Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 43506
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 38 PagelD #: 43506
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`—S#_“SS
`
`) C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`))
`
`REDACTED
`) PUBLIC VERSION
`)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`
`TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS UNDER FRE 702
`
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@munat.com
`skraftschik@munat.com
`
`Attorneysfor 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 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 43507
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Michael Woods
`Paul N. Harold
`Joseph C. Masullo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`Original Filing Date: March 9, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: March 15, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 43508
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ’344 And ’966 Patents Because Activision
`Does Not Make, Use Or Sell The Accused Networks (CoD, Destiny). ............................. 1
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ’497 Patent (CoD, Destiny). ......................................... 3
`Activision Does Not Directly Infringe The Method Claims (CoD, Destiny). .................... 4
`Plaintiff Has No Evidence That CoD, Destiny Infringed Any Patent Through
`Testing................................................................................................................................. 4
`World of Warcraft Does Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.” ................... 4
`The Call of Duty Game Play Logics Network” (“GPLN”) and “Connectivity
`Graph Network” (“CGN”) Do Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.” ......... 6
`A.
`The GPLN Is Not M-Regular And Non-Complete, Or A “Broadcast
`Channel.” ................................................................................................................ 6
`The CGN Is Not M-Regular And Incomplete......................................................... 7
`B.
`VII. Destiny Does Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.” .................................... 8
`VIII. The Accused Products Do Not Infringe The ’344 And ’966 Patents. .............................. 10
`IX.
`CoD And Destiny Do Not Infringe The ’634, ’069, and ’147 Patents. ............................ 11
`X.
`WoW Does Not Infringe The ’497 Patent. ....................................................................... 13
`XI.
`Activision Does Not Infringe Any Claim Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents. .............. 14
`XII. Accused Acts Outside The United States Do Not Infringe Any Patent. ........................... 15
`XIII. Plaintiff Cannot Show Willful Infringement. ................................................................... 16
`XIV. No Written Description Of Changing M In Any Asserted Patent. ................................... 16
`XV. No Description of the “Non-Routing Table-Based” Claims. ............................................ 17
`XVI. The CRM Claims Capture Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter and Are Invalid. ................. 18
`XVII. Dr. Medvidovic And Dr. Mitzenmacher’s M-Regular And Broadcast Channel
`Opinions Should Be Excluded As Unsupported By Evidence. ........................................ 20
`XVIII. The Opinions Of Dr. Meyer, Dr. Bims, And Dr. Valerdi Should Be Excluded. .............. 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 43509
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ansell Healthcare Prod. LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC,
`2018 WL 620968 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018) ................................................................................16
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................17, 18
`
`Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................14
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc.,
`2017 WL 3730617 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017) ..............................................................................3
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................19
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................24, 25
`
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1303643 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015) ............................................................................21
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`2016 WL 9282314 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2016) ..........................................................................23
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................17
`
`Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
`405 F. App’x 296 (10th Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................................23
`
`Grecia v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`2018 WL 1172580 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018) ..........................................................................2, 3
`
`H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. The Gates Rubber Co.,
`1975 WL 21117 (D. Colo. Sept. 11, 1975) ..............................................................................17
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................2, 3
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 43510
`
`Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prods.,
`228 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................17
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................21, 24
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Enfora, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................................21, 25
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................19, 20
`
`N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`7 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1993)....................................................................................................17
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................16
`
`In re Nuijten,
`500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..........................................................................................19, 20
`
`On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`106 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ......................................................................................24
`
`PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co.,
`304 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................18
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................23
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................23
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................4, 16
`
`Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.,
`215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................2
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm, Inc.,
`649 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................18
`
`Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................15
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 43511
`
`Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.,
`734 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................17
`
`In re TMI Litig.,
`193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................24
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 43512
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 7 of 38 PagelD #: 43512
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Dist[bowie
`
`D1. 1,Ex.1|US.Pat. No. 6,701,344
`
`
`
`443.
`
`
`
`D.I. 1, Ex.6|U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497 °497 patent
`
`PRIOR FILED DECLARATIONS
`
`Declaration OfDavid R. Karger, Ph.D, In Support OfDefendants’_|Karger Decl.
`Motion For Partial Summary Judgment OfInvalidity For Lack Of
`Written Description
`
`Declaration OfDr. John P. J. Kelly In Support Of Defendant|Kelly Decl.
`Activision Blizzard Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of
`Non-Infringement Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,714,966;
`6,829,634 And 6,920,497
`
`Declaration Of Dr. John P. J. Kelly In Support Of Defendant|Kelly Opp.Decl.
`Activision Blizzard Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
`For Summary Judgment Of Infrmgement Of Claim 12 Of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344
`
`GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS FOR DOCUMENTSCITED IN REPLY
`
`Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s Brief In Support of Its
`Motions for Summary Judgment and Exclude Expert Opinions
`Under FRE 702. D.I. 442.
`
`Act.Br.
`
`Exhibits A-1 to A-10 to Act.Br. refer to the exhibits filed at D.I.
`
`Ex.A-1 to A-10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 43513
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 8 of 38 PagelD #: 43513
`
`Exhibits B-1 to B-4 to Act.Br. refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 443.
`
`Ex.B-1 to B-4
`
`Exhibits C-1 to C-5 to Act.Br. refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 444.
`
`Ex.C-1 to C-5
`
`Exhibits E-1 to E-15 to Act.Br. refer to the exhibits filed at D-I.
`
`Ex.E-1 to E-15
`
`Exhibits F-1 to F-6 to Act.Br. refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 444.
`
`Ex.F-1 to F-6
`
`PlaintiffAcceleration Bay LLC’s Opening Summary Judgmentand
`Daubert Brief. D.I. 448
`
`AB.Br.
`
`Exhibits 1 to 21 to AB.Br. refer to exhibits filed at D.I. 453.
`
`Exs.1 to 21
`
`Exhibits 22 to 40 to AB.Br. refer to exhibits filed at D.I. 454.
`
`Exs.22 to 40
`
`Exhibits 40 to 62 to AB.Br. refer to exhibits filed at D.I. 455.
`
`Exs.40 to 62
`
`Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s Brief In Opposition to
`Plaintiff's Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions. D.I. 474.
`
`Act.Opp.
`
`BBN
`
`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. D.I. 475.
`
`Exhibits A-11 to A-12 to Act.Opp.refer to the exhibitsfiled at D_I.
`484.
`
`Exhibits E-16 to E-24 to Act.Opp.refer to the exhibits filed at D_I.
`487.
`
`Ex.A-11 to A-12
`
`Ex.E-16 to E-24
`
`AB.Opp.
`
`Exhibits 63-73 to AB.Opp.refer to the exhibits filed at D.I. 480.
`
`Exs.63-73
`
`Exhibits 74-102 to AB.Opp.refer to the exhibits filed at DI. 482.
`
`Exs.74-102
`
`Call of Duty “Connectivity Graph Network” Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.),
`2.
`
`Call ofDuty “Gameplay Logics Network” Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.), §2.
`
`GPLN
`
`Destiny “Activity Broadcast Network” Ex.A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.), §2.
`
`Destiny “Bungie BroadcastNetwork” Ex.A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.), §2.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 43514
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 9 of 38 PagelD #: 43514
`
`ABBREVIATIONS FOR EXPERT REPORTS
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft)
`
`Kelly.Rpt.
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Macedonia
`
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement (Destiny)
`
`Reply Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement (Call of Duty, World of Warcraft)
`
`Reply Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement(Destiny)
`
`Expert Report of John Kelly, Ph.D., Regarding Non-Infringement
`
`Med.Rpt.
`
`Mitz.Rpt.
`
`Med.Reply.
`
`Mitz.Reply.
`
`ABBREVIATIONS OF DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Deposition Transcript of Pat Griffith
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christine Meyer
`
`Deposition Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi
`
`Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidovic
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 43515
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 10 of 38 PagelD #: 43515
`
`ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Excerpt of Transcript of Markman Hearing held on December18,
`2017
`
`
`
`E-26|Additional Excerpts of Transcript of Deposition of Pat Griffith GriffTr.
`
`Excerpts of Transcript of Deposition of Michael Macedonia
`
`Additional Excerpts of Transcript of Deposition of Christine Meye
`
`Additional Excerpts of Transcript of Deposition ofNenad
`Medvidovic
`
`MedTr.
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`5 F
`
`the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-10|Plaintiff's Objections & Responsesto Activision’s Interrogatories|AB-Resp.Inf.Rogs.
`(Nos. 7 and 9) (6/19/2017)
`
`Excerpt of Plaintiffs Infringement Chart for WoW (6/19/2017)
`
`WoWInf.Chart
`
`F-12|°344 Patent, File History, 9/15/03 Amendment. Annotated to show|344 Amend.
`the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim
`
`-13|’634 Patent, File History, 5/7/04 Amendment. Annotated to show|634 Amend.
`1
`the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-14|°147 Patent, File History, 12/17/03 Amendment. Annotated to 147 Amend.
`
`
`show the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-15|069 Patent, File History, 5/17/04 Amendment. Annotated to show 069 Amend.
`
`' This Reply cites to a numberof exhibits previously provided with Activision’s prior papers. See
`D.I. 442. Therefore, this reply will continue the numbering from those papers.
`? See footnote 1.
`
`vill
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 43516
`
`Plaintiff fails to raise a material factual dispute regarding non-infringement as to the central
`
`claim limitations. Plaintiff concedes that the accused networks and broadcast channels set forth in its
`
`infringement contentions and expert reports are not m-regular, incomplete networks. Now, Plaintiff
`
`hints at previously undisclosed networks and broadcast channels that may exist as an “overlay
`
`network” or a sub-network within the networks it actually accused. Even if the Court entertains these
`
`newly accused networks despite Plaintiff’s failure to identify them during discovery after three
`
`orders3 compelling it to do so, Plaintiff still fails to identify even basic facts necessary to show
`
`infringement. It still does not identify the participants and connections of these networks, how they
`
`are configured to maintain an m-regular and incomplete topology, or how they meet any of the other
`
`essential claim limitations. One example underscores the futility of Plaintiff’s opposition to the other
`
`issues: to avoid invalidity of the CRM claims, Plaintiff rehashes the same “preamble not limiting”
`
`argument the Court suggested was less than candid. D.I. 422.
`
`I.
`
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ’344 And ’966 Patents Because Activision Does Not
`Make, Use Or Sell The Accused Networks (CoD, Destiny).
`
`Alleging only direct infringement (D.I. 1; Ex.E-25, 86), Plaintiff contends that Activision
`
`supplies software its customers can “execut[e]” to create infringing networks. Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.),
`
`¶2; Ex.A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.), ¶2. “Supplying the software for the customer to use” is not direct
`
`infringement. Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1286 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011). Even if Activision “owns … the software” (AB.Opp., 2), it is still the customers that are
`
`using it, see AB.Opp., 4 (“a customer purchases a license to use [the software]”). Summary
`
`judgment of no direct infringement by Activision should be granted.
`
`Plaintiff argues Activision “makes” the systems by “compiling [the software’s] source code”
`
`
`3 See Act.Br., 2 (listing 3 orders) and D.I. 193 (adopting Special Master Order No. 3).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 43517
`
`(AB.Opp., 3), but compiling source code does not “combine all of the [system’s] claim elements.”
`
`Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1288. Compiling code does not create participants (applications executing on
`
`computers), connect them to each other, or configure them to broadcast messages as the claims
`
`require. Because software is not “the entire invention,” Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215
`
`F.3d 1246, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2000), summary judgment should be granted.4
`
`Plaintiff concedes that infringing “use” requires a party to “put the invention into service, i.e.,
`
`control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from it.” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284; see AB.Opp.,
`
`2. Plaintiff argues Activision “exclusively owns” and “controls” the software (which is not even true
`
`for Destiny) (AB.Opp., 2). But that doesn’t “put the invention into service.” Id. at 1284; Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Plaintiff says that
`
`Activision “provides the matchmaking servers” (AB.Opp., 2), but those servers are not
`
`“participants” of the accused systems. No claimed system can be put into service until multiple
`
`customers install the software and “execut[e] [it] on the client computers.” Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.), ¶2.
`
`Activision does not install the software and execute it on a user computer. And Activision does not
`
`even operate matchmaking servers for Destiny.
`
`Plaintiff’s only claim that Activision “obtain[s] the benefit from [the system’s] use” is the
`
`financial benefit of selling the software. AB.Opp., 2. But that is not a benefit “tethered to the
`
`claims.” Grecia v. McDonald’s Corp., 2018 WL 1172580, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018). Obtaining
`
`a financial benefit from sale has nothing to do with the requirement that an “infringer obtain[]
`
`‘benefit’ from each and every element of the claimed system.” Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d at
`
`4 On December 20, 2017, the Court rejected Activision’s argument that the ’344 and ’966 claims
`were indefinite mixed method/apparatus claims: “a [POSA] would understand that infringement is
`triggered by the use of an infringing network.” D.I. 386, 25. If it accepts Plaintiff’s argument that
`mere sale of software without use can infringe, the Court should declare those asserted claims
`invalid. Plaintiff cannot have it both ways.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 43518
`
`1329. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the “participants” are not software, but a computer executing
`
`software. AB.Opp., 2-3. Only after the software is sold can it be executed.
`
`Plaintiff attempts to attribute the conduct of third-parties to Activision, citing a case
`
`involving method claims. (AB.Opp., 3–4). But “system claims are different from method claims and
`
`are still treated under the Centillion standard.” Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc., 2017 WL
`
`3730617, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017); Grecia, 2018 WL 1172580, at *4. Activision is not
`
`vicariously liable for customers’ acts because “it is entirely the decision of the customer whether to
`
`install and operate this software,” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1287. Nor is Activision vicariously liable
`
`for Bungie’s acts in operating Destiny. Id.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that selling “[s]oftware that is run on computers to create a
`
`network is equivalent to computers running software to provide the same network” is contrary to law
`
`as selling software does not set up the network. That is merely an attempt to bootstrap an indirect
`
`infringement theory into direct infringement or to apply the doctrine of equivalents to an act of direct
`
`of infringement, for which there is no legal basis.
`
`II.
`
`Activision Does Not Infringe The ’497 Patent (CoD, Destiny).
`
`The ’497 patent requires “hardware.” D.I. 423 at 20. Activision does not make, use, sell or
`
`offer to sell the accused hardware. Plaintiff’s entire proof of a “port ordering algorithm” for both
`
`CoD and Destiny is a Microsoft Xbox document. 5 AB.Opp.20-21 (citing Ex.83). Plaintiff has no
`
`evidence that this has anything to do with Activision. Summary judgment is warranted.
`
`
`5 Plaintiff makes the same exact accusation for the other Defendants’ accused games in the related
`cases, further showing this functionality is provided by Microsoft. Moreover, Plaintiff’s experts
`admit that Microsoft’s alleged “port ordering algorithm” chooses ports in a random manner. Ex.A-1
`(Med.Rpt.), ¶558 (defining “port ordering algorithm” to include a “random port … from a different
`range”); Ex.A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.), ¶410 (similar). But the limitation requires that portal computer ports be
`generated “in a non-random manner.” D.I. 423, 21-22.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 43519
`
`III. Activision Does Not Directly Infringe The Method Claims (CoD, Destiny).
`
`Plaintiff offers two theories for Activision’s infringement of the method claims (’147/1;
`
`’069/1,11), but each fails. First, it says that Activision “owns the software that performs the steps”
`
`(AB.Opp., 6), but even if true, this is irrelevant because selling “software containing instructions to
`
`perform a patented method does not infringe the patent under § 271(a).” Ricoh Co. v. Quanta
`
`Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Second, it claims Activision is liable for its
`
`customers’ actions under the “joint infringement doctrine” (AB.Opp., 6), but it never disputes that
`
`Activision “cannot be a joint infringer when it does not perform any step” itself. Act.Br., 7. Plaintiff
`
`does not allege Activision performs any step of the claimed method in CoD. Activision is never a
`
`part of any Destiny game – it is owned and operated by Bungie. Act.Br., 4 and 4, fn.1.
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiff Has No Evidence That CoD, Destiny Infringed Any Patent Through Testing.
`
`No evidence cited in Plaintiff’s expert reports (Act.Br., 9) or its opposition shows testing that
`
`“put the invention into service” (Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284) or practiced all method steps. Plaintiff
`
`has no evidence that Activision tested each Accused Product resulting in any m-regular incomplete
`
`networks/broadcast channels, or used a distributed network with multiple participants on the Xbox in
`
`the U.S. after March 2015. D.I. 62, 2 (no damages prior to date of complaint). Nor does any of this
`
`testimony relate to m-regular incomplete networks.
`
`V. World of Warcraft Does Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.”
`
`Plaintiff was ordered to explicitly identify every accused network and broadcast channel and
`
`provide a “separate infringement chart” for each such network or broadcast channel. D.I. 155, 7
`
`(emph. added). For WoW, the lone network that Plaintiff identified and charted was the
`
`
`
`participant “WoW Server-to-Server Communications Network.” See Ex.F-10 (AB.Resp.Inf.Rogs.),
`
`30; Ex.F-11 (WoW Inf.Chart). Now, Plaintiff admits that this network/broadcast channel is not m-
`
`regular and incomplete. AB.Opp., 8-9; Ex.E-12 (Med.Tr.) 255:11-257:17. Summary judgment is
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 43520
`
`appropriate on this basis alone. Id.
`
`Abandoning its original theory, Plaintiff now accuses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court rejected this coincidental and transient
`
`infringement theory when it construed the claims to require that network be configured to maintain
`
`an m-regular, incomplete state. D.I. 275, 15; D.I. 287, 5.
`
`Far from providing “ample evidence that WoW uses non-complete, m-regular broadcast
`
`channels to broadcast data,”
`
`
`
` AB.Opp., 8. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that WoW configures these networks to be m-
`
`regular and incomplete by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.A-1, ¶204; see also
`
`Ex,A-12 (Kelly.Rpt.), ¶¶502-513. Bare assertions do not create a genuine issue of material fact. “[I]t
`
`was [plaintiff’s] obligation to set forth the detailed basis of its evidence” and to “provide the court
`
`with the theoretical and factual foundation underlying that proof, at least to the extent of presenting a
`
`genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment.” Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 43521
`
`271 F.3d 1043, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff’s opinions are simply “theoretical
`
`speculation” and do not even raise “a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id
`
`Moreover, the pertinent citations in Plaintiff’s opposition say nothing about the “broadcast
`
`channel” requirement. See Ex.50 (Med.Reply.), ¶¶356, 577. If the accused networks were actually
`
`configured to be m-regular and incomplete, Dr. Medvidovic should have been easily able to cite
`
`specific evidence in the code and would not resort to vague assertions that unidentified rules and
`
`constants “converge” the network to be m-regular and incomplete. See Ex.A-1, ¶¶2, 204. Plaintiff’s
`
`failure shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
`
`VI.
`
`The Call of Duty Game Play Logics Network” (“GPLN”) and “Connectivity Graph
`Network” (“CGN”) Do Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.”
`A.
`
`The GPLN Is Not M-Regular And Non-Complete, Or A “Broadcast Channel.”
`
`Plaintiff agrees that the participants of the GPLN are connected in a client server manner.
`
`AB.Opp., 10-11; Ex.50 (Med.Reply), ¶43. It is mathematically impossible for such a network to be
`
`m-regular and incomplete. Act.Br., 14; Act.Opp., 8-9. Plaintiff does not dispute this, but argues these
`
`connections are at the “network layer” and therefore “not relevant to the m-regular, non-complete
`
`topology of the application layer overlay network that is the subject of Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis.”
`
`AB.Opp., 11-12. That is nonsense. Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis expressly says the server is a part of
`
`the network, and neither he nor Plaintiff identified some different “application layer overlay
`
`network” in discovery or the opening expert report. Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.), ¶2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff provides no explanation, much less evidence, identifying participants and
`
`connections of a different “overlay network” or how such an “overlay network” is configured to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 43522
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 17 of 38 PagelD #: 43522
`
`maintain an m-regular, incomplete network, wheremisat least 3.° See AB.Br., 27; AB.Opp., 9-12;
`
`Plaintiff also offers no evidence that any gameplay data is broadcastto all participants using
`
`the GPLN on an m-regular, incomplete broadcast channel. Plaintiff cites four paragraphs ofits
`
`expert report (AB.Opp., 12), but they relate to a different limitation; and the only one that mentions
`
`the GPLN, Ex.40 (Med.Rpt.), §160, cites no evidence.
`
`That just confirms the GPLNis
`
`client/server; it does not prove an m-regular, incomplete broadcast channel.
`
`B.
`
`The CGNIs Not M-Regular And Incomplete.
`
`The composition ofthe CGNis undisputed:Pe
`
`
`
`° Activision encourages the Court to read Dr. Medvidovic’s reports and the “evidence” regarding
`how the GPLNis supposedly m-regular, including the laundry list of citations in AB.Opp., 10, fn.6,
`and especially Ex.40 (Med.Rpt.), §§188-203, Ex.50 (Med.Reply) 9940-44, 84-92. On all key issues,
`the conclusions are unexplainedipse dixit.
`7
`
`Plaintiffnow contradicts itself and its expert to argue that the “participants”
`Thereis no cite for this.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 43523
`
`Ex.A-1 (Med.Rpt.), 9124.
`
`Plaintiff does not address the fact that the CGN can never be m-regular and incomplete
`
`SsoOQO 2S7) oO
`
`requires a connection “through whichdata can be sent and received.” D-I. 387, p.7.
`
`But this Court’s claim construction of “connection”
`
`sI. Destiny Does Not Infringe Any Of The Five “Topology Patents.”
`
`ForDestiny, Plaintiff's sole argument for infringement fails as a matter of law, because
`
`Plaintiff points to just two of myriad scenarios created by players’ choices in the gamethat they
`
`8 Plaintiff, without a
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 43524
`
`believe could accidentally result in a fleetingly m-regular, incomplete network. Even assuming the
`
`facts are as Plaintiff presents them, no reasonable juror could conclude that the Destiny networks are
`
`“configured” to be m-regular and incomplete based on these accidental scenarios, as they must be
`
`under this Court’s constructions. D.I. 275, 15.
`
`The parties agree that Destiny allows players to form FireTeams (groups of players that
`
`choose to play as a team) and Bubbles (groups of players that happen to be near each other on the
`
`game map), and puts an upper limit on the number of players that can be in each FireTeam and
`
`Bubble.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 508 Filed 03/15/18 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 43525
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff’s attempt to satisfy this limitation fails as a matter
`
`of law.
`
`VIII. The Accused Products Do Not Infringe The ’344 And ’966 Patents.
`
`For all Accused Products, Plaintiff suffers the same failure of proof: the alleged “relaying”
`
`does not meet the claim limitations. The ’344 and ’966 patents that an originating participant
`
`broadcasts data through each of its connections to exactly m neighbors. And then when a neighbor
`
`receives the message, it sends the message to all of its other neighbors.
`
`CoD. Plaintiff’s argument is premised on the (incorrect) position that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`There is no broadcast to all
`
`connected participants at either step of the relay. And Plaintiff does not contend there is.
`
`Destiny. Plaintiff’s allegation is again based on relaying, not broadcasting. AB.Opp., 13.
`
`Plaintiff’s cites Dr. Mitzenmacher, who alleges that the Activity Host “relays” data. AB.Opp., 13-14
`
`(citing Mitz.Rpt., ¶¶105-107, 151). But he does not allege that an originating game client broadcasts
`
`data on each of its connections to its at least three “neighbors,” as required by the claim limitations.
`
`Id. Nor does he allege that game clients receiving data then re-broadcast