Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 276 PageID #: 45543
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 276 PagelD #: 45543
`
`SCHEDULE A
`SCHEDULE A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 276 PageID #: 45544
`
`Schedule A: Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Civ. A. No. 16-453-RGA)
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.
`
`Acceleration Bay is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (“‘344 Patent”),
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`6,714,966 (“‘966 Patent”), 6,732,147 (“‘147 Patent”), 6,829,634 (“‘634 Patent”), 6,910,069
`
`(“‘069 Patent”), and 6,920,497 (“‘497 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`2, 2004.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`30, 2004.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`2004.
`
` 
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘344 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the application for the ‘344 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘344 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘344 Patent on March
`
`The ‘344 Patent will expire on September 21, 2021.
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘966 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the application for the ‘966 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘966 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘966 Patent on March
`
`The ‘966 Patent will expire on September 21, 2021.
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘147 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the application for the ‘147 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘147 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘147 Patent on May 4,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 276 PageID #: 45545
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`The ‘147 Patent will expire on July 20, 2022.
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘634 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the application for the ‘634 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘634 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘634 Patent issued on
`
`December 7, 2004.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`The ‘634 Patent will expire on August 7, 2022.
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘069 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the application for the ‘069 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘069 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘069 Patent on June 21,
`
`The ‘069 Patent will expire on July 9, 2022.
`
`Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa are named as inventors on the ‘497 Patent.
`
`Boeing filed the ‘497 Patent on July 31, 2000.
`
`The ‘497 Patent has a priority date of July 31, 2000.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘497 Patent on July 19,
`
`33.
`
`The ‘497 Patent will expire on August 20, 2022.
`
`2
`
`2005.
`
`2005.
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 276 PageID #: 45546
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 276 PagelD #: 45546
`
`SCHEDULE B1
`SCHEDULE Bl
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 5 of 276 PageID #: 45547
`
`Schedule B1: Acceleration Bay’s Statement of Disputed Facts
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Civ. A. No. 16-453-RGA)
`
`Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`1.
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`Whether Activision’s World of Warcraft infringes, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 12 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`6.
`
`Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 12 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`7.
`
`Whether Activision’s World of Warcraft infringes, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, Claims 12 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 12 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ‘147 Patent.
`
`10. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ‘147 Patent.
`
`11. Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ‘147 Patent.
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 6 of 276 PageID #: 45548
`
`12. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`13. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`14. Whether Activision’s World of Warcraft infringes, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`15. Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`16. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`17. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`18. Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`19. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Black Ops III infringes, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`20. Whether Activision’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare infringes, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`21. Whether Activision’s World of Warcraft infringes, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`22. Whether Activision’s Destiny infringes, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 7 of 276 PageID #: 45549
`
`23. Whether the hypothetical negotiation date for the Asserted Patents is March 11,
`
`2015, March 2, 2004 or August 2007.
`
`24. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘966 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`25. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘634 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`26. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘069 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`27. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘147 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`28. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘497 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`29. Whether Alagar renders obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`30. Whether Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`31. Whether Direct Play with Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious Claim 12,
`
`Claim 13, Claim 14 or Claim 15 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`32. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious
`
`Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14 or Claim 15 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`33. Whether Alagar renders obvious Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`34. Whether Shoubridge anticipates Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 8 of 276 PageID #: 45550
`
`35. Whether Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`36. Whether DirectPlay with Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious Claim 12 or
`
`Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`37. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious
`
`Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`38. Whether Obraczka in view of Shoubridge, or Obraczka in view of Shoubridge in
`
`further view of the Obraczka Thesis render obvious Claim 19 or Claim 22 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`39. Whether DirectPlay in view of Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 19 or Claim 22
`
`of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`40. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 19 or
`
`Claim 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`41. Whether the Obraczka Thesis in view of Denes in further view of Shoubridge
`
`render obvious Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`42. Whether DirectPlay invalidates Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ’069 Patent.
`
`43. Whether Age of Empires invalidates Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ’069 Patent.
`
`44. Whether Shoubridge, Denes and Rufino render obvious Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim
`
`15 or Claim 16 of the ‘147 Patent.
`
`45. Whether DirectPlay invalidates Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 15 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘147 Patent.
`
`46. Whether Age of Empires invalidates Claim 11, Claim 15 or Claim 16 of the ‘147
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 9 of 276 PageID #: 45551
`
`47. Whether Kegel in view of Naugle anticipates Claim 1 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`48. Whether Kegel in view of Naugle renders obvious Claim 1 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘497 Patent.
`
`49. Whether ActiveNet in view of Naugle anticipates Claim 9 or Claim 16 of the ‘147
`
`Patent.
`
`50. Whether ActiveNet in view of Naugle render obvious Claim 9 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘147 Patent.
`
`51. Whether long-felt need for the claimed inventions, copying by others, licensing,
`
`praise by others, industry recognition, and commercial success show that the claimed inventions
`
`were not obvious.
`
`52. Whether there are available to Activision any economically and technically
`
`feasible non-infringing alternatives to practicing the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`53.
`
`The amount adequate to compensate Acceleration Bay for Activision’s
`
`infringement separately for each of the Asserted Patents if Activision is found to infringe any
`
`asserted claims of any valid Asserted Patent.
`
`54. Whether Activision was aware of the Asserted Patents before March 11, 2015,
`
`when Acceleration Bay filed a complaint against Activision.
`
`55. Whether Activision’s infringement of the Asserted Patents is willful.
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 10 of 276 PageID #: 45552
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 10 of 276 PagelD #: 45552
`
`SCHEDULE B2
`SCHEDULE B2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 11 of 276 PageID #: 45553
`
` 
`
`
`
`Schedule B2: Activision’s Statement Of Disputed Facts
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Civ. A. No. 16-453-RGA)
`
` Activision respectfully submits the following Statement Of Disputed Facts based on its
`
`current understanding of Acceleration Bay’s positions. Should the Court determine that any issue
`
`identified herein is more appropriately considered an issue of law, Activision incorporates such
`
`issues by reference in its Statement Of Issues Of Law That Remain To Be Litigated (Schedule C2).
`
`Likewise, to the extent that Activision’s Statements Of Issues Of Law That Remain To Be
`
`Litigated contains issues that the Court deems to be issues of fact, those issues are incorporated
`
`herein by reference.
`
`
`
`Further, if Acceleration Bay attempts to present any doctrine of equivalents arguments,
`
`then Activision will challenge whether Acceleration Bay has a right to do so because Plaintiff
`
`never properly presented its doctrine of equivalents positions.
`
`I.
`
`Infringement
`
`1.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’344 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringe claims 12,
`
`13, 14, and 15 of the ’344 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringed claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of
`
`the ’344 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of World of Warcraft has directly infringed claims 12, 13, 14,
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 12 of 276 PageID #: 45554
`
` 
`
`and 15 of the ’344 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`5.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`12 and 13 of the ’966 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`6.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringed claims 12
`
`and 13 of the ’966 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`7.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringed claims 12 and 13 of the ’966
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`8.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of World of Warcraft has directly infringes claims 12 and 13 of
`
`the ’966 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`9.
`
`Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`19 and 22 of the ’634 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`10. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringed claims 19
`
`and 22 of the ’634 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`11. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringe claims 19 and 22 of the ’634
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`12. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 13 of 276 PageID #: 45555
`
` 
`
`use by others) in the United States of World of Warcraft has directly infringed claims 19 and 22
`
`of the ’634 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`13. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`1 and 11 of the ’069 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`14. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringed claims 1
`
`and 11 of the ’069 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`15. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringed claims 1 and 11 of the ’069
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`16. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ’147 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`17. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringed claims 1,
`
`11, 15, and 16 of the ’147 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`18. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringed claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the
`
`’147 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`19. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare has directly infringed claims
`
`9 and 16 of the ’497 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 14 of 276 PageID #: 45556
`
` 
`
`20. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 has directly infringed claims 9
`
`and 16 of the ’497 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`21. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of Destiny has directly infringed claims 9 and 16 of the ’497
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`22. Whether Activision’s manufacture, sale, offer for sale, and/or use (or control of the
`
`use by others) in the United States of World of Warcraft has directly infringed claims 9 and 16 of
`
`the ’497 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`23. Whether Acceleration Bay can meet its burden to show that its asserted range of
`
`equivalents is not barred by prosecution history estoppel.
`
`24. Whether Acceleration Bay can meet its burden to show that its asserted range of
`
`equivalents does not ensnare the prior art.
`
`II.
`
`Conception, Diligence, and Reduction to Practice
`
`25. Whether the named inventors of the Asserted Patents conceived of the subject
`
`matter claimed in the patents earlier than July 31, 2000.
`
`26. Whether the named inventors of the Asserted Patents diligently reduced the subject
`
`matter of the patents to practice.
`
`III.
`
`Invalidity
`
`27. Whether claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’344 patent are invalid as obvious in light
`
`of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`28. Whether claims 12 and 13 of the ’966 patent are invalid as obvious in light of the
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`29. Whether claims 19 and 22 of the ’634 patent are invalid as obvious in light of the
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 15 of 276 PageID #: 45557
`
` 
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`30. Whether claims 1 and 11 of the ’069 patent are invalid as obvious in light of the
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`31. Whether claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ’147 patent are invalid as obvious in light
`
`of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`32. Whether claims 9 and 16 of the ’497 patent are invalid as obvious in light of the
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`33.
`
`The scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the prior art and the
`
`claim invention, and any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`34. Whether the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for lack of written
`
`description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`35. Whether the asserted claims of the ’344, ’966, ’634 and ’497 patents are invalid for
`
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`36. Whether the asserted claims of the ’147 patent are invalid for lack of enablement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`37.
`
`To the extent it is not a question of law in this case, whether the asserted claims of
`
`the ’344, ’966, ’634, ’147 (claims 11, 15, 15) and ’497 patents are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`101 because it is not one of the four categories of invention deemed to be appropriate subject
`
`matter of a patent.
`
`38.
`
`To the extent it is not a question of law in this case, whether the asserted claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming unpatentable subject
`
`matter.
`
`IV. Damages
`
`39.
`
`If any asserted claim is found to be infringed and not invalid, the amount of a
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 16 of 276 PageID #: 45558
`
` 
`
`reasonable royalty to which the parties would have agreed in a hypothetical negotiation.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`The date of the hypothetical negotiation.
`
`The factors the parties would have agreed to in that negotiation, including other
`
`licenses under the patents-in-suit.
`
`42. Whether there are available to Activision any economically and technically feasible
`
`non-infringing alternatives to practicing the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`43.
`
`To the extent it is not a question of law in this case, whether Acceleration Bay can
`
`seek to recover damages for future sales that have not happened and may never happen.
`
`44.
`
`To the extent it is not a question of law in this case, whether Acceleration Bay can
`
`seek to recover damages for sales outside the United States or to entities outside the United States.
`
`V. Willful Infringement
`
`45.
`
`If any asserted claim is found to be infringed and not invalid, whether Activision’s
`
`alleged infringement after March 2015 was willful.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 17 of 276 PageID #: 45559
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 17 of 276 PagelD #: 45559
`
`SCHEDULE C1
`SCHEDULE Cl
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 18 of 276 PageID #: 45560
`
`Schedule C1: Acceleration Bay’s Statement of Issues of Law that Remain to be Litigated
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Civ. A. No. 16-453-RGA)
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`1.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ‘344 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`2.
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Claims 12 and 13 of the ‘966 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`3.
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Claims 1, 11, 15, and 16 of the ‘147 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`4.
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`5.
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Claims 1 and 11 of the ‘069 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`6.
`
`Whether Activision infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`7.
`
`Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘966 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`8.
`
`Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘634 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`9.
`
`Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘069 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`10. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘147 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`11. Whether the Asserted Claims of the ‘497 Patent are valid for written description
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 19 of 276 PageID #: 45561
`
`12. Whether Alagar renders obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`13. Whether Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`14. Whether Direct Play with Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious Claim 12,
`
`Claim 13, Claim 14 or Claim 15 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`15. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious
`
`Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14 or Claim 15 of the ‘344 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`16. Whether Alagar renders obvious Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`17. Whether Shoubridge anticipates Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`18. Whether Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`19. Whether DirectPlay with Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious Claim 12 or
`
`Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`20. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge and/or Alagar render obvious
`
`Claim 12 or Claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`21. Whether Obraczka in view of Shoubridge, or Obraczka in view of Shoubridge in
`
`further view of the Obraczka Thesis render obvious Claim 19 or Claim 22 of the ‘966 Patent.
`
`22. Whether DirectPlay in view of Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 19 or Claim 22
`
`of the ‘634 Patent.
`
`23. Whether Age of Empires in view of Shoubridge renders obvious Claim 19 or
`
`Claim 22 of the ‘634 Patent.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 20 of 276 PageID #: 45562
`
`24. Whether the Obraczka Thesis in view of Denes in further view of Shoubridge
`
`render obvious Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ‘069 Patent.
`
`25. Whether DirectPlay invalidates Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ’069 Patent.
`
`26. Whether Age of Empires invalidates Claim 1 or Claim 11 of the ’069 Patent.
`
`27. Whether Shoubridge, Denes and Rufino render obvious Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim
`
`15 or Claim 16 of the ‘147 Patent.
`
`28. Whether DirectPlay invalidates Claim 1, Claim 11, Claim 15 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘147 Patent.
`
`29. Whether Age of Empires invalidates Claim 11, Claim 15 or Claim 16 of the ‘147
`
`Patent.
`
`30. Whether Kegel in view of Naugle anticipates Claim 1 of the ‘497 Patent.
`
`31. Whether Kegel in view of Naugle renders obvious Claim 1 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘497 Patent.
`
`32. Whether ActiveNet in view of Naugle anticipates Claim 9 or Claim 16 of the ‘147
`
`Patent.
`
`33. Whether ActiveNet in view of Naugle render obvious Claim 9 or Claim 16 of the
`
`‘147 Patent.
`
`34. Whether long-felt need for the claimed inventions, copying by others, licensing,
`
`praise by others, industry recognition, and commercial success show that the claimed inventions
`
`were not obvious.
`
`35. Whether there are available to Activision any economically and technically
`
`feasible non-infringing alternatives to practicing the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 21 of 276 PageID #: 45563
`
`36. Whether Acceleration Bay is entitled to any damages for Activision’s
`
`infringement.
`
`37. Whether Acceleration Bay is entitled to a finding that Activision’s infringement is
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate and that Acceleration Bay is entitled to trebled damages on this
`
`basis.
`
`38. Whether Acceleration Bay is entitled to a judgment and order that this is an
`
`exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Acceleration Bay its costs,
`
`enhanced damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`39. Whether Acceleration Bay is entitled to a permanent injunction pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 283 for Activision’s infringement.
`
`40. Whether Acceleration Bay is entitled to a judgment and order requiring Activision
`
`to give an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, together with prejudgment and post-
`
`judgment interest from the date of first infringement of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`284; 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
`
`41.
`
`Acceleration Bay incorporates the disputed facts listed in Schedule B1 to the
`
`extent that they involve disputed legal issues and/or mixed questions of law and fact.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 22 of 276 PageID #: 45564
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 22 of 276 PagelD #: 45564
`
`SCHEDULE C2
`SCHEDULE C2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 23 of 276 PageID #: 45565
`
` 
`
`
`
`Schedule C2: Activision’s Statement Of Issues Of Law That Remain To Be Litigated
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Civ. A. No. 16-453-RGA)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) denies that the asserted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 patent), 6,714,966 (“the ’966 patent), 6,829,634 (“the ’634
`
`patent), 6,910,069 (“the ’069 patent”), 6,732,147 (“the ’147 patent”), and 6,920,497 (“the ’497
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) are infringed.
`
`In addition, Activision asserts that the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid
`
`for various reasons. The asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid as obvious and for
`
`lack of written description. Activision also asserts that the asserted claims of the ’147 patent are
`
`invalid for lack of enablement. Activision asserts that the asserted claims of the ’344, ’966, ’634,
`
`and ’497 patents are invalid for indefiniteness. Indeed, claims 19 and 22 of the ’634 patent have
`
`already been found indefinite and judgment to that those claims are invalid should be entered.
`
`Activision further contends that to the extent that any asserted claim is alleged to encompass pure
`
`software, such a claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to fall within a statutory category
`
`of patent-eligible subject matter. Activision further alleges that claims 11, and 15-16 of the ’147
`
`patent and claims 19 and 22 of the ’634 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they
`
`encompass transitory signals and thus extend beyond the statutory classes of patent-eligible subject
`
`matter. Activision further alleges that the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming unpatentable subject matter.
`
`Activision also seeks its costs pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, and its attorneys’ fees, including under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Court’s inherent powers
`
`and other applicable authority.
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 542-1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 24 of 276 PageID #: 45566
`
` 
`
`
`
`Activision’s Statements of Issues of Law Of Law That Remain To Be Litigated is based
`
`on the arguments it expects to make to establish invalidity of the asserted claims, as well as its
`
`understanding of the arguments that Acceleration Bay is likely to make in attempting to prove
`
`infringement, conception and reduction to practice, and damages. To the extent that Acceleration
`
`Bay intends or attempts to introduce different or additional legal arguments, Activision reserves
`
`the right to supplement this statement and contest those legal arguments, and to present any and
`
`all rebuttal evidence in response to those arguments. By providing this statement, Activision does
`
`not concede that all of the recited issues are appropriate for trial. In particular, Activision does not
`
`waive any of its motions in limine, Daubert motions, or motions for summary judgment, which, if
`
`granted, would render some or all of these issues moot.
`
`
`
`Further, if Acceleration Bay attempts to present any doctrine of equivalents arguments,
`
`then Activision will challenge whether Acceleration Bay has a right to do so because Plaintiff
`
`never properly presented its doctrine of equivalents positions.
`
`ISSUES ON WHICH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`I.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`A.
`
`Issues to be Litigated1
`
`