Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 502 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 43227
`
`M O R R I S , N I C H O L S , A R S H T & T U N N E L L L L P
`1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
`P.O. BOX 1347
`WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
`
`(302) 658-9200
`(302) 658-3989 FAX
`
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`(302) 351-9291
`(302) 425-3012 FAX
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Court
` for the District of Delaware
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`October 2, 2018
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`Re:
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`Briefing on the parties’ summary judgment and Daubert motions is complete, and
`pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.4, Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) has requested oral argument. (D.I. 388,
`389, 424, 425, 435, 487). EA submits that the Court can resolve the following issues in EA’s
`favor without oral argument in light of the Court’s August 29, 2018, rulings on the same issues
`in the Activision case. EA submits that the ruling should be in its favor because the relevant facts
`are substantially identical to the facts before the Court on Activision’s summary judgment
`motion.
`
` Summary judgment of non-infringement on the ’344, ’966, and ’497 patents
`should be granted because EA does not make, use, or sell the “network” “system”
`or “information delivery service” of the ’344 and ’966 patent claims or the
`hardware “component” of the ’497 patent (arguments I.B and I.C in EA’s opening
`brief, D.I. 426).
`
` Dr. Meyer should be precluded from testifying on damages because her only
`opinions are based on the Uniloc v. EA jury verdict and she relies on the filing
`date of the complaint as the date of the hypothetical negotiation. Op. at 26-27.
`
`Moreover, EA requests that the Court focus oral argument on the issues identified below,
`which collectively provide for a complete summary judgment of noninfringement for all accused
`products across all five remaining asserted patents and for exclusion of Plaintiff’s damages
`experts.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 502 Filed 10/02/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43228
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`October 2, 2018
`Page 2
`
`
`
` EA’s motion for summary judgment that it does not infringe the asserted method
`claims of the’147 and ’069 patents because the activity alleged to meet at least
`one accused step for each claim is performed outside the United States. (See
`argument I.D in EA’s opening brief, D.I. 426).
`
` EA’s motion for summary judgment that the accused network is not configured to
`be m-regular and incomplete as required by the claims. (See argument I.V. in
`EA’s opening brief, D.I. 426).
`
` EA’s Daubert motion that Dr. Valerdi be precluded from testifying because his
`opinions are not reliable or based on acceptable methodology. (See argument
`EA’s opening brief, D.I. 426, at 48-50). EA presented evidence that Dr. Valerdi
`used unreliable information in his calculations.
`
`
`
`
`
`JBB/rah
`
`cc:
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`Clerk of Court (via hand delivery)
`All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`