`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1 :16-cv-00454-RGA
`
`ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties have submitted letters and a joint statement regarding suggested
`
`changes to the case schedule (D.I. 506, 507, 508);
`
`WHEREAS, on April 27, 2018, the Parties completed briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for
`
`Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton (D.I. 435,
`
`437,465,478), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 424,426,467,476), and
`
`Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I. 425,426,
`
`467, 476);
`
`WHEREAS, on August 29, 2018, I issued a Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 499) and Order
`
`(D.1. 500) which resolved the motions then pending in a related action, Acceleration Bay LLC v.
`
`Activision Blizzard Inc., No. 16-453;
`
`WHEREAS, my resolution of certain Daubert motions significantly impacted Plaintiffs
`
`damages case in the Activision Blizzard matter;
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 509 Filed 11/26/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 43240
`
`WHEREAS, trial in the Activision Blizzard matter has been postponed indefinitely
`
`pending resolution of the admissibility of Plaintiff's remaining damages case;
`
`WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay's proposed damages expert's opinion is very similar to the
`
`opinion I excluded in the Activision Blizzard matter;
`
`WHEREAS, I do not intend to change my position that Plaintiffs expert's opinion based
`
`oh the Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6: 13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2014), jury verdict
`
`is inadmissible;
`
`WHEREAS, I do not believe that issues with Plaintiffs damages case require delaying
`
`trial in this matter, but I agree that the pending damages motions should be addressed, if at all, at
`
`a later date;
`
`WHEREAS, my initial review of the briefing in this case has revealed that some of the
`
`same general summary judgment issues addressed in the Memorandum Opinion are repeated;
`
`and
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties are in a better position than the Court to determine if, and to what
`
`extent, issues resolved in the Memorandum Opinion bear on the appropriate resolution of the
`
`summary judgment motions;
`
`NOW THEREFORE this 26 day of November 2018, IT IS ORDERED that the oral
`
`argument scheduled for December 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM is rescheduled to December 20, 2018 at
`
`2:00 PM;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the December 20, 2018 argument shall be limited to the summary
`
`judgment motions;
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 509 Filed 11/26/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 43241
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court, no later than
`
`December 3, 2018, identifying issues that I resolved in the Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 499) that
`
`may bear on the summary judgment motions;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Parties' request that I postpone the trial in this matter is
`
`DENIED subject to my reconsideration following discussion with the Parties at the December
`
`20, 2018 argument; and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff intends to offer any damages theories in
`
`this case other than the ones it currently has, it needs to meet-and-confer with Defendant and file
`
`any necessary motion no later than December 7, 2018.
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
