Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 72 PageID #: 48778
`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 72 PagelD #: 48778
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B-2
`EXHIBIT B-2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 2 of 72 PageID #: 48779
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. LR 51.1(a), Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”)
`
`submits these proposed final jury instructions. Activision will continue to meet with Plaintiff in
`
`an effort to reach agreement or narrow disputes before trial.
`
`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 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
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 3 of 72 PageID #: 48780
`
`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
`
`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
`
`October 16, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 4 of 72 PageID #: 48781
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`1 
`
`GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................ 1 
`
`1.1 
`
`1.2 
`
`1.3 
`
`1.4 
`
`1.5 
`
`1.6 
`
`1.7 
`
`1.8 
`
`1.9 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`
`JURORS' DUTIES .................................................................................................. 2 
`
`BURDENS OF PROOF .......................................................................................... 3 
`
`EVIDENCE DEFINED .......................................................................................... 5 
`
`CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE ..................................................................... 7 
`
`DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ............................................... 8 
`
`CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES .......................................................................... 9 
`
`NUMBER OF WITNESSES ................................................................................ 11 
`
`EXPERT WITNESSES ........................................................................................ 12 
`
`1.10  DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS ......................................................................... 13 
`
`1.11  USE OF NOTES ................................................................................................... 14 
`
`2 
`
`THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTIONS .............................................................. 15 
`
`2.1 
`
`2.2 
`
`THE PARTIES...................................................................................................... 15 
`
`SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS ....................................................................... 16 
`
`3 
`
`PATENT CLAIMS ........................................................................................................... 18 
`
`3.1 
`
`3.2 
`
`3.3 
`
`THE ROLE OF THE CLAIMS IN A PATENT ................................................... 18 
`
`INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS ................................................ 19 
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS ......................................................................... 21 
`
`3.3.1.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’344 PATENT CLAIMS ............................ 21 
`
`3.3.2.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’966 PATENT CLAIMS ............................ 24 
`
`3.3.3.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’069 PATENT CLAIMS ............................ 27 
`
`3.3.4.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’147 PATENT CLAIMS ............................ 29 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 5 of 72 PageID #: 48782
`
`
`
`3.3.5.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’497 PATENT CLAIMS ............................ 30 
`
`4 
`
`INFRINGEMENT............................................................................................................. 33 
`
`4.1 
`
`4.2 
`
`4.3 
`
`4.4 
`
`4.5 
`
`INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY ........................................................................ 33 
`
`INFRINGEMENT - LITERAL INFRINGEMENT.............................................. 34 
`
`INFRINGEMENT - UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS............... 36 
`
`LIMITATIONS ON DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS—
`INFRINGEMENT................................................................................................. 38 
`
`SITUATIONS WHERE RESORT TO DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
`IS NOT PERMITTED .......................................................................................... 39 
`
`4.6  MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT .............................. 41 
`
`4.7 
`
`4.8 
`
`4.9 
`
`SYSTEM CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT ............................................................. 42 
`
`SYSTEM CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT BY MAKING ..................................... 43 
`
`SYSTEM CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT BY USING ......................................... 44 
`
`4.10  SYSTEM CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT BY SELLING OR OFFERING
`TO SELL ............................................................................................................... 45 
`
`4.11  METHOD CLAIMS—INFRINGEMENT ........................................................... 46 
`
`4.12 
`
`INFRINGEMENT - SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 47 
`
`4.13 
`
`INFRINGEMENT – CAPABILITY ..................................................................... 48 
`
`4.14 
`
`INFRINGEMENT – MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE UNITED STATES ........... 49 
`
`4.15  WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT .............................................................. 50 
`
`5 
`
`INVALIDITY ................................................................................................................... 51 
`
`5.1 
`
`5.2 
`
`INVALIDITY –INTRODUCTION AND BURDEN OF PROOF ....................... 51 
`
`LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION................................................................ 52 
`
`6 
`
`DAMAGES ....................................................................................................................... 54 
`
`6.1 
`
`6.2 
`
`DAMAGES - GENERALLY ............................................................................... 54 
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY AS A MEASURE OF DAMAGES ....................... 55 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 6 of 72 PageID #: 48783
`
`
`
`6.3 
`
`6.4 
`
`6.5 
`
`6.7 
`
`FACTORS FOR DETERMINING REASONABLE ROYALTY ....................... 57 
`
`LICENSES TO PATENTS OTHER THAN THE ASSERTED PATENTS ....... 59 
`
`DEFINITIONS OF LUMP SUM AND RUNNING ROYALTIES ..................... 60 
`
`DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CLAIMED DAMAGES ............................ 61 
`
`7 
`
`DELIBERATION AND VERDICT ................................................................................. 62 
`
`7.1 
`
`7.2 
`
`7.3 
`
`7.4 
`
`7.5 
`
`DELIBERATION AND VERDICT-INTRODUCTION ...................................... 62 
`
`UNANIMOUS VERDICT .................................................................................... 63 
`
`DUTY TO DELIBERATE ................................................................................... 64 
`
`SOCIAL MEDIA .................................................................................................. 65 
`
`COURT HAS NO OPINION ................................................................................ 66 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 7 of 72 PageID #: 48784
`
`
`
`1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.1
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`Members of the jury, now it is time for me to instruct you about the law that you must
`
`follow in deciding this case.
`
`I will start by explaining your duties and the general rules that apply in every civil case.
`
`Then I will explain some rules that you must use in evaluating particular testimony and evidence.
`
`Then I will explain the positions of the parties and the law you will apply in this case. Finally, I
`
`will explain the rules that you must follow during your deliberations in the jury room, and the
`
`possible verdicts that you may return.
`
`Please listen very carefully to everything I say. In following my instructions you must
`
`follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others. They are all important.
`
`You will have a written copy of these instructions with you in the jury room for your
`
`reference during your deliberations. You will also have a verdict form, which will list the
`
`questions that you must answer to decide this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 EMC Corporation et al. v. Pure Storage, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01985-RGA, D.I. 448 (March
`15, 2016) (“EMC Instructions”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 8 of 72 PageID #: 48785
`
`
`
`1.2 JURORS' DUTIES2
`
`You have two main duties as jurors. The first one is to decide what the facts are from the
`
`evidence that you saw and heard here in court. Deciding what the facts are is your job, not mine,
`
`and nothing that I have said or done during this trial was meant to influence your decision about
`
`the facts in any way.
`
`Your second duty is to take the law that I give you, apply it to the facts, and decide, under
`
`the appropriate burden of proof, which party should prevail on any given issue. It is my job to
`
`instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath that you took at the beginning of the
`
`trial to follow the instructions that I give you, even if you personally disagree with them. This
`
`includes the instructions that I gave you before and during the trial, and these instructions. All of
`
`the instructions are important, and you should consider them together as a whole.
`
`Perform these duties fairly. Do not let any bias, sympathy or prejudice that you may feel
`
`toward one side or the other influence your decision in any way.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 EMC Instructions.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 9 of 72 PageID #: 48786
`
`
`
`1.3 BURDENS OF PROOF3
`
`This is a civil case in which Acceleration Bay LLC (whom I will refer to as "Acceleration
`
`Bay") is accusing Activision Blizzard, Inc. (whom I will refer to as "Activision") of patent
`
`infringement.
`
`In any legal action, facts must be proven by a required standard of evidence, known as
`
`the "burden of proof." Acceleration Bay has the burden of proving patent infringement and
`
`damages by what is called a preponderance of the evidence. That means Acceleration Bay has to
`
`produce evidence which, when considered in light of all of the facts, leads you to believe that the
`
`infringement and damages are more likely true than not. To put it differently, if you were to put
`
`Acceleration Bay's and Activision's evidence on the opposite sides of a scale, the evidence
`
`supporting Acceleration Bay's claims would have to make the scales tip somewhat on
`
`Acceleration Bay's side. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the
`
`evidence on either side of the issue is stronger, your finding on that issue must be against the
`
`party who has the burden of proving it. Acceleration has the burden on the issues of
`
`infringement and damages and if the evidence appears to be equally balanced or if you cannot
`
`say on which side it weighs heavier, then you must enter a finding for Activision because
`
`Acceleration Bay has not met its burden of proof.
`
`Activision has challenged the validity of the asserted claims on a number of grounds.
`
`Although the patent was granted by the Patent and Trademark Office, it is your job to determine
`
`whether Activision has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the legal requirements for
`
`patentability were not met. Clear and convincing evidence means that you must be left with a
`
`clear conviction that the claim is invalid.
`
`
`3 Based on EMC Instructions.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 10 of 72 PageID #: 48787
`
`
`
`Those of you who are familiar with criminal cases will have heard the term “proof
`
`beyond a reasonable doubt.” That burden does not apply in a civil case and you should,
`
`therefore, put it out of your mind in considering whether or not the plaintiff or defendant has met
`
`its burden of proof.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 11 of 72 PageID #: 48788
`
`
`
`1.4 EVIDENCE DEFINED4
`
`You must make your decision based only on the evidence that you saw and heard here in
`
`court. Do not let rumors, suspicions, or anything else that you may have seen or heard outside of
`
`court influence your decision in any way.
`
`The evidence in this case includes only what the witnesses said while they were testifying
`
`under oath, deposition testimony that was presented to you, the exhibits that I allowed into
`
`evidence, the stipulations that the lawyers agreed to, and any other evidence that I have judicially
`
`noticed.
`
`Nothing else is evidence. The lawyers' statements and arguments are not evidence. The
`
`arguments of the lawyers are offered solely as an aid to help you in your determination of the
`
`facts. Their questions and objections are not evidence. My legal rulings are not evidence. My
`
`comments and questions are not evidence.
`
`During the trial I may have not let you hear the answers to some of the questions that the
`
`lawyers asked. I also may have ruled that you could not see some of the exhibits that the lawyers
`
`wanted you to see. And sometimes I may have ordered you to disregard things that you saw or
`
`heard, or I struck things from the record. You must completely ignore all of these things. Do not
`
`even think about them. Do not speculate about what a witness might have said or what an
`
`exhibit might have shown. These things are not evidence, and you are bound by your oath not to
`
`let them influence your decision in any way. Sometimes testimony and exhibits are received
`
`only for a limited purpose. When I give instructions regarding that limited purpose, you must
`
`follow it.
`
`
`4 EMC Instructions.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 12 of 72 PageID #: 48789
`
`
`
`else.
`
`
`
`Make your decision based only on the evidence, as I have defined it here, and nothing
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 13 of 72 PageID #: 48790
`
`
`
`1.5 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE5
`
`You should use your common sense in weighing the evidence. Consider the evidence in
`
`light of your everyday experience with people and events, and give it whatever weight you
`
`believe it deserves. If your experience tells you that certain evidence reasonably leads to a
`
`conclusion, you are free to reach that conclusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 EMC Instructions.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 14 of 72 PageID #: 48791
`
`
`
`1.6 DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE6
`
`There are two kinds of evidence: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct
`
`evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as the testimony of an eyewitness. For example, if a
`
`witness testified that she saw it raining outside, and you believed her, that would be direct
`
`evidence that it was raining.
`
`Circumstantial evidence is indirect proof of a fact, i.e., proof of facts from which you
`
`may infer or conclude that other facts exist. For example, if someone walked into the courtroom
`
`wearing a raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that would be
`
`circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that it was raining.
`
`The law makes no distinction between the weight that you should give to either direct or
`
`circumstantial evidence, nor does it say that one type of evidence is any better evidence than the
`
`other. You should consider all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and give it whatever
`
`weight you believe it deserves.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 EMC Instructions.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 15 of 72 PageID #: 48792
`
`
`
`1.7 CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES7
`
`You are the sole judges of each witness's credibility. You should consider each witness's
`
`means of knowledge; strength of memory; opportunity to observe; how reasonable or
`
`unreasonable the testimony is; whether it is consistent or inconsistent; whether it has been
`
`contradicted; the witness's biases, prejudices, or interests; the witness's manner or demeanor on
`
`the witness stand; and all circumstances that, according to the evidence, could affect the
`
`credibility of the testimony.
`
`If you find the testimony to be contradictory, you must try to reconcile it, if reasonably
`
`possible, so as to make one harmonious story of it all. But if you cannot do this, then it is your
`
`duty and privilege to believe the portions of testimony that, in your judgment, are most
`
`believable and disregard any testimony that, in your judgment, is not believable.
`
`In determining the weight to give to the testimony of a witness, you should ask yourself
`
`whether there was evidence tending to prove that the witness testified falsely about some
`
`important fact, or, whether there was evidence that at some other time the witness said or did
`
`something, or failed to say or do something that was different from the testimony he or she gave
`
`at the trial. You have the right to distrust such witness's testimony in other particulars and you
`
`may reject all or some of the testimony of that witness or give it such credibility as you may
`
`think it deserves.
`
`You should remember that a simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that
`
`the witness was not telling the truth. People may tend to forget some things or remember other
`
`things inaccurately. If a witness has made a misstatement you must consider whether it was
`
`
`7 EMC Instructions.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 16 of 72 PageID #: 48793
`
`
`
`simply an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend upon
`
`whether it concerns an important fact or an unimportant detail.
`
`This instruction applies to all witnesses, including expert witnesses.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 17 of 72 PageID #: 48794
`
`
`
`1.8 NUMBER OF WITNESSES8
`
`One more point about the witnesses. Sometimes jurors wonder if the number of
`
`witnesses who testified makes any difference.
`
`Do not make any decisions based only on the number of witnesses who testified. What is
`
`more important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their
`
`testimony deserves. Concentrate on that, not the numbers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 EMC Instructions.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 18 of 72 PageID #: 48795
`
`
`
`1.9 EXPERT WITNESSES9
`
`When knowledge of technical subject matter may be helpful to the jury, a person who has
`
`special training or experience in that technical field-called an expert witness-is permitted to state
`
`his or her opinion on those technical matters. However, you are not required to accept that
`
`opinion. As with any other witness, it is up to you to decide whether to rely upon it.
`
`In weighing expert testimony, you may consider the expert's qualifications, the reasons
`
`for the expert's opinions, and the reliability of the information supporting the expert's opinions,
`
`as well as the factors I have previously mentioned for weighing testimony of any other witness.
`
`Expert testimony should receive whatever weight and credit you think appropriate, given all the
`
`other evidence in the case. You are free to accept or reject the testimony of experts, just as with
`
`any other witness.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 EMC Instructions.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 19 of 72 PageID #: 48796
`
`
`
`1.10 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS10
`
`During the course of the trial, you have seen many exhibits. Many of these exhibits were
`
`admitted as evidence. You will have these admitted exhibits in the jury room for your
`
`deliberations. The other exhibits (including charts and animations presented by attorneys and
`
`witnesses) were offered to help illustrate the testimony of the various witnesses. These
`
`illustrations, called "demonstrative exhibits," have not been admitted as evidence, are not
`
`evidence, and should not be considered as evidence. Rather, it is the underlying testimony of the
`
`witness that you heard when you saw the demonstrative exhibits that is the evidence in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 EMC Instructions.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 20 of 72 PageID #: 48797
`
`
`
`1.11 USE OF NOTES11
`
`You may use notes taken during trial to assist your memory. However, you should use
`
`caution in consulting your notes. There is always a tendency to attach undue importance to
`
`matters that you have written down. Some testimony that is considered unimportant at the time
`
`presented, and thus not written down, takes on greater importance later on in the trial in light of
`
`all the evidence presented. Therefore, you are instructed that your notes are only a tool to aid
`
`your own individual memory, and you should not compare notes with other jurors in determining
`
`the content of any testimony or in evaluating the importance of any evidence. Your notes are not
`
`evidence, and are by no means a complete outline of the proceedings or a list of the highlights of
`
`the trial. Above all, your memory should be the greatest asset when it comes time to deliberate
`
`and render a decision in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 EMC Instructions.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 21 of 72 PageID #: 48798
`
`
`
`2 THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTIONS
`
`2.1 THE PARTIES
`
`I will now review for you the parties in this action, and the positions that you will have to
`
`consider in reaching your verdict. I will then provide you with detailed instructions on what
`
`each side must prove to win on each of its contentions.
`
`The parties are Acceleration Bay LLC and Activision Blizzard, Inc. Acceleration Bay is
`
`asserting United States Patent Nos. 6,701,344, 6,714,966, 6,732,147, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497
`
`which I will refer to by their last three numbers. I may also refer to these patents as the
`
`"Asserted Patents" or the "Acceleration Bay Patents."
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 22 of 72 PageID #: 48799
`
`
`
`2.2 SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
`
`Acceleration Bay has asserted a total of sixteen claims from the Asserted Patents. I will
`
`refer to the claims as the “Asserted Claims.” Acceleration Bay contends that Activision literally
`
`infringes the Asserted Claims by making, using, selling, or offering for sale products or networks
`
`that Acceleration Bay argues are covered by those claim. Activision denies that it infringes any
`
`of the Asserted Claims.
`
`The products or networks that are alleged to infringe are provide in the following table:
`
`Accused Product
`
`Accused Network
`
`Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
`
`Game Play Logics Network
`
`Connectivity Graph Network
`
`Call of Duty: Black Ops 3
`
`Game Play Logics Network
`
`Connectivity Graph Network
`
`World of Warcraft
`
`Server-to-Server
`
`Communication
`
`Network
`
`Bungie Broadcast Network
`
`Activity Broadcast Network
`
`Destiny
`
`
`
`
`
`The chart below identifies the Asserted Patents, Asserted Claims, and the Accused
`
`Products or Networks for each Asserted Patent and Asserted Claim. The World of Warcraft
`
`video game is only accused of infringing some of the Asserted Patents and some of the Asserted
`
`Claims.
`
`Asserted
`
`Asserted Claims Accused Products or Networks
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 23 of 72 PageID #: 48800
`
`
`
`Patents
`
`6,701,344
`
`12, 13-15
`
`The Accused Network of World of Warcraft,
`
`6,714,966
`
`12 and 13
`
`The Accused Network of World of Warcraft, and Destiny
`video games
`
`6,732,147
`
`1
`
`6,910,069
`
`1 and 11
`
`9 and 16
`
`6,920,497
`
`
`
`The Accused Networks of Call of Duty: Advanced
`Warfare, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and Destiny video
`games
`
`The Accused Networks of Call of Duty: Advanced
`Warfare, Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, and Destiny video
`games
`World of Warcraft
`
`If the Asserted Claims have been infringed and are not found by you to be invalid, you
`
`will then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to Acceleration Bay to compensate it
`
`for the infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 24 of 72 PageID #: 48801
`
`
`
`3 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`3.1 THE ROLE OF THE CLAIMS IN A PATENT12
`
`Before you can decide many of the issues in this case, you will need to understand the
`
`role of patent "claims." The patent claims are the numbered sentences at the end of each patent.
`
`The claims are important because it is the words of the claims that define what a patent covers.
`
`The figures and text in the rest of the patent provide a description and/or examples of the
`
`invention and provide a context for the claims, but it is the claims that define the exact
`
`boundaries of the patent's coverage. Each claim may cover more or less than another claim.
`
`Therefore, what a patent covers depends, in turn, on what each of its claims covers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 EMC Instructions.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 25 of 72 PageID #: 48802
`
`
`
`3.2
`
`INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS13
`
`Claims can be stated in two different ways in a patent.
`
`The first way a claim can be stated is in the form of an "independent claim." An
`
`independent claim does not refer to any other claim of the patent. An independent claim is read
`
`alone to determine its scope. An "independent claim" sets forth all of the requirements that must
`
`be met in order for an accused system or method to be covered by that claim, and thus infringe.
`
`Claim 13 of the ’344 patent, claim 13 of the ’966 patent, claim 1 of the ’147 patent, claim 1 of
`
`the ’069 patent, and claim 9 of the ’497 patent are independent claims.
`
`The second way a claim can be stated is in the form of a dependent claim. A dependent
`
`claim does not itself recite all of the requirements of the claim but refers to another claim or
`
`claims for some of its requirements. In this way, the claim "depends" on another claim or
`
`claims. A dependent claim incorporates all of the requirements of the claims to which it refers.
`
`The dependent claim then adds its own additional requirements. To determine what a dependent
`
`claim covers, it is necessary to look at both the dependent claim and any other claims to which it
`
`refers. The Asserted Claim, Claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent, is a dependent claim, which depends
`
`from independent claim 1 of the ‘344 Patent.
`
`An accused product or method is only covered by, and is therefore infringing of, a
`
`dependent claim if the accused product meets all of the requirements of both the dependent claim
`
`and the claims to which the dependent claim refers. Because a dependent claim incorporates all
`
`of the features of the independent claims it refers to, if you find that an independent claim is not
`
`infringed, then the claims that depend on that independent claim cannot be infringed.
`
`The tables below identifies which claims are independent and dependent:
`
`
`13 EMC Instructions.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 26 of 72 PageID #: 48803
`
`
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’344 Patent
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 13
`
`Claim 14
`
`Claim 15
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’966 Patent
`
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 13
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’147 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’069 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 11
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’497 Patent
`
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Dependent from Claim 1
`
`Independent
`
`Dependent from Claim 13
`
`Dependent from Claim 13
`
`Dependent from Claim 1
`
`Independent
`
`Independent
`
`Independent
`
`Dependent from Claim 1
`
`Independent
`
`Dependent from Claim 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 27 of 72 PageID #: 48804
`
`
`
`3.3 CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS14
`
`The law says that it is the Court's duty to define the terms of the patent's claims. I have
`
`already defined the meaning of some of the words of the Asserted Claim in this case. These
`
`definitions have been provided to you in the charts below.
`
`You must accept my definition of these words in the Asserted Claim as correct. You
`
`must use the definitions I give you for each claim to make your decisions as to whether the claim
`
`is infringed. You must ignore any different definitions used by the witnesses or the attorneys.
`
`You should not take my definition of the language of the Asserted Claim as an indication that I
`
`have a view regarding how you should decide the issue that you are being asked to decide,
`
`namely infringement and invalidity. These issues are yours to decide.
`
`When I have not defined a term, you should give it its ordinary meaning.
`
`3.3.1.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’344 PATENT CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff is asserting claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’344 patent. All Asserted Claims
`
`require that the accused network or broadcast channel be both m-regular and incomplete.
`
`The table below provides a list of terms that I have construed (first column), an
`
`identification of which claim the term appears (second column), and my construction (third
`
`column). As explained above in section 3.2, an "independent claim" sets forth all of the
`
`requirements that must be met in order for an accused system or method to be covered by that
`
`claim, and thus infringe. If a term appears in multiple independent claims and/or claims that
`
`depend from the independent claim, I have listed those first. Second, I list terms that only appear
`
`in one independent claim and/or the claims that depend from that single independent claim.
`
`Term(s)
`
`Claim(s) Court’s Construction(s)
`
`
`14 EMC Instructions.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 598-4 Filed 10/16/18 Page 28 of 72 PageID #: 48805
`
`
`
`Term(s)
`
`Claim(s) Court’s Construction(s)
`
`The following terms appear in multiple independent claims and/or claims that depend from the
`independent claim.
`
`participant
`participants
`
`connection
`connections
`connected
`connect
`connecting
`interconnections
`disconnecting
`
`
`
`neighbor
`neighbors
`neighboring
`
`12, 13
`
`12, 13
`
`12, 13
`
`m-regular
`
`12, 13
`
`thus resulting in a non-
`complete graph
`
`broadcast channel
`broadcast channels
`
`12, 13
`
`12, 13
`
`“participant” means “a computer and/or computer process
`that participates in a network”
`
`“connection” means “connection between two participants,
`with no other participants in between, though which data
`can be sent and received”
`“connections” means “more than one connection”
`“connected” means “having a connection”
`“connect” means “to form a connection”
`“connecting” means “forming a connection”
`“interconnections” means “connections between
`participants”
`“disconnecting” means “breaking a connection”
`
`