`
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
`302 984 6000
`www.potteranderson.com
`
`Philip A. Rovner
`Partner
`Attorney at Law
`provner@potteranderson.com
`302 984-6140 Direct Phone
`302 658-1192 Firm Fax
`
`August 13, 2018
`
`BY CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`U.S. Courthouse
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.
`D. Del., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA
`
`We write in response to Activision’s August 10, 2018 offer to present yet further
`argument in support of its motion for summary judgment (D.I. 576). After receiving 250 pages
`of briefing, the Court indicated at the pretrial conference in this action that it would “direct the
`parties to specific summary judgment issues on which I want to hear argument.” D.I. 554. The
`Court then issued an order calling for oral argument on five specific topics. Id. After the Court
`presided over several hours of oral argument on the parties’ summary judgment motions, it
`directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on a handful of issues “that were not fleshed
`out in the related briefing.” D.I. 557, 558. The Court did not request oral argument or any
`further submission on the “m-regular/incomplete limitations” that are the focus of Activision’s
`letter.
`
`Activision does not identify any reason the Court should reconsider its prior order
`regarding the scope of oral argument for summary judgment. Activision did not object at the
`time to the Court’s Order regarding the topics to be addressed at the hearing, and does not now
`identify any developments or changed circumstances that dictate a different result. Yet further
`oral argument on summary judgment is unwarranted and would only serve to waste the Court’s
`time and the parties’ resources.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record
`5892429
`
`