`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ELECTRONIC ART’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s moves for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
`
`The grounds for this motion are set forth in Electronic Art’s accompanying brief. The
`
`precise relief sought is detailed in a proposed order accompanying this motion.
`
`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
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 424 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 31514
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Anup K. Misra
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Michael Woods
`Paul N. Harold
`Joseph C. Masullo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`March 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 424 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 31515
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court, having consider Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment of Non-Infringement Under § 271(a) ;
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of _______________, 2018, that
`
`Electronic Art’s Motion is GRANTED:
`
`1. Electronic Arts does not infringe any asserted claim of the ’344, ’966, ’634, ’147, and
`
`’069 Patents because the accused networks are not configured to be m-regular and non-
`
`complete as required by these patents.
`
`2. Electronic Arts does not infringe the ‘344 Patent, the ‘966 Patent or Claim 22 of the ‘634
`
`Patent because the Accused Games do not meet the broadcast/rebroadcast requirements
`
`of these patents.
`
`3. Electronic Arts does not infringe the ‘344 and ‘966 Patents because Electronic Arts does
`
`not make, use, or sell the “Network” “System” or “Information Delivery Service”
`
`claimed in these patents.
`
`4. Electronic Arts does not infringe claims 9 and 16 of the ’497 Patent because it does not
`
`make, use, sell or offer to sell the hardware component claimed in this patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 424 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 31516
`
`
`
`5. Electronic Arts does not infringe the ’069 Patent and Claim 1 of the ‘147 Patent because
`
`the actions alleged to infringe those method claims do not all occur in the United States.
`
`6. Electronic Arts does not infringe the ’069 and ’634 Patents because users do not join the
`
`Accused Games as required by these patents.
`
`7. Electronic Arts does not infringe the ‘147 Patent because users do not leave the Accused
`
`Games as required by this patent.
`
`8. Electronic Arts does not infringe the asserted claims of the ’497 Patent because the
`
`Accused Games do not contact a portal computer in the manner required by this patent.
`
`9. Electronic Arts does not infringe any of the asserted patents under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`10. Electronic Arts accused acts outside the United States do not infringe any of the asserted
`
`patents.
`
`11. Electronic Arts did not willfully infringe any of the asserted patents.
`
`__________________________________
`Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 424 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 31517
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 23, 2018, 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 23,
`
`2018, 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
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, 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/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`
`
`
`
`