Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 50 PageID #: 39620
`
`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)
`
`DEFENDANT ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF CATHARINE M. LAWTON
`
`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
`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
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 50 PageID #: 39621
`
`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
`Joseph C. Masullo
`Paul N. Harold
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`April 13, 2018 - Original Filing Date
`April 20, 2018 - Redacted Filing Date
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 50 PageID #: 39622
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF
`ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Asserted Patents. ........................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`EA Is Not A Direct Infringer Of The Asserted System Claims Of
`The ’497, ’344, and ’966 Patents. ............................................................... 1
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Asserted Method Claims In
`The ’147 and ’069 Patents. ......................................................................... 4
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Computer Readable Medium
`Claims. ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`II.
`
`EA does not infringe the ’497 patent. ..................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Accused Software Games Cannot Infringe the ’497 Hardware
`Claims. ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`Acceleration Has Failed to Demonstrate that EA Software
`Programs Any Processor to Use the Algorithms of the Means-Plus-
`Function Elements. ................................................................................... 11
`
`Server Cannot be a “Portal Computer” Because It Is Not
`The
`Alleged To Be a “Participant.” ................................................................. 20
`
`III. Ms. Lawton’s Damages Analysis Should Not Be Excluded. ............................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Ms. Lawton’s Opinions On Non-Infringing Alternatives Are
`Supported. ................................................................................................. 22
`
`Ms. Lawton Properly Evaluates Licenses To Comparable
`Technology. .............................................................................................. 25
`
` To
`Ms. Lawton Appropriately Adjusted
`Account For Differences With The Hypothetical Negotiation. ................ 33
`
`Ms. Lawton Properly Analyzed And Considered The Date Of The
`Hypothetical Negotiation. ......................................................................... 36
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of 50 PageID #: 39623
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .........................................................................................5
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.,
`498 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................2, 3, 8, 9
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc.,
`No. CV 14-183-RGA, 2017 WL 3730617 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017)..................................2, 3, 9
`
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................27
`
`EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Del. 2016) .....................................................................................23, 25
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................32, 33
`
`F2VS Technologies, LLC v. Aruba Networks, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-0754-RGA, 2018 WL 1732152 (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2018) ........................................3
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-CV-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 1265009 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) ...............................36
`
`Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)...................................................................................26, 30
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................23
`
`Grecia v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`2018 WL 1172580 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018) ..............................................................................4
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 50 PageID #: 39624
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................ passim
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`No. 2:06-cv-348, 2011 WL 197869 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2011) ...............................................22
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................28
`
`M2M Sols. LLC v. Motorola Sols., Inc.,
`No. CV 12-33-RGA, 2016 WL 767900 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2016) ............................................27
`
`MiiCs & Partners, Inc. v. Funai Elec. Co.,
`2017 WL 6268072 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017)...............................................................................31
`
`NetAirus Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. LA CV 10-03257 JAK(Ex), 2013 WL 11237200, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) .........27
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................7
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................21
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................28
`
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C15-544-MJP, 2016 WL 4148091 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2016) ........................................23
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC,
`No. 12-1013-RGA, 2015 WL 456154 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2015) ................................................27
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................28, 29, 30, 31
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................................32, 33
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 6 of 50 PageID #: 39625
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (1993) .................................................................................................................34
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................28
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...............................................................................................................1, 5, 6, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 7 of 50 PageID #: 39626
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344 (D.I. 1, Ex.1)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966 (D.I. 1, Ex.2)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634 (D.I. 1, Ex.4)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069 (D.I. 1, Ex.5)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147 (D.I. 1, Ex.3)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497 (D.I. 1, Ex.6)
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’344 patent
`
`’966 patent
`
`’634 patent
`
`’069 patent
`
`’147 patent
`
`’497 patent
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Ex. 1 Description
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`A-4
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidović, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Electronic Arts Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,732,147
`
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Electronic Arts Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,920,497; 6,910,069
`
`Expert Reply Report of Nenad Medvidović, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Electronic Arts Inc. of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,732,147
`
`Expert Reply Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.,
`Regarding Infringement by Electronic Arts Inc. of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,920,497; 6,910,069
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Med.Rpt.
`
`Mitz.Rpt.
`
`Med.Reply
`
`Mitz.Reply
`
`A-5
`
`Expert Report of John Kelly, Ph.D., Regarding Non-infringement
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,920,497
`
`Kelly.Rpt.
`
`
`1
`This Opposition cites to a number of exhibits previously provided with EA’s prior papers.
`See D.I. 426. Therefore, this Opposition will continue the numbering from those papers.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 8 of 50 PageID #: 39627
`
`Ex. 1 Description
`
`A-6 Declaration of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D. In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Kelly.Decl.
`
`A-7
`
`Expert Report of Michael R. Macedonia, Ph.D., Regarding Non-
`Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147 and 6,910,069
`
`Mac.Rpt.
`
`A-8 Declaration of Michael R. Macedonia, Ph.D. In Support of
`Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Mac.Decl.
`
`A-9
`
`EA document entitled “DirtySock : Network Topologies” bearing
`bates numbers EA 0023054-56
`
`A-10 Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Response to Plaintiff’s
`Acceleration Bay’s Second Set of Party Specific Interrogatories
`(Nos. 8-10)
`
`A-11 Feb. 13, 2012, email from Fred Holt to Steve Caliguri bearing
`bates numbers ATI03613-18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A-12 Excerpts of exemplary DoE argument by Drs. Medvidović and
`Mitzenmacher
`
`DoE excerpts
`
`A-13 Plaintiff Acceleration Bay’s Second Supplemental Responses to
`Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s First Set of Party Specific
`Interrogatories
`
`A-14 Defendant Electronic Art Inc.’s April 27, 2017, Supplemental
`Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Second Set of
`Common Interrogatories (Nos. 6 and 7)
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Joe S. Netikosol In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Under FRE702
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Netikosol Decl.
`
`B-1
`
`B-2
`
`Declaration of David O’Neill In Support of Defendant Electronic
`Arts Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment
`
`O’Neill Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 9 of 50 PageID #: 39628
`
`DAMAGES AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`C-1
`
`C-2
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Bims.Rpt.
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Regarding Cost Estimates
`& Errata
`
`Val.Rpt.
`
`C-3
`
`Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D. & Errata
`
`Mey.Rpt.
`
`C-4
`
`Reply Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology
`of the Asserted Patents
`
`Bims.Reply.
`
`C-5
`
`Reply Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D.
`
`Meyer.Reply.
`
`C-6
`
`Defendant(s)’ Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s
`First Set of Common Interrogatories (Nos. 1-4)
`
`C-10
`
`June 16, 2017, transcript of proceedings before Special master
`Allen M. Terrell, Jr.
`
`C-11 Website printout bearing bates numbers AB-EA 002676-87
`
`C-12 Website printout bearing bates numbers AB-EA008067-70
`
`C-13 Document bearing bates numbers EA0037721-80
`
`C-14
`
`Jury Verdict in Uniloc v. EA (6:13-cv-259)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C-15 Expert Report of Catherine Lawton
`
`Lawton.Rpt.
`
`C-16 Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Objections and Responses to
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s First Set of Party Specific
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-7)
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`D-1
`
`Summary of Asserted Claims
`
`D-2
`
`Chart Summarizing Non-Infringement Arguments Impact On
`Asserted Claims
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 10 of 50 PageID #: 39629
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`E-1
`
`Deposition Transcript of Martin Clouatre
`
`E-2
`
`Deposition Transcript of David O’Neill
`
`E-3
`
`Deposition Transcript of Alan Poon
`
`E-4
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Smith
`
`E-5
`
`Deposition Transcript of Ling Lo
`
`E-6
`
`Deposition Transcript of Fred Holt
`
`E-7
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christine Meyer
`
`E-8
`
`Deposition Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi
`
`E-9
`
`Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidović
`
`E-10 Deposition Transcript of Michael Mitzenmacher
`
`E-11 Deposition Transcript of Harry Bims
`
`E-12 Harry Bims Errata, served 2/1/2018
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Clouatre Tr.
`
`O’Neill Tr.
`
`Poon Tr.
`
`Smith Tr.
`
`Lo Tr.
`
`Holt Tr.
`
`Mey.Tr.
`
`Val.Tr.
`
`Med.Tr.
`
`Mitz.Tr.
`
`Bims.Tr.
`
`
`
`E-13 Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidović from Acceleration
`Bay v. Activision Blizzard (16-453-RGA)
`
`Med.Act.Tr.
`
`E-14 Deposition Transcript of Nicholas Channon
`
`Chan.Tr.
`
`E-15 Deposition Transcript of Catherine Lawton in Acceleration Bay
`v. Activision Blizzard (16-453-RGA)
`
`Atvi.Lawton.Tr.
`
`E-16 Deposition Transcript of Catherine Lawton in Acceleration Bay
`v. Electronic Arts Inc. (16-454-RGA)
`
`Lawton Tr.
`
`E-17 Deposition Transcript of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D
`
`Kelly Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 11 of 50 PageID #: 39630
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`Acceleration Bay has moved for summary judgment that Electronic Arts (“EA”) cannot
`
`establish a divided infringement defense, that each accused EA product infringes the ‘497 patent,
`
`and has also moved to exclude expert testimony of Catherine M. Lawton. D.I. 435. As explained
`
`below in EA’s opposition brief, the Court should deny Acceleration’s motions.
`
`I.
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Asserted Patents.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`EA Is Not A Direct Infringer Of The Asserted System Claims Of The ’497,
`’344, and ’966 Patents.
`
`Acceleration cannot show that EA “directly infringes” the asserted system claims of the ’497,
`
`’344, and ’966 patents, and it does not even attempt to show infringement of ‘344 and ‘966 in its
`
`motion at all. D.I. 437 (Plaintiff’s Brief, hereinafter “Br.”) at 3. Instead, Acceleration seeks summary
`
`judgment on what it refers to as EA’s “divided infringement defense” as though it were a separate
`
`affirmative defense. D.I. 435 at 1. Acceleration has the burden of proving direct infringement. Since
`
`Acceleration has not even attempted to show infringement in its motion in the first place, it cannot
`
`obtain summary judgment precluding EA from pointing out a failure of proof at trial (or in its own
`
`summary judgment motion). Acceleration’s inability to show a plausible direct infringement case
`
`requires summary judgment in EA’s favor. See D.I. 426 at 17–20. The Federal Circuit and this Court
`
`have repeatedly made clear that there is no such thing as “divided infringement” of system claims.
`
`EA cannot directly infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) because it does not itself make, use,
`
`sell, or offer to sell the alleged inventions. As Acceleration acknowledges, the ’344 and ’966 patents
`
`claim types of “computer network broadcast channel[s],” which include hardware computer
`
`processors (Br. at 3). EA makes and sells software, not hardware or “computer network broadcast
`
`channel[s].” Id.; Ex. A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) ¶¶156–158, 238, 358. Per this Court’s claim construction, the
`
`’497 patent claims “a hardware component” (D.I. 248 at 10–14; D.I. 375 at 20–21), and EA does not
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 12 of 50 PageID #: 39631
`
`make, use, or sell the hardware that Acceleration accuses. Ex. A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) ¶¶396, 430.
`
`Acceleration argues the ’497 patent claims a “software component” (D.I. 437 at 3), but that exact
`
`argument was already rejected by this Court in its claim construction order.
`
`Acceleration’s argument is based on its apparent misreading of Centillion Data Sys., LLC v.
`
`Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That case does not support
`
`Acceleration’s position, and confirms that summary judgment should be granted to EA. In
`
`Centillion, the Federal Circuit held that Qwest, which “operate[d] the back-end processing and
`
`provide[d] the software” used by consumers, was not liable as a direct infringer. Id. at 1286–1288.
`
`The court explained that “[s]upplying the software for the customer to use is not the same as using
`
`the system.” Id. at 1286; see also id. at 1288 (holding that Qwest did not “combine all of the claim
`
`elements” to “make” the system). Acceleration alleges that EA’s provision of software (under a
`
`license) for customers to use suffices to show that EA makes, uses, and sells computer networks. The
`
`Federal Circuit expressly rejected this theory in Centillion. Id.
`
`There is no authority—in Centillion or otherwise—for Acceleration’s contention “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.” Br. at 3 (citing Centillion,
`
`631 F.3d at 1284). In fact, the Federal Circuit has rejected this theory: “[D]irect infringement by
`
`‘use’ of a system requires a single party to use each and every element of a claimed system.”
`
`Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284 (emphasis added and quotations omitted). Indeed, as this Court recently
`
`recognized, Centillion does not permit “attributing conduct of an accused infringer’s customer to the
`
`accused infringer.” Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc., No. CV 14-183-RGA, 2017 WL 3730617, at
`
`*6 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017). “Acceleration must prove that Defendant makes or uses the entire
`
`system, including all claimed elements, in order to prove infringement.” Id. (emphasis added). The
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 13 of 50 PageID #: 39632
`
`direction and control standards simply do not apply to system claims. As recently as this week, this
`
`Court recognized that even a person who provides a component in a “mesh network” cannot
`
`plausibly be a direct infringer of a claim to the network. F2VS Technologies, LLC v. Aruba
`
`Networks, Inc., No. 17-CV-0754-RGA, 2018 WL 1732152, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2018).
`
`Acceleration cites no case where a software publisher has ever been held liable as a direct infringer
`
`based on its customers’ use of software.2 Acceleration’s argument concedes that EA does not itself
`
`perform any infringing acts, and that EA could infringe only if the “infringing activity” of others is
`
`“directly attribut[ed]” to it. Br. at 3.
`
`Acceleration cannot show direct infringement by EA. Use of a system claim requires that “a
`
`party must put the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from
`
`it,” Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1284, and that must be “control of and benefit from every element” of the
`
`invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (emphasis added). It is not enough that EA provides a server that performs some back-end
`
`functionality that is only used if the customer desires to play an online mode with an xBox or a PC.
`
`Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1286–1288.
`
`EA does not put the alleged inventions into service and control every element of them. EA
`
`may design the software, but as Acceleration’s experts agree, it is consumers that install the
`
`“software application programs, [and] run [them] on player consoles” to play the games. Ex. A-1
`
`(Med.Rpt.) ¶2; see also id. ¶320 (“[T]he customers’ PCs and consoles locate portal computers…”
`
`(emphasis added)); Ex. A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.) ¶70 (same). Indeed, Acceleration’s experts expressly accuse
`
`
`2
`Acceleration notes that EA designs its software, licenses the software to its customers, and
`limits their ability to modify the software, but those facts are surely true of nearly all commercially
`available software, making Acceleration’s failure to cite a favorable decision all the more
`conspicuous.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 14 of 50 PageID #: 39633
`
`“[t]he customers’ use of the software,” not EA’s. Ex. A-1 (Med.Rpt.) ¶¶322, 331, 340, 350, 357,
`
`364, 373, 379, 385, 391, 397, 403, 475, 478, 481, 484, 494, 505, 520, 536 (emphasis added).
`
`Nor does EA benefit from every element of the alleged inventions. Acceleration contends
`
`that EA benefits “from the use of the accused systems which provide [sic] significant cost savings
`
`and enhances the gaming experience.” Br. at 6. But these are not benefits “from each and every
`
`element” (Intellectual Ventures, 870 F.3d at 1329), and they are not “tangible … and tethered to the
`
`claims,” (Grecia v. McDonald’s Corp., 2018 WL 1172580, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018)). Indeed,
`
`they are a “recitation of general benefits … equivalent to stating that [Defendant] benefits from the
`
`claimed system as a whole—the argument [the Federal Circuit] rejected in Intellectual Ventures.”
`
`Grecia, 2018 WL 1172580, at *4. Acceleration provides no evidence of cost savings or enhanced
`
`gaming experience to EA, but even it had, cost savings are not a benefit “tethered to the claims” (id.
`
`at *4), which relate to sending and receiving data in a distributed network broadcast channel
`
`(’344/’966) or finding and using a portal computer to join a broadcast channel of a distributed
`
`network (’497). And any alleged “enhanc[ing] [of] the gaming experience” benefits of the player,
`
`not EA. See Br. at 9 (arguing that “EA’s customers” benefit by “joining and playing online
`
`multiplayer game sessions more efficiently … and with enhanced performance”) (emphasis added).
`
`In sum, Acceleration has not (and cannot) show that EA directly infringes the system claims.
`
`B.
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Asserted Method Claims In The ’147 and
`’069 Patents.
`
`Acceleration cannot show that EA “directly infringes the asserted method claims.” Br. at 6.
`
`As with its argument on the system claims, Acceleration makes no effort to establish that summary
`
`judgment is warranted on each element of its infringement claims (i.e., by proving that each step of
`
`each asserted method claim is actually performed by EA or someone under its direction and control),
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 15 of 50 PageID #: 39634
`
`so it is not entitled to summary judgment of direct infringement. Its motion makes no attempt to
`
`show who performs what steps or how EA can be liable for that performance.
`
`Acceleration’s allegations of infringement of the method claims fail for the simple reason
`
`that Acceleration does not even allege, much less provide evidence, that EA itself performs any of
`
`the method steps. That is fatal. Method claims are only infringed if and when all their steps are
`
`actually performed, and EA cannot be a joint infringer when it does not perform any step of the
`
`method at all. See Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(selling “software containing instructions to perform a patented method does not infringe the patent
`
`under § 271(a)”); Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 952, 954 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
`
`(“Defendants must still perform at least one step of a claimed method themselves to be held liable
`
`for direct infringement.”); BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1378, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Indeed, none of the cases cited by Acceleration provides for direct infringement liability
`
`where the defendant performs no step of the method. See, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Limelight performs every step save the
`
`‘tagging’ step, in which Limelight’s customers tag the content to be hosted and delivered by
`
`Limelight's content delivery network.”).
`
`Acceleration’s motion fails for the additional reason that it never analyzes the method steps
`
`with enough specificity to carry its burden that anyone performs any steps. According to
`
`Acceleration, it must show that EA “‘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.’” Br. at 6 (quoting Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020,
`
`1023 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)). Setting aside that this is the standard for joint infringement—which
`
`is not alleged in Acceleration’s brief—Acceleration never shows that EA requires “performance of
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 16 of 50 PageID #: 39635
`
`a[ll] step[s]” or “establishes the manner or timing of” all steps. Id. Its vague assertions that the
`
`software is used to play the games and that customers may not modify the software does not show
`
`that EA performs any step of the method.
`
`Even if Acceleration actually identified who performs what are in the method steps, there is
`
`no direct infringement. If EA’s servers perform a step, then the servers must be participants of the
`
`accused network to which all other participants connect, and there can be no infringement because
`
`the servers’ connections to all player applications executing on the player’s console makes m-
`
`regularity impossible. See, e.g., Ex. A-7 (Mac.Rpt.) ¶191. If only the customers’ computers perform
`
`the steps, then EA performs no step of the method and Akamai does not apply because there is no
`
`joint infringement. Acceleration’s motion must be denied either way.
`
`As explained in EA’s summary judgment motion, Acceleration’s infringement allegations of
`
`the asserted method claims fail because the only steps alleged to be performed for certain claim
`
`limitations occur outside of the United States.3 Acceleration ignores this altogether, and this is fatal
`
`to its infringement case for the method claims. It is black letter law that “a process cannot be used
`
`‘within’ the United States as required by section 271(a) unless each of the steps is performed within
`
`3
`Claims 1, 11, 13, and 14 of the ’069 patent claim a method of “adding a participant to a
`network of participants” in a manner that maintains the m-regular characteristic of the network. All
`of the claims require that “a seeking participant contacts a fully connected portal computer, which in
`turn sends an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants to
`which the seeking participant is to connect,” ’069 patent, cl. 1, 11, 13, and 14. Acceleration alleges
`that the portal computer—the computer that allegedly sends the “edge connection request”—is the
` server. Ex. A-1 (Med.Rpt.) ¶¶ 392, 398, 404; Ex. A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.) ¶¶236, 239, 242. But all
` servers for these accused games are located outside the United States. Ex. B-2 (O’Neill Decl.)
`at ¶6.
`
`Similarly, Claim 1 of the ’147 patent requires “the first computer [to] send[] a disconnect message to
`the second computer,” where the disconnect message includes “a list of neighbors.” ’147 patent, cl.
`1. Acceleration alleges that the list of neighbors is met by a message sent by the
` server at
`game startup. But because the
` servers are all located outside the United States, Ex. B-2
`(O’Neill Decl.) at ¶6, at least this one step would be performed outside of the United States and there
`could be no infringement.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 Filed 04/20/18 Page 17 of 50 PageID #: 39636
`
`this country.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“We
`
`therefore hold that a process cannot be used ‘within’ the United States as required by section 271(a)
`
`unless each of the steps is performed within this country.”)
`
`C.
`
`EA Does Not Directly Infringe The Computer Readable Medium Claims.
`
`Acceleration cannot show that EA “directly infringes the computer readable medium claims.”
`
`Br. at 10. Its motion does not even attempt to show that the accused computer readable media
`
`“contains software capable of performing the [patent claims’] recited functions.” Id. (citing Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Any computer readable
`
`media distributed by EA does not infringe because there are no software instructions that perform the
`
`recited functions as noted by EA’s experts. See Exs. A-7 (Mac.Rpt.) ¶¶287–306; A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.)
`
`¶¶275–354. Acceleration makes no showing of what functionality is provided by EA software as
`
`opposed to the player console or PC. Moreover, summary judgment on the computer readable
`
`medium claims must be awarded to EA, because the Court has already found these claims indefinite.
`
`D.I. 423 at 14–17; D.I. 382 at 24.
`
`II.
`
`EA does not infringe the ’497 patent.
`
`EA’s accused software games cannot infringe the asserted hardware claims of the ’497
`
`patent. Even if EA did supply the required hardware (which it does not), Acceleration has failed to
`
`present any evidence to show that the EA software would program any hardware to perform any of
`
`the means-plus-function elements of the claims, let alone carry its burden of proof that the software
`
`would program the processor to perform all of them. Certainly, Acceleration has failed to
`
`demonstrate there are no material issues of fact that would warrant summary judgment in its favor.
`
`Rather, its motion demonstrates that summary judgment should be granted to EA. Accordingly,
`
`Acceleration’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ’497 patent should be denied.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 471 F