`
`I f i
`
`t \
`!
`!
`
`I
`f
`I I
`' I
`I l
`
`I
`I I
`I
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-453-RGA
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-454-RGA
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE
`SOFTWARE, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 16-455-RGA
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendants request a delay in the schedule. (No. 16-453, D.I. 253, 260, 292). The
`
`request is that the schedule be adjusted so that everything "proceed[ s] in an orderly fashion after
`
`claim construction is complete." (D.1. 253 at 1). I would give Defendants more latitude ifl
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 263 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19540
`
`thought the excessive amount of claim construction was Plaintiffs responsibility, but I am pretty
`
`sure that, on claim construction at least, it is Defendants who have said that every last word in the
`
`claims needs to be construed. Defendants cannot have their cake and eat it too. Plaintiffs hands
`
`are not clean either, but on this issue, its hands are much cleaner than Defendants'.
`
`The request for delay (D.I. 253) is DENIED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 day of September 2017.
`
`' l
`l
`I e
`
`I
`f
`
`I
`
`