Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 7613
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:36)(cid:38)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:39)
`(cid:51)(cid:56)(cid:37)(cid:47)(cid:44)(cid:38)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:54)(cid:44)(cid:50)(cid:49)
`
`F
`
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND FOR
`MONETARY SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 11
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`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
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`(cid:50)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:41)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:3)March 16, 2017 (cid:3)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Redacted Filing Date: March 23, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 7614
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`ACCELERATION’S PRE-FILING INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE 2016
`SUIT WAS UNREASONABLE...................................................................................... 2
`
`ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE COD
`INFRINGES. .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE WOW
`INFRINGES. .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE DESTINY
`INFRINGES. .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`VI.
`
`THE MOTION PRESENTS NO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE. ..................... 9
`
`VII. ACCELERATION CONTINUES TO ACCUSE NETWORKS IT KNOWS DO
`NOT INFRINGE. ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`VIII. THE COURT SHOULD DENY ACCELERATION’S CROSS-REQUEST FOR
`SANCTIONS. ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 7615
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Chambers v. NASCO,
`501 U.S. 32 (1991) ................................................................................................................10
`
`Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)...............................................................................................7
`
`Judin v. United States,
`110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir. 1997).................................................................................................5
`
`Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC,
`800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................2
`
`Martin v. Brown,
`63 F.3d 1252 (3d Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................10
`
`Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...............................................................................................9
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Streetline, Inc.,
`2017 WL 277398 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2017) ...............................................................................4
`
`Vehicle Operation Techs. LLC v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 637 (D. Del. 2014) ......................................................................................6, 9
`
`View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc.,
`208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000).................................................................................2, 3, 6, 8, 9
`
`Walker Digital v. Google Inc.,
`2015 WL 5190685 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2015) .............................................................................6
`
`Zuk v. E. Pennsylvania Psychiatric Inst. of the Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania,
`103 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 7616
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Acceleration’s opposition fails to identify even a single network that it contends meets each
`
`limitation of any asserted claim. Acceleration’s principal tasks in opposition were simple. For
`
`each accused game: identify an accused network and show how it is both m-regular and
`
`incomplete. Then, show how the other claim limitations (broadcasting, adding and dropping
`
`nodes) are allegedly performed on that network. Yet, Acceleration could do none of this: it failed
`
`to identify even one m-regular incomplete network, the participants in that network, the
`
`connections between those participants, or the value of m (at least 3). See Br. at 10. Nor could it
`
`show how the other essential claim limitations are allegedly met. For the only network described
`
`in any detail, Acceleration cites deposition testimony, which, contrary to Acceleration’s
`
`representation, says nothing about m-regular, incomplete overlay networks:
`
`Cited Testimony:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Acceleration’s
`Brief:
`“This information is
`used to construct an
`incomplete,
`m-
`regular
`overlay
`network to broadcast
`data
`packets
`between
`players
`such as QoS data,
`voice chat data and
`Id. at
`text data.
`84:24-85:16.” (Ans.
`Br. at 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Acceleration cannot meet its Rule 11 obligations by merely identifying a network using
`
`peer-to-peer functionality—nothing about peer to peer functionality requires a network to be both
`
`m-regular and incomplete as required by the asserted patents.1
`
`
`1 Acceleration also failed its task for the sixth patent which claims locating a call-in port of a
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 7617
`
`
`
`Far from being “a premature motion for summary judgment,” Ans. Br. at 2, this Motion
`
`(and the multiple Rule 11 letters that preceded it) requests and Rule 11 requires that a plaintiff and
`
`its counsel “at a bare minimum, [be able to] apply the claims of each and every patent that is being
`
`brought into the lawsuit to an accused device and conclude that there is a reasonable basis for a
`
`finding of infringement.” View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000). Acceleration had access to source code, took multiple Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and
`
`knew of a simple test that would confirm non-infringement before it sued in 2016. Yet,
`
`Acceleration cannot meet this minimum standard.
`
`II.
`
`ACCELERATION’S PRE-FILING INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE 2016 SUIT WAS
`UNREASONABLE.
`Acceleration’s pre-filing investigation declarations are conclusory and incomplete and miss
`
`a more fundamental mark: They all relate to its investigation before filing in 2015, not 2016.2
`
`Reasonableness is assessed at the time of filing and Rule 11 requires a plaintiff to “consult the
`
`sources at its disposal.” Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 2015);
`
`see also Br. at 3. Acceleration does not contend that it performed an infringement analysis in
`
`2016. Acceleration’s lead counsel declares that “[b]efore [filing the 2016 suit], Acceleration Bay’s
`
`counsel carefully evaluated and relied upon the additional evidence of Activision’s infringement
`
`discussed above [in the declaration].” D.I. 71, Andre Decl. ¶ 13. Yet, to appear in the IPR
`
`proceedings, Acceleration’s counsel represented that Mr. Andre had not reviewed the source code
`
`produced by Activision or consulted with those that had. TDEx. 19. Regardless of any pre-filing
`
`
`portal computer by use of a port-ordering algorithm and reordering of the call-in port list, Br. at
`17.
`2 Acceleration also failed to substantiate that it performed a reasonable pre-filing investigation
`before filing the 2015 suit. Acceleration did not explain what information about the accused
`products supported its complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 7618
`
`
`
`investigation before the 2015 suit, no reasonable attorney would have sued again in 2016 given
`
`what Acceleration knew from the available sources. Those sources—the source code review, the
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, and Rule 11 letters—dispelled any reasonable belief that Acceleration’s
`
`allegations were “well grounded in fact and legally tenable.” View Eng’g, 208 F.3d at 985
`
`(quotation omitted). Acceleration never “carefully evaluated . . . the additional evidence,” as
`
`demonstrated by its failure to withdraw allegations it knows to be wrong. See infra at VII.
`
`Acceleration also offers a mere ipse dixit declaration from a computer science professor
`
`hired by Acceleration to conduct a pre-filing analysis. The declaration contains no details of his
`
`analysis, and is instead filled with vague claims of having “researched the Accused Products,” and
`
`somehow concluded that they “use rules and network structures” that somehow “caus[e] the
`
`networks to operate in an m-regular fashion.” See, e.g., D.I. 70, Medvidović Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.3 Yet,
`
`as confirmed by its Opposition, Acceleration cannot even identify a single network that is both m-
`
`regular and incomplete by identifying all of its participants, all of their connections and the value
`
`of m – information its own expert concedes is required to show infringement.4 Reply TDEx. 26
`
`201:21-203:9.
`
`Acceleration’s claim charts—to which the answering brief rarely cites—themselves
`
`demonstrate the lack of a reasonable pre-filing investigation. First, those charts do not incorporate
`
`or account for the information at Acceleration’s disposal. Acceleration says its charts were based
`
`on “the publicly available information about Activision’s Accused Products.” Ans. Br. at 9. But
`
`
`3 Acceleration argues as if its patents covered all m-regular networks. Ans. Br. at 4; id. at 11.
`But the patents cannot be infringed, except on networks that are both m-regular and incomplete
`at substantially all times and meet the additional limitations of the patents. Br. at 6–7; see also,
`e.g., TDEx. 5A at 11 (“[N]umber of network participants N . . . must always be m+2 or greater . .
`. .”).
`4 Dr. Harry Bims has been disclosed as an Acceleration expert under the protective order in the
`litigations and is an expert for Acceleration in the related inter partes review.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7619
`
`
`
`Acceleration had access to troves of non-public information when it sued in 2016. Second,
`
`although Acceleration “reviewed the CoD and WoW source code on numerous occasions” and for
`
`nearly 100 hours, its charts, brief and supporting declarations cite no source code. D.I. 70,
`
`Medvidović Decl. ¶ 12. Acceleration’s expert Bims opined in another case that the relevant source
`
`code for a product’s functionality is not difficult to find. See Reply TDEx. 28 at ¶¶ 5, 7 (“evidence
`
`of how a particular function is performed in a product is typically contained within, at most, seven
`
`or eight files” and “finding the source code for similar functionality . . . is largely about finding
`
`similarly named files”). Acceleration’s failure to cite source code despite extensive review
`
`suggests that the source code contradicts its allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceleration “must write a complaint . . . that makes it
`
`plausible to think a defendant has infringed at least one claim of any asserted patent.” SIPCO, LLC
`
`v. Streetline, Inc., 2017 WL 277398, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 20, 2017) (dismissing a complaint and
`
`noting “no ethical lawyer would bring this lawsuit if the plaintiff could not allege more”).
`
`Acceleration ignored the inventor’s noninfringement test. Acceleration knew of (and
`
`ignored) an easy way to defeat this Motion:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Although not the test recommended by Dr. Holt, Acceleration claims that it performed some
`privileged “pre-filing testing.” Ans. Br. at 15 (emphasis in original); see TDEx. 8B, 162:12–16.
`Acceleration should produce these tests if it intends to rely on them to oppose this Motion.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 7620
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Any reasonable attorney would have performed such a simple infringement test
`
`recommended by the inventor before filing a multimillion dollar patent suit. See Judin v. United
`
`States, 110 F.3d 780, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions where purchasing the
`
`device would cost “a minuscule amount, compared to the cost of the litigation”). As
`
`Acceleration’s counsel stated, it is seeking “50 to 150 million per defendant.” Reply TDEx. 31 at
`
`40:24–41:2. Acceleration had the resources from a third-party financier and capability to perform
`
`this simple test, D.I. 71, Andre Decl. ¶ 4,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Failing to perform this test
`
`before filing suit alone justifies sanctions because reasonableness under Rule 11 is assessed at the
`
`time of filing. Judin, 110 F.3d at 784; Br. at 3 (citing authorities). Additionally, Acceleration’s
`
`failure to conduct this test in response to Activision’s multiple Rule 11 letters and this Motion (all
`
`of which referenced this test) suggests that Acceleration knows the test’s results would be
`
`unfavorable and confirms that Acceleration has willfully “turned a blind eye” to the baselessness of
`
`its claims. Vehicle Operation Techs. LLC v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 3d 637, 651 (D.
`
`Del. 2014). Acceleration’s investigation failed to meet the “bare minimum” for any suit, let alone
`
`one brought by a deep-pocketed plaintiff seeking millions in damages. View Eng’g, 208 F.3d at
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 7621
`
`
`
`986. This distinguishes Walker Digital v. Google Inc., 2015 WL 5190685 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2015).
`
`III. ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE COD INFRINGES.
`Acceleration asserts that CoD uses m-regular incomplete networks, but the very deposition
`
`testimony it cites confirms the opposite. See Ans. Br. at 10–11.
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceleration sole support for an m-regular,
`
`incomplete network relies on the fact that “not all participants will be able to communicate with
`
`each other” and that the “maximum number of peer connections causes the network”—it does not
`
`say which network—“to be m-regular in its fully loaded state.” Ans. Br. at 11. This is far from
`
`sufficient. The fact that some players may not be able to communicate directly with all players
`
`does not show that any network is ever both m-regular and incomplete.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And Acceleration offers no support at all that any such network practices the broadcasting
`
`limitations. Its only argument is in a footnote, short-quotes the key limitation and cites no evidence
`
`
`
`about how CoD functions. See Ans. Br. at 11 n.7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Acceleration’s “QoS” argument also strains credibility: “QoS” is a well-known messaging
`technique by at least 1991, e.g., Reply TDEx. 32, and the patents do not mention QoS at all.
`7 Activision never represented that “its products only use a ‘complete full mesh’ or ‘client-
`server’ topology.” Ans. Br. at 10. Activision has been clear that other topologies are used for
`non-gameplay data. See Br. at 9 (CoD uses “peer-to-peer topologies (for VoIP data or QoS-
`related information)”); id. (WoW’s “back-end servers use statically configured and request-based
`connections, full meshes, or a 2-regular ring, none of which can meet the Topology
`limitations.”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 7622
`
`
`
`most one other participant, not multiple other participants as required by the Flooding Limitations.
`
`See Br. at 14; Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 11
`
`requires “an objective evaluation of the claim terms when reading those terms on the accused
`
`device.”).
`
`Nor is there any support for Acceleration’s assertion that CoD practices the Add or Drop
`
`Limitations. See Ans. Br. at 17. Acceleration does not even attempt to explain how CoD practices
`
`the messaging limitations for adding and dropping, or how connections are broken and reformed to
`
`supposedly maintain an incomplete, m-regular network as the claims require. See Br. at 16.
`
`Acceleration also has no support for its bald assertion that CoD practices the Portal
`
`Limitations; Acceleration never explains how any product uses a port ordering algorithm that can
`
`be reordered and therefore has no basis to assert that patent either. See Ans. Br. at 17.
`
`IV. ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE WOW INFRINGES.
`Acceleration cannot muster a single piece of evidence suggesting that WoW uses any m-
`
`regular incomplete networks. Acceleration ignores the facts about WoW's server-to-server
`
`networks, which “use statically configured and request-based connections, full meshes, or a 2-
`
`regular ring, none of which can meet the Topology Limitations.” Br. at 9. Acceleration’s
`
`argument that these are not client-server topologies is irrelevant because these configurations are
`
`still not the m-regular incomplete topologies required by the patents. Similarly, Accelerations’
`
`load balancing argument is irrelevant – load balancing has long been known and the patents do not
`
`claim it.8
`
`Acceleration’s assertion that other WoW networks are m-regular and incomplete is
`
`
`8 Load balancing is an effort to balance the workload across connections. It does not require or
`depend upon m-regularity, and, as confirmed by a simple restricted date search, was well known
`before the priority date. See http://bit.ly/2mrqdsa.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 7623
`
`
`
`unsupported. See Ans. Br. at 13. Acceleration asserts the Blizzard Downloader infringes because
`
`it can have a maximum number of peer connections, but as explained above, having a maximum
`
`number of peer connections does not make a network m-regular and incomplete. Acceleration also
`
`mentions “other theories of infringement . . . such as [WoW’s] chat channels,” Ans. Br. at 13 n.10,
`
`but offers no evidence or argument how these use an m-regular incomplete topology.
`
`Just as importantly, Acceleration simply ignores the other fundamental claim limitations
`
`and therefore fails to make even a prima facie case for infringement. But Acceleration had access
`
`to the source code before filing this case, and was required to have a basis for alleging
`
`infringement before it filed suit. Because Acceleration cannot “demonstrate to both the court and
`
`the alleged infringer exactly why it believed before filing the claim that it had a reasonable chance
`
`of proving infringement,” it should be sanctioned. View Eng’g, 208 F.3d at 986.
`
`Acceleration has no support for its bald assertion that WoW practices the Portal
`
`Limitations. Even Acceleration’s expert agrees “[a] particular algorithm for ordering the ports in
`
`the screenshot is not described in [the WoW] claim chart.” Reply TDEx. 27 at 166:1-3.
`
`V.
`
`ACCELERATION HAS NO REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE DESTINY INFRINGES.
`Acceleration’s expert – who created a claim chart regarding Destiny – could not identify a
`
`single infringing network as to Destiny and implied that he could not do so for any product at all:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Nor does its Opposition explain any basis to accuse Destiny, see
`
`
`9 Even though the scope of that deposition was arguably limited and that expert had not reviewed
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 7624
`
`
`
`Br. at 18. Instead, Acceleration complains that it has not received any discovery on Destiny, see
`
`Ans. Br. at 18. Rule 11 does not allow filing of baseless claims in pursuit of discovery. Because
`
`Acceleration cannot provide a reasonable claim for infringement, it should have withdrawn those
`
`claims when this Motion was served. View Eng’g, 208 F.3d at 986.
`
`VI.
`
`THE MOTION PRESENTS NO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE.
`Acceleration dresses up its speculation about the Accused Product’s network topologies as
`
`a claim construction dispute, but this Motion presents no material claim construction dispute. At a
`
`minimum, all agree that the patents require an m-regular incomplete network topology.
`
`Acceleration told the PTAB that the topology must “always” be incomplete. E.g., TDEx. 5A at 11
`
`(“[N]umber of network participants N . . . must always be m+2 or greater . . . .”). This eliminates
`
`its theory that networks can meet the claim limitations from random failures to connect. Activision
`
`explained that, based on disavowals in the file history, m must be “set at a predetermined number”
`
`and the network must be “m regular at substantially all times.” Br. at 7. Acceleration has not
`
`attempted to offer a non-frivolous alternative construction. Vehicle Operation Techs., 67 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 651 (sanctioning a plaintiff for relying on a claim construction contrary to disavowals in the
`
`patent history). Acceleration’s failure to offer a non-frivolous claim construction supporting a
`
`reasonable allegation of infringement is sanctionable. Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations,
`
`Inc., 700 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing a denial of sanctions because the claim
`
`construction was “objectively unreasonable and an independent violation of Rule 11”).
`
`VII. ACCELERATION CONTINUES TO ACCUSE NETWORKS IT KNOWS DO NOT INFRINGE.
`
`
`
` Acceleration does not contest this fact, see Ans. Br. at 16, yet it did not
`
`the source code, this testimony further confirms the baselessness of the allegations as to all
`products – indeed, the chart at issue in that deposition uses nearly the same boilerplate topology
`allegations as the charts directed to the other accused products.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 7625
`
`
`
`withdraw the allegation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceleration’s failure
`
`to correct or withdraw these frivolous allegations is evidence of its bad faith.
`
`VIII. THE COURT SHOULD DENY ACCELERATION’S CROSS-REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.
`Acceleration’s cross-request for sanctions should be denied. No fee award is warranted
`
`because Activision’s motion is meritorious. If Acceleration seeks sanctions based on its
`
`allegations of misconduct, such a request must be denied because Acceleration cannot show bad
`
`faith by Activision. Zuk v. E. Pennsylvania Psychiatric Inst. of the Med. Coll. of Pennsylvania,
`
`103 F.3d 294, 298 (3d Cir. 1996) (reversing § 1927 sanctions award because there was “no finding
`
`of willful bad faith”); Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991).10
`
`IX. CONCLUSION
`Acceleration violated Rule 11 by failing to either conduct an adequate pre-suit
`
`investigation or by ignoring the result of that investigation, warranting dismissal of this case with
`
`prejudice. It also violated Rule 11 by filing the complaint for improper purposes. Because
`
`Acceleration filed this meritless case in the face of ample evidence and repeated warnings,
`
`monetary sanctions are appropriate, including all Activision’s fees and costs incurred in this case.
`
`
`
`10 The Special Master granted many of Activision’s discovery motions in the prior case. Further,
`Activision’s assertion of its patent rights after Acceleration declined to engage in cross-licensing
`discussions was neither frivolous nor made in bad faith. And even if Acceleration could show
`bad faith, the sanctions would be limited to the taxable costs and fees incurred as a result of the
`conduct. Martin v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1264 (3d Cir. 1995).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 7626
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`_______________________________________
`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
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`March 16, 2017
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 92 Filed 03/23/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 7627
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March (cid:21)(cid:22), 2017, 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
`
`March (cid:21)(cid:22), 2017, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`________________________________
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`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
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`