Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 37203
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN B. BARRY
`IN SUPPORT OF ELECTRONIC ART INC.’S OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
`TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS UNDER FRE 702
`VOLUME 4 OF 8
`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
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`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
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 37204
`
`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
`
`Original Filing Date: March 23, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: April 5, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 37205
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-7
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 37206
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 4 of 31 PagelD #: 37206
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 37207
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-8
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 37208
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 6 of 31 PagelD #: 37208
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 37209
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-9
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 37210
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 8 of 31 PagelD #: 37210
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 37211
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-10
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 37212
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 10 of 31 PagelD #: 37212
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 37213
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-11
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 37214
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 12 of 31 PagelD #: 37214
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 37215
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-12
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 37216
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 14 of 31 PagelD #: 37216
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 37217
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 15 of 31 PagelD #: 37217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-13
`EXHIBIT A-13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 37218
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`))))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF PARTY SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES (NO. 1)
`
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay” or “Plaintiff”) hereby further
`
`responds to the First Set of Party Specific Interrogatories (No. 1) (the “Interrogatories”) of
`
`Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. (the “Defendant”) as follows:
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Reservation of Rights and General Objections set
`
`forth in its Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, served on March 30, 2017 and
`
`First Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories, served on June 2, 2017.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`EA INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Identify and describe Plaintiff’s damages from Defendant’s alleged infringement
`
`assuming a finding of infringement and validity including but not limited to a royalty, a royalty
`
`rate, and a royalty base. Include in you answer the following information: (a) a detailed
`
`description of the methodology for determining the damages; (b) all facts and reasons that
`
`Plaintiff contends it should be awarded more than a reasonable royalty; (c) the largest amount of
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 37219
`
`damages that Plaintiff will seek from a jury for any infringement found by Defendant; and (d) the
`
`identity of the owner or assignee of the Asserted Patents and the licensor or potential licensor at
`
`the time damages are determined.
`
`RESPONSE TO EA INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is comprised of multiple subparts, which Plaintiff will
`
`count against Defendant’s limit. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information beyond Plaintiff’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it is incomprehensible or ambiguous, particularly as to what is meant
`
`by “should be awarded more than a reasonable royalty.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information within Defendant’s possession, custody, or
`
`control, or to the extent it seeks information in the public domain. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as unintelligible, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and ambiguous, including,
`
`inter alia, the terms “including but not limited to,” “detailed description of the methodology,”
`
`“all facts and reasons,” and “the identity of the owner or assignee of the Asserted Patents and the
`
`licensor or potential licensor at the time the damages are determined.”
`
`
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as premature because it seeks disclosure of
`
`documents, information, and expert testimony subject to the schedule in this action. Specifically,
`
`the Scheduling Order provides that Plaintiff will serve an expert report on damages after the
`
`completion of fact discovery. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this response the expert
`
`report it will serve on damages.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 37220
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent Plaintiff understands this Interrogatory, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff seeks all damages to which it is entitled under U.S. patent laws, including 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, arising from Defendant’s infringement. Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount
`
`adequate to compensate for the infringement, which includes, but is not limited to, a reasonable
`
`royalty for the use of the invention, together with interest and costs fixed by the Court.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiff seeks an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with the present
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 285, as well as enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Such costs,
`
`fees, and expenses cannot be computed at the present time and depend on a variety of factors,
`
`such as the length and intensity of the litigation and the positions that Defendant take. Plaintiff
`
`incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`It is not possible at this time for Plaintiff to make a finalized computation of damages (or
`
`to identify with specificity documents reasonably available that relate to categories of damages)
`
`absent further investigation, discovery, and disclosure by Defendant, particularly because much
`
`of the information necessary to make such a computation is in the possession of Defendant, and
`
`may require expert analysis. For example, Plaintiff is seeking discovery from Defendant as to
`
`the revenues generated by Defendant’s infringing activities, the number of users, licenses and
`
`subscriptions provided for the infringing products, as well as any cost savings realized by
`
`Defendant through their infringement and Defendant’s past licensing practices. Information
`
`related to the users and their gameplay activities, and the details regarding the design, structure,
`
`operation, features, development and testing of its multiplayer and networking functionality,
`
`without geographic limitation is relevant. Such information includes any protocols, APIs,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 37221
`
`libraries, and SDKs that are used by peers, clients, hosts, nodes, or servers in the network to
`
`distribute messages, game data, voice data, chat data, management data, and QoS data for the
`
`accused products around the world. Moreover, Defendant’s patent infringement is ongoing and
`
`the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled continues to grow. Accordingly, Plaintiff
`
`reserves the right to set forth and modify its damages theories and calculations as appropriate as
`
`the litigation progresses and in view of information Defendant provides in this case, as well as
`
`anticipated expert opinions and factual information provided related to damages.
`
`Plaintiff’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(e) should additional information become known to it.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO EA INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is comprised of multiple subparts, including (1)
`
`disclosure of a royalty, a royalty rate, and a royalty base; (2) a detailed description of the
`
`methodology for determining the damages; (3) all facts and reasons that Plaintiff contends it
`
`should be awarded more than a reasonable royalty; (4) the largest amount of damages that
`
`Plaintiff will seek from a jury for any infringement found by Defendant; and (5) the identity of
`
`the owner or assignee of the Asserted Patents and the licensor or potential licensor at the time
`
`damages are determined. Plaintiff will count this interrogatory as five interrogatories against
`
`Defendant’s limit. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information beyond
`
`Plaintiff’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it is incomprehensible or ambiguous, particularly as to what is meant by “should be
`
`awarded more than a reasonable royalty.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 37222
`
`other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks information within Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, or to the
`
`extent it seeks information in the public domain. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`unintelligible, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and ambiguous, including, inter alia, the terms
`
`“including but not limited to,” “detailed description of the methodology,” “all facts and reasons,”
`
`and “the identity of the owner or assignee of the Asserted Patents and the licensor or potential
`
`licensor at the time the damages are determined.”
`
`
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as premature because it seeks disclosure of
`
`documents, information, and expert testimony subject to the schedule in this action. Specifically,
`
`the Scheduling Order provides that Plaintiff will serve an expert report on damages after the
`
`completion of fact discovery. Plaintiff incorporates by reference into this response the expert
`
`report it will serve on damages.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff provides this supplemental response to Defendant’s Interrogatory pursuant to the
`
`Special Master’s May 19, 2017 Order subject to the objections thereto Plaintiff will file with the
`
`Court.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent Plaintiff understands this Interrogatory, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Damages Theories:
`
`Plaintiff seeks all damages to which it is entitled under U.S. patent laws, including 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, arising from Defendant’s infringement. Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount
`
`adequate to compensate for the infringement, which includes, but is not limited to, a reasonable
`
`royalty for the use of the invention, together with interest and costs fixed by the Court.
`
`Additionally, Plaintiff seeks an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 37223
`
`
`
`Plaintiff may seek damages under at least the following theories: (1) a reasonable royalty
`
`based on Defendant’s revenue from the Accused Products, (2) a reasonable royalty based on the
`
`number of units sold of the Accused Products, (3) a reasonable royalty based on the number of
`
`unique users for each of the Accused Products; (4) a reasonable royalty based on the number of
`
`sessions by Defendant’s customers using the Accused Products, and (5) cost savings to
`
`Defendant from using the Asserted Patents. Plaintiff is actively seeking discovery on each of
`
`these theories and conferring with its damages expert, who will address them, along with the
`
`factors set forth in Georgia Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1970), in an expert report after the close of fact discovery.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses associated with the present
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 285, as well as enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Such costs,
`
`fees, and expenses cannot be computed at the present time and depend on a variety of factors,
`
`such as the length and intensity of the litigation and the positions that Defendant take. Plaintiff
`
`incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`Relevant Evidence: Plaintiff’s damages will be based on evidence developed during
`
`discovery and at trial. Such evidence will include the confidential information of the parties’
`
`documents, testimony of fact witnesses and expert testimony. For example, some of the
`
`documents with relevant information regarding damages include those identified in Defendant’s
`
`discovery responses, documents regarding consumer demand for the Accused Products and any
`
`associated surveys, licenses related to the Accused Products, the number of sessions, number of
`
`unique users, number of requests to the match making server or portal computer, reduction in
`
`costs, subscription time, in-game purchases, availability of any non-infringing alternatives,
`
`financial statements, pricing, valuations and non-monetary benefits attributable to the Accused
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 22 of 31 PageID #: 37224
`
`Products, the extent of use of Plaintiff’s technology, the extent to which the sale of the patented
`
`technology drives the sales of bundled products and services.
`
`Plaintiff’s patented technology offers a great number of benefits, including simultaneous
`
`sharing of information among computers that are widely distributed, tailoring a network for high
`
`speed game play, decreasing latency between nodes, balancing network data distribution to
`
`ensure a consistent game experience, optimizing an overlay network at the application layer, and
`
`allowing flexible connections and disconnections, all of which result in a reduction in costs,
`
`distribution of information in a timely manner and with greater reliability, and overall improving
`
`customers’ experience by reducing latency and improving reliability, thereby increasing demand
`
`for the games and add-on offerings,. The associated technical and economic benefits of
`
`Plaintiff’s technology will be the subject of expert reports.
`
`Relevant information is also included in the deposition testimony and exhibits to those
`
`depositions taken in this litigation (and any relevant deposition or trial testimony in other
`
`litigations that contains relevant information), including but not limited to the deposition of EA’s
`
`witnesses. See, e.g., Lo Tr. 130:22-23, 131:22-132:5; Smith Tr. 22:1-23:3, 97:13-17, 98:18-99:8,
`
`Poon Tr. 14:10-15, 42:4-10, 115:20-116:15; Price Tr. 20:1-21:1, 23:17-24:5, 42:8-43:4, 44:22-
`
`45:18, 79:3-80:21, 88:4-90:12, 94:5-95:19, 112:12-115:19, 119:13-121:5, 125:1-126:4. Plaintiff
`
`also expects that the upcoming depositions of Brian Huber, Nick Channon and Defendant’s
`
`30(b)(6) designees will be relevant to damages. Defendant identified these witnesses as being
`
`knowledgeable regarding the functionality, sales, marketing, financial matters, revenue and costs
`
`for the Accused Products.
`
`Based on discovery to date, Plaintiff identifies the following exemplary documents in
`
`which damages related information is included, including revenue and unit data, forecasts, usage
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 23 of 31 PageID #: 37225
`
`information and marketing materials: Defendant’s Response and any supplemental responses to
`
`Plaintiff’s Common Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7; EA0024408, EA0024417-26, EA0024497,
`
`EA003400-07, EA0030905-982, EA0032972-992; EA0034008-11; EA32180-251, EA0030199-
`
`982; AB-EA 003949-575; EA0023147-536.
`
`Defendants have not provided updated financial documents for 2017 and have not
`
`provided any financial data for the updated versions of the products identified of infringement on
`
`February 13, 2017, which are the subject of a pending motion to compel. Defendant has also yet
`
`to produce information regarding the cost savings and network costs related to the Accused
`
`Products. While it appears that Defendant recently produced spreadsheets that appear to contain
`
`information regarding at least some of the number of users and sessions, it appears that
`
`information for all of the Accused Products has not been provided and the time frame for such
`
`data has been limited. In addition, the data was produced without adequate explanation or
`
`information regarding what is contained in such spreadsheets, as such additional information
`
`from Defendant is required to properly analyze the data.
`
`Royalty, Royalty Rate and Royalty Base and Methodology For Determining
`
`Damages: As described above, Plaintiff will seek a reasonable royalty. The royalty base may
`
`be the total revenues related to the Accused Products, the cost savings realized from use of the
`
`Asserted Patents, the number of units sold, number of unique users or the number of sessions
`
`played. Plaintiff will seek guidance from its expert as to an appropriate apportionment and
`
`royalty rate. At this time, Plaintiff estimates that the royalty rate will be 15.5% of total revenues
`
`based on industry information, a royalty based on the number of users or sessions, and/or cost
`
`savings. Plaintiff cannot calculate the total royalty without knowing the total base (which
`
`Defendant has not provided), the apportionment amount (which is a subject of expert opinion)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 24 of 31 PageID #: 37226
`
`and royalty rate (which is a subject of expert opinion and ongoing discovery). Plaintiff
`
`specifically objects to Special Master Order No. 3 to the extent it requires disclosure of this
`
`information at this time.
`
`All facts and reasons that Plaintiff contends it should be awarded more than a
`
`reasonable royalty: Plaintiff incorporates by reference its responses to Interrogatory No. 3,
`
`which set forth the basis for its claim for enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses
`
`associated with the present action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285. Specifically, Defendant’s
`
`infringement is willful at least as of April 28, 2010, if not earlier, because Defendant continued
`
`to infringe after being put on notice of its infringement when agents for Boeing informed
`
`Defendant of the asserted patents, discussed their scope, and emailed Defendant a summary of
`
`the asserted patents that related those patents to multiplayer games. See ATI03477-79; ATI-
`
`02249-51; see also the May 3, 2017 Deposition of Steve Caliguri (e.g., rough draft transcript at
`
`pp. 196-205). Additionally, Defendant continued to infringe after being further informed of its
`
`infringement when the first case was filed on March 30, 2015 and served on March 31, 2015:
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-00282-RGA (D. Del. 2015).
`
`Defendant’s ongoing infringement, the substantive weakness of its positions, particularly after
`
`the PTAB decisions on the asserted patents, and its failure to cooperate in discovery (e.g.,
`
`requiring Plaintiff to file multiple motions to compel, withholding access to source code,
`
`withholding core technical documents, and producing large volumes of highly relevant
`
`documents shortly before Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions when those documents should
`
`have been produced early in the case) render this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 25 of 31 PageID #: 37227
`
`Such costs, fees, and expenses cannot be computed at the present time and depend on a
`
`variety of factors, such as the length and intensity of the litigation and the positions that
`
`Defendant take.
`
`The largest amount of damages that Plaintiff will seek from a jury for any
`
`infringement found by Defendant: Plaintiff cannot determine the largest amount of damages
`
`that it will seek from a jury for Defendant’s infringement at least because (1) Defendant’s
`
`infringement is ongoing and continues to increase, (2) Defendant has not provided any discovery
`
`on the Accused Products identified in Plaintiff’s February 13, 2017 Updated Identification of
`
`Accused Products, and (3) Plaintiff cannot calculate the total royalty without knowing the total
`
`base (which Defendant has not provided), the apportionment amount (which is a subject of
`
`expert opinion) and royalty rate (which is a subject of expert opinion and ongoing discovery).
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Plaintiff estimates that, based on revenue information provided through
`
`2016, the maximum amount of damages that Plaintiff will seek from a jury for if it had to go to
`
`trial at this time based on the information it currently has is $165,800,000 in damages for
`
`Defendant’s infringement through 2016. Plaintiff will seek additional damages through the
`
`remaining lifetime of the patent.
`
`The identity of the owner or assignee of the Asserted Patents and the licensor or
`
`potential licensor at the time damages are determined: This subpart of the interrogatory is
`
`unclear, as Plaintiff is the owner the Asserted Patents, the assignee of the Asserted Patents from
`
`Boeing, and the licensor for damages purposes. To the extent Defendant is asking who will be
`
`the participants in the hypothetical negotiation to determine the reasonable royalty, Plaintiff
`
`responds that the licensor will be Plaintiff and the licensee will be Defendant.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 26 of 31 PageID #: 37228
`
`Given the state of discovery and that expert reports are not due until after the close of fact
`
`discovery, Plaintiff objects to the Special Master’s Order to the extent it requires a further
`
`response to this Interrogatory at this time.
`
`Plaintiff’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(e) should additional information become known to it.
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO EA INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Acceleration Bay incorporates its prior served objections and responses to this
`
`Interrogatory, and further responds as follows:
`
`Acceleration Bay is entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty for Defendants’
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. Acceleration Bay’s damages will be based on evidence
`
`developed during discovery and at trial. In addition to the evidence identified in Acceleration
`
`Bay’s prior responses to this Interrogatory, such evidence will include documents with relevant
`
`information regarding damages cited in Defendants’ responses and supplemental responses to
`
`Acceleration Bay’s Common Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 (regarding generally versions and
`
`releases of accused products, revenues, sales, costs and profits, geographical location of
`
`manufacture and development, and additional revenue received for the accused products),
`
`Defendants’ responses and supplemental responses to Acceleration Bay’s Case Specific
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, (regarding generally license agreements, alleged non-
`
`infringing alternatives, projections build costs or valuations regarding network, damages and
`
`royalties owed, hypothetical negotiation dates, and foreign downloads and users related to
`
`activity in the United States) and documents regarding revenues, sales, pricing, costs, profits,
`
`number of users, number of downloads, number of sessions, extent of use of infringing
`
`technology, market share, cost-savings, industry standards and royalty rates within the gaming
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 27 of 31 PageID #: 37229
`
`industry, license agreements and Defendants’ positions taken in other litigations with respect to
`
`royalties and value of accused products (Acceleration Bay identified representative examples of
`
`these documents in its prior responses to this Interrogatory and identifies further documents,
`
`recently obtained from Defendant, below). Additional information is included in the testimony
`
`of the parties’ witnesses at depositions and exhibits marked at those depositions, including, but
`
`not limited to the transcripts of Mr. Garland, Ms. Radovsky, Mr. Macrae, Mr., Ward, Mr.
`
`Channon, Mr. Wood, Mr. Clouatre and Mr. Van Datta. Representative and non-limiting
`
`exemplary citations to these transcripts include Wood Tr. at 29:18-30:25, 62:6-86:4, 107:18-
`
`108:23; Clouatre Rough Tr. at 28:9-30:11, 62:14-64:24; Channon Tr. at 61:21-63:22, 103:10-
`
`104:5, Macrae Tr. at 27:25-28:15, 51:2-66:10 78:5-81:2, 86:19-90:20, 92:4-103:21, 130:25-
`
`135:19, 154:2-159:25, 184:24-187:4, 214:16-217:9; Van Datta Tr. 28:4-50:10, 53:2-64:22,
`
`65:15-78:14, 80:10-80:18.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional information
`
`responsive to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the parties’ document
`
`productions in this matter regarding licensing, valuations, marketing, financials, pricing, industry
`
`and market reports, cost-savings, comparable royalty rates, extent of use of infringing
`
`technology, virtual currency, costs related to the accused products, number of users, number of
`
`sessions, number of discs, number of downloads, profits, including, but not limited to, the
`
`following bates-labeled documents: AB-EA 004654-7964, AB-EA 004576-85, AB-EA 003949-
`
`575, EA0040114 – 0040219, EA0038359 – 0039530, EA0035429 – 0038358, EA0034284 –
`
`0034385, EA0034000 – 0034385, EA0024497, EA0024427 – 0024434, EA0024409-426,
`
`EA0023113 – 0023536, EA0024403 – 0024408, EA0032972-92, EA0028451-504, EA0028724-
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 28 of 31 PageID #: 37230
`
`793, EA0030785-856, EA0030983-030, EA0030233-267, EA0030905-982, AB-EA 002383-
`
`559, AB-EA 2602-647.
`
`Acceleration Bay further incorporates its forthcoming expert reports in this matter.
`
`Acceleration Bay’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(e) should additional information become known to it.
`
`
`
`
`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: August 18, 2017
`
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (# 3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
` 1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff
` ACCELERATION BAY LLC
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 29 of 31 PageID #: 37231
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Philip A. Rovner, hereby certify that, on August 18, 2017, the within document was
`
`served on the following counsel as indicated:
`
`BY E-MAIL
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq.
`Stephen J. Kraftschik, Esq.
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`Daniel K. Webb, Esq.
`Kathleen B. Barry, Esq.
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`dwebb@winston.com
`kbarry@winston.com
`
`Co-counsel for Defendant
`
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`mmurray@winston.com
`
`Co-counsel for Defendant
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo, Esq.
`David P. Enzminger, Esq.
`David K. Lin, Esq.
`Gino Cheng, Esq.
`Joe S. Netikosol, Esq.
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`denzminger@winston.com
`dlin@winston.com
`gcheng@winston.com
`jnetikosol@winston.com
`
`Co-counsel for Defendant
`
`
`Krista M. Enns, Esq.
`Winston & Strawn, Esq.
`101 California St., 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`kenns@winston.com
`
`Co-counsel for Defendant
`
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`asommer@winston.com
`
`Co-counsel for Defendant
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 30 of 31 PageID #: 37232
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A-14
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 31 of 31 PageID #: 37233
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 458 Filed 04/05/18 Page 31 of 31 PagelD #: 37233
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`