Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 63 PageID #: 42872
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS
`
`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 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 63 PageID #: 42873
`
`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
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`Original Filing Date: February 23, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: March 8, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 63 PageID #: 42874
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion for all Accused Games Fails For Several
`Fundamental Reasons. ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`Destiny Does Not Infringe Claims 12 of the ’344 Patent. ...................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Destiny is Not “Configured to Maintain” an “M-Regular” State. .............. 2
`
`Destiny Does Not Meet the Broadcast/Re-Broadcast Limitations of
`Claim 12 of the ’344 Patent. ....................................................................... 4
`
`Destiny Does Not Have a “Broadcast Channel.” ........................................ 6
`
`B.
`
`Call of Duty Does Not Infringe Claims 12 of the ’344 Patent. ............................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Show “Each Participant Having
`Connections to At Least Three Neighbor Participants” for Call of
`Duty............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Call of Duty is Not “Configured to Maintain” an “M-Regular” and
`“Incomplete” State. ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Call of Duty Does Not Meet the Broadcast/Re-Broadcast
`Limitations of Claim 12 of the ’344 Patent. ............................................. 11
`
`Call of Duty Does Not Have a “Broadcast Channel.” .............................. 14
`
`C. World of Warcraft Does Not Infringe Claims 12 of the ’344 Patent. ................... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`WoW is Not “Configured to Maintain” an “M-Regular” State. ............... 15
`
`WoW Does Not Meet the Broadcast/Re-Broadcast Limitations of
`Claim 12 of the ’344 Patent. ..................................................................... 17
`
`WoW Does Not Have a “Broadcast Channel.” ......................................... 18
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Of Validity should be denied. ......................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Is Not Entitled To Summary Judgment of Validity. ............................... 18
`
`Plaintiff’s Estoppel Arguments Lack Merit. ......................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`There is No Estoppel based on Age of Empires. ...................................... 19
`
`There is No Estoppel on DirectPlay. ......................................................... 20
`
`There is No Estoppel On Alagar. .............................................................. 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 63 PageID #: 42875
`
`C.
`
`Defendants May Present Invalidity Grounds That Were Not Addressed In
`A Final Written Decision. ..................................................................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Shoubridge And Claim 12 Of The ’344 And ’966 Patents. ...................... 24
`
`The PTAB’s Preliminary Determination Regarding Shoubridge,
`Dénes, and Rufino Does Not Warrant Summary Judgment of
`Validity. .................................................................................................... 25
`
`The PTAB’s Preliminary Determination Regarding the DirectPlay
`Book Does Not Warrant Summary Judgment. ......................................... 25
`
`Summary Judgment of Validity of the ’069 Patent Over the
`Obraczka Thesis, Shoubridge, and Dénes is Improper. ............................ 26
`
`D.
`
`Alagar Alone or In Combination With Other References Renders Obvious
`an M-Regular, Incomplete Network. .................................................................... 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Does Not Address Each of Defendants’ Alagar-Based
`Invalidity Proofs. ....................................................................................... 28
`
`Plaintiff Incorrectly Applies The Law of Obviousness And Takes
`Far Too Narrow A View of The Record Related to Alagar. ..................... 28
`
`Plaintiff’s Arguments About AoE (or DirectPlay) In View of
`Alagar Are Inadequate To Support Summary Judgment. ......................... 30
`
`E.
`
`Kegel And ActiveNet Were Both Publicly Accessible Before The Filing
`Date. ...................................................................................................................... 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Kegel was publicly accessible by 1999 and was actively being
`discussed showing it was disseminated and accessible to those
`skilled in the art. ........................................................................................ 31
`
`ActiveNet Was In Public Use and On Sale More Than a Year
`Before the ’497 Patent Was Filed and Is Prior Art. .................................. 32
`
`III. Ms. Lawton’s Opinions Should Not Be Excluded. ........................................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 63 PageID #: 42876
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`151 F.Supp.3d 778 (N.D. Ohio 2015) ......................................................................................19
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................36, 37
`AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................36
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................32
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................50
`Carnegie Mellon University. v Marvell Technology Grp., Ltd.,
`2012 WL 6562221 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2012)....................................................................49, 50
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................19
`Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P.,
`2015 WL 4730899 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015) ............................................................................34
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..........................................................................................48, 50
`Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`2016 WL 8677317 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016) ...................................................................19, 20, 34
`Digital Control, Inc. v. Charles Mach. Works,
`437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................27
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC,
`2017 WL 2116714 (W.D. Wis. May 15, 2017) .................................................................22, 24
`EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Del. 2016) ...........................................................................................47
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................42
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................24, 25
`FMC Techs., Inc. v. Edwards,
`2007 WL 1725098 (W.D. Wash. June 12, 2007).....................................................................40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 63 PageID #: 42877
`
`Fromson v. W. Litho Plate and Supply Co.,
`853 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................38
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`2015 WL 1265009 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) ...................................................................36, 37
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................48
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .....................................................................................................................28
`
`Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.,
`470 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D. Del. 2007) .........................................................................................46
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp.,
`2017 WL 107980 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2017) ................................................................................23
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp.,
`221 F.Supp.3d 534 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2016) ............................................................................23
`
`Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro,
`894 F. Supp. 819 (D. Del. 1995) ..............................................................................................35
`
`L.A. Biomedical Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................21, 30
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F3d. 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................38, 39, 44
`
`MiiCs & Partners, Inc. v. Funai Elec. Co.,
`2017 WL 6268072 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017) ...............................................................................41
`
`Monsanto Co. v. David,
`516 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................46
`
`In re NTP,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................31
`
`Oil-Dri Corp. of Am. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.,
`2017 WL 3278915 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2017) ............................................................................24
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`2017 WL 1045912 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) .............................................................................23
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Ent. Inc.,
`2017 WL 6290637 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2017) .......................................................................20, 23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 63 PageID #: 42878
`
`Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc.,
`817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................19, 23
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`650 F. Supp. 2d 900 (D. Minn. 2009) ......................................................................................46
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................19
`
`Syntex Pharms. Intern., Ltd. v. K-Line Pharms., Ltd.,
`905 F.2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................18
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................41
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................42
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.,
`698 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................31
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993)......................................................................................34, 38, 44
`
`Wordtech Sys. Inc. v. Integrated Network Solutions, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................39
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..............................................................................................................................19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................................19, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................19, 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .........................................................................................................................28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) .........................................................................................................................19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...................................................................................................................21, 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .........................................................................................................18, 19, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) .........................................................................................................................24
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 63 PageID #: 42879
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page8 of 63 PagelD #: 42879
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`US. Pat No. 6701344 DL 1, Ext
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,714,966 (D.I.
`
`1, Ex.2)
`
`966 patent
`
`
`Judgment Of Infringement
`
`OPPOSITION DECLARATIONS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration Of David R. Karger, Ph.D, In Support Of Defendants’
`Opposition To Acceleration Bay’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of
`Validity and Exhibits A (Excerpts of Expert Report of David R. Karger)
`and B (Excerpts of Reply Expert Report of David R. Karger)
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Karger Opp.Decl.
`
`Declaration of Daniel R. Kegel In Support of Defendants Opposition To|Kegel Opp.Decl.
`Acceleration Bay’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of Validity and
`Attachments 1-18
`
`Declaration Of Dr. John P. J. Kelly In Support Of Defendant Activision|Kelly Opp.Decl.
`Blizzard Inc.’s Opposition to Acceleration Bay’s Motion For Summary
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 63 PageID #: 42880
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 63 PagelD #: 42880
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`
`
`
`A-11|Additional Source Code Printouts for World of Warcraft Add.WoW.Code
`
`
`(“WoW”)
`
`Expert Report of Dr. John P. J. Kelly regarding non-infringement|Kelly.Rpt.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Letter Brief to Special Master in Opposition|Letter.Brf.
`to Activision’s Motion to Compel, dated July 12, 2017
`
`INVALIDITY AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`B-5___|
`
`Excerpts of Expert Report of Scott Bennett
`
`Excerpts of Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In|Obraczka Thesis
`Wide Area Internetworks” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern
`California, December 1994)
`
`Excerpts of Expert Report ofNenad Medvidovic, Ph.D,
`Regarding Infringement By Take-TwoInteractive Software,Inc.,
`Rockstar Games,Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966
`
`Med.Rpt(T2)
`
`DAMAGES AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Bims’ IPR Dec.
`
`Lawton Rpt.
`
`' This Opposition cites to a numberofexhibits already provided with Defendant Activision Blizzard,
`Inc.’s Brief In Support of Its Motions for Summary Judgment and Exclude Expert Opinions Under
`FRE 702. D.I. 442. Therefore, this Opposition will continue the numbering from that brief. Citations
`to Exhibits A-1 to A-10 will refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 443.
`
`? See Footnote 1. Citations to Exhibits B-1 to B-4 will refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 443.
`
`3 See Footnote 1. Citations to Exhibits C-1 to C-5 will refer to the exhibits filed at DI. 444.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 63 PageID #: 42881
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 63 PagelD #: 42881
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`fe[poei
`
`
`
`E-20|Additional Transcript Excerpts of the Deposition of Kurtis Add.McCath.Tr.
`
`
`McCathern
`
`Additional Transcript Excerpts of the Deposition of Patrick
`Dawson
`
`Add.Dawson.Tr.
`
`Transcript Excerpts of the Deposition of Catharine Lawton
`
`E-23|Transcript Excerpts of the Deposition of Patrick Conlin
`
`E-24|Additional Transcript Excerpts of the Deposition of Nenad Add.Med.Tr.
`
`
`Medvidovic
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`ae[powSSC*d
`
`1999 Microsoft readmefile for Age of Empires
`
`AoE.Readme
`
`Final Decision
`
`F-8
`
`IPR2015-01972, Final Decision
`
`IPR2015-01972,
`
`4 See Footnote 1. Citations to Exhibits E-1 to E-15 will refer to the exhibits filed at DI. 444.
`
`> See Footnote 1. Citations to Exhibits F-1 to F-6 will refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 444.
`
`vill
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 11 of 63 PageID #: 42882
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Acceleration Bay has moved for summary judgment of infringement of claim 12 of the ’344
`
`patent and for validity in view of a number of different prior art grounds, and has also moved to
`
`exclude expert testimony of Catherine M. Lawton. D.I. 439. As explained below in Activision’s
`
`opposition brief, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motions.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION FOR ALL ACCUSED GAMES
`FAILS FOR SEVERAL FUNDAMENTAL REASONS.
`
`Plaintiff’s own admissions and the undisputed facts establish noninfringement as to all
`
`accused games. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion presents no evidence to the contrary. Instead,
`
`Plaintiff only provides ipse dixit conclusions of its experts, which reference literally hundreds of
`
`pages of source code for each of the three accused games with no analysis. Providing nothing but
`
`bare expert conclusions, without evidence or explanation, warrants a finding of summary judgment
`
`against Plaintiff and is certainly not sufficient for entry of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
`
`But even if all these expert conclusions were accepted, they are not sufficient to establish a
`
`credible claim for infringement under the Court’s constructions. Indeed, Plaintiff and its experts fail
`
`to allege (let alone prove) that key limitations are met by the accused games. For example, Plaintiff
`
`admits that the Accused “WoW Server to Server Network” does not meet the broadcast channel
`
`limitation. Nor can it prove that any network broadcast channels in the accused networks are
`
`configured to maintain an m-regular and non-complete topology. At best, Plaintiff presents limited
`
`hypotheticals that depend on factors not configured by the games, such as player location. Plaintiff
`
`has not identified a broadcast channel for any of the accused games where every participant receives
`
`all data broadcasted on the channel. For the accused Call of Duty games (“CoD”), Plaintiff has failed
`
`to identify even a single exemplary configuration that meets the limitations of claim 12 of the ’344
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 12 of 63 PageID #: 42883
`
`patent. As another example, Plaintiff cannot show the games perform “broadcasting” and
`
`“rebroadcasting” as required by claim 12. Instead, Plaintiff only alleges that the accused games
`
`perform some form of “relaying.” This is insufficient on its face.
`
`Further, for Destiny and CoD, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of any acts of
`
`direct infringement by Activision. As explained in Activision’s motion for summary judgment,
`
`Activision does not own or operate the accused Destiny networks and for both CoD and Destiny,
`
`Activision cannot infringe directly through mere sale of software. See D.I. 442, 3-6  
`
`A.
`
`Destiny Does Not Infringe Claims 12 of the ’344 Patent.
`1.
`
`Destiny is Not “Configured to Maintain” an “M-Regular” State.
`
`Plaintiff cannot show that Destiny is “configured to maintain” a state “where each participant
`
`is connected to exactly m neighbor participants” as required by claim 12 of the ’344 patent. D.I. 287,
`
`5. Plaintiff asserts that Destiny is configured to be m-regular “through a variety of constants and
`
`rules that limit the maximum number of connections each participant has.” D.I. 448 (Plaintiff’s
`
`Brief, hereinafter “Br.”), 22. Even if true, imposing a maximum limit on the number of connections
`
`does not meet the m-regularity requirement: a limit allows a permissible range of one up to the limit,
`
`but the claim requires that each participant be configured to have exactly m neighbors. Plaintiff’s
`
`arguments, even if accepted, do not meet the claim limitation.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff fails to offer any explanation to support its contention that there is such a
`
`limit, instead relying on a series of conclusory statements by its expert, Dr. Mitzenmacher, which are
`
`followed by a listing of literally hundreds page of Destiny source code without any analysis
`
`whatsoever. See e.g., D.I. 489, Ex. 28 (Exhibits to Plaintiff’s Brief, hereinafter “Pl’s Ex.”), ¶¶129,
`
`151-52, and 154. For example, in his expert report, Dr. Mitzenmacher states that the source code he
`
`identifies “show[s] rules, data distribution, configurations, constants and optimizations that cause the
`
`Destiny Network to become m-regular.” Id., ¶129. Nowhere does he explain how this code allegedly
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 13 of 63 PageID #: 42884
`
`configures Destiny to “maintain” a state where each participant has exactly m connections to other
`
`participants. See id. This is unsurprising because, as discussed in Activision’s motion for summary
`
`judgment, Destiny does not contain code that configures the game to maintain an m-regular state as
`
`required by of claim 12 of the ’344 patent. See D.I. 442, 19-22.
`
`Plaintiff also argues that Destiny is allegedly “m-regular” because it
`
`
`
`
`
`configures Destiny to be m-regular, but also the cited support for these conclusions does not even
`
` Br. 23. Not only does Plaintiff fail to explain how this
`
`show that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Pl's Ex. 33, 83:21-85:20. In fact, as explained in Activision’s summary judgment motion,
`
`Destiny does not function this way. See D.I. 442, 19-22.
`
`In another example, Plaintiff argues that various
`
`
`
`
`
`See Br. 22-23. But Plaintiff never even attempts to explain how this purportedly configures Destiny
`
`to be “m-regular.” In addition, Plaintiff argues that testing shows connections between player’s game
`
`consoles, but Plaintiff did not argue – nor could it – that this testing showed that Destiny was “m-
`
`regular.” See Br. 23-24. The technician, Mr. Conlin, who ran the testing confirmed that he did not
`
`test for m-regularity because Plaintiff’s counsel did not ask him to do so. See Conlin.Tr. (Ex. E-23),
`
`139:4-141:6, 141:19-142:15, 143:2-144:3.
`
`Plaintiff contrived hypothetical examples of its two “networks,” e.g.,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 14 of 63 PageID #: 42885
`
`Pe See Br. 21; Kelly Opp.Decl., §§30-41. In support of
`
`its “m-regular” argument, Plaintiffpoints to testimony by an Activision expert,po
`
`Po This is exactly the situation the plaintiff disclaimed in Alagar —
`
`where a network appears m-regular by chance decisionsofthe participants andis not a state that the
`
`Destiny gameis “configured to maintain.” See Kelly Opp.Decl., 4930-41.Po
`
`2.
`
`Destiny Does Not Meet the Broadcast/Re-Broadcast Limitations of Claim
`12 of the ’344 Patent.
`
`Destiny does not meet the broadcast/re-broadcast limitations of claim 12 requiring that an
`
` n addition, Plaintiff has presented no evidencethat the configurations shownin Figures
`
`1 and 2 have everactually occurred.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 15 of 63 PageID #: 42886
`
`originating participant send data through “each of its connections” and that each participant that
`
`receives data “rebroadcasts the received data to its other neighbor participants.” D.I. 386, 21.
`
`Plaintiff does not explain, for either “network” (Figures 1 and 2), how data originating (broadcasted)
`
`from one participant would be sent out on each of that participant’s connections or how that same
`
`data would be re-broadcasted by each recipient of the data to its other neighbor participants. Plaintiff
`
`has never cited any evidence that this occurs in the accused games, because it doesn’t. Instead,
`
`Plaintiff points to the alleged
`
`. See Br. 21-22.
`
`Neither of these scenarios utilizes broadcasting/re-broadcasting as the claim requires.
`
`In Destiny, none of the participants identified by Plaintiff (either players or hosts) send the
`
`same data (i.e., “broadcast”) to multiple recipient participants on each of the originating participant’s
`
`connections. See Kelly Opp.Decl., ¶¶42-44; see also §I.B.3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
` “relay” argument does not meet the claim limitation. Plaintiff cites
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Kelly Opp.Decl., ¶44.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 16 of 63 PageID #: 42887
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 16 of 63 PagelD #: 42887
`
`Plaintiff also argues, apparently for both accused “networks,”that “participants send data to
`
`their neighborparticipants whothenrelay the data to their neighborparticipants.”’ Br. 20. But, in
`
`Destiny,
`
`eeSee id. During his deposition, Dr. Mitzenmacher
`
`could not explain — using Figure 1 — how eachparticipant relays or “rebroadcasts [] data to its other
`
`neighborparticipants” as required by the claim. See Ex. E-14 (Mitz.Tr.) 74:20-76:3; 79:5-80:6. This
`
`is not surprising becauseit never happens.Plaintiffcannot show that Destiny meets the broadcast/re-
`
`broadcastlimitations of claim 12 of the 344 patent.
`
`3.
`
`Destiny Does Not Have a “Broadcast Channel.”
`
`Plaintiff does not even attempt to explain how Destiny allegedly meets the Court’s
`
`construction for “broadcast channel.”Participants in Destiny do not“receive[] a// data broadcasted
`
`on the communications network”as required by the Court’s construction. Plaintiffs citations to Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s expert report for “broadcast channel” are unavailing as Dr. Mitzenmacher never
`
`explains how Destiny purportedly meets the “broadcast channel”limitation. See Pl's Ex. 28, §§158-
`
`7 Plaintiff also argues that Destin Plaintiff's citation to Dr. Mitzenmacher’s
`
`expert report provides no further explanation and only identifies dozens of pages of source code
`without any analysis. See Pl's Ex. 28, 4126.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 17 of 63 PageID #: 42888
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 17 of 63 PagelD #: 42888
`
`60, 77-83, 90-94. Instead, he identifies dozens of pages of source code without any analysis, and
`
`merely contendsthat players in Destiny are connected and send data. See id. That is not a broadcast.
`
`Plaintiffargues that “broadcasted gameplay data are receivedbyall ofthe participants in that
`
`network.” See Br. 24. The Court specified that “[t]he specification teachesthat‘[t]he broadcasting of
`
`a messageoverthe ‘broadcast channel’ is a ‘multicast.’ Multicasting is a term of art which means
`
`that each participant on the multicast channel receives the same data.” D.I. 387, 15-16 (emphasis
`
`cL)rs
`
`cin
`
`construction requires each interconnected participant to “receive[] a// data broadcasted on the
`
`communications network” D.I. 387, 15-16. A POSITA would not understand this to meet the
`
`Court’s requirement for “each” interconnected participant to receive the “same data.” See Kelly
`
`Opp.Decl., §§43-44. Destiny does not meet the “broadcast channel”limitation. See D.I. 387, 15-16.
`
`B.
`
`Call of Duty Does Not Infringe Claims12 of the ’344 Patent.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Show “Each Participant Having Connectionsto
`At Least Three Neighbor Participants” for Call of Duty
`
`Connectivity Graph Network.* Thereis no requirementin the gamethateach “participant”in
`
`Plaintiffs “Connectivity Graph Network” have connectionsto at least three neighborparticipants,
`
`and Plaintiff provides no such example. Plaintiff alleges for the so-called Connectivity Graph
`
`Network, “each player’s computer attempts to form connections with the other participants in the
`
`
`
`
` creations of Plaintiff, which coined these terms for use1n this litigation.
`
`
`
`Both “networks”are
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 18 of 63 PageID #: 42889
`
`multiplayer online game session.” Br. 25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus,
`
`the Connectivity Graph Network does not meet this limitation.
`
`Game Play Logics Network. Plaintiff offers no evidence that this limitation is met for its
`
`Game Play Logics network, nor could it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no requirement that each game client
`
`connect to at least three other participants. Plaintiff cites to parts of Medvidovic’s reports, but those
`
`do not demonstrate that each of the participants has at least 3 connections. Br. 25.
`
`2.
`
`Call of Duty is Not “Configured to Maintain” an “M-Regular” and
`“Incomplete” State.
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations are Mathematically Impossible. Neither of Plaintiff’s accused
`
`networks can be configured to be m-regular and incomplete as required by the claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 19 of 63 PageID #: 42890
`
`“
`
`
`
`. See D.I. 387, 12 (“[T]he
`
`number of network participants N ... is always greater than the number of connections m to each
`
`participant. … In fact, under the '344 patent claims, N must always be m+2 or greater: N>m+2. This
`
`network topology, where no node is connected to every other node, is an incomplete graph.")
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Plaintiff’s Connectivity Graph Network, the participants are the “Call of Duty application
`
`programs executing on client computers” – in other words, the CoD game application executing on
`
`the players’ computers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. The Court held that the
`
`plaintiff’s arguments to the PTAB that “any complete graph structure be avoided and replaced” were
`
`binding and construed the claim to require the “graph is configured to maintain a non-complete
`
`state.” D.I. 387, 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 20 of 63 PageID #: 42891
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 494 Filed 03/08/18 Page 20 of 63 PagelD #: 42891
`
`ee
`
`ee
`
`Plaintiff’s Arguments Failfor Other Reasons. Plaintiff argues, apparently for both ofits
`
`accused “networks,” that CoD is c