Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 43774
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE MEANS PLUS
`FUNCTION CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,714,344 AND 6,714,966
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`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 Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE MEANS PLUS
`FUNCTION CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,714,344 AND 6,714,966
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`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 Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 43775
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Michael Woods
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`April 16, 2018
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 43776
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that four video games published and sold by
`
`Activision Blizzard Inc. (“Activision”) infringe six U.S. patents. Activision filed its motion for
`
`summary judgment and to exclude expert opinion under FRE 702 on February 2, 2018. D.I. 440.
`
`Briefing on that motion is complete. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion
`
`For Clarification Of The Court’s Claim Construction Opinion And Order. D.I. 519. Trial is
`
`scheduled to begin on April 30, 2018.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Court clarified its prior claim construction regarding a means plus function term in
`
`asserted claims 13 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 patent”) and 6,714,966 (“the ’966
`
`patent”), and dependent claims 14 and 15 of the ‘344 patent. D.I. 519. This clarification makes
`
`it clear that the accused products do not infringe. Accordingly, Activision requests summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement as to claims 13-15 of the ’344 patent and claim 13 of the’966
`
`patent.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The term “means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel” is a limitation of
`
`independent claims 13 of the ’344 and ’966 patents. On April 10, 2018, the Court adopted the
`
`following as the claimed structure for the term:
`
`A processor programmed to perform the algorithms disclosed in steps 801 to 809
`in Figure 8 (described in the '344 Patent at 17:67-19:34, 19:66-20:44, 21:4-53,
`22:61-24:6), and Figures 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18, which involves invoking the
`connecting routine with the identified broadcast channel's type and instance,
`connecting to the broadcast channel, connecting to a neighbor, and connecting to
`a fully connected state.
`
`D.I. 519 (Memo Order) at 5.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 43777
`
`Plaintiff’s expert reports refer to this claim limitation as “Element 13(i).” See generally
`
`D.I. 454, Ex. 28 (Expert Report of Dr. Mitzenmacher) at ¶¶ 187-193 (for the ’344 patent), 384-
`
`385 (for the ’966 patent); D.I. 455, Ex. 40 (Expert Report of Dr. Medvidovic) at ¶¶ 288-295 (for
`
`the ’344 patent), 518-519 (for the ’966 patent). The sections of those expert reports that purport
`
`to address this claim limitation do not mention any of the seven algorithms as depicted by
`
`Figures 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of the ’344 and ’966 patents required by the Court’s claim
`
`construction. Id. That is, they provide no discussion of the claimed algorithms as depicted by
`
`Figures 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18. Id. Plaintiff’s experts only assert that the Accused
`
`Networks practice the algorithm of Figures 3A and 3B and lines 5:33-55. Id. But, as the Court
`
`held, “Figures 3A and 3B and lines 5:33-55 are not relevant to the claims in which [the term]
`
`appears.” D.I. 519 at 5.
`
`For an accused structure to literally infringe a means-plus-function limitation, “the
`
`accused structure must either be the same as or equivalent to the disclosed structure. To be
`
`equivalent, the accused structure must (1) perform the identical function and (2) be otherwise
`
`insubstantially different with respect to structure.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., Inc.,
`
`208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir.2000). “[S]tructures may be 'equivalent' for purposes of section
`
`112, paragraph 6 if they perform the identical function, in substantially the same way, with
`
`substantially the same result." Id.
`
`Because Plaintiff has no evidence that the accused products meet the claimed structure,
`
`summary judgment of non-infringement is appropriate as to claims 13-15 of the ’344 patent and
`
`claim 13 of the ’966 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 43778
`
`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
`Sean H. Suber
`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
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Michael Woods
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`__________________________________
`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 Defendants
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 43779
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`April 16, 2018
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 522-1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 43780
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 16, 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
`
`April 16, 2018, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`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
`Cristina Martinez, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
