Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 12 PagelD #: 52241
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`NeNeeeeeeeeeeeeSe” C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF CATHARINE M. LAWTON
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiff
`Acceleration Bay LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`Yuridia Caire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`Dated: April 19, 2019
`Public Version dated: April 26, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 12 PagelD #: 52242
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION uuu. icccccccccccesscccecssscsceccsssecuscececesscnsescessrenseecesevsncucesenssssesacccsestatsasessseratsssencerenens ]
`
`ARGUMENTuu... ccecccccscccccssssccessccccsecsscecssssessessacectsacessssceeseseceeenseuceassusensasaseususeceesasevessuesenensacees 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`MS. LAWTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING HER NIA
`OPINIONS.ooiocc ccc ceessssscnccocccccsceccceceeessesestsnssscesceeseesvevseeserstrsnasasucueaseeuacscseseeceeseees 3
`
`MS. LAWTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING HER
`SOFTWARE COST OPINIONS wooioc cece csessccccecessseececeseescttsceeccerscsuseesessntnsaaess 6
`
`CONCLUSIONQo. ccccccccscsscsessscssssscesssecessescecsececescececeaeeversecesuuecesesesesesauessesaseeeesssseeessuseestessesenss 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 12 PagelD #: 52243
`
`_TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Brandeis University v. Keebler Co.,
`Case No. 1:12-cv-01508, 2013 WL 5911233 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013)... cccesecseceeseeeeees6
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 US. 137 (1999). ecccccessesssssscseccssesecsessecsecsessecessesecssessesseessessssssseescsussussssssscacevsseasessenseseens 5
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`No. 2:06-CV-348, 2011 WL 197869 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2011) occ ecccecccssseessecesessssessseeeneeees4
`
`M2M Sols., Ilc v. Enfora, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665 (D. Del. 2016)... ccc eccescsscssecsecescesessecnsesccsscescssssssvssessssussscsascrsseaseease 1,4
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
`317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......cccesccssssessscsecsseessssceeseessersessssssccsssccssssscsassesesscsecessessenseeeaens 6
`
`Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C15-544 MPJ, 2016 WL 4148091 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2016)... cecseeseseeereeneeteens4
`
`Stecyk v. Bell Hellicopter Textron, Inc.,
`295 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2002)... cc ccccsccsscsscsscssessccsessssssssseessesscsssessecsecssessssecscteseasesessssvsseseseesees 6
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ..cceccceccccssssssesssssccsecsecssesscsecescssesscssessecescsssesscsscssscssessecsussecssssscsausssseseaesesenaes3,5,9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 12 PagelD #: 52244
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Activision’s Opposition (D.L. 663, “Opposition’”) leaves several dispositive facts
`
`undisputed, which are alone sufficient to grant Acceleration Bay’s Motion to Strike Ms.
`
`Lawton’s opinions.
`
`As to Ms. Lawton’s opinions regarding earlier Call-of Duty or World of Warcraft games
`
`serving as a purported non-infringing alternative (the “NIA Opinions’), the parties agree that:
`
`Ms. Lawtonis not qualified to offer opinions on any technical issues, including
`whether any technologyis a suitable non-infringing alternative (Opposition at 5).
`Notechnical expert (or even fact witness) in this case has investigated the earlier Call
`of Duty or World of Warcraft games (the “Earlier Games”) and opined that they are
`non-infringing. Jd. at 6.
`
`The Earlier Games, whichfall outside of the damages window in this case, were not
`included in discovery, and neither side reviewed the source code for the Earlier
`Games. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 5-6 (unrebutted by Activision).
`
`Ms. Lawton’s NIA Opinions depend on her “assumption”that the Earlier Games do
`not infringe. Oppositionat 7.
`
`The only purported basis for Ms. Lawton’s assumption that the Earlier Games do not
`infringe is that Acceleration Bay is not accusing them of infringement. Jd. at 4-5.
`
`There is also no dispute that Activision bears the burden of proof on non-infringing
`
`alternatives. M2M Sols., lic v. Enfora, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 665, 682-83 (D. Del. 2016). Ms.
`
`Lawton cannot conjure up a non-infringing alternative by assumingit is available without any
`
`support. Therefore, Ms. Lawton hasnoreliable basis to present to the jury her NIA Opinion,
`
`which depends on a non-existent, non-infringing alternative.
`
`Ms. Lawton’s criticisms of Dr. Valerdi’s cost-savings opinion (the “Software Cost
`
`Opinions”) are equally baseless. Activision concedesthat:
`
`Ms. Lawtonis not qualified to offer opinions on software cost. Opposition at 12 (“It
`is true that Ms. Lawton did not ... have the technical expertise to opine on the code’s
`functionality”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 12 PagelD #: 52245
`
`e Ms. Lawton never reviewed the source code that is the basis for Dr. Valerdi’s
`opinions. Jd. at 12 (“It is true that Ms. Lawton did not review the source code”).
`
`e Ms. Lawtonis unfamiliar with the details of the folders andfile types that she
`contends should not have been included in Dr. Valerdi’s calculations. D.I 648
`(Motion) at 10 (collecting Lawton deposition testimony).
`
`e Ms. Lawton has no expertise in selecting tools for estimating software cost. Jd. at 13-
`14; D.L 649, Ex. 3 (2019 Lawton Tr.) at 37:10-14.
`
`e There is no basis for Ms. Lawton’s opinion that the cost-savings should be
`proportional to the numberofpatents in the-case (Activision does not attempt to
`defend this opinion in its Opposition). D.I. 648 (Motion)at 12.
`
`e Activision’s technical expert confirmed that Dr. Valerdi’s methodologyis the
`preferred approach used by the United States governmentto estimate software costs.
`D.I. 648 (Motion) at 13; D.I. 649, Ex. 5 (Macedonia Tr.) at 251:10-253:4.
`
`Based on these undisputed facts, Ms. Lawton is not qualified to offer the Software Cost
`
`Opinions. Conceding that Ms. Lawtonis not qualified to offer opinions challenging Dr.
`
`Valerdi’s technical cost-savings analysis, Activision tries to defend Ms. Lawton’s Software Cost
`
`Opinions as mere economiccriticisms of Mr. Parr’s reliance on Dr. Valerdi’s opinions. But
`
`Activision cannot salvage Ms. Lawton’s baseless opinions by dressing them up as economic
`
`opinions. Ms. Lawton’s opinionsare all technicalcriticisms of Dr. Valerdi’s estimate;critically,
`
`they are not based on Mr. Parr’s subsequent use of Dr. Valerdi’s final calculations.
`
`Specifically, Ms. Lawton challenges(1) the particular source codefile types and
`
`directories that Dr. Valerdi included (about which she admits she knows next to nothing); (2) Dr.
`
`Valerdi’s selection and configuration ofthe cost-estimate tool (another topic about which she has
`
`no expertise); and contends(3) that the cost savings should be proportional to the number of
`
`patents at issue (a technical opinion neither she nor Activision defend). These are all technical
`
`issues that fall within the scope of Dr. Valerdi’s expertise, not Ms. Lawton’s. Activision chose
`
`not to have a technical expert address the technical merits of Dr. Valerdi’s opinions, which he
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 6 of 12 PagelD #: 52246
`
`provided in 2017, and Ms. Lawton should not be permitted to do so underthe guise of an
`
`economic analysis.
`
`Accordingly, Ms. Lawton’s NIA Opinions and Software Cost Opinionsfail all four
`
`requirements under Rule 702: (a) they are not “scientific, technical, or other specialized
`
`knowledge”that will help the trier of fact understand anyissuein the case; (b) they are not
`
`“based on sufficient facts or data;” (c) they are unqualified opinions, not “the productofreliable
`
`principles and methods;”and (d)they are notthe reliable application of any expert principles or
`
`methodsto the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`For these reasons, Acceleration Bay respectfully requests that the Court exercise its
`
`gatekeeper role and exclude Ms. Lawton’s opinions.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`MS. LAWTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING HER NIA
`OPINIONS
`
`Ms. Lawton should not be permitted to offer her NIA Opinions because there is no
`
`reliable basis for her “assumption”that the Earlier Gamesare non-infringing alternatives. As
`
`Activision concedes, none ofits technical experts (or even fact witnesses), have opined that the
`
`Earlier Gamesare a non-infringing alternative. Opposition at 6, n.2. While a damages expert
`
`mayrely on the opinions of technical experts and assumethey are true, Ms. Lawton did not do
`
`that here. She cannot manufacture a non-infringing alternative out of thin air by assumingit into
`
`existence. The NIA Opinionsare entirely premised on the Earlier Games being a non-infringing
`
`alternative. Because the jury will not be presented with any evidencethat the Earlier Games are
`
`non-infringing, there is no potential relevance or probative value to the NIA Opinions.
`
`Activision does not dispute that it bore the burden to establish that any proposed non-
`
`infringing alternatives were both technically and economically feasible, including showingthat:
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 7 of 12 PagelD #: 52247
`
`(i) the materials needed to implement the non-infringing alternative were readily available; (ii)
`
`the non-infringing alternative was well knownin thefield at the time of infringement; and (iii)
`
`all of the necessary equipment, know-how, and experience to use the non-infringing alternative
`
`were available at the time of infringement. See M@2M Sols., 167 F. Supp. 3d at 682-83; see also
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc., No. 2:06-CV-348, 2011 WL 197869, *2-3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 20, 2011), related appeal, 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Activision’s failure to present any evidence or technical opinions regarding the Earlier
`
`Gamesas purported alternatives results in Activision failing to meet its burden of proofto
`
`establish that the non-accused games were viable non-infringing alternatives that could be
`
`substituted for the Accused Products. Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. C15-544 MPJ,
`
`2016 WL 4148091, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2016); LaserDynamics, 2011 WL 197869,at *3.
`
`Having no evidence that the Earlier Games are non-infringing alternatives, Activision
`
`resorts to mischaracterizing the damages report of Dr. Meyer. Activision contends that Dr.
`
`Meyeradmitted the Earlier Gamesare infringing and that Acceleration Bay supposedly recently
`
`abandonedthat contention. Opposition at 3. There are many problemswith this theory. First, it
`
`is simply wrong. Dr. Meyer madeclear that she offered no opinions on infringement, and
`
`exclusively relied on the infringement analyses of Acceleration Bay’s technical experts (who
`
`offered no opinions on the Earlier Games). DI. 480, Ex. 69 (Meyer Report) at Jf 7, 22 n.49;
`
`Declaration of Yuridia Caire in Support of Reply (“Caire Reply Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Meyer Tr.) at
`
`140:21-142:8. Second, Dr. Meyerlisted the games that she understandsto be infringing,citing
`
`to her interviews of Acceleration Bay’s technical experts. Her lists do not include the Earlier
`
`Games — confirming that she never opined that the Earlier Gamesare infringing. D.I. 480, Ex.
`
`69 (Meyer Report) at ff] 21-23. Third, the exhibit from Dr. Meyer’s report that Activision relies
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 8 of 12 PagelD #: 52248
`
`upon simply lists all of the games in the franchises to which the accused products belong.
`
`Opposition at 6, n.2 (citing Meyer Report at Exhibit 3). The exhibit does not provide any
`
`infringement opinionsrelating to the Earlier Games, nor would Dr. Meyer have had anybasis to
`
`make her own conclusions about infringement by the Earlier Games. Fourth, Activision
`contends that Dr. Meyer opined that the Earlier Games infringe. Even iftrue, this would not be
`
`a basis for Ms. Lawton to.conclude that the Earlier Games do not infringe. Finally, Acceleration
`
`Bay cannot be said to have abandoneda theory that the Earlier Gamesinfringe that it never
`
`assertedin the’first place and, evenif it did, the decision not to accuse gamesof infringementis
`
`not the same as an admission that the gamesare a non-infringing alternative.
`
`Therefore, there is no foundation for Ms. Lawton’s “assumption of non-infringement,”
`
`and she is not qualified to make that assumption herself or otherwise determine issues of
`
`infringement.! Opposition at 3. Moreover, an assumption is not a fact. Thus, Ms. Lawton’s
`
`failure to rely on “sufficient facts,” renders her opinions on these non-accused games unreliable
`
`and inadmissible ipse dixit opinion. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Kumho Tire Co. v.
`
`Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 157 (1999) (“Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of
`Evidence requiresa district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data
`
`only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”), Allowing Ms. Lawton, who is supposed to assume
`
`infringement for her damagesanalyses, to provide opinions regarding her assumption of non-
`infringement as to non-accused gamesandrely on that assumption to opine on a cap to damages
`
`would serve only to confuse the jury.
`
`' Ms. Lawton’s credentials consist of a Bachelor of Science degree in finance and economics,
`nothing more. D.I. 649, Ex. 1 (Lawton Supp. Report) at Exhibit A (CV). She has no training in
`computer systems or video games, and admits she is not qualified to give opinionsoneither.
`Caire Reply Decl., Ex. 2 (Lawton 2018 Tr.) at 21:12-22:15.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 9 of 12 PagelD #: 52249
`
`In a case relevant to the facts here, Brandeis University v. Keebler Co., the court
`
`precluded a damagesexpert after a Daubert challenge because the expert, whose testimony
`
`related to how difficult it would be to implementa non-infringing alternative, was not an expert
`
`on consumer demand(i.e. whether customers would prefer the patented cookies or some
`
`alternative), and moreover the expert had not relied on anyone who wasan expert in that field
`
`either. Case No. 1:12-cv-01508, 2013 WL 5911233, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013). Given that
`
`no Activision expert (or fact witness) opined that the non-accused gamesare non-infringing
`alternatives, Activision’s citations to Micro Chem. andStecyk are inapt, because those casesdealt
`with experts that reached different conclusions based on competing versionsofthe facts. Micro
`
`Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding noerror to allow
`
`testimony where testimony was based “on the defendants’ version of the disputed facts.”). In
`
`Stecyk yv. Bell Hellicopter Textron, Inc., the court noted that “[i]t is an abuse of discretion to
`
`admit expert testimony which is based on assumptions lacking any factual foundation in the
`
`record,” but found that expert had a foundational basis to present a differing causation theory
`
`based on actual evidence and subsequenttesting of a residue that could be hydraulic fluid residue
`
`instead of transmission oil presented by other side. 295 F.3d 408, 414 (3d Cir. 2002). The
`
`situation here does not deal with a factual or expert dispute because no one has opined that the
`
`Earlier Gamesare suitable non-infringing alternatives.
`
`Thus, the Court should exclude Ms. Lawton’s NIA Opinions.
`
`B.
`
`MS. LAWTON SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM OFFERING HER
`SOFTWARE COST OPINIONS
`
`The Court should also preclude Ms. Lawton’s Software Cost Opinions becausesheis
`
`plainly unqualified to offer them. Activision concedes, as it must, that Ms. Lawton is not
`
`qualified to give a rebuttal to Dr. Valerdi’s cost-savings opinions. Opposition at 12 (“It is true
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 10 of 12 PagelD #: 52250
`
`that Ms. Lawton did not review the source code, and did nothave the technical expertise to opine
`
`on the code’s functionality”). Thus, Ms. Lawton, by her own admission, is not an expert on
`
`software, software costs or any other technical issue. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 8-9; D.I. 649, Ex. 3
`
`(2019 Lawton Tr.) at 59:21-60:8, 40:4-17, 62:5-11; D.I. 649, Ex. 2 (Lawton 2018 Tr.) at 23:24-
`
`25:17? Activisiontries to cloak Ms. Lawton’s technical Software Cost Opinions as “merely” an
`
`“economic evaluation”criticizing Mr. Parr’s reliance on Dr. Valerdi. Opposition at 9. This
`
`argumentfails because each of Ms. Lawton’s criticism are, in fact, directed to the technical
`merits ofDr. Valerdi’s analysis, not to Mr. Parr’s economic application ofthe results ofDr.
`
`Valerdi’s analysis. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 8-14.
`
`First, Ms. Lawtoncriticizes Dr. Valerdi’s selection of source code as relevant to his
`
`estimate (D.I. 649, Ex. 1, Lawton Supp. Report at § 225-245). As noted in Acceleration Bay’s
`
`opening brief, this is a criticism of the identification by Acceleration Bay’s technical experts of
`
`relevant functionality, source code folders andfile types. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 8-11. Ms.
`
`Lawton has no foundation or expertise relevant to that issue and admits she did not inspect the
`
`source code. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 11; D.I. 649, Ex. 3 (2019 Lawton Tr.) at 59:21-60:8, 40:4-17.
`
`These are not criticisms of “methodology appropriate to provide a damagesopinion,” but rather,
`
`criticisms of the conclusions of Acceleration Bay’s technical experts that Activision inexplicably
`
`chose not to address with its own technical experts.
`
`? Activision incorrectly claims that Dr. Meyerdid not include Dr. Valerdi’s calculations in the
`“body”of her report. Opposition at 9. Dr. Meyer’s report had multiple references to Dr.
`Valerdi’s analysis, and she specifically stated that she “incorporated the cost of a potential NIA,
`as estimated by Dr. Valerdi, into [her] analysis.” D.I. 480, Ex. 69 (Meyer Report) at {§ 54-57,
`130, 137 and Exhibit 5. Dr. Meyer reproducedall of Dr. Valerdi’s quantitative cost-savings
`estimates, andrelied on them to conclude that a non-infringing alternative wouldbe prohibitively
`expensive. Jd.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 11 of 12 PagelD #: 52251
`
`Second, Ms. Lawtoncriticizes Dr. Valerdi’s selection of the SEER-SEM modelto
`
`estimate costs. D.I. 649, Ex. 1 (Lawton Supp. Report) at JJ 202-224. The selection of a
`
`software-cost estimation tool is an area squarely within Dr. Valerdi’s expertise, and a topic that
`
`Ms. Lawton knows nothing about. D.I. 648 (Motion) at 13-14; D.I. 649, Ex. 3 (Lawton Tr.) at
`
`37:10-14. Indeed, even Activision’s non-infringement expert conceded that the methodology
`
`used by SEER-SEMis the preferred methodology used by the United States governmentfor
`
`estimation of software project costs. D.I. 649, Ex. 5 (Macedonia Tr.) at 250:25-253:4.
`
`Activision contends that Ms. Lawton relies on somearticles that supposedly discuss the
`
`range of error in SEER-SEM. Opposition at 13. That SEER-SEM mayhavea rangeoferror,
`
`like any other estimation tool, is not a basis for Ms. Lawton to opine to the jury that Dr. Valerdi
`
`should not have used it. Activision offered no qualified cost-estimation expert to challenge Dr.
`
`Valerdi’s opinion that SEER-SEM wasthe appropriate tool to use for this project. Indeed, when
`
`pressed during her deposition, Ms. Lawton abandoned this opinion and admitted she had no basis
`
`to provide it, testimony fatal to Activision’s Opposition:
`
`Q. Do you doubt Doctor Valerdi’s analysis as to which tool was more
`appropriate?
`
`A. I don’t have any basis to ... respondto that.
`
`D.I. 648 (Motion) at 14, citing Ex. 3 (2019 Lawton Tr.) at 37:10-14 (emphasis added).
`
`Third, Ms. Lawton criticizes Dr. Valerdi’s analysis for not finding that the cost of the
`
`non-infringing alternative is proportional to the numberof patents at issue. D.I. 648 (Motion)at
`
`12; Ex. 1 (Lawton Supp. Report) at J] 191, 225-228, 295-296. This is a technical opinion
`
`becauseit ignores that the cost to develop a suitable network that is not m-regular is not
`
`proportional to the numberofpatents at issue and requires an understanding of m-regular
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 683 Filed 04/26/19 Page 12 of 12 PagelD #: 52252
`
`networks and software costs, both of which Ms. Lawton lacks. D.I.648 (Motion) at 12-13.
`
`Activision does not even attempt to defend this infirm opinion in its Opposition.
`
`Thus, Ms. Lawton should not be permitted to offer the Software Cost Opinions because
`
`she is unqualified to do so, rendering her opinion unreliable, unhelpful and inadmissible under
`
`Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in Acceleration Bay’s Opening Brief in Support ofits
`
`Motion to Strike Ms. Lawton’s Opinions, the Court should grant Acceleration Bay’s motion to
`
`exclude Lawton’s proposed NIA and Software Cost Opinions.
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Acceleration Bay LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`Yuridia Caire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`Dated: April 19, 2019
`Public Version dated: April 26, 2019
`6177097
`
`