Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 1 of 59 PageID #: 42428
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS UNDER F.R.E. 702
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
` (212) 715-9100
`afrankel@kramerlevin.com
`
`Dated: February 23, 2018
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public version dated: March 7, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 2 of 59 PageID #: 42429
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘344, ‘966 and ‘497 Patents ................................................... 1
`
`A. Activision Infringes the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents By Making, Using and
`Selling the Accused Destiny and CoD Network Systems ................................... 1
`B.
`Activision Infringes the ‘497 Patent .................................................................... 5
`C. Activision is Deemed to Perform All Steps of the Method Claims .................... 6
`D. Activision Directly Infringes Through Testing and Use of the Accused
`Products ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘344, ‘966, ‘634, ‘147 and ‘069 Patents ................................. 8
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘069 and ‘634 Patents ......................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`CoD “identifies a pair of participants of the network that are connected”
`and “disconnects the participants of the identified pair from each other” ........ 15
`CoD Uses “fully connected” and “located portal computers” .......................... 15
`CoD sends an “edge connection request” to “randomly selected
`neighboring participants” .................................................................................. 15
`D. Destiny “identif[ies] a pair of participants of the network that are
`connected” and “disconnect[s] the participants of the identified pair
`from each other” ................................................................................................ 16
`Destiny sends an “edge connection request” to “randomly selected
`neighboring participants” .................................................................................. 16
`CoD and Destiny Also Infringe Under the DoE ............................................... 16
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`CoD and Destiny Infringe the ‘147 Patent .................................................................. 17
`
`CoD, Destiny and WoW Infringe the ‘497 Patent ...................................................... 18
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The Accused Products Repeatedly Try to Connect to a Portal Computer ........ 18
`CoD, Destiny and WoW use a “port ordering algorithm” ................................ 20
`
`VI.
`
`Activision Infringes Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ............................................ 21
`
`VII. Activision’s Foreign Sales Give Rise to Infringement ............................................... 23
`
`VIII. Acceleration Bay Can Prevail On Its Willful Infringement Claims ........................... 26
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`Acceleration Bay Moved to Correct the Asserted Claims of the ‘634 Patent ............ 26
`
`The ‘344, ‘966, ‘634, ‘147 and ‘069 Patents Are Valid under 35 U.S.C. § 112......... 27
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 3 of 59 PageID #: 42430
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The Specifications Explain That “M” Can Change........................................... 27
`The Asserted Patents Describe “Non-Routing Table Based” Systems &
`Methods ............................................................................................................. 29
`
`The ‘344, ‘966 and ‘497 Patents Are Valid Even if They Include Software .............. 31
`
`The “Computer Readable Medium” Claims Cover Statutory Subject Matter ............ 31
`
`XI.
`
`XII.
`
`XIII. Drs. Medvidović and Mitzenmacher Explained Their Infringement Opinions .......... 33
`
`XIV. The Opinions of Drs. Meyer, Bims and Valerdi Are Reliable.................................... 35
`
`A. Overview of the Damages Opinions at Issue .................................................... 35
`B.
`Dr. Meyer’s Opinions Regarding the Hypothetical Negotiation Date are
`Reliable .............................................................................................................. 38
`C.
`The Opinions of Drs. Meyer and Bims Regarding Uniloc are Reliable ........... 41
`D. Dr. Bims’ Opinion that the Relative Value of the Asserted Patents is 6-
`15 Times the Value of the Uniloc Patent is Reliable ........................................ 43
`Dr. Meyer Properly Apportioned the Royalty Base and Accounted for
`Future Infringement of the Patented Technology Through Patent Expiry ........ 45
`Dr. Valerdi’s Cost Opinion is Reliable ............................................................. 48
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 50
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 4 of 59 PageID #: 42431
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Louis M. Gerson Co.,
`No. 08-cv-4960, slip op. (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2011).................................................................43
`Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
`No. 15-CV-915-RGA, 2018 WL 620968 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) ...........................................26
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................28
`In re Beauregard,
`53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995)............................................................................................32, 33
`Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................22
`Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp.,
`270 F. Supp. 3d 967 (E.D. Tenn. 2017) .............................................................................23, 25
`Caserto v. Metro-N. R.R. Co.,
`No. 14-CV-7936 (JMF), 2016 WL 406390 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016) ........................................8
`Cassidian Commc’ns, Inc. v. microDATA GIS, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-00162-JRG, 2013 WL 12148459 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2013) ............................39
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................2, 3
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .......................................................................................3
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................32
`Decca Ltd. v. U.S.,
`210 Ct. Cl. 546 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ..................................................................................................24
`Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................31
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................45, 46
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................31
`Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................29
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1265009 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2015) ........................40, 41
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 5 of 59 PageID #: 42432
`
`Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).........................................................................................50
`Goulds’ Mfg. Co. v. Cowing,
`105 U.S. 253 (1881) .................................................................................................................23
`H.K. Porter Co. v. Gates Rubber Co.,
`No. C-3138, 1975 WL 21117 (D. Colo. Sept. 11, 1975) .........................................................28
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (O'Malley, J., concurring) .....................................................26
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 667 (D. Del. 2017) .........................................................................................39
`Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
`331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003), vacated 545 U.S. 193 (2005) .................................................41
`Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods., Inc.,
`228 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................28
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................41
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................32
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................33
`MiiCs & Partners, Inc. v. Funai Elec. Co.,
`No. CV 14-804-RGA, 2017 WL 6268072 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017) ..........................................39
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................2, 24
`In re Nujiten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................33
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`609 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................25
`Prism Techs. LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`No. 8:12CV122, 2014 WL 4843874 (D. Neb. Sept. 29, 2014) ...............................................43
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429, 199 L. Ed. 2d
`313 (2017) ................................................................................................................................43
`Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc.,
`No. CV 11-670-GMS, 2013 WL 12156529 (D. Del. May 2, 2013) ..........................................7
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l,
`No. 13 C 2082, 2017 WL 5171192 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2017) ...................................................39
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
`595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................22
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 6 of 59 PageID #: 42433
`
`Transcenic, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. CV 11-582-LPS, 2014 WL 7275835 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014) ............................................5
`Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp,
`877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................3, 6, 7
`TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2015) ...................................40
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA,
`No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWS (E.D. Tex.) (Dec. 5, 2014) ...................................................... passim
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................26
`Wishkin v. Potter,
`476 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................5
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................32, 33
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................................27, 28
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...........................................................................................................2, 3, 23, 24
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 7 of 59 PageID #: 42434
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC
`
`The Parties
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Opening Summary Judgment and Daubert Brief
`(D.I. 448)
`Activision Blizzard, Inc.
`
`Activision’s Brief in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment and
`Exclude Expert Opinions Under FRE 702 (D.I. 442)
`Declaration of Kathleen Barry in Support of Activision’s Motions for
`Summary Judgment and Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses
`(D.I. 443, 444)
`Electronic Arts, Inc.
`
`The “Asserted Patents”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 (Ex. 3)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 (Ex. 4)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (Ex. 63)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 (Ex. 64)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 (Ex. 65)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 (Ex. 22)
`
`The “Accused Products”
`
`Call of Duty: Black Ops III and Advanced Warfare
`
`Destiny
`
`World of Warcraft
`
`
`
`AB
`
`AB Br.
`
`Activision
`
`Def. Br.
`
`Barry Decl.
`
`EA
`
`‘344 Patent
`
`‘966 Patent
`
`‘634 Patent
`
`‘069 Patent
`
`‘147 Patent
`
`‘497 Patent
`
`CoD
`
`Destiny
`
`WoW
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 8 of 59 PageID #: 42435
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Expert Reports
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement by
`Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634;
`6,732,147; 6,714,966; 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated September 23, 2017
`(Ex. 40)
`Reply Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344;
`6,829,634; 6,732,147; 6,714,966; 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated December
`14, 2017 (Ex. 50)
`Supplemental Reply Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D.,
`Regarding Infringement by Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,732,147; 6,714,966; 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated
`January 5, 2018 (Ex. 44)
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement
`by Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634;
`6,732,147; 6,714,966, 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated September 23, 2017
`(Ex. 28)
`Reply Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344;
`6,829,634; 6,732,147; 6,714,966; 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated December
`14, 2017 (Ex. 35)
`Supplemental Reply Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.,
`Regarding Infringement by Activision Blizzard Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,732,147; 6,714,966; 6,920,497; 6,910,069, dated
`January 2, 2018 (Ex. 66)
`Expert Report of Michael Goodrich, Ph.D., Regarding Validity of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,732,147; 6,920,497;
`6,910,069, dated November 13, 2017 (Ex. 8)
`Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,701,344, 6,829,634, 6,732,147, 6,714,966, 6,920,497 and
`6,910,069, dated September 24, 2017 (Ex. 67)
`Reply Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 6,701,344, 6,829,634, 6,732,147, 6,714,966, 6,920,497 and
`6,910,069, dated December 14, 2017 (Ex. 68)
`Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D., dated September 25, 2017
`(Ex. 69)
`Reply Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D., dated December 14,
`2017 (Ex. 70)
`Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Regarding Cost Estimates, dated
`September 23, 2017 (Ex. 71)
`
`Med. Rpt.
`
`Med. Reply Rpt. or
`Reply
`
`Med. Supp. Rpt. or
`Supp.
`
`Mitz. Rpt.
`
`Mitz. Reply Rpt. or
`Reply
`
`Mitz. Supp. Rpt. or
`Supp.
`
`Goodrich Rpt.
`
`Bims Rpt.
`
`Bims Reply Rpt.
`
`Meyer Rpt.
`
`Meyer Reply Rpt.
`
`Valerdi Rpt.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 9 of 59 PageID #: 42436
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should deny Activision’s motions. Favoring quantity over quality, Activision
`
`moves for relief on 30 different grounds. D.I. 440; D.I. 4411. All are devoid of merit. In most
`
`instances, Activision’s shotgun approach offers little or no analysis beyond simply identifying an
`
`issue on which it seeks summary judgment. Activision ignores the considerable evidence of
`
`infringement and validity marshalled by AB and its experts and the triable issues of fact that
`
`evidence creates, thereby precluding summary judgment.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘344, ‘966 and ‘497 Patents
`
`A.
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents By Making, Using and Selling
`the Accused Destiny and CoD Network Systems
`
`Activision infringes the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents by making, using and selling the accused
`
`Destiny and CoD network systems, notwithstanding that its customers may own their own
`
`computers. The Asserted Claims of these Patents are directed to computer network systems. See,
`
`e.g., ‘344 Patent at Claims 1, 12, 13.2 AB’s experts provided unrebutted evidence that (1)
`
`Activision owns and controls the “Call of Duty applications” and “Destiny application programs”
`
`that execute on its customers’ computers to create and participate in the infringing networks; (2)
`
`Activision owns and controls the servers providing the networks, (3) Activision puts the systems
`
`into use and obtains the benefits of their use and (4) Activision masterminds and controls all
`
`aspects of the operation of the networks. Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 210-214, 227, 242, 247, 259, 270, 281,
`
`291, 298, 315, 328; Mitz. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 72-73; Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 322-331, 352-354, 357-359,
`
`373, 386-389, 403-405, 412-413, 441-446, 454-461, 467, 587-588, 595-637; Med. Reply Rpt. at
`
`1 All docket citations are to C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA).
`2 Exhibits 1-62 are to the February 2, 2018 Declaration of Paul J. Andre (D.I. 453, 454, 455).
`Exhibits 63-102 are to the February 23, 2018 Declaration of Paul J. Andre, submitted herewith.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 10 of 59 PageID #: 42437
`
`¶¶ 60-61. Activision’s non-infringement expert admitted most of these facts during his
`
`deposition. Ex. 72 (Macedonia Tr.) at e.g., 54:8-20, 55:22-58:3 (Activision owns the software
`
`creating the CoD networks), 56:18-57:20 (Activision’s customers can only play CoD under
`
`license from Activision and do not own the software).
`
`These facts, ignored by Activision, alone dictate denial of summary judgment because
`
`they are sufficient to create triable issues of fact that Activision “uses” the accused network
`
`systems under § 271(a). A party “uses” a system for purposes of infringement when it puts the
`
`invention into service by controlling the system as a whole and obtaining the benefit from it use.
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, based on
`
`the above facts, Activision puts the CoD and Destiny network systems into service by controlling
`
`them and obtaining the financial benefit from operating every element of the claims. For
`
`example, Activision exclusively owns and controls the software that participates in and forms the
`
`networks, provides the matchmaking servers that allows these participants to connect to the
`
`networks. Activision also obtains the financial benefits from operating the networks including
`
`sales of the games and the additional revenues generated through in-game transactions.3
`
`Activision’s reliance on Centillion to argue that it does not “use” the accused network
`
`system is misplaced. There, the Federal Circuit found that defendant Qwest did not “use” the
`
`claimed system because Qwest conceded that its customers maintained and controlled the “front-
`
`end” portion of the claimed system and Qwest, therefore, did not put into service the system as a
`
`whole. Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1281, 1287
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011). Based on the facts discussed above, that is not the case here as Activision owns
`
`3 Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 77-78, 80, 198, 210-214, 227, 242, 247, 259, 270, 281, 291, 298, 315, 328, 394;
`Mitz. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 72-73, 135, 146, 229, 284, 355-356, 391; Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 289-291, 322-
`331, 352-354, 357-359, 373, 386-389, 403-405, 412-413, 441-446, 454-461, 467, 482, 587-588,
`595-637; Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 60-61.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 11 of 59 PageID #: 42438
`
`and controls the software participating in the network.
`
`Moreover, the Court already rejected the premise of Activision’s motion — that
`
`Activision can escape infringement by pointing to its customers’ computers. Specifically,
`
`Defendants argued that these claims are indefinite for supposedly requiring third parties to
`
`perform actions (in addition to being system claims). D.I. 386 at 22-23. The Court found
`
`instead that “the claims do not ‘claim activities performed by the user’ or make any reference to
`
`a ‘user.’ … Rather, they claim a network in which participants are configured to send data to
`
`their neighbors.” Id. The configured “participants” are Activision’s software. Thus, Centillion
`
`does not apply here because Activision controls the whole claimed system.
`
`Activision also infringes these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by “making” the
`
`infringing system through compiling the source code that configures the accused networks to
`
`infringe. See CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 985, 994 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
`
`(infringing software is made “when expressed and stored as machine-readable object code, e.g.
`
`burned on a CD–ROM or written to a server hard drive such that it is capable of being
`
`downloaded from the internet…[and the] software become an actual, physical component
`
`amenable to combination.”) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 127 S.Ct. 1736, 1756
`
`(2007)).
`
`Furthermore, to the extent the Activision’s end-users’ computers are required for there to
`
`be infringement under the “using” or “making” prongs of § 271(a), Activision is vicariously
`
`liable for its customers’ actions because it conditions their use of the accused software on their
`
`use of the infringing network system, as discussed in more detail in Section I(C). Travel Sentry,
`
`Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Studios Inc.
`
`v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) (“an actor
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 12 of 59 PageID #: 42439
`
`‘infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement’ if that actor has the right and ability
`
`to stop or limit the infringement”). AB’s experts provide ample evidence confirming that the
`
`actions of Activision’s customers are attributed to Activision, including through Activision’s
`
`complete control of their use of Activision’s software pursuant to the license agreements. Med.
`
`Rpt. at ¶¶ 322-326; Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 210-215; Section I(C) infra.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concedes,
`
` Finally, as its expert
`
`
`
` Mitz. Rpt. at ¶ 211; Ex. 75 (Wolfson Tr.) at
`
`237:16-238:8, 105:8-108:19, 177:14-178:21; Ex. 76 (Kirk Tr.) at 24:14-25:11, 30:15-21,108:3-
`
`109:20, 35:9-36:4; Ex. 72 (Macedonia Tr.) at 179:17-20.
`
`Another reason to deny summary judgment is that, to the extent literal infringement
`
`requires Activision to “make,” “use” and/or “sell” the computers running the software that forms
`
`the network, Activision still infringes under the Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE). Activision owns
`
`the software that creates the networks, even when a customer purchases a license to use it.4
`
`4 Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 77-78, 80, 198, 210-214, 227, 242, 247, 259, 270, 281, 291, 298, 315, 328, 394;
`Mitz. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 72-73, 135, 146, 229, 284, 355-356, 391; Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 289-291, 322-
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 13 of 59 PageID #: 42440
`
`Software that is run on computers to create a network is equivalent to computers running
`
`software to provide the same network because it is the exact same software providing the
`
`identical function, in the identical way to yield an identical network. Mitz. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 69-
`
`73; Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 76-84.
`
`For all of these reasons, a “reasonable juror, taking all the evidence in the light most
`
`favorable to [AB] . . . could find” infringement, and the Court should deny Activision’s motion
`
`for summary judgment. Transcenic, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. CV 11-582-LPS, 2014 WL
`
`7275835, at *3 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2014); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007).
`
`B.
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘497 Patent
`
`There are triable issues of fact as to Activision’s infringement of the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ‘497 Patent. The asserted claims are directed to a “component in a computer system” made
`
`up of four means, which the Court construed as a processor programmed to perform algorithms.
`
`See, e.g., D.I. 275 at 5-6. To the extent these claims require the use of a processor that executes
`
`the infringing software, for the reasons discussed above, Activision is deemed both to (1) put that
`
`processor into use and (2) be liable for the actions of its customers who use those computers.
`
`These are two independent factual grounds on which to find that Activision literally infringes.
`
`Additionally, Activision’s software, which is designed to be run on a processor, is, at a
`
`minimum, the equivalent to a processor running the software because the software provides the
`
`exact same functionality that a processor running the software provides, in the same way to yield
`
`the same result. Mitz. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 133-134; Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶ 123. Thus, DoE further
`
`precludes summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`331, 352-354, 357-359, 373, 386-389, 403-405, 412-413, 441-446, 454-461, 467, 482, 587-588,
`595-637; Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 60-61.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 14 of 59 PageID #: 42441
`
`C.
`
`Activision is Deemed to Perform All Steps of the Method Claims
`
`Activision directly infringes method claims 1 of the ‘147 Patent and 1 and 11 of the ‘069
`
`Patent because it owns and controls the software that performs the method steps and because the
`
`actions of its publisher Bungie and its customers are deemed performed by Activision.
`
`First, as noted above, Activision itself owns the software that performs the steps of these
`
`claims. Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 210-216, 227, 242, 247, 259, 270, 281, 291, 298, 315, 328; Mitz. Reply
`
`Rpt. at ¶¶ 72-73; Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 322-331, 352, 373, 386, 403, 412, 441, 455, 467, 588, 596;
`
`Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 60-61. For example, the CoD software that Activision owns “send[s] a
`
`disconnect message” and “broadcasts a connection port search message.” Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 440-
`
`450, 475-476. Thus, Activision infringes these method claims by performing these steps itself.
`
`Second, even if a fact-finder were to conclude that Activision’s customers, not
`
`Activision’s software perform these steps, Activision is liable under the joint infringement
`
`doctrine because it (1) “conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon
`
`performance of a step of a patented method” and (2) “establishes the manner or timing of that
`
`performance.” Travel Sentry, 877 F.3d at 1378 (citation omitted). “Whether a single actor
`
`directed or controlled the acts of one or more third parties is a question of fact . . . .” Id. at 1378
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Here, the facts establish that Activision infringes vicariously because it conditions
`
`participation in the accused CoD and Destiny games on its customers’ use of Activision’s
`
`software and entry into a license agreement. Mitz. Rpt. at ¶ 213; Med. Rpt. at ¶ 325.
`
`Activision’s customers are not allowed to modify the software or provide their own
`
`matchmaking services. Mitz. Rpt. at e.g., ¶¶ 210-215; Med. Rpt. at e.g., ¶¶ 322-325. The
`
`customers can thus only participate in the games by taking a license and using Activision’s
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 15 of 59 PageID #: 42442
`
`infringing software that performs the patented method and through which Activision precisely
`
`controls the manner of its customers’ performance of the steps, preventing its customers from
`
`having any choice in how these functions are performed. Id. Finally, Activision directly profits
`
`from its customers’ use of the accused products and can “stop or limit” infringement at any time
`
`by revoking its customers’ license and suspending their access to the infringing multiplayer
`
`networks. Thus, Activision is vicariously liable for its customers actions, and is deemed to itself
`
`perform the infringing method steps.
`
`D.
`
`Activision Directly Infringes Through Testing and Use of the Accused
`Products
`
`Activision further directly infringes through its use of the Accused Products including
`
`testing, development and gameplay. Mitz. Rpt. at ¶¶ 299-300; Med. Rpt. at ¶¶ 322-324; Segan
`
`LLC v. Zynga Inc., No. CV 11-670-GMS, 2013 WL 12156529, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. May 2, 2013)
`
`(accused infringer’s “accessing of its own games is sufficient” to constitute “use” under 271(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This evidence that Activision (not
`
`surprisingly) tests and uses its own products precludes summary judgment.
`
`Moreover, Activision strains credulity in implying (but not going as far as to represent)
`
`that its employees may have never tested, developed or used the accused products. Common
`
`sense alone permits a jury to make the reasonable inference that it is impossible that Activision
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 491 Filed 03/07/18 Page 16 of 59 PageID #: 42443
`
`developed, released and maintained these products without using and testing them. See Caserto
`
`v. Metro-N. R.R. Co., No. 14-CV-7936 (JMF), 2016 WL 406390, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2016)
`
`(relying on “common sense” and reasonable jury inferences to deny summary judgment).
`
`II.
`
`Activision Infringes the ‘344, ‘966, ‘634, ‘147 and ‘069 Patents
`
`Relying on expert analysis, source code, and the admissions of Activision’s witnesses and
`
`documents, AB demonstrated that the overwhelming evidence of infringement entitles AB to
`
`summary judgment that each of the Accused Products satisfies each of the three elements at issue
`
`in Activision’s Motion (as well as the additional elements of Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent). AB
`
`Br. at 18-24 (Destiny), 24-28 (CoD), 29-32 (WoW). At a minimum, this evidence is sufficient to
`
`create triable issues of fact and to permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that Activision
`
`satisfies each of these elements.
`
`WoW: Dr. Medvidović demonstrates with ample evidence that WoW uses non-complete,
`
`m-regular broadcast channels to broadcast data. See AB Br. at 30-31 (collecting evidence); Med.
`
`Rpt. at ¶¶ 204-214, 219-222, 231-242, Med. Reply Rpt. at ¶¶ 350-360, 386-396.
`
`
`
`
`
` Instead, Activision argues incorrectly, and
`
`without explanation, that the broadcast channels are transient and coincidental. To the contrary,
`
`Dr. Medvidović explains that these networks are specifically configured to be m-regular and
`
`incomplete by the