Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 42734
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 1 of 40 PagelD #: 42734
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`~S—"“~"~~"
`
`) C.A.No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`) )
`
`REDACTED
`) PUBLIC VERSION
`)
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTSINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT AND TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS UNDER FRE 702
`
`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@munat.com
`
`Attorneysfor 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
`
`Louis L. Campbell
`David P. Enzminger
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Daniel 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 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 42735
`
`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: April 27, 2018
`Redacted Filing Date: May 8, 2018
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 42736
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................................... iii
`Table of Exhibits and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ v
`I.
`EA Does Not Infringe the Asserted Claims. ......................................................... 1
`A. The Accused Networks Are Not M-Regular and Incomplete and
`They Do Not Meet the Broadcast/Rebroadcast Requirements. ........................ 1
`The Accused Networks Are Not M-Regular And Not Incomplete. ............ 1
`The Accused Networks Do Not Broadcast and Re-broadcast Data as
`Required By all claims of the ’344 And ’966 Patents and Claim 22 of the
`’634 Patent. .................................................................................................. 5
`EA did not ignore Doctrine of Equivalents ................................................. 6
`3.
`B. EA Does Not Make, Use, or Sell the “Network” “System” or
`“Information Delivery Service” of the ’344 and ’966 Patent
`Claims............................................................................................................... 7
`C. EA Does Not Make, Use, or Sell the Hardware “Component” of
`the ’497 Patent. ................................................................................................. 8
`D. The Actions Alleged to Infringe the Steps of the Method Claims
`of the ’147 and ’069 Patents Do Not All Occur in the United
`States. ............................................................................................................... 9
`E. Users Do Not Join The Accused Games As Recited by the
`Asserted Claims of the ’069 and ’634 Patents. .............................................. 10
`There Is No “Fully Connected Portal Computer” or “Located Portal
`Computer” Required By the Asserted Claims of the ’069 And ’634
`Patents. ...................................................................................................... 10
`The Accused Games Do Not “Identify[] a Pair of Participants of the
`Network That Are Connected” or “Disconnect[] the Participants of the
`Identified Pair From Each Other” so There Can Be No Infringement of the
`’069 Patent. ................................................................................................ 11
`The ’069 Patent Is Not Infringed Because There Is No “Edge Connection
`Request” Sent to “Randomly Selected Neighboring Participants.” .......... 12
`F. Users Do Not Leave The Accused Games As Recited by The
`Asserted Claims of the ’147 Patent. ............................................................... 13
`G. The Accused Games Do Not Contact a Portal Computer as
`Required by the Asserted Claims of the ’497 Patent. .................................... 13
`The
` Server Does Not Have A Dynamically Selected Call-in Port
`and the Accused Games Do Not Repeatedly Try to Establish a Connection
`to any Port. ................................................................................................ 13
`The Accused Games Do Not Use a “Port Ordering Algorithm.” .............. 14
`2.
`H. Head-to-Head Modes Cannot Infringe the ’344, ’966, ’634,
`i
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 42737
`
`
`
`I.
`
`’147, and ’069 patents .................................................................................... 15
`EA Does Not Infringe Any Claim Under the Doctrine of
`Equivalents. .................................................................................................... 15
`J. Accused Acts Outside The United States Do Not Infringe Any
`Patent. ............................................................................................................. 16
`II. Acceleration Cannot Show Willful Infringement. .............................................. 16
`III. Dr. Medvidović And Dr. Mitzenmacher’s Opinions Regarding
`“Logics Rules” Should Be Excluded As Unsupported By Their
`Expert Reports. ................................................................................................... 17
`IV. Drs. Meyer, Bims, and Valerdi Offer Unreliable Opinions Related
`To Damages Issues, Which Should Be Excluded. .............................................. 17
`A. Dr. Meyer Should Not Be Allowed To Offer An Alternative
`Analysis Regarding the Hypothetical Negotiation Date. ............................... 17
`B. Dr. Meyer’s Opinions Regarding the
` Should Be
`Excluded. ........................................................................................................ 18
`C. The Uniloc v. EA Jury Verdict Is Not Comparable To the
`Asserted Patents, and All Opinions Regarding Uniloc v. EA
`Should Be Excluded. ...................................................................................... 18
`D. Dr. Bims’s Opinions Regarding the Relative Value of the
`Asserted Patents and the Uniloc Patent Are Unreliable and
`Should Be Excluded. ...................................................................................... 19
`E. Dr. Meyer Did Not Properly Apportion the Royalty Base, and It
`Is Improper To Claim Damages For Future Products. ................................... 20
`F. Dr. Meyer’s Royalty Rate For Individual Patents Is Not
`Supported, Not Reliable, and Should be Excluded. ....................................... 22
`G. Dr. Valerdi’s Analysis Is Unreliable and Should Be Excluded. .................... 23
`Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 42738
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC v. UCB, Inc.
`2016 WL 8222619 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2016). ...................................................................... 22
`
`Arthur A. Collins v. Northern Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 7, 8, 9
`
`Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs, Inc.,
`No. CV 14-183-RGA, 2017 WL 3730617 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017) ...................................... 7
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................................. 23
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ......................................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (Festo II),
`344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 7, 16
`
`Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,
`2016 WL 9282314 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2016) ....................................................................... 19
`
`Graves v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
`405 F. App’x 296 (10th Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Grecia v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`2018 WL 1172580 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2018) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`872 F. 3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................ 8, 10
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 42739
`
`
`
`On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`106 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .................................................................................. 22
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Riles v. Shell Exploration and Production Co.,
`298 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Superspeed, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`64 F. Supp. 3d 987 (S.D.Tex. 2014) ..................................................................................... 17
`
`In re TMI Litig.,
`193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2016 WL 4063802 (E.D. Tex. 2016) .................................................................................... 20
`
`Statutes
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 42740
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 7 of 40 PagelD #: 42740
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,910,069 (D.I.
`
`1, Ex.5)
`
`USS. Pat. No. 6,732,147 (D.I.
`
`1, Ex.3)
`
`US. Pat. No. 6,920,497 (D.I.
`
`1, Ex.6)
`
`069 patent
`
`’147 patent
`
`°497 patent
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, 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
`
`Med.Rpt.
`
`Mitz.Rpt.
`
`
`infringementof U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634;
`
`Expert Reply Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding|Med.Reply
`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
`
`Mitz.Reply
`
`Expert Report of John Kelly, Ph.D., Regarding Non-
`
`' This Opposition cites to a numberofexhibits previously provided with EA’s MSJ brief and
`opposition to Acceleration’s MSJ Brief. See D.I. 426, 465. Therefore, this Opposition will
`continue the numbering from those papers.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 42741
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page8 of 40 PagelD #: 42741
`
`Declaration of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D. In Support of Defendant|Kelly.Decl.
`A-
`6
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`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
`
`A-9|EA documententitled “DirtySock : Network Topologies”
`bearing bates numbers EA 0023054-56
`
`A-10|Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Responseto Plaintiffs
`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. Medvidovié and|DoE excerpts
`Mitzenmacher
`
`A-13|Plaintiff Acceleration Bay’s Second Supplemental Responses
`to Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s First Set of Party Specific
`Interrogatories
`
`of EA0034010.
`
`Defendant Electronic Art’s April 27, 2017, Supplemental
`Responsesto Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Second Set of
`Common Interrogatories (Nos. 6 and 7)
`
`Document containing telemetry data for Plants vs. Zombies:
`Garden Warfare and Garden Warfare 2 bearing Bates number
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`EC B-1|Declaration of Joe S. Netikosol In Support of Defendant
`
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Under FRE702
`
`Netikosol Decl.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 42742
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 9 of 40 PagelD #: 42742
`
`
`
`B-2|Declaration of David O’Neill In Support of Defendant O’Neill Decl.
`
`
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment
`
`Netikosol Reply
`Declaration of Joe S. Netikosol In Support of Defendant
`B-
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its motion for|Decl.
`Summary Judgment and to Exclude Under FRE702
`
`DAMAGES AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`1 Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of the|Bims.Rpt.
`
`C-
`Asserted Patents
`
`2|Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Regarding Cost Val.Rpt.
`
`
`C-
`Estimates & Errata
`
`Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D. & Errata
`
`Mey.Rpt.
`
`
`
`C- Reply Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology|Bims.Reply.
`4
`of the Asserted Patents
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc
`
`Reply Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D.
`
`Meyer.Reply.
`
`C-6|Defendant(s)’ Responsesto Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s
`First Set of CommonInterrogatories (Nos. 1-4)
`
`C-10|June 16, 2017, transcript of proceedings before Special master
`Allen M.Terrell, Jr.
`
`Website printoutbearingbates numbers AB-EA 002676-87 pT
`
`Cc
`
`Cc
`
`Website printout bearing bates numbers AB-EA008067-70
`
`Documentbearing bates numbers EA0037721-80
`
`Jury Verdict in Uniloc v. EA (6:13-cv-259)
`
`Expert Report of Catherine Lawton
`
`C-16|Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.’s Objections and Responsesto
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s First Set of Party Specific
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-7)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 42743
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 10 of 40 PagelD #: 42743
`
`
`
`C-17|Declaration of Dr. Harry Bims in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response for IPR2015-01970, Patent 6,701,344 dated July 17,
`2016
`
`Blizzard, Inc. (16-453 RGA)
`
`
`Letter to Judge Andrews regarding supplemental damages
`expert report, dated 04/16/18 in Acceleration Bay v. Activision
`Blizzard, Inc. (16-453 RGA)
`
`Letter to Judge Andrews regarding supplemental damages
`expert report, dated 04/24/18 in Acceleration Bay v. Activision
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Summary ofAsserted Claims |
`
`Chart Summarizing Non-Infringement Arguments Impact On
`Asserted Claims
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`fe[bowieCi
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Mitzenmacher
`
`Deposition Transcript of Fred Holt
`
`7|Deposition Transcript of Christine Meyer
` E-
`
`E-8|Deposition Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi
`
`Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidovié
`
`vill
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 42744
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 11 of 40 PagelD #: 42744
`
`Deposition Transcript of Harry Bims
`
`HarryBims Errata, served 2/1/2018 |
`
`Deposition Transcript of Nenad Medvidovié from Acceleration|Med.Act.Tr.
`Bay v. Activision, 1:16-cv-453
`
`Deposition Transcript of Nicholas Channon
`
`Deposition Transcript of Catherine Lawton in Acceleration Bay|Atvi.Lawton.Tr.
`v. Activision Blizzard (16-453-RGA)
`
`E-16|Deposition Transcript of Catherine Lawton in Acceleration Bay|Lawton Tr.
`v. Electronic Arts Inc. (16-454-RGA)
`
`Deposition Transcript of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D
`
`Kelly.Tr.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Glen Van Datta
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`
`show the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-1]
`
`°344 Patent, File History, 9/15/03 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-2
`
`F-3
`
`634 Patent, File History, 5/7/04 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`’147 Patent, File History, 12/17/03 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argumentrelating to the claim.
`
`F-4
`
`’069 Patent, File History, 5/17/04 Amendment. Annotated to
`
`
`
`F-5 °147 Patent Owner Preliminary Response (IPR2016-00747, Pap. 11)
`
`GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS FOR DOCUMENTSCITED IN REPLY
`
` Opening Brief In Support Of Defendant’s Motions For Summary
`
`Judgment And To Exclude Expert Opinions Under FRE 702
`
`EA.Br.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 42745
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Opposition To Defendant Electronic
`Arts, Inc.’s Motions For Summary Judgment And To Exclude Expert
`Opinions Under F.R.E. 702
`
`
`AB.Opp.
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 42746
`
`
`
`Acceleration’s opposition demonstrates that it has no evidence of infringement and has never
`
`had a good faith basis to accuse EA of infringement. It also demonstrates that there is no excuse for
`
`the deficiencies in Acceleration’s experts’ reports and their opinions should be stricken. Despite
`
`having the burden of proof on damages, Acceleration intentionally submitted a damages analysis that
`
`fails to comply with lawful requirement to begin the analysis on a lawful hypothetical negotiation
`
`date, among other deficiencies.
`
`I. EA Does Not Infringe the Asserted Claims.
`A. The Accused Networks Are Not M-Regular and Incomplete and They Do Not Meet
`the Broadcast/Rebroadcast Requirements.
`1. The Accused Networks Are Not M-Regular And Not Incomplete.
`
`Acceleration does not dispute that EA accurately described the network topology. Instead,
`
`Acceleration argues that there is an infringing higher level “application layer” network overlaid on
`
`the non-infringing client-server and full mesh topologies described in EA’s opening brief. AB.Opp.
`
`at 2-9. Acceleration is wrong; the topologies discussed by EA are the application layer. Those
`
`topologies include all applications that Acceleration identified as the “participants” in the allegedly
`
`infringing network (i.e. all of the applications executing on the consoles and the
`
` in a
`
`game session). Acceleration never explains how to determine whether a given layer is the application
`
`layer, nor does it provide any identification of an “application overlay” that is different from the
`
`networks it accused in its contentions. The games have one basic task: generate the next frame of
`
`visual action 30 times a second and provide whatever sound a player uttered since the last frame was
`
`generated. See A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) at ¶¶103, 112; Ex. E-9 (Med. Tr.) at 138:22-141:8 (admitting that
`
`voice data is transmitted at the application layer). To do that, the game needs the players’ controller
`
`inputs and the players’ digitized speech since the last frame. That is exactly the data transmitted over
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 42747
`
`
`
`the network topologies identified by EA. EA.Br. at 9-10. Thus, these topologies are the “application
`
`layer” and Acceleration points to nothing different.
`
`Acceleration presents no evidence supporting its argument and instead relies on unsupported
`
`ipse dixit statements of its experts. See AB.Opp. at 2-6. The only factual evidence is a single EA
`
`document and three pages of deposition testimony of an EA engineer. See id. (citing D.I. 470, Ex.
`
`108 (EA0023778-790)), and Ex. E-1 (Clouatre Tr.) at 54:24-55:7, 67:8-10, 173:12-175:12. None of
`
`this supports Acceleration’s argument that there is a higher level “application layer network”
`
`overlaid on (and different from) the undisputed topologies described in EA’s brief.
`
`The only cited EA document contradicts Acceleration’s theory. Its very first sentence states
`
`that the “dedicated servers” are used in client-server star topologies: “A ‘dedicated server’ is an
`
`application that acts as the network topology host for a game - the hub of a ‘star’ topology, in which
`
`the host is not a player in the game.” See D.I. 470, Ex. 108 at EA0023778 (emphasis added). Client-
`
`server star topologies cannot be both m-regular and incomplete. EA.Br. at 12-13.
`
`Acceleration’s citations to Mr. Clouatre’s deposition are irrelevant or directly contrary to
`
`Acceleration’s argument. At 54:24-55:7 Mr. Clouatre is discussing the “rebroadcasting” mode of a
`
`server. See Ex. E-1 (Clouatre Tr.) at 54:9-55:7. In that mode, the server accepts incoming
`
`packets and forwards them on to everyone else. Id. EA does not dispute that
`
` servers can
`
`function this way. But to show infringement, Acceleration must show the console applications do
`
`function this way, and this testimony does not show that. See EA.Br. at 15-17. At 67:8-10 he is
`
`discussing “ConnAPI.” See Ex. E-1 at 67:5-68:24. But as he makes clear: “ConnAPI needs to know
`
`if the players are expected to be fully interconnected or connected to a single point that will be either
`
`a host or a game server.” Id. at 67:17-21. That is, ConnAPI can only set up either a full mesh
`
`network topology (“fully interconnected”) or a client-server star topology network (“single point that
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 42748
`
`
`
`will be either a host or game server”). These topologies cannot be both m-regular and incomplete.
`
`EA.Br. at 12-13. At 173:12-175:12 he is asked about a code file he does not recognize, related to a
`
`feature he is unfamiliar with, and says that “to better answer your question, I would really need to
`
`dig into the source code.” See E-1 at 173:12-175:12. But even taking this testimony at its face value,
`
`he is not discussing whether there is an “application layer overlay” or whether the consoles are
`
`arranged in an m-regular and incomplete topology. See id.
`
`Acceleration has no support that the EA games utilize an m-regular and incomplete network.
`
`Acceleration does not provide a single example of a network configuration—in any context for any
`
`game—that is allegedly m-regular and incomplete. Acceleration’s experts say there are “logics
`
`rules,” but they fail to identify even one, much less a “logics rule" that would lead to a m-regularity.
`
`See AB.Opp. at 3-4. Most importantly, even assuming the consoles were in an m-regular network
`
`(which they are not), Acceleration fails to show even one direct connection between consoles. This
`
`failure is unsurprising because EA’s expert Dr. Kelly reached this same conclusion from the tests
`
`that he oversaw. EA.Br. at 11-12; Ex. A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) at ¶476-479.
`
`Acceleration offers no substantive response to Dr. Kelly’s testing other than repeating its
`
`argument about some unidentified “application layer overlay.” AB.Opp. at 6. Instead, it criticizes Dr.
`
`Kelly for not playing every one of the accused games and complains that Dr. Kelly’s laboratory
`
`assistants were not deposed. Id. These criticisms are red herrings. Dr. Kelly directed the testing,
`
`employing a testing company, Mercenary, to assist with the testing he designed, supervised the
`
`testing and either he or one of his assistants was present for every test. See Ex. A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) at ¶
`
`440; Ex. E-17 (Kelly.Tr.) at 159:3-20. Dr. Kelly provided a detailed description of the test setup, test
`
`results, and a 40-page “Network Test Report” in his expert report. See Ex. A-5 (Kelly.Rpt.) at ¶¶
`
`440-502, Exhibit D. In any event, Dr. Kelly played the games enough to “provide a certain level of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 42749
`
`
`
`familiarity with the games.” Ex. E-17 (Kelly Tr.) at 27:15-24. As for depositions of the lab
`
`assistants, Acceleration points to no authority that an expert’s assistants must be deposed. All that is
`
`required is that an expert provide a deposition if that expert’s opinions will be offered at trial. Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A). Dr. Kelly, not his assistants, will be testifying at trial.
`
`Acceleration’s argument that EA’s experts have not reviewed the cited code is wrong. EA’s
`
`experts reviewed all of the source code, and they have described how the games worked based on
`
`their review of the source code, technical documents, deposition testimony, and testing results.
`
`Significantly, EA’s experts “analyzed the source code that’s actually used in these games.” Ex. E-17
`
`(Kelly Tr.) at 111:3-25. EA’s experts did not need to provide testimony about the hundreds of pages
`
`of irrelevant source code that Acceleration’s experts cited without any explanation at all. Id.
`
`In its futile attempt to show m-regularity, Acceleration argues incompleteness is proof of m-
`
`regularity. A network is m-regular when every node in the network has the exact same number of
`
`connections. D.I. 248 at 14-15. A network is incomplete when every node in the network is not
`
`connected to every other node. These are different concepts, so Acceleration’s argument that the
`
`“network of each Accused Product is m-regular and incomplete because it collects and selectively
`
`distributes gameplay and voice data” is baseless. See AB.Opp. at 3 (emphasis added). A network is
`
`not m-regular because it “selectively distributes” data. Likewise, acknowledging that “each
`
`participant does not receive the same data,” see id., does not show m-regularity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 42750
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Acceleration cannot overcome that its infringement allegations are mathematically
`
`impossible. It makes the undisputed and irrelevant point that participants can be in more than one
`
`broadcast channel. The issue, however, is that Acceleration offers no evidence that any of the
`
`participants are connected to any broadcast channel or anything other than the client-server or full
`
`mesh topologies described in EA’s brief. See AB.Opp. at 5-6. Acceleration’s brief also conjures up a
`
`new theory where the
`
` server is not always a participant. Id. But this theory is not tethered
`
`to any evidence. For example, in response to a specific question about the
`
` server,
`
`Acceleration’s expert, Dr. Medvidović, testified that: “It’s always a participant, but the way it
`
`participates is by applying the game logics and selectively forwarding data.” Ex. E-9 (Med.Tr.) at
`
`93:7-23 (emphasis added). Further, Acceleration was already ordered (twice) during discovery to
`
`identify all alleged participants. See D.I. 97, 127, 163. It is far too late for Acceleration to change its
`
`story to try to manufacture an issue of fact by asserting, without any factual support, both that the
`
`server is always a participant and that the server is only sometimes a participant. Attorney argument
`
`disregarding all factual evidence does not create a material issue of fact.
`
`2. The Accused Networks Do Not Broadcast and Re-broadcast Data as Required By
`all claims of the ’344 And ’966 Patents and Claim 22 of the ’634 Patent.
`
`Even if Acceleration could show that the accused games used an m-regular incomplete
`
`network, some claims also require that the game console applications (which are alleged to be
`
`“participants”) must rebroadcast received data to other consoles. Acceleration’s opposition brief
`
`offers no evidence of this. See AB.Opp. at 7. This is not surprising; EA has shown that the consoles
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 42751
`
`
`
`never resend data that they receive to any other participants. Acceleration could disprove this with
`
`one single counter-example. Yet its brief and expert reports offer none.
`
`3. EA did not ignore Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Acceleration argues that EA ignores the Doctrine of Equivalents (“DoE”) allegations. This is
`
`wrong. EA’s brief described how the DoE allegations improperly vitiate the Court’s claim
`
`construction, ensnare the prior art, and are barred by prosecution history estoppel. See EA.Br. at 29-
`
`31. The arguments that Acceleration offers in its opposition brief fail for the same reasons.
`
`Acceleration argues that the asserted claims, which recite an m-regular and incomplete
`
`broadcast channel, are equivalent to “establish[ing] connections between participants in the
`
`network… to distribute data.” AB.Opp. at 8. Every network—by definition—that has ever existed
`
`does that. For example, the patents describe themselves as improvements to prior art networks with
`
`connections between participants to distribute data. See ’344 patent at 1:33-2:42. To equate the m-
`
`regular and incomplete broadcast channels of the asserted patents with any systems that connected
`
`participants to distribute data would vitiate the limitation entirely and ensnare the prior art. That is
`
`improper. Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp., 872 F. 3d 1275, 1284-91 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Moreover, the m-regular and incomplete limitations of the asserted claims were all added
`
`during prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. F-1 at ATVI0013080, 82. Such narrowing amendments give rise to
`
`a presumption that the patentee has surrendered the entire territory between the original and
`
`amended claim limitations. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S.
`
`722, 740-41 (2002). The burden of rebutting this presumption rests on the patentee. Festo Corp. v.
`
`Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (Festo II), 344 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Acceleration’s argument that the amendments were “tangential” to the claimed equivalent, AB.Opp.
`
`at 25, is wrong. The applicants made the amendments to overcome prior art rejections. See Ex. F-1 at
`
`ATVI00130087-89. As the applicants acknowledged, the prior art contained references that
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 485 Filed 05/08/18 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 42752
`
`
`
`connected participants to distribute data. See id. Therefore, the claim amendment was not tangential
`
`to the asserted equivalent and Acceleration’s DoE assertion is improper.
`
`For these reasons, Acceleration’s DoE assertions do not remedy its flawed infringement
`
`theories and utter lack of proof. The Court should grant EA’s motion for summary judgment