Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 46216
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`REDACTED –
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`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
`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 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 46217
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`Paul N. Harold
`Joseph C. Masullo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`Original Filing Date: March 8, 2019
`Redacted Filing Date: March 28, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 46218
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1.
`
`Page
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... iv
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1
`I. EA Does Not Make, Use, or Sell the Inventions of the Asserted ’344,
`’966, and ’497 Patent Claims. ..................................................................................1
`A. EA Does Not “Use” the Inventions of the Asserted ’344, ’966, or ’497
`Patents. .................................................................................................................1
`B. EA Does Not “Make” the Inventions of the Asserted ’344, ’966, and
`’497 Patent Claims. ..............................................................................................5
`EA does not “make” the system accused of infringing the ’344, ’966,
`’497 claims because it supplies software to its customers. .............................5
`2. Acceleration’s New Argument on the ’497 Patent Fails Because It
`Does Not Allege that EA Makes A Component that Practices All
`Limitations. .....................................................................................................6
`II. EA Does Not Infringe the Asserted Method Claims of the ’069 and ’147
`Patents ....................................................................................................................10
`A. EA Is Only Accused Of Performing Steps Occurring Outside of the
`United States. .....................................................................................................10
`B. The ’069 Patent – Acceleration Alleges That The Blaze Server
`Performs a Step of the Recited Method. ............................................................10
`C. The ’147 Patent – EA Does Not Infringe. .........................................................13
`1. No “First Computer” Sends A “Disconnect Message” “Including A
`List Of Neighbors Of The First Computer” ..................................................13
`2. Acceleration Alleges the Foreign Blaze Server Performs a Step of
`the Recited Method. ......................................................................................14
`III. The Accused Networks Do Not Infringe the “Topology Limitations” (All
`Patents Except the ’497 Patent). ............................................................................15
`A. The Topology Limitations. ................................................................................16
`B. The Accused Networks – As Defined By Acceleration. ...................................17
`C. The Accused Networks Do Not Meet the Topology Limitations. .....................19
`D. There Is No Higher Level Network Overlaid on these Client-Server
`Networks ............................................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 46219
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The noninfringing client-server network is the network defined by
`Acceleration regardless of what level it is characterized to be. ....................21
`The EA client server network is an application layer network that
`overlays the internet. .....................................................................................22
`Even in Acceleration’s unknown network, the Console Participants
`do not have connections to at least three neighbor participants. ..................23
`The “not always a participant” argument is unsupported and
`irrelevant. ......................................................................................................24
`E. The Rest of Acceleration’s Arguments Fail. .....................................................26
`1. Acceleration’s “Active Connections” theory does not show
`infringement. .................................................................................................26
`2. Voice Squelching does not cause infringement. ...........................................27
`3.
`“Mini-games” and “team channels” are not infringing. ...............................27
`4.
`“Game logics” do not cause infringement. ...................................................28
`F. Testing confirms non-infringement. ..................................................................29
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................29
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 46220
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 952 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................10, 14
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................2, 5, 6
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. et al.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 14
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..............................................................................10, 11, 12, 14
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................2, 5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 46221
`
`
`
`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.
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`A-4
`
`A-5
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Med.Rpt.
`
`Mitz.Rpt.
`
`Med.Reply
`
`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-
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634;
`6,714,966; 6,920,497
`
`Kelly.Rpt.
`
`A-6 Declaration of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D. In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Kelly.Decl.
`
`A-7
`
`Expert Report of Michael R. Macedonia, Ph.D., Regarding
`
`Mac.Rpt.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 46222
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147 and 6,910,069
`
`Abbreviation
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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’s April 27, 2017, Supplemental
`Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Second Set of
`Common Interrogatories (Nos. 6 and 7)
`
`A-15
`
`
`
`
`
`A-16 Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Demonstrative Slides from
`the February 28, 2019 Summary Judgment Hearing
`
`A-17
`
`A-18
`
`A-19
`
`A-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 46223
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`A-21
`
`A-22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A-23 Defendant Electronic Art’s March 8, 2017 Supplemental
`Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Second Set of
`Common Interrogatories (Nos. 5, 6 and 9)
`
`A-24 Excerpts from Final Written Decision of IPR2015-01972
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`B-1
`
`B-2
`
`B-3
`
`Ex.
`
`C-1
`
`C-2
`
`C-3
`
`C-4
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Joe S. Netikosol In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Under FRE702
`
`Declaration of David O’Neill In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Netikosol Decl.
`
`O’Neill Decl.
`
`Declaration of Joe S. Netikosol In Support of Defendant
`Electronic Arts Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of its motion for
`Summary Judgment and to Exclude Under FRE702
`
`Netikosol Reply
`Decl.
`
`DAMAGES AND RELATED MATERIALS
`
`Description
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology of the
`Asserted Patents
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Regarding Cost
`Estimates & Errata
`
`Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D. & Errata
`
`Reply Expert Report of Dr. Harry Bims Regarding Technology
`of the Asserted Patents
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Bims.Rpt.
`
`Val.Rpt.
`
`Mey.Rpt.
`
`Bims.Reply.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 46224
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`C-5
`
`C-6
`
`Description
`
`Reply Expert Report of Christine S. Meyer, Ph.D.
`
`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)
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Meyer.Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`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
`
`C-18 Letter to Judge Andrews regarding supplemental damages
`expert report, dated 04/16/18 in Acceleration Bay v. Activision
`Blizzard, Inc. (16-453 RGA)
`
`C-19 Letter to Judge Andrews regarding supplemental damages
`expert report, dated 04/24/18 in Acceleration Bay v. Activision
`Blizzard, Inc. (16-453 RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C-20 February 28, 2019 Summary Judgment Hearing before The
`Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`
`2/28/19 Hr’g Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 46225
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Description
`
`Summary of Asserted Claims
`
`Chart Summarizing Non-Infringement Arguments Impact On
`Asserted Claims
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`D-1
`
`D-2
`
`Ex.
`
`E-1
`
`E-2
`
`E-3
`
`E-4
`
`E-5
`
`E-6
`
`E-7
`
`E-8
`
`E-9
`
`Description
`
`Deposition Transcript of Martin Clouatre
`
`Deposition Transcript of David O’Neill
`
`Deposition Transcript of Alan Poon
`
`Deposition Transcript of Michael Smith
`
`Deposition Transcript of Ling Lo
`
`Deposition Transcript of Fred Holt
`
`Deposition Transcript of Christine Meyer
`
`Deposition Transcript of Ricardo Valerdi
`
`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, 1:16-cv-453
`
`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.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 46226
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`Description
`
`E-17 Deposition Transcript of John P.J. Kelly, Ph.D
`
`E-18 Deposition Transcript of Glen Van Datta
`
`E-19 Deposition Transcript of Virgil Bourassa
`
`E-20 Deposition Transcript of Colin Macrae
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Kelly.Tr.
`
`Van.Tr.
`
`Bour.Tr.
`
`Mac.Tr.
`
`E-21 Deposition Transcript of Harry Bims from IPR0216-00747
`
`Bims.Ipr.Tr.
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`’344 Patent, File History, 9/15/03 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argument relating to the claim.
`
`’634 Patent, File History, 5/7/04 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argument relating to the claim.
`
`’147 Patent, File History, 12/17/03 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argument relating to the claim.
`
`’069 Patent, File History, 5/17/04 Amendment. Annotated to
`show the amendments and argument relating to the claim.
`
`’147 Patent Owner Preliminary Response (IPR2016-00747, Pap. 11)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`F-1
`
`F-2
`
`F-3
`
`F-4
`
`F-5
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 46227
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`At the February 28, 2019 summary judgment hearing, the Court requested additional
`
`briefing on issues that the parties argued during the hearing: 1) whether EA directly infringes the
`
`system claims (’344, ’966, and ’497 patents) even though it does not itself make, use, or sell the
`
`entire accused system; 2) whether EA directly infringes the method claims (’069 and ’147
`
`patents) even though EA’s only accused activity is the operation of a server in a foreign country;
`
`and 3) whether EA’s client-server game structure infringes the m-regular topology requirements
`
`of ’344, ’966, ’069, and ’147 patents even though it is undisputed that all player game consoles
`
`maintain a Game Play Data Link to the server participant, and all data is sent only through the
`
`server. There is no issue of material fact on any of these issues, and summary judgment to EA
`
`should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`EA Does Not Make, Use, or Sell1 the Inventions of the Asserted ’344, ’966, and ’497
`Patent Claims.
`A.
`
`EA Does Not “Use” the Inventions of the Asserted ’344, ’966, or ’497 Patents.
`
`It is undisputed that EA does not provide the player consoles, install software on them, or
`
`require its customers to play any particular mode of the game. As the Court noted in the
`
`Activision summary judgment order, also entered in this case, “supplying software for a
`
`customer to use is not the same as using the system.” D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 15. The Court
`
`specifically rejected the same argument that Acceleration makes here that EA owns and controls
`
`the software, and is therefore liable for its customer’s actions. D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 15-16. “Use”
`
`of a system requires the defendant to use the entire system and derive a benefit from each and
`
`
`1 Acceleration agrees that subject to its right to appeal, under the Court’s reasoning in the
`Activision Opinion, EA does not make or sell the claimed inventions. D.I. 511 (Joint Letter); Ex.
`C-20 (2/28/19 Hr’g Tr.) at 21:2-5.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 46228
`
`
`
`every element of the claimed system. Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`
`631 F.3d 1279, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Acceleration provided no evidence that EA obtains a
`
`benefit tethered to the claims by using every element of the alleged complete network system.
`
`Instead, Acceleration’s opposition brief claims that EA obtains a financial benefit from selling
`
`the software. The Court rejected that argument in Activision. D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 15-16. Vague
`
`allegations of technical benefit or financial benefit from selling the product are insufficient to
`
`establish use of the claims. D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 15-16.
`
`At the hearing, Acceleration abandoned the arguments and evidence in its briefing, and
`
`attempted to present new evidence of EA’s testing of the accused products. But that evidence
`
`does not show that EA tested (1) the accused modes of the accused games, (2) on the accused
`
`platforms, (3) during the damages period, and (4) within the United States. Acceleration must
`
`show all four to prove a compensable act of infringement. General evidence of product testing
`
`does not suffice to establish use of an accused function of an asserted claim. See D.I. 499
`
`(Opinion) at 17, citing Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (affirming summary judgment for lack of specific evidence that Defendant tested the
`
`accused products in a way that would constitute infringement.)
`
`Acceleration cannot show that EA infringes the ’344, ’966, or ’497 patents through
`
`testing. In the Activision Order, the Court held that “summary judgment requires specific
`
`evidence” and that “Plaintiff’s allegations of Activision’s testing are in no way ‘specific’”
`
`because they were not tied to the accused modes, the accused platforms, or the relevant time
`
`period. D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 17. The Court’s reasoning applies here as well. The evidence
`
`Acceleration presents of EA’s testing is not “specific.” Acceleration fails to show that any
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 46229
`
`
`
`relevant testing occurred in the United States, during the damages period, and on an accused
`
`platform.
`
`Acceleration offers no evidence that any accused testing occurred in the United States.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The evidence on which Acceleration relied in its expert reports and opposition brief
`
`regarding testing actually said nothing about testing at all, and Acceleration presented none of
`
`this “evidence” at the hearing. See, e.g., Ex. C-20 (2/28/19 Hr’g Tr.) at 23:2-6; Ex. A-16
`
`(Acceleration hearing slides) at 3-8.
`
`Instead, Acceleration departed from its briefing, infringement contentions, and expert
`
`reports to rely on different documents. None of these documents establish a compensable act of
`
`infringement. They do not establish testing of an accused mode on an accused platform (as
`
`opposed to the Sony platform on which Acceleration cannot rely). D.I. 499 (Opinion) at 17. Nor
`
`do the documents identify establish that any testing occurred with more than five participants,
`
`within the damages period, or in the United States.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 46230
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In short, none of these documents individually or collectively provides “specific
`
`evidence” of testing that establish EA tested any accused game in a manner that would constitute
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 46231
`
`
`
`infringement. Ricoh Co., 550 F.3d at 1335-36.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, there is no specific evidence of testing that would
`
`constitute infringement. This evidence is, at most, of generic testing and is insufficiently specific
`
`to show a compensable act of infringement in the U.S. during the damages period. See, D.I. 499
`
`at 17.
`
`B.
`
`EA Does Not “Make” the Inventions of the Asserted ’344, ’966, and ’497
`Patent Claims.
`
`Although Acceleration acknowledges that the Court’s reasoning in the Activision Order
`
`[D.I. 499] is dispositive of its claim that EA “makes” the accused system, it reargued that issue at
`
`the hearing. The facts have not changed – as with Activision, EA does not make the “network,”
`
`“system,” or “information delivery service” recited in the ’344 and ’966 claims or the
`
`“component” recited in the ’497 claims. Acceleration’s arguments in this case are not different
`
`than those the court found insufficient to survive summary judgment in Activision. D.I. 499 at
`
`10-14, 19-20.
`
`1.
`
`EA does not “make” the system accused of infringing the ’344, ’966,
`’497 claims because it supplies software to its customers.
`
`As to “making” the ’344 and ’966 patents, Acceleration argued that EA makes the system
`
`by selling the software, which its customers install to play the games. EA does not cause its
`
`customers to install or execute the software – that requires independent action on the part of
`
`EA’s customers. Centillion, 631 F.3d at 1287-88. The customers are free to never execute that
`
`software, or to play it only in non-accused modes (e.g., single player, head-to-head, or
`
`multiplayer games with fewer than 5 others). EA has no control over whether the customers ever
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 46232
`
`
`
`execute the software at all, let alone whether the customers join an online multiplayer game
`
`having at least five other participants.
`
`In the Activision Order, the Court rejected each of the five “make” arguments that
`
`Acceleration asserts against EA. D.I. 499 at 10-14. In Centillion, the Federal Circuit held that the
`
`defendant did not combine all the claim elements” because the system was not complete until the
`
`customer installed and ran the software. 631 F.3d at 1285. The uncontroverted evidence shows
`
`that EA’s customers have as much control over their software as the customers in Centillion and
`
`Activision, and no accused system is created unless the right number of customers collectively
`
`choose to play an accused mode. Thus, the conclusion should be the same in this case. The
`
`parties appear to agree on this. See generally D.I. 511 (Joint Letter).
`
`At the hearing, Acceleration purported to make a new argument that the network is made
`
`just by the creation of software processes, but that was just a rehash its earlier attempt in
`
`Activision to distinguish Centillion—that, here, the “computer network is made up of the
`
`processes. It’s processes talking to each other” (Ex. C-20 (2/28/19 Hr’g Tr.) at 37:1-12). This
`
`Court squarely rejected that same argument in Activision. D.I. 499 at 12 (“Even if each
`
`‘participant’ need not be a ‘computer,’ each ‘participant’ still requires a user computer and some
`
`action taken by the user.”) Moreover, the argument is foreclosed by the Federal Circuit’s holding
`
`in Centillion that a software developer does not “make” a system by making software or even
`
`operating part of the system. A direct infringer must “combine the entire system,” and it is
`
`undisputed that EA does not do so.
`
`2.
`
`Acceleration’s New Argument on the ’497 Patent Fails Because It
`Does Not Allege that EA Makes A Component that Practices All
`Limitations.
`
`Asserted claims 9 and 16 of the ‘497 claims “a component in a computer system for
`
`locating a call-in port of a portal computer.” Just as in Activision, Acceleration accused the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 46233
`
`
`
`player consoles as being the accused “component.” The “software … being run on its customer’s
`
`PCs and game consoles” is what Dr. Mitzenmacher identified as the component that attempts to
`
`connect with the identified portal computer. Ex. A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.) at ¶¶ 70, 72, and 74. In the
`
`Activision Order, the Court correctly found that Activision does not make, use or sell that
`
`component because it did not make, use, or sell the game console. D.I. 499 at 19-20. That
`
`reasoning applies with equal force here.
`
`Recognizing that EA does not make, use, or sell the game console, Acceleration now
`
`appears to argue that the accused “component” is
`
` D.I. 437 at 16. It is
`
`still unclear whether Acceleration contends
`
` because of its operation in
`
`conjunction with the game console or if Acceleration is now claiming
`
` alone is the
`
`component that infringes. If Acceleration’s new
`
`theory contends that
`
`
`
`, the argument fails
`
`because EA does not provide the game console. EA does not “make,” “use,” or “sell” the
`
`claimed component. D.I. 499 at 19-20.
`
` At the hearing, Acceleration seemed to be arguing that the
`
` was an
`
`infringing component, and contended that its opening expert report makes a prima facie case that
`
`the
`
` meets all of the claim limitations. That is incorrect. Acceleration has not—
`
`to this day—
`
`to the claims of the ’497 patent. The word
`
`never once appeared in Dr. Mitzenmacher’s opening expert report as a component
`
`allegedly infringing the ’497 patent. See generally Ex. A-2 (Mitz. Rpt). The
`
`
`
`never once appeared in Acceleration’s infringement contentions.
`
`At the hearing, counsel told the Court that Dr. Mitzenmacher’s opening report “referred
`
`to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 46234
`
`
`
` Ex. C-20 at 34:19-21. There is no support for this representation. There is no
`
`allegation in Dr. Mitzenmacher’s opening report that
`
`
`
` meets any, let alone all, of the limitations of claim 9.2 Instead, he opined the accused
`
`component is the software running on the game consoles. Ex. A-2 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶67-74. For
`
`instance, for limitation 9-D, the “means for selecting the call-in port of the identified portal
`
`computer using a port ordering algorithm,” Dr. Mitzenmacher’s opening expert report only
`
`accuses the game consoles of meeting this limitation. Ex. A-2 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶119-20 (FIFA),
`
`122-123 (NHL), and 125-126 (PvZ). He certainly does not, as counsel represented, accuse the
`
` of meeting this element. Id.
`
`Even if a totally new infringement theory could be first raised in a reply report, Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s reply report still does not make a prima facie case that the
`
` is a
`
`“component” that meets all of the claim limitations. For instance, in his reply report, Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher acknowledges the Court’s construction that a “port ordering algorithm” means a
`
`“rule-based procedure for generating an order of portal computer ports in a non-random order.”
`
`But, he never alleges that
`
` contains this “means for selecting the call-in port
`
`of the identified portal computer using” such a “port ordering algorithm.” His only support for
`
`the “non-random” aspect of the Court’s claim construction of “port ordering algorithm” pertains
`
`solely to the Xbox game consoles running Microsoft software. Ex. A-2 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶120
`
`(FIFA), ¶ 123 (NHL), ¶ 126 (PvZ); Ex. A-4 (Mitz. Reply) at ¶ 80.
`
`Similarly, Dr. Mitzenmacher offers no evidence that the
`
` includes limitation
`
`9(c) – “means for selecting the call-in port of the identified portal computer using a port ordering
`
`algorithm by repeatedly trying to establish a connection with the identified portal computer.”
`
`
`2 Nor is there any opinion or errata that
`component. They are not.
`
` are the same
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 20 of 41 PageID #: 46235
`
`
`
`Acceleration’s expert makes no mention whatsoever of
`
` functionality in any
`
`of his expert reports for this limitation, and he certainly does not opine that the accused
`
`functionality resides in
`
`. Ex. A-2 (Mitz Rpt.) at ¶¶105-114; Ex. A-4 (Mitz.
`
`Reply) at ¶¶65-73. Acceleration does not even allege that
`
` ever tries to
`
`establish a connection with
`
` (the alleged identified portal computer), much less
`
`that it does so repeatedly as the claims require.
`
`Rather Acceleration has always contended that the game “consoles running the software”
`
`are what attempts to connect with the identified portal computer. D.I. 437 at 21; see also D.I. 467
`
`at 11-14 (incorporating its arguments in D.I. 437); D.I. 478 at 12-13 (citing the same parts of Dr.
`
`Mitzenmacher’s reports as in D.I. 437). Thus, Acceleration’s entire analysis for this means
`
`element asserts that the processor is in the Xbox and the software on which it relies comes from
`
`Microsoft, not EA. See Ex. 3 (Mitz. Rpt.) at ¶¶ 119-121 (FIFA), ¶¶ 122-124 (NHL), ¶¶ 125-127
`
`(PvZ) (citing Microsoft documents for the accused function). There is no mention of
`
`
`
` nor has Acceleration even contended that
`
` uses the Microsoft software
`
`on which Acceleration relies.
`
`Acceleration can present no admissible evidence that
`
` meets all of
`
`the claim limitations of Claim 9 and 16 of the ’497 patent. It only attempted to show the game
`
`consoles meet all of the limitations. And just like in Activision, EA does not provide the game
`
`consoles. The facts in this case are identical. The Court should, therefore, reach the same
`
`conclusion in both cases and grant EA’s motion for summary judgment that it does not make, use
`
`or sell the invention recited in the ’497 claims. See D.I. 499 at 19-20.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 548 Filed 03/28/19 Page 21 of 41 PageID #: 46236
`
`
`
`II.
`
`EA Does Not Infringe the Asserted Method Claims of the ’069 and ’147 Patents
`A.
`
`EA Is Only Accused Of Performing Steps Occurring Outside of the United
`States.
`
`Infringement of a method claim requires that every step of the method be performed in
`
`the United States. NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1317-1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). EA cannot be a direct infringer of the method claims because it is undisputed EA is only
`
`accused of performing a step in a foreign country.
`
`The NTP decision disposes of Acceleration’s method claims. Acceleration now concedes
`
`that
`
` are all located outside of the U.S. Ex. C-20 (2/28/19 Hr’g Tr.) at
`
`54:8-12; see also Ex. B-2 (O’Neill Decl.). The only asserted claims of the ’069 and ’147 patents
`
`are method claims. Acceleration’s only allegation against EA is t
`
`. This is dispositive because it means EA cannot be a direct infringer. If the
`
` performs a step, there can be no infringement. If the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(as counsel suggested for the first time at the at the hearing regarding the ’147 Patent) does not
`
`perform a step, then EA is not accused of performing any step and cannot be a direct infringer.
`
`