Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 1 of 32 PagelD #: 43628
`
`|
`|
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`) C.A. No, 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No, 16-455 (RGA)
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`)
`
`) )) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ELECTRONICARTSINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ACCELERATIONBAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN
`
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 43629
`
`Public version dated: March 16, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 3 of 32 PagelD #: 43630
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ARGUMENT |.....scssesscssssessesssneccesssnsesssssnsscsecanssussecesssnsnseecessunseceessnsvscessssusesesssusssesssunsecesssneseeesnsnses 1
`
`I,
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Valid Over Defendants’ Prior Aft ........ccccccssseccsssseseesserees 1
`
`A.—IPR Estoppel Bars Various of Defendants’ Invalidity Challenges ..........ccccceeessees 1
`1,
`Defendants are Estopped from Asserting DirectPlay and AOE ......ccccseseseen 1
`2.
`Defendants Are Barred From Asserting Alagar Alone or With AOE ......cccees 2
`Defendants Cannot Prove Invalidity By Clear and Convincing Evidence ..........e 4
`1,
`Obraczka Thesis, Shoubridge and Dénes Do Not Render Obvious ‘069 Claims 1
`ANG LL ve ssecsessesssssesesesesescseeseseensusucsenessscessssueseessesrsvseasecssseeeusrsecusssussesesasecacevaeevsees 5
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`|
`
`|
`|
`
`|
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4,
`
`Shoubridge Does Not Render Obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents.. 5
`Shoubridge, Dénes and Rufino Do Not Render Obvious ‘147 Claims 1, 11, 15
`ANG 16... esscesssessssssseesssenenesssesesenescassessuevssesuseagssscseseseasecsessvesesecececeesarssaterauesensarsnees 6
`Neither DirectPlay in View of Shoubridge Nor Obraczka in View of Shoubridge
`and Obraczka Thesis Renders Obvious Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent..... 6
`Defendants’ Prior Art Does Not Disclose an Incomplete, M-regular Network............ 7
`1,
`Alagar Fails to Disclose the M-Regular Claims........cccsssessessecssscecscessverseecereess 7
`2.
`AoE,DirectPlay and Alagar Do Not Teach a Non-Complete, M-Regular
`NOetwork.....csscesssessessseccsessenseessencsesesecsesssesssevecsasseaeesssssvevsasassvsvsesesscevsvsneavsnsnsavenees 7
`Kegel and ActiveNet Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claimsof the ‘497Patent........ 8
`1.
`Kegel Was Not Available Until After the Filing Date ofthe ‘497 Patent........... 8
`2.
`ActiveNet Was Not Publicly Available Until After the Filing Date of the ‘497
`PAteDta.s.sesscsescsssssesescesrersesessetacsrscscsessessessasseeesscavsvasscssasscasecsesavecatacssveravaavarnvasesseaa 9
`The Accused Products infringe Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent......cccccccssssesssscscerseseees 10
`Destiny Infringes Claim 12 ofthe ‘344 Patent.0....ccccscsssssccsssssssesecsessecsssevsvarsavavenes 10
`1,
`The Destiny Network is m-regular .......ccccccscssscsesesccressscecsssvscscssacavecsvevsesesseneans 10
`2.
`Destiny Broadcasts and Rebroadcasts Messages .......c..cscccccscesssessssvsrsesesereseseave 11
`3,
`Destiny Forms Broadcast Chanttels .........ccccccsssssscssssssescesssvsesestercacssesaeavevsavavanss 12
`Call of Duty Infringes Claim 12 ofthe ‘344 Patent... .cccscccsccscsesessssessseesssssvesssveveees 13
`1.
`In CoD,Each Participant Has At Least Three Connections.......ccccccesccseeescseece 13
`2.
`The CoD Network is M-regular and Incomplete...0.....cccssscsscssssssssscscsessssseeveee 13
`3.
`CoD Satisfies the Broadcast Limitations........cccccsccsccsscssssesrsestssescsesecasersacavanes 15
`4,
`CoD Forms Broadcast Channels For a Gameof Interest.....c.cccccssssssssesessesessee 15
`C. World of Warcraft Infringes Claim 12 ofthe ‘344 Patent .....cccccccccccsssscsesssssecsesesesees 16
`1,
`WoWSatisfies the Broadcast Limitations.......0cccscscssscscsesessssecessescsrecersvssees 16
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Il.
`
`A.
`
`B,
`
`

`

`&
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 4 of 32 PagelD #: 43631
`
`2. WoW Uses Non-Complete, M-Regular Networks ......cccussesesseserseseesreeeeenenees 16
`
`3. WoW FormsBroadcast Channels For GamesofInterest... sseeesseseereeeeeees 17
`
`TI.
`
`MS, LAWTON’S OPINIONS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED........eccscesssstsssesereennenees 18
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion is Unsupported and Unreliable............. 18
`A.
`Ms, Lawton Failed to Demonstrate Comparability of the Sony/Boeing License....... 19
`B.
`Ms. Lawton’s Hypothetical Negotiation Date Opinion is Unsupported...cee 21
`C.
`Ms. Lawton’s Opinions Regarding Non-Infringing Alternatives are Unsupported... 23
`D.
`Ms. Lawton’s Invalidity Opinions are Unreliable...........csescsesssesserssressresssneesssneenees 25
`E.
`CONCLUSION |... cccessssneenessssscrssseseceseeesessesessesessesesnesersesesseseesesassaseeaseeeeenevasseseverseraeeaeeaseesassese? 25
`
`|
`|
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 5 of 32 PagelD #: 43632
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. y. Citrix Sys., Inc.,
`151 F, Supp. 3d 778 (N.D. Ohi0 2015)... cssecssessessessesssssesssessscscesssvscsuscsevesevssscesecacerserarevevenees2
`
`Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir, 2006)... csessssesssssssessssssssssesessesesssscsesccesecscsesesnsnsacavsvencasevaveareceavess22
`
`Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
`782 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir, 2015)... cssessssssssssssesesessssssrecsesssesscssscsvesssecscsensneaceravacaracaneeseserersvees22
`
`Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No, 13-cv-01015-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2526231 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017)....cccsssssssseseeneeees2
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. vy. Marvell Tech. Group Ltd.,
`No, 09-290, 2012 WL 6562221 (W.D.Pa, Dec. 15, 2012) vicccccccccssssssseccssseseseersesescsrsececsvaes25
`
`Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp.,
`No, 12 C 2533, 2016 WL 4734389 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 18, 2016) ..cccccssscssccecssrssssssssssvsssreeeers2,4
`
`Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC y. Sprint Comme’nc Co.,
`No, 12-0205-RGA, 2015 WL 4730899 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015) ..ccccsssecsscsevseerenrevsrsasevsares21
`
`Depomed, Inc. y. Purdue Pharma L.P.,
`No, 13-571 (MLC), 2016 WL 8677317, (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016) ...ccccccccsssccssssssessesssrencsverssveess2
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No, 12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1265009 (N.D, Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) v..cccsccsscsesssssaeseeees22
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cit. 1986)... cscssssssssssessssssvssesessssssssssssassesscarsusassusassusesavsusavsusarcesavercarsavees 8
`
`Inline Connection Corp. vy. AOL Time Warner Inc.,
`470 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D, Del. 2007) ....sesssssesssessesesssssessesveeressecrssusussucersacsusarsassacaessarsacarsesenees24
`Insight Tech., Inc. y. SureFire, LLC,
`No. 04-cv-74-JD, 2007 WL 3244092 (D.N.H. Nov. 1, 2007) ..c.cccccssscssssssececsssessussssecsussssaceersens 8
`
`Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Toshiba Corp.
`No. 13-453-SLR, 2017 WL 107980 (D, Del. Jan. 11, 2017) ...cccsscccccssscececessessessrssssaveecsesseseseass 3
`LaserDynamics, Inc. vy. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d S1 (Fed. Cir, 2012)... .csscsssssssssssssessvssvssesscsussvssusseesesarsarsvsarsussusaucseeessessvsscssversersaacenee22
`
`iii
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`|
`
`|
`|
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 6 of 32 PagelD #: 43633
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`M2M Sols. LLC y. Enfora,Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665 (D. Del. 2016).......ccsscssssssesvsevsssssensrssecescceceecsasseccnssnasseseeeneeneesaeneenesees20
`M2MSols, LLC y. Motorola Sols., Inc.,
`C.A. No, 12-33-RGA, 2016 WL 767900 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2016) .....cescecceessencceeerserereneereens20
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lee,
`151 F, Supp. 3d 665 (E.D. Va, 2016), appeal dismissed, No. 16-1540, Dkt. 39
`(Fed. Cit, 2017). ceessssssescesseeessecssssseeseescsscessesssnesecsesesescessesessesassessecsassssssneceusnsaessseseseserseseesesats2
`
`Monsanto Co. v. David,
`516 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir, 2008)... cccssssscssesseesseetesececssseseeesacseesecsasssessersecseseeeneenseeenesneenees24
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir, 2004)... icscsesseeneescssvecssceseeecnecesnecseeesersessesecnesasnesneeneseesesieeeeetersnes 8
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC y. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`C.A. No, 13-2072-KAJ, 2017 WL 1045912 (D. Del. Feb, 22, 2017)... cssssseesssserserssserevnes 2,3
`
`Prism Techs., LLC y. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No, 8:12CV124, 2015 WL 5883764 (D. Neb. Oct. 8, 2015)... cc cescscssessesessscseesscssseesersersneees24
`
`Sciele Pharma Inc. y. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cit, 2012)... cccccssssssesessensesessenssssecnssccsesnesesesensersseesesnseesersassessesasersassevaes 5
`
`Spectralytics, Inc. y. Cordis Corp.,
`650 F. Supp. 2d 900 (D. Minn, 2009). ecssescsccssssseessesseenesneceeeecscssnsteseeeeeeeearsnsersersesneeres24
`
`Synopsys, Inc. vy. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir, 2016)... ecsecssesseseteesesseeesseeeesseesssseesesseseseeesecaseasseseasesessatsaenseataesaes 2
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed, Cir, 1993)... csssssscccsccseserseteesceeseescenseesssereesasesesesessenessesasensaesaeeesersasareees21
`
`Statutes
`
`35 ULS.C, § B1S(])(2).. ee eeeesceseseesssseeerseceeseeecsecnssevscsevaseaesesscarsaensesecusarsessssnesseaseasaesasaseaesasersazeess 1,2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec $951-52 (daily ed, Feb, 28. 2011) (statement of Sen. Chuck
`Grassley) ..cssccesseeessssesseceseseceesssssseceesseessssecsareeeacsesssenessssenessssessssecssseseessececeasesessecseereseteressneeees 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802 oo... ccccsccssssssessssesserstssssssssseseeseseeseassesvseaeasaesesevavecacseseerseenereasesasarsevesesevanesees 8
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 7 of 32 PagelD #: 43634
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Valid Over Defendants’ Prior Art
`
`A.
`
`IPR Estoppel Bars Various of Defendants’ Invalidity Challenges
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are Estopped from Asserting DirectPlay and AoE
`
`Defendants acknowledgethat 35 U.S.C, § 315(e)(2) precludes them from asserting
`
`publicationsthey raised or reasonably could have raised in their 20 IPRs. D.I. 474! (“‘Def,
`
`Opp.”) at 19. Defendants also concede they raised or could haveraised publicationsrelating to
`
`DirectPlay and Age of Empires (AoE) in their IPRs. These admissions alone establish estoppel.
`
`Defendants’ contention that AoE and DirectPlay could not have been raised during the
`
`IPRs because they are computer software is a red herring because that software is not the basis of
`
`its invalidity claims. Rather, Defendants’ invalidity claims are based on printedpublications that
`
`reference AoE and DirectPlay and could have and/or were actually raised during the IPRs, Ex.
`
`103at iii (DirectPlay/DirectX and Internet Gaming Zone documents), Ex. 104 at ii (Kegel),
`
`Defendants’ passing references to screenshots and source code add nothingto the printed
`
`publications that were available. Defendants are notably silent as to any features only disclosed
`
`in the source code that they rely on because there are none. For example, Defendants’ invalidity
`
`expert Dr. Kargerrelies almost entirely on printed publications and merely cites to testing of the
`
`commercial product and source codeto “confirm” whatis in the printed publications. Compare
`
`Ex, 105 (Karger Rpt.) §{] 285-86 (citing AoE Manual and documentregarding chat) with id. J]
`
`286-87 (test “confirms” description of chat in the publications), § 291 (“source code associated
`
`with the AoE game[] confirmed my understanding ofthe operation....”).
`
`Defendants may not use an on-sale bar argument to evade IPR estoppel because their
`
`
`' All docket citations are to C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA). Exhibits 1-62, 63-102 and 103-112 are
`from the 2/2/18, 2/23/18 and 3/9/18 Declarations of Paul J. Andre (D.I. 453-455, 480, 482).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`|
`|
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 8 of 32 PagelD #: 43635
`
`arguments rely “or [are] based on .., printed publications” that Defendant raised or could have
`
`reasonably raised previously. Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2017 WL 2526231, at *8 (E.D.
`
`Tex, May 11, 2017) (estopping prior art system); Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp., No. 12 C 2533,
`
`2016 WL 4734389, at *9 (N.D.Ill. Mar, 18, 2016) (“While LKQ seeksto cloakits reliance upon
`
`UVHC3000 as a product, so as to avoid § 315(e)(2) estoppel, such an argumentis disingenuous
`
`as it is the UVHC3000 datasheet upon which LKQrelies to invalidate. ..”), Permitting
`
`Defendants to reassert these invalidity theories that the PTAB already rejected would eviscerate
`
`Congress’s intent to streamline validity determinations through the estoppel provision of § 315.
`
`The cases Defendants cite are consistent with this principle. In Depomed, the court found
`
`that “the majority” of the 102(g) on-sale defense was based on information that was notpublicly
`
`available, 2016 WL 8677317, at *8 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016), Likewise, in Communique the court
`
`found that estoppel did not apply because the invalidity grounds that would be presentedattrial
`
`were based on confidential information not available during the IPR. 01 Communique Lab., Inc.
`
`v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 151 F. Supp. 3d 778, 798 (N.D. Ohio 2015). That is not the case here, where
`
`Defendants arguments are based onprinted publications Defendants had during the IPRs.?
`
`Defendants Are Barred From Asserting Alagar Alone or With AoE
`2.
`Defendants are estopped from asserting Alagar and Alagar with AoE because Defendants
`
`could have raised Alagarin their prior IPRs, Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC y. Int'l Bus.
`
`
`* See, e.g., 157 Cong. Rec $951-52, at S952 (daily ed. Feb, 28. 2011) (statement of Sen. Chuck
`Grassley) (“Tt also would include a strengthened estoppel standard to prevent [practitioners] from
`raising in a subsequent challenge the samepatent issues that were raised or reasonably could
`have been raised in a prior challenge.”); Medtronic, Inc. v. Lee, 151 F. Supp. 3d 665, 670, 676
`(E.D. Va. 2016) (explaining that the AIA’s IPR procedures “[r]eflect[] Congress’[s] unified
`intention to streamline [IPR]’”and that Congress soughtto reduce federallitigation with IPR),
`appeal dismissed, No. 16-1540, Dkt, 39 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017).
`> Synopsys, Inc. y. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is inapposite.
`Defendants’ out-of-context quote relates to a different question on whether the Board’s final
`decision must address every claim raised in a petition. The Federal Circuit noted that on sale-bar
`should beraised in district court, but did not issue a blanketrule that allows printed publication
`to be rearguedin district court if there is also a product embodying the printed publication. Id.
`
`|
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 9 of 32 PagelD #: 43636
`
`Machs. Corp., C.A. No. 13-2072-KAJ, 2017 WL 1045912,at *12 (D, Del. Feb. 22, 2017).4
`
`Defendants admit they were aware of Alagar, which is dispositive. Defendants’ theory that the
`
`Court should ignore IPR estoppel because they did not fully anticipate AB’s infringement
`
`theories is contrary to the law and facts and defies common sense, as Defendants should know
`
`whether their own accused products allegedly practice the prior art. Indeed, Defendants do not
`
`need AB’s infringement reports to know if Alagar invalidates the claims, and Defendants cite to
`
`no authority permitting a defendant to escape IPR estoppel because of a purported newfound
`
`appreciation ofa plaintiffs infringement theories.
`
`Moreover, the fundamental premise of Defendants’ argumentis incorrect. Defendants
`
`could have asserted Alagar (or Alagar and AoE)in the IPRs because, underthe Broadest
`
`Reasonable Interpretation (“BRI”) standard, Defendants proposed a broader interpretation of the
`
`scope of the asserted claims during the IPRs than AB asserts in these proceedings. The Court’s
`
`construction requires the graph be configured to maintain an m-regular and non-complete graph.
`
`D.I. 287 at 5. In contrast, in their IPRs Defendants included no such requirement and simply
`
`argued that m-regular means “each nodeis connected to exactly m other and nodes” Ex. 106
`
`(IPR2016-00747 Petition) at 13. Defendants did not require the graphsto bestatic and did not
`
`exclude dynamic graphs that are temporarily m-regular and incomplete. Indeed, Defendants
`
`relied on prior art titled “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks.” by Shoubridge which
`
`Defendants argued covers “static to very dynamic communications networks” Jd. at 14; Ex. 107
`
`(IPR2016-00747, Karger Decl.) at
`
`108. Thus, Defendants could have raised Alagar under the
`
`broader construction, without AB’s contentions which apply the Court’s narrower construction.
`
`4 Defendants’reliance on an earlier decision in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp. No.
`13-453-SLR, 2017 WL 107980,at *1-2 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2017) is misplaced as Parallel
`Networks subsequently clarified and definitively addressed the issue presented here,
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 10 of 32 PagelD #: 43637
`
`Clearlamp, LLC, 2016 WL 47343839,at *6-10.
`
`Additionally, Defendants fail to substantiate their theory that some change in AB’s
`
`infringement case excuses their belated assertion of Alagar. AB’s contentions have remained
`
`consistent throughout this case. Defendants rely on AB’s reply expert reports, served more than
`
`two months after Defendants servedtheir invalidity report which, absentthe gift of prophecy,
`
`could not have inspired Defendants’ Alagar theory, Moreover, Defendants’ claim that these
`
`reply reports advanced a new theory that CoD’s rules and constants converge the network to an
`
`“optimal number”of connectionsfor each participant. Jd. But AB disclosed that the games
`
`converge the network to an optimal numberof connectionsinits earliest infringement
`
`contentions. Ex. 108 (3/2/16 CoD Chart) at 43-46 (“m-regular can indicate that each of the
`
`players is optimally connectedto other players in an optimized manner’) (emphasis added),
`
`Defendants also contend that they should be excused for not asserting Alagar during the
`
`IPRs because “Defendants should havefelt safe in concluding that the claims did not cover
`
`network topologies like Alagar’s.” This argument is a red herring as AB is not accusing Alagar
`
`of infringement or network topologies covered by Alagar. Ex. 8 (Goodrich Rpt.) at 44 226-227.
`
`To the extent Defendants now suggest that the Accused Products use Alagar’s network
`
`topologies, then they had even moreofa reason to assert Alagar during the IPRs.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Cannot Prove Invalidity By Clear and Convincing Evidence
`Defendants’ invalidity argumentsare based on references rejected by the PTAB, lack
`
`merit, and should be dismissed. D.I. 448 (“AB Br.”) at 7-10, Defendants rely on a strawman
`
`argument that AB’s motion is premised on a defacto IPR estoppel. To the contrary, AB makes
`
`clear that Dr. Karger’s invalidity argumentsare fatally flawed for numerous reasons andthat the
`
`PTAB’srejections of Defendants’ invalidity arguments under a lower standard is powerful
`
`evidencethat these invalidity grounds cannot meet the clear and convincing standard. Id.
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 11 of 32 PagelD #: 43638
`
`1,
`
`Obraczka Thesis, Shoubridge and Dénes Do Not Render Obvious ‘069
`Claims 1 and 11
`
`Defendants do not really dispute the multiple flaws in Dr. Karger’s opinion, including,
`
`for example, that the “group master” does not satisfy the requirements of a portal computer, Def.
`
`Opp. 26-27. Defendants argue that “master” and “group master” are used inconsistently, but do
`
`not address AB’s contention that a “group master” fails to satisfy the fully connected portal
`
`requirement, and thus cannot invalidate the claims. Ex. 8 (Goodrich Rpt.) at J] 767-772.
`
`That the PTAB also rejected Dr. Karger’s arguments is highly persuasive, especially
`
`given the higher clear and convincing burden that must be met here. Sciele Pharma Inc. vy. Lupin
`
`Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir, 2012) (“[I]t may be harder to meet the clear and convincing
`
`burden whenthe invalidity contention is based upon the same argument. .
`
`. that the PTO already
`
`considered.”), The Court should therefore grant summary judgment that Obraczka Thesis,
`
`Shoubridge and Dénes does not render obvious the asserted claims of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Shoubridge Does Not Render Obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 and ‘966
`Patents
`
`Shoubridge fails to disclose or render obvious claim 12 of the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents.
`
`Defendants do not dispute that the PTAB rejected the same motivation to combine arguments
`
`presented here nor do they respond to AB’s argument that no reasonable jury could find a
`
`motivation to combine. AB Br. at 9-10. Instead, Defendants simply criticize the PTAB’s refusal
`
`(in multiple IPRs) to institute review based on Shoubridge and DirectX and ask the Court to find
`
`that the PTABis incapable of understanding the basic difference between a dynamic network
`
`and a static network, Def. Opp.at 24-25; Ex. 11 (IPR Decision) at 5-6, 23; Ex. 12 (IPR Denial)
`
`at 8-10. Defendants’ conclusory statementthatits expert “maintains that Shoubridge renders
`
`both claim 12s obvious”fails to show anyerror in the PTAB’s decision and is not sufficient to
`
`defeat summary judgmentin view of the clear and convincing standards.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 12 of 32 PagelD #: 43639
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Shoubridge, Dénes and Rufino Do Not Render Obvious‘147 Claims1, 11, 15
`and 16
`
`Defendants admit that the PTAB rejected their invalidity challenge based on Shoubridge
`
`and Rufino. Def. Opp. at 25; Ex. 13 (PR Decision) at 13-16; Ex. 14 (Final Written Decision) at
`
`18-19, Defendants’ contention that IPR estoppel does not apply fails to address the PTAB’s
`
`findings that the references do not render obvious broadcasting a connection port search message
`
`upon receiving a disconnect message. Jd.; Ex. 8 (Goodrich Rpt.) at § 822. In addition to the
`
`PTAB, Defendantsfail to rebut Dr. Goodrich’s opinions that these references do not provide
`
`clear and convincing evidence that the claims are invalid, Ex, 8 at § 822; AB Br. at 10. Instead,
`
`Defendants simply cite to the same arguments advanced by Dr. Karger that the PTAB already
`
`rejected underthe lower reasonable likelihood standard, and offer no basis for the Court to come
`
`to a different conclusion, Compare Ex. 107 (IPR2016-00747, Karger Decl.) at f 120-125 with
`
`Ex, 105 (Karger Rpt.) at Ff 1098-1101.
`
`4,
`
`Neither DirectPlay in View of Shoubridge Nor Obraczka in View of
`Shoubridge and Obraczka Thesis Renders Obvious Claims 19 and 22 of the
`‘634 Patent
`
`The PTABrejected Defendants’ invalidity challenge based on Shoubridge, Obraczka,
`
`Obraczka Thesis and DirectPlay because the PTAB foundthat this proposed combination does
`
`not disclose “requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor
`
`participants to whichthe participant can be connected.” Ex, 15 (IPR Denial) at 12-14. Further,
`
`the PTABalso found that a POSITA would not have combined DirectPlay/Shoubridge. Id. at
`
`16-18. Ignoring the substance of the PTAB’s determination, Defendants incorrectly contend that
`
`the PTAB did not grasp or fully consider Dr. Karger’s opinions and misunderstood the
`
`references. Defendants’ conclusory arguments provide no basis for the Court to come to a
`
`different conclusion than the PTAB,particularly under the more stringent clear and convincing
`
`evidentiary standard that applies here. Moreover, Defendants fail to address that the
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 13 of 32 PagelD #: 43640
`
`combination of references does not disclose “requesting the located portal computer to provide
`
`an indication of neighbor participants to which the participant can be connected.” Thus, thereis
`
`no triable issue that Defendants cannot prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Prior Art Does Not Disclose an Incomplete, M-regular Network
`
`1.
`
`AlagarFails to Disclose the M-Regular Claims
`
`Defendants concede that Alagar does not disclose an incomplete, m-regular network and
`
`thus cannot anticipate Claims 12-15 of the ‘344 Patent and 12-13 of the ‘966 Patent (the “M-
`
`Regular Claims”). Def. Opp. at 28-29. Defendants argue that Alagar could still render obvious
`
`the M-Regular Claims but they do not dispute that Dr. Karger did not opine that Alagar rendered
`
`the claim obvious under Defendants’ proposed construction for the term and that he interpreted
`
`the Court’s order as “largely” adopting Defendants’ construction. Jd. at 9; Ex. 105 (Karger Rpt.)
`
`at J] 414-16. These concessions alone dictate summary judgment disposalof this defense.
`
`Defendantstry to justify their defense by mischaracterizing AB’s infringement opinions.
`
`I ety wrctated to Alagar(which
`
`Defendants admit does not disclose incomplete, m-regular networks). As explained in AB’s
`
`Opening and Section II below,there is nothing coincidental in how the Accused Products
`
`function — they are programmed to form incomplete, m-regular networks.
`
`2.
`
`AoE,DirectPlay and Alagar Do Not Teach a Non-Complete, M-
`Regular Network
`
`Defendants do not dispute that AoE uses only a complete network. Ex. 8 at {§ 257-25,
`
`495, Further, Defendants concede that AoE does not disclose an m-regular network and does not
`
`include functionality for broadcasting messages throughother participants, Id. at 49 495, 500;
`
`Ex. 105 (Karger Rpt.) at 4 611, 616 (“[uJnder any reasonable construction, I do not believe AoE
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 14 of 32 PagelD #: 43641
`
`practiced this [non-complete graph] limitation.”), Similarly, Dr. Karger concedes that DirectPlay
`
`does not teach a non-complete, m-regular network. Ex. 105 at {526 (“Under any reasonable
`
`construction, I do not believe DirectPlay practiced this limitation.”), Dr. Karger even notes that
`
`DirectPlay is “configured to form a complete network with each node connectedto all other
`
`nodes,” not a non-complete network. Jd. at § 520; Ex. 8 (Goodrich Rpt.) at 410. As such,
`
`neither AoE, DirectPlay nor Alagar (discussed above) render obvious the M-Regular Claims.
`
`Defendants’ Opposition offers nothing to the contrary, warranting summary judgment.
`
`D.
`
`Kegel and ActiveNet Do Not Invalidate the Asserted Claimsof the ‘497
`Patent
`
`1.
`
`Kegel Was Not Available Until After the Filing Date of the ‘497 Patent
`
`Defendants accused AB of “exploiting” the fact that they rely on a different version of
`
`the Kegel reference than the one they purport to have dated. That is an admission highlighting
`
`the discrepancies and unreliability of their evidence of public availability. Defendants say that
`
`Mr. Kegel periodically updated his personal website, but the random interval and nature of these
`
`updates confirms they cannotsatisfy by clear and convincing evidence the requirements of
`
`public accessibility. Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(vacating jury’s invalidity verdict because defendantfailed to provide clear and convincing
`
`evidence the reference was publicly accessible); In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir, 1986).
`
`Additionally, Defendants cannot rely on hearsay to oppose AB’s motion. Specifically,
`
`Defendants rely on Mr. Kegel’s declaration in an attempt to prove the purported truth of
`
`statements by Mr. Weisner that he found Kegel’s webpage. Because Mr. Weisner’s statements
`
`are unauthenticated hearsay, they are not admissible evidence to establish when Kegel became
`
`publicly available. Fed, R. Evid, 801, 802; Insight Tech., Inc. v. SureFire, LLC, No. 04-cv-74-
`
`JD, 2007 WL 3244092, at *6 (D.N.H. Nov. 1, 2007) (“Dates on... documents... are
`
`

`

`‘
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 15 of 32 PagelD #: 43642
`
`inadmissible hearsay unless an exception applies or the date can be proven by other means,”)
`
`(citations omitted). Defendants have not submitted admissible evidence that an interested
`
`POSITA would have been able to find Kegel until at least 2001, which is after the priority date
`
`of the asserted claims of the ‘497 Patent. Ex. 8 (Goodrich Rpt.) at 9] 873-876; Ex. 20 at AB-AB
`
`014173 (Kegel wasnot available until 6/1/02); Ex. 21 at AB-AB 014175 (same). Accordingly,
`
`the Court should grant summary judgment that Kegel does not invalidate the ‘497 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`ActiveNet Was Not Publicly Available Until After the Filing Date of the ‘497
`Patent
`
`Defendant’s Opposition concedes that ActiveNet wasnotpublicly available prior to the
`
`‘497 Patent. See Def. Opp. at 32-33. Defendants rely on the purported incorporation of
`
`ActiveNet into Heavy GearII, but there is no dispute that Dr. Karger has no personal knowledge
`
`of which version of ActiveNet he relied upon in forming his opinion. Jd. Defendants should not
`
`be permitted to proceedto trial using prior art which its own expert cannot even confirm was
`
`publicly available. See Ex, 23 (Karger Tr.) at 100:9-13 (admitting there were probably “many
`
`versions” of ActiveNet, and that he did not know which werein use).
`
`Additionally, Defendants rely on Mr, Kegel’s declaration to suggest (incorrectly) that the
`
`complete version of ActiveNet was available priorto the ‘497 Patent. However, Mr. Kegel
`
`testified that there were different versions of ActiveNetincorporated in Heavy GearII and Heavy
`
`Gear Demo whichvaried over time, Ex. 109 (Kegel Tr.) at 120:16-123:11 (‘I know that Heavy
`Gear demo, Heavy Gear 2, and games released after that in 1999 used this or a derivative ofit,
`and games released prior to that used a slightly different versionofthis.’”) (emphasis added).
`Defendants’ contention that Dr. Bennett corroborates that Heavy GearII was publicly available
`
`fails to rectify this deficiency, because Dr. Bennett cannot link the version of ActiveNet
`
`purportedly used in those gamesto the version of ActiveNet upon which Dr. Kargerrelies, As
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`

`

`‘
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 16 of 32 PagelD #: 43643
`
`such, there is no evidence that the code Dr. Karger actually relied upon waspublicly available.
`
`—_L
`
`The Accused Products infringe Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent
`
`A.
`
`Destiny Infringes Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent
`
`Activision does not contest that Destiny provides “a computer network for providing a
`
`game environmentfor a plurality of participants” where “each participant ha[s] connections to at
`
`least three neighbor participants” and “the numberofparticipants is at least two greater than m
`
`thus resulting in a non-complete graph.” AB Br,at 19-20; D.I. 442 (“Def. Br.”) at 2-7.°
`
`1.
`
`The Destiny Networkis m-regular
`
`Destiny is “configured to maintain’ a state ‘where each participant is connected to exactly
`99)
`m neighborparticipants.’” AB Br, at 22-24. Activision mischaracterizes AB’s infringement
`
`theory as being based on “imposing a maximumlimit on the numberof connections” and claims
`
`it is players’ choices that make the network m-regular, However,Po
`
`
`
`
`
`|{|
`||
`
`
`
`
`
`Although Activision cites to onlyfour paragraphs across his three expert reports, Dr.
`
`
`° Activision incorporates its summary judgment argumentthat Destiny and CoD cannotinfringe
`through the sale of software. AB incorporates its response thereto. D,I, 475 (“AB Opp.”) at 1-5.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 17 of 32 PagelD #: 43644
`
`Mitzenmacherprovides overwhelming evidence demonstrating that Destiny maintains an m-
`
`regular network. Ex. 28 (Mitz. Rpt.) at {§ 75, 76, 77-83, 121-128; AB Br, at 20-24, Critically,
`
`in the same sectionsof his report cited by Activision, Dr. Mitzenmacher explainsF
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`
`
`N
`
`Destiny Broadcasts and Rebroadcasts Messages
`
`Activision’s contention that Destiny does not meet the “broadcast/re-broadcast
`
`m8
`>
`>
`cf,
`5==°5Mm a °g=et
`xe ooSo oO= SRNo33goo<so= Tm GsSSaiv43 33a. >oO ios woc@
`
`
`
`Activision’s primary argument ~ i.e. participants do not send the “same” data —
`
`contradicts the Court’s construction and Drs. Mitzenmacher and Kelly’s analyses. f
`
`11
`
`
`
`|
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 511 Filed 03/16/18 Page 18 of 32 PagelD #: 43645
`
`oO°SSa=sQcz.°a t+>& >ao Q.Sfae)
`
`smn- > Q @Q~pOQa<< tau>o wr5oO o= @9oa 3==ecsS
`
`po]= o py
`
`wo oo ~l & —_ wo
`
`_— >
`
`The Court rejected Defendants’
`
`Activision’s contention that “relaying” does not meet this claim also fails. fe
`
`Furthermore,that “players/participants in a FireTeam or in the same Bubble[are]
`
`connected to every other player/participant” has no consequence on Destiny’s infringement. a
`
`Sad
`
`Destiny Forms Broadcast Channels
`
`To support its position that Destiny lacks a broadcast channel, Activision agues only that
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA D