Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 36688
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`EXPERT TESTIMONY OF CATHARINE M. LAWTON
`
`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
`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: March 23, 2018
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public version dated: April 4, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 36689
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Asserted Claims .........................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`EA is a Direct Infringer of the Asserted System Claims of the ‘497, ‘344,
`and ‘966 Patents .......................................................................................................3
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Asserted Method Claims in the ‘147 and ‘069
`Patents ......................................................................................................................6
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Computer Readable Medium Claims ...........................10
`
`II.
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent ...........................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Accused Products Use
`and Permit Players to Connect to Online
`Multiplayer Gameplay Sessions ............................................................................11
`
`
`
`The Accused Products Include a “Component” (Element 9A) ..............................14
`
`The Accused Products Include a Means for Identifying a Portal Computer
`Having a Dynamically Selected Call-In Port for Communicating with
`Other Computers (Elements 9B) ............................................................................17
`
`The Accused Products Include a Means for Identifying the Call-In Port by
`Repeatedly Trying to Establish a Connection (Element 9C) .................................19
`
`The Accused Products Include a Means For Selecting the Call-In Port of
`the Identified Portal Computer Using a Port Ordering Algorithm
`(Element 9D) ..........................................................................................................21
`
`The Accused Products Include a Means for Re-Ordering the
`Communications Ports Selected By the Port Ordering Algorithm
`(Element 9E) ..........................................................................................................21
`
`The Accused Products Use TCP/IP Connections and Infringe Claim 16
`(Element 16)...........................................................................................................22
`
`III. Ms. Lawton’s Damages Opinions Should be Excluded as Arbitrary, Unsupported
`by the Facts of this Case and Unreliable ............................................................................23
`
`A.
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Opinions Regarding Purported Non-Infringing Alternatives
`are Legally Flawed and Factually Unsupported ....................................................24
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 36690
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Opinion that the Uniloc Verdict is Not Comparable to the
`Hypothetical License is Unreasonable ...................................................................28
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion Rests on Speculation........................30
`
`Without
`Ms. Lawton Assumes Comparability of the
`Any Analysis ..........................................................................................................35
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Opinion as to the Date For the Hypothetical Negotiation is
`Unsupported and Arbitrary ....................................................................................40
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 42
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: 36691
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.
`(16-453-RGA) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)..................................................................7, 9, 10, 16
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................6, 10
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................41
`
`Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 05-229S, 2008 WL 717741 (D.R.I. Mar. 17, 2008) .....................................32, 34, 35
`
`Brandeis Univ. v. Keebler Co.,
`No. 1:12-cv-1508, 2013 WL 5911233 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2013)..............................................28
`
`Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc)..............................................................................3, 5
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................10
`
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,
`887 F.Supp.2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................................35
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Elcock v. Kmart Corp.,
`233 F.3d 734 (3d Cir. 2000).....................................................................................................28
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.,
`845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC,
`No. 8:10CV187, 2016 WL 2772122 (D. Neb. May 11, 2016), vacated in part
`on other grounds, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................24
`
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`No. 12-540-LPS, 2015 WL 1303643 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2015) ................................................31
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: 36692
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................10
`
`Fromson v. W. Litho Plate & Supply Co.,
`853 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................39
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1265009 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) ................................41
`
`Georgia–Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.,
`318 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) .............................................................................24, 36, 37
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co.,
`185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................28
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,
`378 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Del. 2005) .........................................................................................39
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................11
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`No. 2:06-CV-348, 2011 WL 197869 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2011) .................................24, 28, 35
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................36, 38
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Enfora, Inc.,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 665 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................35
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Motorola Sols., Inc.,
`No. CV 12-33-RGA, 2016 WL 767900 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2016) ............................................35
`
`Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................24
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`NetAirus Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. LA CV 10-03257 JAK(Ex),
`2013 WL 11237200 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) ........................................................................36
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: 36693
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.,
`35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).......................................................................................................28
`
`Segan LLC v. Zynga Inc.,
`No. CV 11-670-GMS, 2013 WL 12156529 (D. Del. May 2, 2013) ........................................16
`
`Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC,
`No. 12-1013-RGA, 2015 WL 456154 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2015) ................................................35
`
`Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp,
`877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................7, 9, 16
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA,
`No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWS (E.D. Tex.) (Dec. 5, 2014) ........................................................28, 29
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................36
`
`Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................31
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................34, 36, 39
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...........................................................................................................3, 6, 10, 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) .............................................................................................3
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) .............................................................................................6
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 ..............................................................................1, 23, 27, 28
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: 36694
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC (“AB”) filed suit against Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) on March
`
`30, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2017 and the parties served final expert reports on
`
`February 7, 2018. D.I. 1 (C.A. No. 15-282), D. I. 56; D.I. 348. Trial is set for August 27, 2018.
`
`D.I. 348. Pursuant to the case schedule that provides for issues of validity to be addressed in the
`
`related action against Activision, Acceleration Bay previously moved for summary judgment of
`
`validity on various of Defendants’ invalidity defenses. D.I. 388. That motion is pending before
`
`the Court.
`
`AB now moves in this case (1) for summary judgment rejecting EA’s divided
`
`infringement defense, (2) for summary judgment that each of EA’s Accused Products infringe
`
`the ‘497 Patent and (3) to exclude the proposed opinions of EA’s damages expert Catherine
`
`Lawton under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`EA directly infringes each Asserted Claim because it puts into use each element of the
`
`asserted system claims and itself performs or is deemed to perform each step of the asserted
`
`method claims. In particular, EA makes, uses and sells the video game products accused of
`
`infringement (“Accused Products”): FIFA 15 and FIFA 16 (collectively, “FIFA”); NHL 15 and
`
`NHL 16 (collectively, “NHL”); Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare 1 and Plants vs. Zombies
`
`Garden Warfare 2 (collectively, “PvZ”). EA argues that its customers buy and play the Accused
`
`Products, such that they are the infringers, as opposed to EA. But when EA’s customers
`
`purchase a copy of one of the Accused Products, they actually only purchase a license to use the
`
`video game, such that EA retains complete ownership of and control over the Accused Products,
`
`including the infringing functionality in its games used to locate, join and participate in online
`
`multiplayer game sessions. Thus, summary judgement disposal of EA’s divided infringement
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: 36695
`
`defense is warranted. Doing so now will streamline the issues for trial, permitting the parties and
`
`jury to focus on the substantive infringement issues, rather than EA’s meritless and unsupported
`
`defense.
`
`Summary judgment of infringement of Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent is also
`
`warranted. There are no genuine disputes as to any material fact that the Accused Products use a
`
`matchmaking system to connect players with each other so that they can join and play an online
`
`multiplayer game session as required by Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent. EA designed and
`
`configured its matchmaking system to use a port ordering algorithm to select a call-in port of a
`
`portal computer
`
`so that players can quickly and efficiently join a multiplayer
`
`game as required by Claim 9. EA further designed and configured its
`
` (a portal
`
`computer with dynamically selected call-in port) to use TCP and UDP networking protocols as
`
`required by Claim 16. Thus, summary judgement of EA’s infringement of the ‘497 Patent is
`
`proper.
`
`Additionally, the Court should preclude EA’s damages expert Ms. Lawton from
`
`providing fundamentally flawed and unreliable opinions in rebuttal to AB’s experts. EA’s
`
`damages expert provides an improper damages calculation that is based on arbitrary and
`
`speculative calculations untethered to the facts of the case, premises her entire opinion on a
`
`license agreement that is neither technically nor economically comparable to the hypothetical
`
`negotiation for this case, and offers technical opinions on non-infringing alternatives and validity
`
`that lack any factual basis and for which she concedes she is unqualified to provide.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should grant AB’s motions for summary judgment because “there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and [Acceleration Bay] is entitled to judgment as a matter
`
`of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As movant, AB bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: 36696
`
`a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
`
`574, 585 n.10, 586 (1986). EA must then “come forward with specific facts showing that there
`
`is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 587.
`
`I.
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Asserted Claims
`
`A.
`
`EA is a Direct Infringer of the Asserted System Claims of the ‘497, ‘344, and
`‘966 Patents
`
`EA is liable as a direct infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) of the asserted system claims
`
`in the 497, ‘344, and ‘966 Patents. The Federal Circuit has held that infringing activity is
`
`directly attributable to an accused infringer, like EA, who controls the accused system and
`
`derives a benefit from the use of the accused system. Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest
`
`Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).
`
`EA owns and controls the design and operation of the Accused Products, including the
`
`multiplayer networks at issue, and puts into use the systems accused of infringement. In
`
`particular, the accused systems generally include the following elements that are all under the
`
`control and put into use by EA’s Accused Products:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`‘497 Patent: a software component for locating a call-in-port of a portal computer with
`dynamically selected call-in ports;
`
`‘344 Patent: a computer network broadcast channel for playing a game that permits
`participants to send and receive data; and
`
`‘966 Patent: a computer network broadcast channel for a topic of interest that permits
`participants to send and receive data
`
`The operation and function of every element of the above system claims, including any
`
`hardware or processors required by the means-plus-function claim elements, are controlled by
`
`software in the Accused Products. EA does not dispute Drs. Medvidovic’s and Mitzenmacher’s
`
`analysis that EA own and controls the operation of the Accused Products:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: 36697
`
`The customers’ use of the software, which Defendant exclusively
`authors, owns, updates, and modifies, is subject to a license
`agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1 (Med. Rpt.) at ¶ 322; see id. at ¶¶ 331, 340; Ex. 3 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 207, 214, 225.
`
`The customers’ use of the software, which Defendant exclusively authors, owns, updates,
`
`and modifies, is subject to a license agreement. I have provided below representative relevant
`
`excerpts of EA’s User Agreement for its customers. Customers must agree to the User
`
`Agreement to use FIFA which further demonstrates Defendant’s ownership, direction and
`
`control over the software.
`
`EA’s own witnesses (Messrs. O’Neill, Clouatre, and Smith) and experts, Drs. Kelly and
`
`Macedonia admit that EA masterminds the entire system put into use by the Accused Products:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 9 (Kelly Rpt.) at ¶ 93 (emphasis added); Ex. 10 (Macedonia Rpt.) at ¶ 150.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: 36698
`
`EA’s experts confirm EA’s control over these systems by repeatedly explaining in their
`
`reports that EA’s game teams configure all aspects of the design and operation of the accused
`
`systems, from joining a game (e.g., locating and connecting to a portal computer), to forming and
`
`maintain connections (e.g., broadcast channel for a game of interest that is m-regular and
`
`incomplete graphs) and controlling the sending and receiving of data (e.g., relaying data among
`
`participants). See, e.g., Ex. 9 (Kelly Rpt.) at ¶¶ 100, 104, 110, 117, 125; Ex. 10 (Macedonia
`
`Rpt.) at ¶¶ 157, 161, 167, 174, 182. EA’s experts further confirm that EA’s
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. Thus, there can be no genuine
`
`dispute that EA controls and put into use the accused systems.
`
`EA’s contention that it does not put into use the accused systems because it does not have
`
`possession over its customers’ PCs and consoles should be summarily dismissed. The Federal
`
`Circuit has held that physical control over every component in an accused system is not required.
`
`Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit has held that a user puts a
`
`system into use even if the user “remotely ‘controlled’ the system by simply transmitting a
`
`message”:
`
`the user did not have physical control over the relays, the user
`made them work for their patented purpose, and thus “used” every
`element of the system by putting every element collectively into
`service
`
`Id. (citing NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`Here, that EA’s customers may own their own PCs and Xbox consoles does not impact
`
`EA’s liability because Acceleration Bay’s experts provided unrebutted evidence that (1) EA
`
`owns and controls the application programs that execute on its customers’ PCs and consoles to
`
`create and participate in the infringing networks; (2) EA owns and controls the servers providing
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: 36699
`
`the networks, (3) EA puts the systems into use and (4) EA masterminds and controls all aspects
`
`of the operation of the networks. Ex. 1 (Med. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 321-323, 330-332, 339-341; Ex. 2
`
`(Med. Reply Rpt.) at ¶¶ 47, 137, 156, 332-336; Ex. 3 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 78, 79, 87, 88, 96, 97; Ex.
`
`4 (Mitz. Reply Rpt.) at ¶¶ 38, 39, 41, 47-49, 54-57, 59, 62-64, 68, 84-85; Ex. 9 (Kelly Rpt.) at ¶
`
`93; Ex. 10 (Macedonia Rpt.) at ¶ 150.
`
`Further, EA benefits from the use of the accused systems which provide significant cost
`
`savings and enhances the gaming experience which EA uses to generate hundreds of millions of
`
`dollars in revenue. Ex. 5 (Bims Rpt.) at ¶¶ 2, 3, 49-61; Ex. 7 (Meyer Rpt.) at ¶¶ 11, 13, 24-31,
`
`48. Thus, use of the entire accused system is attributable to EA and the Court should grant
`
`summary judgment dismissing EA’s divided infringement defense. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (summary judgment appropriate when “‘the pleadings,
`
`depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file . . . show that there is no genuine
`
`issue as to any material fact and [movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’”) (quoting
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
`
`B.
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Asserted Method Claims in the ‘147 and ‘069
`Patents
`
`EA is liable as a direct infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) of the asserted method claims
`
`in the ‘147 and ‘069 Patents. EA controls the operations of its customer’s PCs and consoles,
`
`including connecting and disconnecting to online multiplayer game sessions, as recited in these
`
`claims. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that actions of third parties (e.g., customers’ PCs
`
`and consoles) are attributable to an alleged infringer “when an alleged infringer conditions
`
`participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a
`
`patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” Akamai Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citation omitted).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: 36700
`
`Through its Accused Products, EA controls the manner and operation of customers’ PCs
`
`and consoles, allowing them to obtain the benefit of connecting to the network and joining online
`
`multiplayer game sessions, including the manner and timing of the processes covered by the ‘147
`
`and ‘069 Patents:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`‘147 Patent: controlling the process of disconnecting and maintaining an m-regular
`graph; and
`
`‘069 Patent: controlling the process of adding a participant.
`
`As described above, EA’s witnesses and experts agree that EA owns its software, and, for
`
`each of the Accused Products, EA controls the process of connecting, forming and maintaining
`
`the network for playing online multiplayer game sessions. Ex. 3 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 78, 79, 87, 88,
`
`96, 97; Ex. 4 (Mitz. Reply Rpt.) at ¶¶ 38, 39, 41, 47-49, 54-57, 59, 62-64, 68, 84-85; Ex. 1 (Med.
`
`Rpt.) at ¶¶ 321-323, 330-332, 339-341; Ex. 2 (Med. Reply Rpt.) at ¶¶ 47, 137, 156, 332-336.
`
`Thus, any actions by EA’s customers’ PCs and consoles, including hardware and processor, is
`
`controlled by EA’s software and attributed to EA for purposes of infringement. Akamai, 797
`
`F.3d at 1023; Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`
`Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`EA exclusively authors, owns, updates, and modifies the Accused Products. Ex. 3 (Mitz.
`
`Rpt.) at ¶¶ 206-208, 213-215, 224-226. EA’s customers’ use of these products is conditioned
`
`upon their agreement to a restrictive license agreement. Relevant excerpts of EA’s User
`
`Agreement for its customers, copied below, confirm that (1) customers must agree to the User
`
`Agreement to use the Accused Products, (2) EA owns the software and only sells to its
`
`customers a license and (3) EA can modify the software at any time, demonstrating EA’s
`
`ownership, direction and control over the software running customer’s PCs and consoles.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: 36701
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 11, EA0039556-66 (Channon Ex. 11) (emphasis added); see also Ex. 12, AB-EA 008408-19
`
`(http://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/); Ex. 13, EA0039531-44 (Channon Ex. 9);
`
`Ex. 14, EA0039545-55 (Channon Ex. 10); Ex. 15, Channon Tr. at 34:12-37:24.
`
`Based on the requirements, EA has and maintains total control over all relevant aspects of
`
`the software that directs the manner in which players’ PCs and consoles connect to online game
`
`sessions. For example, as discussed in Sections II.C, II.D (Elements 497:9(b)-(c) below),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 16, Poon Tr. at 44:25-45:8;
`
`Ex. 17, EA0023770-77; Ex. 18 at EA0023800-801; see also Ex. 19, O’Neill Tr. at 67:22-25,
`
`69:4-14; Ex. 16, Poon Tr. at 14:10-15:11; Ex. 20, EA0023662-72; Ex. 21, EA0023653; Ex. 22,
`
`EA0023538; Ex. 23 at EA0023564-65, 572-73.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: 36702
`
`Both EA and its customers benefit by using this technology because it allows EA’s
`
`customers to participate in the activity of joining and playing online multiplayer game sessions
`
`more efficiently (e.g., networks can be formed where the overlay layer is agnostic as to the
`
`topology of the underlying network) and with enhanced performance (using dynamically
`
`selected call-in ports result in shorter wait times to join game and form networks with lower
`
`latency (they are “faster”)). Ex. 4 (Mitz Reply Rpt.) at ¶¶ 296-299, 303.
`
`Because EA controls the actions and processes of players’ PCs and consoles, and requires
`
`use of its software to join an online multiplayer game session, the action and processes that are
`
`performed by players’ hardware, including processors, are attributable to EA. Akamai, 797 F.3d
`
`at 1023; Travel Sentry, 877 F.3d at 1378-79.
`
`Indeed, the facts here provide even more compelling support for direct infringement than
`
`those in Akamai and Travel Sentry. In those cases the deliberate and volitional actions of third
`
`parties were attributed to the alleged infringer. Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1024; Travel Sentry, 877
`
`F.3d at 1376, 1379-80. Here, in contrast, because EA’s software controls customer’s PCs and
`
`consoles to automatically perform the claimed functions, and customers have little to no role in
`
`the process by which their PC or console connects to an online game session. For example, in
`
`Akamai, customers themselves performed the active and volitional “tagging step” – it was not
`
`automatic, yet those actions were attributable to the alleged infringer because the customers
`
`would only benefit from use of the system upon performing the tagging step. Akamai, 797 F.3d
`
`at 1024-25. EA’s customers can only benefit (i.e., joining and playing an online game session),
`
`by using EA’s software to connect to a gameplay session. That joining process happens without
`
`input from the player as to the steps recited in the Asserted Claims (unlike a user-performed
`
`tagging step). As this process is automatic, EA’s customers must perform these steps to get the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 16 of 49 PageID #: 36703
`
`benefit of playing the Accused Products. EA therefore conditions its customers participation in
`
`the infringing multiplayer game sessions on their use of the Accused Products to connect to those
`
`networks, causing EA to be deemed to itself perform these steps. Id., at 1023.
`
`C.
`
`EA Directly Infringes the Computer Readable Medium Claims
`
`EA is liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for the asserted “computer
`
`readable medium” (“CRM”) claims, which are Claims 11, 15, and 16 of the ‘147 Patent and
`
`Claims 19 and 22 of the ‘634 Patent because EA manufactures or causes to be manufactured the
`
`disks and provides the game for download. Ex. 1 (Med. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 316-318, 570, 572, 574; Ex.
`
`3 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 297-299; Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1205 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (direct infringement of computer readable medium Beauregard claims may be shown
`
`by the manufacture or sale of computer readable medium that contains software capable of
`
`performing the recited functions).1
`
`II.
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent
`
`As shown below, the Accused Products meet every limitation of Claims 9 and 16 of the
`
`‘497 Patent. Therefore, the Court should grant summary judgment that EA infringes Claims 9
`
`and 16 of the ‘497 Patent. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. Below is an overview of EA’s
`
`matchmaking process used in the Accused Products, followed by a discussion of the specific
`
`claim elements.
`
`AB’s technical expert Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher provided overwhelming evidence that
`
`FIFA, NHL, and PvZ meet every element of Claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 Patent, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents (DoE). AB’s motion for summary judgment of infringement
`
`is confirmed by the source code Dr. Mitzenmacher analyzed in his reports, the admissions of
`
`1 For purposes of patent eligibility, these claims are method claims in the form of Beauregard
`claims. See D.I. 475 (16-cv-453) at 31-33; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
`F.3d 1366, 1373-75 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 448 Filed 04/04/18 Page 17 of 49 PageID #: 36704
`
`EA’s corporate designees and EA’s technical documents. As such, there is no issue of material
`
`fact and summary judgment of infringement is appropriate. Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg.,
`
`L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming summary judgment of infringement where
`
`there was no genuine material dispute that the accused product practiced all claim limitations).
`
`Claims 9 and 16 recite the following limitations, each of which are found in the Accused
`
`Products, as discussed below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Element 9(a)]. A component in a computer system for locating a call-in
`port of a portal computer, comprising:
`
`[Element 9(b)]. means for identifying the portal computer, the portal
`computer having a dynamically selected call-in port for communicating
`with other computers;
`
`[Element 9(c)]. means for identifying the call-in port of the identified
`portal computer by repeatedly trying to establish a connection with the
`identified portal computer through contacting a communications port or
`communications ports until a connection is successfully established;
`
`[Element 9(d)]. means for selecting the call-in port of the identified
`portal computer using a port ordering algorithm; and
`
`[Element 9(e)]. means for re-ordering the communications ports selected
`by the port ordering algorithm.
`
`[Element 16]. The component of claim 9 wherein the communications
`ports are TCP/IP ports.
`
`A.
`
`
`The Accused Products Use
`and Permit Players to Connect to Online Multiplayer
`
`Gameplay Sessions
`
`When EA’s customers want to join and participate in an online multiplayer session for
`
`one of the Accused Products, the customer can only connect with other players by
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-