Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 55010
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (WCB)
`
`)))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’S RESPONSE TO JULY 19, 2023 ORDER (D.I. 781)
`ON AN OUTSTANDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`John Garretson
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Ground Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`August 4, 2023
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 55011
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`Pre-Game and In-Game Player Activities that Affect M-Regularity Should
`Be Equally Excluded from the Scope of the Construed Claims. ............................ 6
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 55012
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`612 F. Supp. 3d 408 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d in part, dismissed in part sub nom,
`15 F.4th 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v Limited Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................6
`
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envt'l Int’l, L.C.,
`460 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................5
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. American Express Co.,
`563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., Inc.,
`302 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................5
`
`Level Sleep LLC v. Sleep No. Corp.,
`No. 2020-1718, 2021 WL 2934816 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021)
`(nonprecedential) .......................................................................................................................6
`
`Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................5
`
`Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co.,
`854 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 55013
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`A video game network falls outside the scope of the asserted claims if a third-party player’s
`
`actions dictate whether it is m-regular. Such a network falls short of the Court’s construction of
`
`the asserted claims as requiring a network to be “configured to maintain” an m-regular state. (D.I.
`
`275, p. 14). This is equally true whether those player choices occur during, or before, a game for
`
`which a network is formed. In either case, “the players’ actions determine how connections are
`
`formed, and the network is not ‘configured to maintain’ any particular state.” Acceleration Bay
`
`LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 3d 408, 420 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d in part,
`
`dismissed in part sub nom, 15 F.4th 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Take-Two”).
`
`Indeed, a network where connections are formed by pre-game player actions falls at least
`
`as far outside of the scope of the claims as networks, like those dismissed in Take-Two, where
`
`connections are formed by in-game player actions. See Take-Two, 612 F. Supp. 3d at 420.
`
`Although Acceleration has argued that the patented network can temporarily cease to be m-regular
`
`during the brief transitions when players join and leave an ongoing game, Acceleration has long
`
`acknowledged that the claims require a network to be m-regular in the “steady state” where “there
`
`are not new [players] entering or leaving the network.” (D.I. 219, p. 11; D.I. 186, p. 17; see also
`
`Ex. 1 (Sept. 10, 2003 Amdt.), p. 10 (distinguishing prior art on this basis in prosecution history)).
`
`Nothing in the patents suggests that the claims include networks that, due to pre-game player
`
`actions, can fail to be m-regular during the “steady state” at the beginning of a game. Such
`
`networks fall far outside the scope of these claims.
`
`Because the parties dispute this important issue of claim scope, Activision respectfully
`
`requests that the Court amend its construction of the “m-regular” term in each asserted claim to
`
`add the following: “If the players’ actions, either before or during a game, determine how
`
`connections are formed, then the network is not configured to maintain an m-regular state.”
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 55014
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`“[E]ach of the asserted claims requires a network that is ‘m-regular’ and ‘incomplete.’”1
`
`That term was previously construed as “[a] state that the network is configured to maintain, where
`
`each [participant/computer] is connected to exactly m neighbor participants.” (D.I. 275 at 14–15).
`
`On July 19, 2023, this Court ordered the parties to answer the following question: “[W]hether
`
`there is a distinction, for purposes of determining whether a network is configured to maintain m-
`
`regularity, between actions taken by the player during the game and actions taken by the player
`
`before the game starts.” (D.I. 781).
`
`The four asserted patents all relate to the same underlying concept—networks that are
`
`configured (or designed) to impose and maintain m-regularity on the network participants. Two
`
`of the asserted patents (‘344 and ‘966) are directed at networks that are configured to maintain
`
`both an “m-regular” and “incomplete” state—meaning that each participant in the network is
`
`required to have exactly “m” connections, and there are at least two more participants than “m”
`
`resulting in an incomplete network (no device connects to every other device). The ‘069 and ‘147
`
`Patents, in turn, claim methods for maintaining and imposing m-regularity across the network even
`
`if users decide to join or leave the network during a game. Specifically, the ‘069 Patent claims the
`
`methods taken by the configured m-regular network to impose m-regularity when a user decides
`
`to join the game. And the ‘147 Patent claims the methods the configured m-regular network
`
`employs to maintain m-regularity when a user decides to leave the game. Both methods involve
`
`breaking or adding connections in favor of evenly distributed (“regular”) connections to impose
`
`m-regularity despite user actions.
`
`1 (D.I. 781, p. 1). Both Call of Duty (“CoD”) and Destiny are accused of infringing claim 1 of the
`‘147 Patent and claims 1 and 11 of the ‘069 Patent. D.I. 590, at 7. World of Warcraft (“WoW”)
`is accused of infringing claim 12 of the ‘344 Patent and claim 13 of the ‘966 Patent. Id. The ‘497
`Patent has been withdrawn.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 55015
`
`The Court’s claim construction order explained that the construction of the “m-regular”
`
`term “does not require the network to have each participant be connected to m neighbors at all
`
`times; rather, the network is configured (or designed) to have each participant be connected to m
`
`neighbors.” (D.I. 275 at 14 (emphasis added)). “In other words,” the Court explained, “if the
`
`network does not have each participant connected to m neighbors, this is fine so long as, when
`
`appropriate, [the network] tries to get to that configuration.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court
`
`went on to explain that its use of the word “configured” was deliberate, as it was intended to
`
`exclude “networks that appear m-regular by chance.” Id. at 15.
`
`The scope of the Court’s construction of the “m-regular” term was thereafter clarified on
`
`summary judgment in the related Take-Two case, which involved all the same asserted claims with
`
`the same claim constructions entered as in this case. For example, the Court explained that a
`
`network that allegedly “tends” toward m-regularity is “not enough to show that the network is
`
`‘configured to maintain’ an m-regular state,” as construed. Take-Two, 612 F. Supp. 3d at 419.
`
`Even if the networked “players are sometimes, or even often, connected to the same number of
`
`other players,” that is insufficient under the Court’s construction because the construction requires
`
`m-regularity as “the default state of the network or that the network is in that state substantially all
`
`the time.” Id. at 419–420. Although the Court’s construction permits “a split-second transition
`
`after a player” joins or leaves the configured network, the network is only “configured to maintain”
`
`m-regularity if it “responds by immediately trying to return to that configuration.” Id.
`
`Critically, if “the players’ actions determine how connections are formed,” the Court held
`
`that “the network is not ‘configured to maintain’ any particular state,” let alone an m-regular state
`
`required by the Court’s construction. Id. at 420. This holding on its face is not limited to player
`
`actions during the game—it applies to any player actions taken at any time. Acceleration did not
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 55016
`
`challenge the “m-regular” construction of Take-Two rulings on appeal, and thus that construction
`
`is incorporated into the Take-Two mandate and binding on Acceleration. See Phil-Insul Corp. v.
`
`Airlite Plastics Co., 854 F.3d 1344, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`The parties’ briefing on whether the Take-Two ruling on player actions collaterally estops
`
`Acceleration’s infringement theories against the accused Call of Duty games highlighted a dispute
`
`on claim scope that should be resolved before a jury trial in this case. There, Activision argued
`
`that even under Acceleration’s infringement theories, m-regularity and incompleteness in the
`
`accused networks were only even theoretically possible if players set high Network Address
`
`Translation (“NAT”) security settings in a way that Activision discourages. (See D.I. 731, p. 10).
`
`Acceleration did not dispute that Activision’s accused network functions in this way. (See D.I.
`
`735, p. 13). Instead, Acceleration argued that the issues were not “identical” as required for
`
`collateral estoppel, because in Take-Two network connections were decided by player movements
`
`during the game, whereas here network configuration is determined by security settings a player
`
`enters before a game. (Id.). Judge Andrews agreed with Acceleration on the narrow issue before
`
`him. (D.I. 743, p. 10) (“I find that these infringement issues are not the same.”).
`
`For the reasons discussed herein, there is no distinction between the timing of player
`
`actions under the Court’s “configured to maintain” construction of “m-regular”—all fall outside
`
`the scope of the construed claims. The below language should therefore be entered as a claim
`
`construction in this case, and the facts considered anew on a targeted motion for renewed summary
`
`judgment in view of that construction:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 55017
`
`Term (Claim)
`
`“m-regular”
`‘147 Patent, cl. 1
`‘344 Patent, cl. 12
`‘966 Patent, cl. 13
`
`“each participant being
`connected to three or
`more other participants”
`‘069 Patent, cl. 1, 11
`
`“fully connected portal
`computer”
`‘069 Patent, cl. 1, 11
`
`Construed At:
`
`D.I. 275, at 14
`
`Defendant’s Proposed
`Language to Add:
`
`“A state that the network is configured
`to maintain, where each [participant /
`computer] is connected to exactly m
`neighbor [participants / computers].”
`D.I. 386, at 14
`
`“each participant being connected to
`the same number of other participants
`in the network, where the number is
`three or more.”
`D.I. 386, at 9
`
`“portal computer connected to exactly
`m neighbor participants”
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY
`
`“If the players’ actions,
`either before or during a
`game, determine how
`connections are formed,
`then the network is not
`configured to maintain
`an m-regular state.”
`
`“When the meaning or scope of a patent claim is disputed by litigants, the judicial role is
`
`to construe the claim as a matter of law, on review of appropriate sources of relevant information.”
`
`Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc., 50 F.4th 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In other
`
`words, “the court’s obligation is to ensure that questions of the scope of the patent claims are not
`
`left to the jury.” Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. American Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1383 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009). In fulfilling this obligation, district courts are permitted to “engage in a rolling claim
`
`construction, in which the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its
`
`understanding of the technology evolves.” Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d
`
`1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002). District courts may discharge this obligation “in claim construction
`
`during various phases of litigation, not just in a Markman order.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envt'l
`
`Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, a district court is “well within its power
`
`to clarify, supplement, and even alter its construction” when crystallized issues of law are
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 55018
`
`presented to it, including on summary judgment. Level Sleep LLC v. Sleep No. Corp., No. 2020-
`
`1718, 2021 WL 2934816, at *3 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021) (nonprecedential).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Pre-Game and In-Game Player Activities that Affect M-Regularity Should Be
`Equally Excluded from the Scope of the Construed Claims.
`
`There is nothing in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that supports treating pre-game player
`
`actions differently than in-game player actions to determine whether a network is “configured to
`
`maintain” m-regularity. Rather, if either kind of player action would determine whether a network
`
`is m-regular, then the network falls outside the scope of the asserted claims as a matter of law, as
`
`the network is “not ‘configured to maintain’ any particular state.” Take-Two, 612 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`420; see also Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 994-
`
`95 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that “where claim language clearly specifies a particular
`
`configuration” then an accused product being “reasonably capable of being put into the claimed
`
`configuration is insufficient for a finding of infringement”). This result is dictated by all of the
`
`intrinsic evidence, including the claims themselves and the prosecution history, where the patentee
`
`disclaimed networks that merely “coincidentally show[]” as m-regular where “the number of
`
`neighbors is not set at a predetermined number,” or that fail to be m-regular during the “steady
`
`state” where “there are not new nodes [i.e., players] entering or leaving the network.” (See Ex. 1
`
`(Sept. 10, 2003 Amdt.), p. 10; D.I. 186, p. 17). Indeed, pre-game player actions affecting m-
`
`regularity are at least as divorced from the scope of the claims as are in-game player activities.
`
`First, the Court’s un-appealed holding in Take-Two broadly excludes from infringement
`
`any network where “players’ actions determine how connections are formed,” holding that such a
`
`network is “not ‘configured to maintain’ any particular state” and is thus not-infringing. Take-
`
`Two, at *8. Although that case involved a game where connections were formed based on in-game
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 55019
`
`player actions (i.e., where to move one’s character on the game map during a game), the holding
`
`applies equally to pre-game player actions (i.e., configuring one’s security settings to allow some
`
`connections but not others). Nothing in the Take-Two order suggests that it was material to the
`
`Court’s reasoning that the player actions determining how connections are formed occur during,
`
`rather than before, gameplay. Nor would such a distinction be logically sound. In either
`
`circumstance, it cannot be said “that if the network falls out of the m-regular state, the network
`
`responds by immediately trying to return to that configuration,” as required for infringement.
`
`Take-Two, at *8. Rather, in both circumstances the network allows players to determine whether
`
`the network will be m-regular, and allows the network to persist in that player-driven state. This
`
`is antithetical to the asserted patent claims, and falls outside their scope as a matter of law. (See
`
`Ex. 1 (Sept. 10, 2003 Amdt.), p. 10 (distinguishing, in prosecution history, a network that merely
`
`“coincidentally shows a 4-regular network” where “the number of neighbors is not set at a
`
`predetermined number”)).
`
`Second, Acceleration’s admissions and the underlying evidence show that a network where
`
`connections are formed by pre-game player actions falls at least as far outside of the scope of the
`
`claims as a network determined by in-game player actions. At claim construction, Acceleration
`
`proposed that “m-regular” be construed to mean: “A network where each participant has m
`
`neighbor participants in a steady state,” which Acceleration defined as “where there are not new
`
`nodes entering or leaving the network.” (D.I. 186, p. 9 (citing the ‘344 Patent (D.I. 1-1 (Exhibit
`
`1)) at 14:53-15:7); see also D.I. 186, p. 17). Acceleration thus acknowledged that the patents
`
`require a network to be m-regular in the “steady state,” and merely sought clarification that an
`
`infringing network could temporarily not be m-regular in the unsteady, transition state when
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 55020
`
`players are joining or exiting the game. (See D.I. 186, pp. 9-10).2 Likewise, during prosecution
`
`history the patentee distinguished the patents from the prior art by pointing to the requirement in
`
`the patented inventions that “the computer network be m regular at substantially all times where
`
`there are not new nodes entering or leaving the network.” (Ex. 1 (Sept. 10, 2003 Amdt.), p. 10).
`
`But a network that allows players to configure their own settings before a game, and allows
`
`those settings to dictate whether the network for that game is m-regular, forfeits all control over
`
`whether the network will be m-regular even during the “steady state” at the beginning of the game.
`
`Such a network falls outside even the broadest patent scope advocated by Acceleration, and
`
`nothing in the patents suggests that the asserted claims would read on such a network. For instance,
`
`the only asserted claim of the ‘147 Patent, Claim 1, claims a “method of disconnecting a first
`
`computer” from a “broadcast channel forming an m-regular graph where m is at least 3,” and
`
`explains how to then manipulate the remaining connections “in order to maintain an m-regular
`
`graph.” (See D.I. 1-1 (Ex. 4), at Claim 1). This claim thus pre-supposes that the network is already
`
`m-regular before a player leaves the game, and explains how to immediately restore m-regularity
`
`in that circumstance. (Id.). But the claim has no application to a network that, due to pre-game
`
`player actions, was not m-regular to begin with, such that there may be no “third computer to
`
`which [the second computer] can connect in order to maintain an m-regular graph.” (Id.). Such a
`
`network falls outside the scope of the alleged invention.
`
`This applies consistently across the asserted patents. The only asserted independent claim
`
`of the ‘069 Patent, Claim 1, likewise recites “a method for adding a participant to a network of
`
`2 See also Markman Hearing Transcript, where Acceleration’s counsel explained: “we can agree
`to the fact that the regular network is what is desired, but as the dynamic nature of the network
`evolves, participants come in, participants drop out,” and that “[s]ometimes it will just be a good
`transition state where the m number will change periodically, because more participants come in.”
`(D.I. 219, p. 11 (emphasis added)).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 55021
`
`participants,” with “each participant being connected to the same number of other participants in
`
`the network, where the number is three or more.” (D.I. 1-1 (Ex. 5) at Claim 1 (as construed at D.I.
`
`386, p. 14)).3 That claim requires one computer to “contact[] a fully connected portal computer,”
`
`(id.), construed as a “portal computer connected to exactly m neighbor participants.” (D.I. 1-1 (Ex.
`
`5) at Claim 1 (as construed at D.I. 386, p. 9)). Here too, the claim pre-supposes that the network
`
`is already m-regular when a new player joins during the game, and is wholly inapplicable to a
`
`network where, due to pre-game player choices, the network did not begin as m-regular and there
`
`may be no “portal computer connected to exactly m neighbor participants” to “contact.”
`
`The same is true for the remaining asserted claims, from the ‘344 and ‘966 patents. These
`
`claims likewise claim networks that, as construed, must be “configured to maintain” an m-regular
`
`state (D.I. 275, p. 14), which the Court in Take-Two clarified to mean “that if the network falls out
`
`of the m-regular state, the network responds by immediately trying to return to that configuration.”
`
`Take-Two, 612 F. Supp. 3d, at 420. Like those discussed above, these limitations presuppose a
`
`network that begins the game as m-regular, and the claim as a whole is inapplicable to a network
`
`that is not m-regular to begin with due to pre-game player choices. This interpretation is well
`
`supported by the intrinsic evidence, including the patentee’s statements during prosecution history
`
`pointing to the requirement in the patented inventions that “the computer network be m regular at
`
`substantially all times where there are not new nodes entering or leaving the network.” (Ex. 1
`
`(Sept. 10, 2003 Amdt.), p. 10).
`
`3 The only other asserted claim of the ‘069 Patent, Claim 11, merely recites: “The method of claim
`1 wherein the participants are connected via the Internet.”
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 55022
`
`As such, a network that may or may not begin a game as m-regular due to pre-game player
`
`actions falls outside of the scope of the patents entirely. The Court should construe the claims to
`
`reflect this, rather than sending this dispute on claim scope to the jury.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Activision respectfully submits that there is no legal distinction between player activities
`
`before or during a game—all player activities were excluded under the Court’s construction
`
`requiring a network having a particular configuration. The asserted claims should thus be
`
`construed to clarify: “If the players’ actions, either before or during a game, determine how
`
`connections are formed, then the network is not configured to maintain an m-regular state.”
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`B. Trent Webb
`Aaron E. Hankel
`John Garretson
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Maxwell C. McGraw
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
`2555 Ground Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`
`August 4, 2023
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-WCB Document 784 Filed 08/04/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 55023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 4, 2023, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on August 4,
`
`2023, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Michael H. Lee, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`Cristina Martinez, Esquire
`Shannon H. Hedvat, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`