Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 43101
`
`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)
`
`DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. KEGEL
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’OPPOSITION TO ACCELERATION BAY’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF VALIDITY
`
`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
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Original Filing Date: February 23, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: March 8, 2018
`
`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
`
`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
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 43102
`
`I, Daniel R. Kegel, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts discussed herein.
`
`If called upon to testify to these facts, I will testify to these facts fully and completely.
`
`2.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s of Science in Engineering and Applied Science and Biology
`
`from the California Institute of Technology (“CalTech”) in 1986. From 1995 to 1999, I was a
`
`senior programmer at Activision in Santa Monica, California. At Activision, I had responsibility
`
`for designing and implementing portable multiplayer networking code for games on the Win 95,
`
`Linux, MS-Dos, and MacOS platforms.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained as a consultant by Winston & Strawn LLP on behalf of its
`
`clients Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K
`
`Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. I am being paid my usual hourly rate regardless of the
`
`substance of my testimony. I have no financial interest in the outcome of these proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`THE NAT ARTICLE
`
`4.
`
`I have maintained a website on the CalTech alumni servers since at least 1998. The
`
`address of my website was www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/.1 Prior to July 30, 1999, I had posted
`
`to my website an article called “NAT and Peer-to-peer networking.” NAT is a commonly used
`
`acronym
`
`for Network Address Translators.
`
` The url
`
`for
`
`the
`
`article was:
`
`www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html. In this declaration, I will refer to this article as the
`
`NAT Article.
`
`1 At some point in time, CalTech started hosting alumni content on alumnus.caltech.edu and
`reserved the alumni.caltech.edu domain for the Alumni Association. As I recall, there was a
`security issue with the old servers which prompted the migration of sites to the new server.
`Nevertheless, visiting the alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/ site would have redirected to my website
`hosted on alumnus.caltech.edu until recently.
` Currently, my website
`is hosted on
`alumnus.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 43103
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Attachment 1 is an affidavit of Christopher Butler Office Manager at
`
`the Internet Archive and a copy of my NAT Article as it existed on April 20, 1999. Attached as
`
`Attachment 2 is a copy of my NAT Article as it existed on July 17, 1999. I made minor changes
`
`to my NAT Article between its posting in December 1998 and July 17, 1999. The changes were
`
`primarily to report on research that I had continued to conduct using my technique on various NAT
`
`configurations and using different commercially-available NAT devices. Nevertheless, both
`
`versions of my NAT Article describe the same general technique despite some differences between
`
`the two versions. I don’t recall making any changes to my NAT Article after July 17, 1999.
`
`6.
`
`It was my practice to change the “[l]ast updated” date at the bottom of my web page
`
`to accurately reflect when I modified the NAT Article. I followed this practice when I dated
`
`Attachment 1 on January 29th, 1999. I also followed this practice when I dated Attachment 2 on
`
`July 17th, 1999. It was also my practice to post the updated web page and content on the same
`
`day that I revised the “[l]ast updated” designation on the page. Therefore, the version of my
`
`webpage indicating it was last updated on July 17, 1999 would have been posted on the servers
`
`and available to the public as of that date, consistent with my practice of updating my website.
`
`Moreover, the “[l]ast updated” designation links to a log that recorded the dates and times for when
`
`I revised the article. See Attachment 2, BENNETT_000229. The log is the result of a revision
`
`control system I used after posting the article, and the system recorded when I made revisions to
`
`the article and what the revisions were. I have attached the log as it exists on February 21, 2018,
`
`as Attachment 3, and the log shows that I last revised the article on July 17, 1999. Id.
`
`7.
`
`My NAT Article was referenced by others interested in the subjects of NATs and
`
`peer-to-peer networking prior to July 30, 1999. For instance, prior to July 30, 1999 there existed
`
`a Usenet group called comp.dcom.lans.ethernet, which I will refer to as the Ethernet Usenet Group.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 43104
`
`Usenet is a discussion system existing before the Internet. Usenet discussions or threads were
`
`organized into groups, and specific groups were organized into a hierarchies. The designation
`
`“comp” in the Ethernet Usenet Group name represents the hierarchy for computer-related
`
`discussions.
`
` At
`
`the
`
`time, Usenet groups were searchable via
`
`the popular website
`
`http://www.dejanews.com. In 1998 and 1999, I personally used the search functionality of Usenet
`
`groups, and I was aware of colleagues and others in the area of networking and computer science
`
`also using the search functionality.
`
`8.
`
`Using the Usenet search functionality at groups.google.com, I have found posts
`
`referencing my NAT Article. On July 20, 1999, Craig Weisner posted a response in the Ethernet
`
`Usenet Group. Attachment 4. The Ethernet Usenet Group is in the “comp” or computer-related
`
`discussion
`
`hierarchy.
`
`
`
`In
`
`a
`
`discussion
`
`on
`
`cable modem
`
`networking,
`
`https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.dcom.lans.ethernet/ascdRKROmPk/discussion,
`
`Mr.
`
`Weisner wrote the following and specifically provided the link to my NAT Article:
`
`You don't need to pay your cable modem provider any more money
`if you don't want to.
`
`Below are some URLs that you can use to learn about how to, and
`get software for sharing one Internet connection with multiple users.
`You will need to have two Ethernet cards in one of your PCs. The
`first one will connect to the Cable Modem and the second will
`connect to the hub where your friend's PCs will be connected. The
`PC with the two Ethernet cards will act as a "proxy server" or
`"router" for the other PCs. The PC with the two Ethernet cards will
`have two IP addresses. One, assigned by the cable company, and the
`other will be a "private" IP address. Your friend's PCs will also get
`private IP addresses from your "proxy" machine.
`
`FYI - Windows 98, release 2, includes Internet connection sharing
`software similar to that provided by some of the software listed
`below. They bought a product called NAT 2000 and incorporated it
`into Windows 98 release 2.
`
`Anyway - all the details and the software needed can be found at the
`following URLs:
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 43105
`
`* * *
`
`http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
`
`Attachment 4.
`
`9.
`
`On the same thread on cable modem networking and on July 24, 1999, Jerry
`
`Mendes posted consistent with my NAT Article:
`
`Craig Weisner's answer gets around the problem by letting the cable
`modem see only one IP address. The other machines send through
`it, masquerading multiple connections by having everyone use the
`single IP address assigned by the cable modem to the "gateway"
`machine. It does an internal translation of IP addresses for each of
`the client systems, so that you can have two, three, or more machines
`masquerading as one.
`
`Attachment 4.
`
`10. Moreover, the cable modem networking thread shows at least 7 posters in addition
`
`to Mr. Weisner.
`
`11. My site was originally posted in December 1998, and after I posted it to the Internet,
`
`I tried to promote my technique to networking engineers and other members of the interested
`
`public through a variety of message boards. It is clear to me from the posts above from July 1999
`
`that other members of the public were aware of my work, likely from my previous efforts to
`
`promote it. In the following paragraphs, I provide a summary of additional public discussions of
`
`various earlier versions of my site describing that same NAT technique that is described in my
`
`July 1999 site update.
`
`12.
`
`For example, Mr. Weisner also posted a response on April 9, 1999 in the
`
`comp.security.firewalls Usenet group, which I will refer to as the Firewalls Usenet Group.
`
`Attachment 5. Like the Protocols Usenet Group, the Firewalls Usenet Group is in the “comp” or
`
`computer-related discussion hierarchy. Mr. Weisner identified himself as working for WKMN
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 43106
`
`Training—Internet Working Education Specialists. Id. He wrote the following and specifically
`
`provided the link to my NAT Article:
`
`There are a variety of products that do IP proxy services, routing,
`firewall, etc... on a PC with two Ethernet cards (the first card
`connecting to the open zone - like the Internet and the other Ethernet
`card connecting to the protected zone, your LAN). Here are some
`links to products and information on doing that:
`
`* * *
`
`http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
`
`Attachment 5.
`
`13.
`
`In 1998, I was also a member of the Usenet group comp.protocols.tcp-ip, which I
`
`will refer to as the Protocols Usenet Group. Like the Ethernet Usenet Group, the designation
`
`“comp” in the Protocols Usenet Group name represents the hierarchy for computer-related
`
`discussions.
`
`14.
`
`The Protocols Usenet Group has discussions back to 1991, and my first post to the
`
`group was in 1988. On December 29, 1998, Eddy Kvetny, who identified himself as working at
`
`ADC Teledata Communications, posted a question regarding updating the checksum. Attachment
`
`6; see also https://groups.google.com/d/topic/comp.protocols.tcp-ip/dDYy-uK33Qc/discussion.
`
`On December 29, 1998, I posted a response to his question and cited my NAT Article:
`
`By the way, anyone implementing NAT should be aware of the
`requirements
`of
`peer-to-peer
`UDP
`games;
`see
`http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
`for details.
` In
`particular, a NAT should not change the number of UDP ports used
`by a stream of UDP packets from a single host to multiple
`destinations.
`
`Attachment 6.
`
`15.
`
`I also shared my NAT Article with others similarly interested in the subjects of
`
`NATs and peer-to-peer networking. On November 13, 1998, I established a publicly visible
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 43107
`
`mailing list, or discussion group, called nat-peer-games. The list was originally hosted on
`
`OneList.com under the category Computers / Programming / Networking, but as OneList.com was
`
`eventually acquired by Yahoo, it is now a Yahoo group. The purpose of the list was as a
`
`“[d]iscussion area for people trying to play networked multiplayer peer-to-peer.” I will refer to
`
`the list as the Yahoo NAT Group. Yahoo Groups are discussion boards organized by topic. The
`
`description of the Yahoo NAT Group was:
`
`Discussion area for people trying to write or play networked
`multiplayer peer-to-peer games (e.g. Heavy Gear 2 or Battlezone)
`so they work through NAT’s (network address translators) or other
`network equipment that messes with Internet addresses, such as one-
`way cable modems or proxy servers.
`
`Attachment 7.
`
`16.
`
`The Yahoo NAT Group was a public group, which means that any member of the
`
`public can read or join the group. The Yahoo NAT Group was in the Internet Games category.
`
`Back in December 1998, the Yahoo NAT Group had at least 9 members. Further, I have
`
`continuously been a member of the Yahoo NAT Group. I know that members of the Yahoo NAT
`
`Group included engineers and others interested in the routing of messages through network address
`
`translators and peer-to-peer networks.
`
`17.
`
`On December 5, 1998, I posted to the Yahoo NAT Group about my NAT test
`
`progress. Specifically, I wrote the following and directed others to the link with my NAT Article:
`
`I've written up the technique I'm using to get games to play through
`NAT's;
`if
`you're
`curious,
`you
`can
`read
`about
`it
`at http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
`
`I'm still stuck trying to get Sygate working. My copy installed easily,
`and lets client machines access the Web, but it has some wierd bugs.
`
`While I wait for Sygate to get back to me, I installed Linux 2.1.130,
`and fired up IP Masquerading. Turns out Masq needs a patch to
`work with my games; with the patch, we were able to start games
`fine. An early version of the patch is available at the above web site.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 43108
`
`I'm *still* fixing the host migration problem (making sure the game
`goes on when the host leaves). Hope to have that done and Sygate
`tested one way or the other by next week, and get a new version of
`the HG2D and Battlezone patches out to you guys.
`
`- Dan
`
`--
`
`Speaking only for myself, not for my employer
`
`Attachment 8.
`
`18.
`
`On December 6, 1998, I responded to a post in that group from Patrick Lanswert,
`
`who was employed at Epicor Software Corporation. In my response to him, I wrote the following
`
`and specifically directed him to the link with my NAT Article:
`
`Hi Pat,
`
`sorry for the looong delay. I finally wrote up the technique on a web
`page, at http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html Check
`it out. I've already started making the kernel mods myself, although
`I'm aiming at 2.2 rather than 2.0.
`
`In answer to your questions:
`
`> 1) How long does the H0'/P0' to H0/P0 mapping persist?
`
`This is beyond the scope of this technique; it is covered by normal
`NAT.
`
`Usually 1 minute.
`
`> 2) What happens when H4/P4 (also behind the fire wall) sends to
`H1/P1... I'd
`
`> assume that it would map as (H4'/P4,H1/P1) where H4' = H0' but
`P4' <> P0'. This is
`
`> ok so long as the game server does not assume the reply port.
`
`Correct. Games that want to work behind NAT's should be port-
`agile. I haven't mentioned that in my writeup, but it seems
`obvious :-)
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 43109
`
`Have a look at my web page and let me know what you think. I need
`to have the concept described so well that even the NAT RFC author
`can immediately see that he needs to update the RFC to handle this.
`
`Attachment 9.
`
`
`19.
`
`On December 14, 1998, I posted a message with the topic: “Peer-to-peer UDP game
`
`support in Linux Masq as of 2.1.131ac11,” specifically identifying the link to my NAT Article,
`
`and wrote the following:
`
`Linux IP Masquerading supports peer-to-peer UDP games as of
`kernel 2.1.131ac11, thanks to a patch from Juanjo.
`
`Any UDP peer-to-peer game that uses the technique outlined at
`http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html should work behind a
`Masqerading host runing 2.1.131ac11 or later without any special
`port forwarding. This should be a big improvement over current
`practice- users and NAT developers will no longer need to write or
`load special code for each game.
`
`The first games known to use this technique are Heavy Gear 2 Demo
`and Battlezone, and they may require an update (see the above
`URL).
`
`DirectPlay does not yet support this technique, but there is at least
`one game networking API that does, so it's likely that more games
`will use this technique in the future.
`
`- Dan
`
`Attachment 10.
`
`
`20.
`
`On December 30, 1998, I posted a message with the topic: “Re: Promiscuous
`
`demasquerading required?,” specifically identifying the link to my NAT Article, and wrote the
`
`following:
`
`
`
`With my games, the NAT can always ignore packets from hosts it
`has never sent to. Only after sending a packet to a particular
`host+port does it need to accept packets from that host+port.
`
`All the NAT vendors so far who are compatible with my scheme
`accept packets TO a local host+port once that host+port has sent a
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 43110
`
`packet. It's questionable whether this is much of a security risk. It
`could only affect UDP services like UDP NFS or DNS -and it seems
`impossible to exploit because those UDP services will never send
`out a packet to open up the hole.
`
`If it turns out to be important to close this hole, NAT vendors can
`do it by only accepting packets from a host+port once it has sent a
`packet there. But I think they're right not to go to the extra trouble.
`Also, there's a timeout issue here: if games decide to only send UDP
`packets to nearby players, people who are distant for two minutes
`don't want to find their packets blocked!
`
`Re your question-
`
`Can you think of an alternative to keeping the port number the same
`that lets me open up peer-to-peer connections? A random identifier
`won't do me any good - nobody would be able to send packets...
`perhaps you're thinking in client-server terms still?
`
`rewrite http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-
`I should
`Think
`nat.html to make this clearer?
`
`- Dan
`
`Attachment 11.
`
`21.
`
`I was also a member of a mailing list called “masq,” which I will refer to as the
`
`Masq Mailing List. “Masq” was an abbreviation for masquerade, and masquerade referred to
`
`Linux masquerade, which was an alternative name for NATs or network area translators. The
`
`Masq Mailing List was a centralized mailing list that members of the public could join and receive
`
`email discussions on “masq” issues. In particular, members of the Masq Mailing List included
`
`people implementing NAT on Linux based products such as home routers.
`
`22.
`
`Further, the Masq Mailing List was archived and searchable. I am attaching as
`
`Attachment 12 a print out of the archive of the Masq Mailing List from the Wayback Machine
`
`dated December 6, 1998. Attachment 12 confirms my personal recollection that the Masq Mailing
`
`List was searchable.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 43111
`
`23.
`
`The Masq Mailing List had at least 85 different people participating. Indeed,
`
`Attachment 12 shows more than 85 different people sending messages to the Masq Mailing List.
`
`I remember the Masq Mailing List being a very active mailing list with a large number of people
`
`participating.
`
`24.
`
`On December 5, 1998, I sent a message to the Masq Mailing List describing my
`
`NAT Article, directing the members of the Masq Mailing List to my NAT Article, and requesting
`
`feedback on my NAT Article:
`
`I've been working on a way for peer-to-peer games to work through
`NAT's transparently, with some success. Games that use my code
`now work properly through at least one commercial NAT (Nevod's
`NAT1000) and probably several others - and with a small patch,
`through Masq, as well.
`
`at
`technique
`my
`up
`written
`I've
`invite
`and
`http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
`comments, especially on my patch to IP Masq to get it to reuse UDP
`ports 'properly'.
`
`- Dan
`
`Attachment 13.
`
`25.
`
`On December 5, 1998. David Ranch responded to my message and quoted the link
`
`to my NAT Article in his response. Attachment 14.
`
`26.
`
`On December 15, 1998, a member of the Masq Mailing List wrote about NAT and
`
`peer-to-peer gaming information and directed Masq Mailing List members to my NAT Article.
`
`Attachment 15.
`
`27.
`
`On January 14, 1999, I replied to a message from the Masq Mailing List and
`
`included a link to my NAT Article. Attachment 16. That same day, another member of the Masq
`
`Mailing List replied to my message, which again forwarded the link to my NAT Article to all the
`
`members of the Masq Mailing List. Attachment 17.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 43112
`
`28.
`
`On January 28, 1999, another member of the Masq Mailing List explained that “you
`
`can read up on the theory” at the link to my NAT Article. Attachment 18.
`
`II.
`
`Heavy Gear II Demo and Heavy Gear II
`
`29.
`
` Heavy Gear II Demo and Heavy Gear II both used the NAT Technique I described
`
`in the NAT Article. Heavy Gear II Demo was released prior to Heavy Gear II.
`
`30.
`
`Heavy Gear II Demo was released on or before December 1998. As shown in in
`
`Attachment 10, I mentioned in a post dated December 14, 1998, that Heavy Gear II Demo was one
`
`of the first games known to use my technique. I also mentioned the same in Attachment 8 when I
`
`referred to “HG2D,” which was a moniker I used to refer to Heavy Gear II Demo.
`
`31.
`
`Heavy Gear II was released on or before July 17, 1999. As I mentioned in
`
`Attachment 2, Heavy Gear II used the NAT Technique. Attachment 2, at BENNETT_000228.
`
`32.
`
`In particular, the NAT Technique I described in the NAT Article was a part of a
`
`software package I developed called ActiveNet. Heavy Gear II Demo and Heavy Gear II both
`
`used ActiveNet.
`
`33. When I was developing ActiveNet, I would regularly archive a version of
`
`ActiveNet for long-term retention. It was my routine to date a folder on the day that I archived a
`
`version in order to accurately reflect the day on which I archived ActiveNet.
`
`34.
`
`It is possible to match which archive of ActiveNet is used in a particular game that
`
`used ActiveNet. Here, I verified that the November ’98 archive was used in the Heavy Gear II
`
`Demo by comparing the compiled version of ActiveNet with the anet2.dll contained in the Heavy
`
`Gear II Demo. The sizes of the files are identical, and I noticed that there are only a few bytes that
`
`differ when I compared the files bit-for-bit. Based on my experience, a difference this small can
`
`be attributed to something minor, such as the date on which the files were compiled. That is to
`
`say, it is likely that the version of ActiveNet in the November ’98 archive was compiled on a
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`different day than the ActiveNet used in Heavy Gear II Demo. Putting aside this difference, the
`files are otherwise identical.
`|
`
`35.
`
`The essential elements of my NAT Technique was contained in the November °98
`
`archive and remained unchanged in subsequent archives of ActiveNet. Thus, for instance, the
`
`January °99 archive was different than the November ’98 archive in somerespects but the essential
`
`elements of my NAT Technique remained unchanged from November °98.. The January °99
`
`archive that most closely matches the anet2.dll file contained in Heavy Gear Il. While thefiles
`
`are somewhatdifferent, Heavy Gear II did use ActiveNet and contained the essential elements of
`
`my NAT Technique.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein ofmy own knowledge are true and that all
`
`statements made on information and belief are believed to be true and further that these statements
`
`were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable
`
`by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`aniel R.
`
`Kegel
`
`Dated: February2220 18
`
`Las Angeles, Che
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 502 Filed 03/08/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 43114
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 8, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served
`
`on March 8, 2018, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`Greg Proctor, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`