Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 52337
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
`THE COURT’S MEMORANDUM OPINION (D.I. 692) STRIKING THE
`SEER-SEM METHODOLOGY USED BY DR. RICARDO VALERDI
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`afrankel@kramerlevin.com
`
`Dated: September 13, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 52338
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Hypothetical Negotiation Construct for Damages ........................................... 1
`
`The SEER-SEM Methodology ............................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`The Court Misapprehended Facts that, if Properly Considered, Would Have Led
`the Court to Reach a Contrary Result ..................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“Dr. Valerdi does not articulate any characteristics of a non-infringing
`network and, indeed, adopts the position that such a network does not
`exist.” .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`“Dr. Valerdi provides no justification as to why developing an alternative
`network would, in theory, cost exactly the same amount as developing the
`existing network.” ....................................................................................... 6
`
`“[T]here is no basis in fact to conclude that creation of the infringing
`network saved Defendant any money over a theoretical alternative.”........ 7
`
`SEER-SEM Methodology is Scientifically Reliable .............................................. 8
`
`Reasonable Royalty Based on Maintenance Costs Is Different than Cost Savings
`Based on Developing Non-Infringing Alternative. ............................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 52339
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Dentsply Int’l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co.,
`42 F.Supp.2d 385 (D. Del. 1999) ...............................................................................................4
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.
`318 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ...........................................................................................1
`
`Karr v. Castle,
`768 F.Supp. 1087 (D. Del. 1991) ...............................................................................................4
`
`Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................2
`
`Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros,
`176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999).......................................................................................................4
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429 (Nov. 6, 2017) ........................5, 6
`
`Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried,
`320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................9
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 52340
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”)
`
`respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order striking the SEER-SEM methodology
`
`used by Dr. Ricardo Valerdi for estimating the costs to build new software because: (1) the Court
`
`misapprehended the SEER-SEM methodology, and (2) the Court erred finding the SEER-SEM
`
`methodology unreliable, as this model for estimating the cost to develop new software is the
`
`preferred approach that numerous government agencies and many of the largest corporations in
`
`the world use for cost estimation of software to be built. Thus, it is not only reliable – it is the
`
`actual methodology used in the marketplace.
`
`Acceleration Bay also seeks reconsideration of the Court’s exclusion of Mr. Russell Parr’s
`
`damages opinion based on software maintenance cost, which is distinct from Mr. Parr’s other
`
`damages opinions and should be separately evaluated.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Hypothetical Negotiation Construct for Damages
`A.
`A consideration during the hypothetical negotiation mandated by U.S. patent law is costs
`
`and savings. Dr. Valerdi determined the cost to build a hypothetical, non-existing non-infringing
`
`alternative network that functioned in the same manner as the existing infringing system. This
`
`analysis identified the money Activision would save if it decided to license the existing infringing
`
`network instead of building a new non-infringing network with the specific functionalities. The
`
`costs that Activision did not have to expend are its savings and a reasonable basis for assessing the
`
`amount of a reasonable royalty.
`
`Indeed, the primary tool for assessing a reasonable royalty is the hypothetical negotiation
`
`from the seminal Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. decision in 1970. 318
`
`F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). This imaginary construct assesses all the considerations real
`
`patentees and infringers would have when determining the appropriate royalty for use of a patented
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 52341
`
`invention at the time of first infringement. Thus, an admitted infringer of valid patents (Activision
`
`in this case) engages in a hypothetical negotiation with the patent owner (Boeing in this case) for
`
`a license to the infringed patents. For the cost savings in this case, Acceleration Bay alleged that
`
`Boeing’s hypothetical negotiation with Activision in this imaginary world would have involved
`
`certain real-world considerations that would play into what reasonable royalty the parties would
`
`agree upon.
`
`The first consideration for the hypothetical negotiation is whether there is an existing
`
`suitable non-infringing alternative to the infringing software that infringer Activision could use
`
`instead of paying patent owner Boeing for a license. Acceleration Bay’s technical experts all agree
`
`that there is not a suitable non-infringing alternative, which means a feasible equivalent, not that
`
`one cannot exist. A non-infringing alternative must be available at the time of infringement and
`
`both technically and commercially acceptable. Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359,
`
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The second consideration for the hypothetical negotiation in this imaginary world is what
`
`would be the infringer’s options since there are no suitable non-infringing alternatives on the
`
`market. In this case, infringer Activision had two options: (1) use the existing infringing software
`
`and take a license, or (2) develop new non-infringing software. To figure out what is the best
`
`economic decision, infringer Activision would have to determine how much a hypothetical non-
`
`infringing alternative that had the functionalities contained within the infringing network would
`
`cost to develop. Here, an estimated cost for a non-infringing alternative was determined using the
`
`SEER-SEM methodology – the best in breed for making such estimates.1
`
`The final consideration for the hypothetical negotiation in this imaginary world is how
`
`1 The model Dr. Valerdi used to estimate the cost of the software is SEER-SEM, widely used
`industry and government, is considered the gold standard by the International Society of
`Parametric Analysts (Parametric Estimating Handbook at A-20), NASA (NASA Handbook at
`20), and the Department of Defense (Software Cost Estimation Metrics Manual at 12).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 52342
`
`much would infringer Activision pay to patent owner Boeing for a license to its patents to avoid
`
`paying the cost of developing this new hypothetical non-infringing alternative.
`
`The SEER-SEM Methodology
`B.
`SEER-SEM is an algorithmic software application designed specifically to estimate, plan
`
`and monitor the effort and resources required for any type of software development and/or
`
`maintenance project. SEER-SEM was developed by Galorath Inc. in 1979 for corporate entities
`
`and the Federal government. See https://galorath.com/about-us/. SEER-SEM has thousands of
`
`licensed users including Bank of America, Boeing, Airbus, FAA, Ford, IRS, Lockheed Martin,
`
`National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northrop Grumman, Siemens, Raytheon,
`
`NASA, and the U.S. Department of Defense. See chart below from Valerdi Report. D.I. 601, Ex.
`
`3 (Valerdi Tr.) at 14:12-15:11 (using this methodology, Dr. Valerdi conducted software cost
`
`estimates for defense companies such as Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin for Department
`
`of Defense).
`
`The key step in using the SEER-SEM to estimate the costs to develop new software as
`
`required in this model is the identification of the hypothetical software’s technology parameters
`
`based on key project characteristics. For example, what functionalities are required to be
`
`developed in the hypothetical non-infringing alternative in order for it to do the same functions of
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 52343
`
`the infringing software. In addition to various model output features, SEER-SEM makes use of
`
`Knowledge Bases (KBases). A KBase is a set of pre-defined settings for a subset of a cost model’s
`
`technology parameters based on key project characteristics. D.I. 663, Ex. L (Valerdi Report) at 4.
`
`Each KBase is defined specifically to the underlying subset of likely parameters, some visible to
`
`users, and others hidden. Id. For example a unique KBase may be used when developing a
`
`Multimedia application such as a videogame and the efficiencies of an experienced software
`
`development team. All of these characteristics are captured and reside in one of over two-hundred
`
`unique KBases delivered with the application. Id.
`
`SEER-SEM offers the user the capability to specify these drivers as a range of inputs when
`
`knowledge exists about a model parameter as well as the degree to which it may vary. The SEER-
`
`SEM model is available in the open market – i.e., anyone can purchase a license to SEER-SEM.
`
`The public availability of SEER-SEM allows others to replicate Dr. Valerdi’s results, further
`
`adding to the scientific validity of the methodology.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Misapprehended Facts that, if Properly Considered, Would Have
`Led the Court to Reach a Contrary Result
`Reconsideration and reversal of the Court’s ruling striking the SEER-SEM methodology
`
`is necessary because it (i) misapprehends or overlooks facts that, if properly considered, would
`
`have led the Court to reach a contrary result; (ii) is based on clear error of law; and (iii) results in
`
`manifest injustice to Acceleration Bay. Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
`
`Cir. 1999); Dentsply Int’l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 385, 419 (D. Del. 1999); Karr v.
`
`Castle, 768 F.Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. Del. 1991). The Court’s analysis in the Order regarding Dr.
`
`Valerdi’s reliance on the SEER-SEM methodology contained at least three misapprehensions on
`
`how Dr. Valerdi used the SEER-SEM methodology for his cost estimate, that had if properly
`
`considered, would have led the Court to reach a contrary result. See Order at page 7.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 52344
`
`1. “Dr. Valerdi does not articulate any characteristics of a non-infringing network
`and, indeed, adopts the position that such a network does not exist.”
`There are two aspects of this sentence the Court misapprehended. First, Dr. Valerdi
`
`specifically articulated that the non-infringing alternative would have the same functionality as the
`
`infringing software. Indeed, he relied on the opinions of two technical experts that informed Dr.
`
`Valerdi that any non-infringing alternative would need to provide the same functionality as the
`
`infringing network. D.I. 601, Ex. 3 (Valerdi Tr.) at 49:24- 51:22, 71:5-72:9 (Dr. Valerdi relied on
`
`over a dozen conversations with Acceleration Bay’s infringement experts to collect information to
`
`use for his estimate). These technical experts extensively reviewed the infringing network’s source
`
`code to determine the size of the code required to achieve the desired functionality of the
`
`hypothetical non-infringing alternative, and Dr. Valerdi used those metrics in the SEER-SEM
`
`model to determine the estimated cost to develop the hypothetical non-infringing alternative.
`
`The Federal Circuit has approved this type of methodology in Prism v. Sprint. Prism Techs.
`
`LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP, 849 F.3d 1360, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017) cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 429
`
`(Nov. 6, 2017). In Prism, the patentee’s reasonable royalty used a hypothetical negotiation in the
`
`imaginary world where the damages were based on cost savings to Sprint from leasing the existing
`
`infringing network, instead of building a new hypothetical non-infringing network that did not yet
`
`exist. Id. at 1375. Prism’s technical expert estimated how much it would cost to build a
`
`hypothetical new non-infringing network, based on his experience in building networks. He
`
`estimated that it would take anywhere from two to five times more to build this yet-to-built network
`
`than continue leasing the existing infringing network. Prism’s damages expert then opined that
`
`the difference between the cost to build the new hypothetical non-infringing network and the
`
`current costs of its existing infringing network would be the costs savings to Sprint. Id. Similarly,
`
`Dr. Valerdi estimated the costs to build the hypothetical network versus using the existing
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 52345
`
`infringing network, such that Acceleration Bay could identify the costs savings to Activision. The
`
`Federal Circuit rejected Sprint’s argument that the costs to build a hypothetical non-infringing
`
`network was an unreliable estimate of the hypothetical cost savings, finding that the damages
`
`expert reasonably relied on the technical expert’s opinion that the non-infringing alternative would
`
`cost no less than twice the actual cost of the infringing network’s lease. Id. at 1377. So too here,
`
`Mr. Parr relied on the opinion of Acceleration Bay’s technical expert regarding the cost savings
`
`relationship between using the existing infringing network with a license or building a new non-
`
`infringing network.
`
`Second, the Court’s criticism that Dr. Valerdi “adopts the position that such a network does
`
`not exist” misapprehends Dr. Valerdi’s analysis. It is axiomatic that if such a non-infringing
`
`alternative network already existed, then there would be no need to develop a new hypothetical
`
`non-infringing alternative. In other words, Dr. Valerdi is required to adopt the position that the
`
`non-infringing network does not exist, otherwise there would be no need to do a cost estimate
`
`using the SEER-SEM methodology. Indeed, the purpose of the SEER-SEM methodology is to
`
`estimate the costs required to develop new, non-existing software having certain functionalities.
`
`This was done here to estimate the cost to build the non-infringing alternative network with the
`
`requirements Activision needed for its videogames if it stopped infringing and did not want to pay
`
`Boeing for continued use of the existing infringing network.
`
`2. “Dr. Valerdi provides no justification as to why developing an alternative network
`would, in theory, cost exactly the same amount as developing the existing network.”
`The Court misapprehended Dr. Valerdi’s analysis, as he did not opine that the non-
`
`infringing alternative would cost the same as the infringing software. Rather, he merely used the
`
`size of the code for various desired infringing functionalities from the infringing software as a
`
`comparable or proxy to assess the cost to develop the non-infringing alternative. This is exactly
`
`how the SEER-SEM program is designed to estimate the cost to develop new software that has yet
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 52346
`
`to be built that is actually used in the real world. Moreover, there are additional inputs (other than
`
`size of source code) that Dr. Valerdi considered that goes into his cost-analyses, including, but not
`
`limited to: (i) the type of application which is, in this case, a multimedia application, (ii) whether
`
`the software can be built from a preexisting design and reuse of that software, (iii) the standard of
`
`quality, (iv) the Agile implementation methods, such as the motivation of the development team,
`
`programming skills, and customer requirements, (v) the software language, (vi) the development
`
`time requirements, (vii) labor rates, and (viii) exclusion of duplicated code and non-relevant code,
`
`such as comments, pre-existing code. D.I. 663, Ex. L (Valerdi Report) at 5-11. These costs were
`
`based on all of these inputs, and certainly the conclusion was in theory that the non-infringing
`
`alternative would cost the same as the existing network.
`
`3. “[T]here is no basis in fact to conclude that creation of the infringing network
`saved Defendant any money over a theoretical alternative.”
`The Court misapprehended Dr. Valerdi’s cost estimate model when it concluded he was
`
`comparing the cost to build the infringing network versus the cost to build a non-infringing
`
`alternative. Here, at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, the infringing network was already
`
`created. Accordingly, the price incurred in creating the already existing infringing network is not
`
`a consideration for the infringer. Thus, the considerations for the infringer were the going forward
`
`costs of infringing versus the going forward costs to build the hypothetical non-infringing network
`
`to stop the infringement. For example, in the imaginary world, Activision would already have an
`
`infringing network and would have three options (1) pay Boeing a license and continue using the
`
`infringing network, (2) find an existing suitable non-infringing network (but none existed), or (3)
`
`develop a new non-infringing network. Dr. Valerdi’s development cost estimate for building a
`
`non-infringing alternative was focused on the cost to build a non-infringing network that had all
`
`of the functionality of the infringing network.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 52347
`
`SEER-SEM Methodology is Scientifically Reliable
`B.
`The methodology that Dr. Valerdi used with SEER-SEM has been the subject of countless
`
`peer-reviewed journals and research. For over thirty years, the SEER-SEM methodology has been
`
`determined to be a scientifically valid method for estimating the costs of developing new software.
`
`D.I. 601, Ex. 3 (Valerdi Tr.) at 29:2-31:14 (Dr. Valerdi used the most reliable of the four
`
`“commonly accepted methods in the industry” for software-cost estimation). Activision’s non-
`
`infringement expert, Dr. Macedonia, who worked for the government’s “programming executive
`
`office for simulation training instrumentation,” confirmed that one of the government’s established
`
`methodologies for estimating the cost of software development projects is through the use of
`
`estimates based on “[s]tandard lines of code” as an input to a knowledge-based model, such as
`
`SEER-SEM, which is exactly what Dr. Valerdi did here. D.I. 603, Ex. 13 (Macedonia Tr.). at
`
`251:10-253:4; D.I. 601, Ex. 3 (Valerdi Tr.) at 32:22-33:17 (Department of Defense, NASA and
`
`other government agencies have their own parametric tools to estimate the costs for developing
`
`new software).
`
`Parametric models like SEER-SEM are scientifically valid because they can be tested for
`
`accuracy by comparing their outputs to results from completed projects. Parametric models are
`
`fine-tuned (calibrated) with historical data to make them more accurate over time. (United States
`
`Government Accountability Office (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide – Best
`
`Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP, March 2009
`
`(“GAO”) at 116); D.I. 601, Ex. 3 (Valerdi Tr.) at 69:3-13 (SEER-SEM is a “deterministic model,”
`
`using the same inputs will always yield the same outputs, so the results are “repeatable and
`
`believable”). SEER-SEM includes historical data from video game development projects. Id. at
`
`35:9-21.
`
`Cost-estimating relationships are developed “using regression techniques, so that statistical
`
`inferences may be drawn.” (GAO at 113). Regression techniques determine the relationship
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 52348
`
`between cost (dependent variable) and software lines of code, project characteristics, and software
`
`programming language (independent variables). “The purpose of the regression is to predict with
`
`known accuracy the next real-world occurrence of the dependent variable (the cost), based on
`
`knowledge of the independent variable.” Id. at 114. The goal of parametric estimating is to create
`
`a statistically valid cost-estimating relationship using historical data. Id. at 112. Parametric
`
`techniques can be used in a wide variety of situations, ranging from early planning estimates to
`
`detailed contract negotiations. (Id).
`
`The longevity and validation of SEER-SEM through corporate entities and the Federal
`
`Government, along with the research and peer-reviewed articles on SEER-SEM support a finding
`
`that Dr. Valerdi’s use of the SEER-SEM methodology is a reliable methodology that should not
`
`have been excluded under Daubert. Further validation of this methodology is the fact that the
`
`United States Army recently extended its Certificate of Networthiness (CON) for SEER-SEM –
`
`the CON approval process insures software, tools or systems are compliant with Army Regulation
`
`(AR) 25-1, which mandates the assessment of NetOps products against the architecture to ensure
`
`they meet functional and
`
`interoperability requirements within
`
`the Army Enterprise.
`
`https://galorath.com/extension-certificate-networthiness-con-u-s-army/. Award of the SEER-
`
`SEM CON involved an extensive assessment to ensure the SEER products meet or exceed U.S.
`
`Army requirements for reliability, security, architecture, and integration with the Army’s existing
`
`IT infrastructure. Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003)
`
`(“Daubert holds that an inquiry into the reliability of scientific evidence under Rule 702 requires
`
`a determination as to its scientific validity.”).
`
`As such, the Court erred when it agreed with Activision that Dr. Valerdi’s reliance on
`
`SEER-SEM is "no more reliable or scientific than an estimate of the cost to drive to Shangri-La,
`
`or El Dorado, or any other imaginary place with an unspecified location."
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 52349
`
`C.
`
`Reasonable Royalty Based on Maintenance Costs Is Different than Cost
`Savings Based on Developing Non-Infringing Alternative.
`Mr. Parr’s maintenance cost-based damages opinion is distinct from the excluded damages
`
`opinion. Specifically, Mr. Parr offered a damages opinion based on Activision’s estimated
`
`maintenance costs that is not subject to the Court’s objections to his other damages opinions based
`
`on Dr. Valerdi’s development calculations. D.I. 675, Ex. 1 (Parr Report) at ¶¶ 200-203. Separate
`
`from the cost to develop a non-infringing alternative, Dr. Valerdi determined the cost of ongoing
`
`maintenance for the theoretical non-infringing alternative by estimating the actual historical
`
`maintenance cost (which Activision never provided during discovery) based on the estimated lines
`
`of code and complexity of the actual World of Warcraft game.
`
`Mr. Parr looked at this historical maintenance cost, which Activision was willing to pay to
`
`operate the accused World of Warcraft game in the real world, as a proxy for the “floor of the
`
`amount Activision would pay to realize the over $2.4 billion in profits for World of Warcraft
`
`alone” in the hypothetical world of the reasonable royalty negotiation. Id. at ¶ 202. In other words,
`
`Activision paid this estimated amount to actually achieve the revenue stream from the game, so it
`
`would be willing to pay at least that much to realize the same revenue stream in the hypothetical
`
`world where it obtains a license.
`
`The Court excluded this opinion (number 5 in the Court’s summary table on pages 2-3 of
`
`the Memorandum Opinion), by lumping it together with the other damages opinions based on Dr.
`
`Valerdi’s estimates. However, this appears to stem from a misapprehension of the basis for the
`
`opinion. As shown above, it is based on estimated historical maintenance costs. This opinion is
`
`not based on “the cost of rearchitecting each of the Accused Products in this case in order to
`
`develop a new networking platform for each of the accused games,” and is not subject to the
`
`Court’s objections thereto. D.I. 692 at 5-6. Accordingly, the Court should reconsider its decision
`
`to exclude Mr. Parr’s maintenance-cost damages opinion.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 695 Filed 09/13/19 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 52350
`
`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
`James Hannah
`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: September 13, 2019
`6406264
`
`- 11 -
`
`