a hardware
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 14 of 63 PageID #: 38863
`
`component used to locate the channel.
`
`From the outset of this case, Activision has attempted to require Plaintiff to identify what
`
`specific networks and broadcast channels are being accused and how they supposedly meet the m-
`
`regular and incomplete claim limitations. Activision won three motions to compel Plaintiff to
`
`identify such networks with specificity (D.I. 77, 129, 155), with the last one requiring Plaintiff to:
`
`Identify, individually and with specificity, all accused methods, broadcast channels
`and networks, including by separately identifying each and every participant and
`connection for each such network or broadcast channel and explaining how each is
`alleged to be m-regular and incomplete. D.I. 155 at 7.
`
`This Court upheld that order. D.I. 193. Plaintiff identified only the accused networks below and
`
`represented to the Court that no broadcast channel separate from these networks was being accused.
`
`Ex.F-1 (Pl. Opp. Brief), pp.1, 2, 4 (accused networks and accused broadcast channels are “one and
`
`the same”). Thus, the only accused networks and broadcast channels are:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 15 of 63 PageID #: 38864
`
`
`Plaintiff identified five accused networks/broadcast channels, and for each provided an
`
`
`
`exclusive list of the network participants and all connections among those participants. Plaintiff
`
`created these networks/broadcast channels (and even coined their names) for this litigation. Yet, as
`
`explained below, even these networks do not meet the claim limitations. After Activision’s experts
`
`demonstrated that even these networks do not infringe, Plaintiff’s reply expert reports quibble for the
`
`first time that Activision had ignored that the accused networks are “application layer overlay”
`
`networks. Even if Plaintiff could advance or explain this new infringement theory, it does not matter.
`
`In this motion, Activision demonstrates that there is no factual dispute that the exclusive list of
`
`applications identified above as the participants in the five accused networks/broadcast channels are
`
`not connected in the manner required by the claims.
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. Activision Does Not Infringe The ‘344 And ‘966 Patents Because Activision Does Not
`Make, Use Or Sell The Accused Networks (CoD, Destiny).
`
`Plaintiff has only asserted direct infringement, so Plaintiff must show that Activision itself
`
`makes, uses, sells or offers to sell the patented inventions. The Asserted Claims of the ‘344 and ‘966
`
`patents claims a “computer network,” “a distributed game system” and “an information delivery
`
`service” (“System Claims”). Each of the System Claims require a “plurality of participants, each
`
`participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants.” ’344 pat., cls. 12-13; ’966
`
`pat., cls. 12-13. Plaintiff cannot show any direct infringement by Activision for the CoD and Destiny
`
`products because Activision itself does not make, use, sell or offer to sell these alleged inventions,
`
`and Plaintiff has not alleged indirect infringement. D.I. 1; see also D.I. 391 at 86. And, try as it
`
`might, Plaintiff cannot attribute third parties’ conduct to Activision because attribution does not
`
`apply to infringement of system claims. Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc., No. CV 14-183-RGA,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 16 of 63 PageID #: 38865
`
`2017 WL 3730617, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017). No matter what third parties do, that is not proof
`
`of direct infringement by Activision.
`
`A. Activision Does Not Make, Use, Or Sell The Accused “Destiny” Networks.
`
`Activision only sells the software for the Destiny game. Destiny is owned and operated by
`
`non-party Bungie—a completely different company not controlled by Activision.1 See Ex.E-3
`
`(Wolf.Tr.) 238:8 – 241:13. Plaintiff accuses two broadcast channel networks.
`
` Activision
`
`is not alleged to be a participant in either accused network.
`
`Activision does not “make,” “use,” “sell” or “offer to sell” the accused networks under
`
`§271(a). Selling software does not make a network by “combin[ing] all of the [networks’] claim
`
`elements.” Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011). Software is not a network and so Activision never sells “the entire invention as claimed in the
`
`patent.” Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Activision also
`
`does not “use” the accused networks because all it does is sell the Destiny software. “Supplying the
`
`software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.” Id. at 1286.
`
`B. Activision Does Not Make, Use, Or Sell The Accused “CoD” Networks.
`
`a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 17 of 63 PageID #: 38866
`
` Activision cannot be a direct infringer.
`
`Activision’s sale of software and operating computers outside the accused network is not making or
`
`selling the claimed network because Activision never “combine[s]” all of the claim elements or sells
`
`the entire invention. Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1288; Rotec, 215 F.3d. at 1252. Activision does not
`
`“use” the networks as required by 271(a) because selling software and operating computers outside
`
`the accused network is not “put[ting] the [networks] into service.” 631 F.3d at 1284. “Supplying the
`
`software for the customer to use is not the same as using the system.” Id. at 1286.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infringe. Activision does not make, sell or offer to sell the network because Activision does not
`
` But, even so, Activision does not
`
`“combine all of the claim elements” or sell the entire invention. Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1288.
`
`
`
`
`
` Indeed, the
`
`claims require at least 5 participants before an infringing network can be formed, yet Plaintiff
`
`presents no evidence that an Activision server ever completes the network by causing it to exceed 4
`
`participants.
`
`“[T]o ‘use’ a system for purposes
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 18 of 63 PageID #: 38867
`
`of infringement, a party must put the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and
`
`obtain benefit from it.” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284. Plaintiff never alleges Activision uses the
`
`accused network, nor could it. No single participant can “control the system as a whole” because the
`
`claims require the network to be incomplete and require action by multiple participants to send data
`
`in the claimed manner. See D.I. 387 at 15; Ex.A-3 (Med.Reply.) ¶545 (“The ‘344 and ‘966 Asserted
`
`Claims require that an originating participant send data to its neighbors and that they send data to
`
`their neighbors.”). Moreover, Plaintiff must “demonstrate that the direct infringer obtained ‘benefit’
`
`from each and every element of the claimed system.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). No single participant benefits
`
`from each and every connection and element of the networks.
`
`II. Activision Does Not Infringe The ’497 Patent Because It Does Not Make, Use Or Sell
`The Accused Hardware Component (CoD, Destiny).
`
`All asserted claims of the ‘497 patent require “a hardware component” including processors
`
`programmed to perform four different algorithms. D.I. 275 at 10-14; D.I. 423 at 20. Activision does
`
`not make, use, sell or offer to sell the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 466 Filed 02/13/18 Page 19 of 63 PageID #: 38868
`
`III.
`
`Activision Does Not Directly Infringe The Method Claims Because It Does Not Perform
`Any Of The Steps Alleged To Cause Infringement (CoD, Destiny).
`
`Method claims (’147, claim 1; ’069, claims 1, 11) are asserted against CoD and Destiny,
`
`only. Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that Activision itself performs any of the method steps.
`
`That