Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 485 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 34289
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC. ,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES , INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`~SM STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT
`
`WHEREAS, on December 7, 2018, the Court entered a Stipulated Order which, among
`
`other things:
`
`•
`
`took the trial dates off calendar for C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA) (the "EA Action") and
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA) (the "Take-Two Action");
`
`•
`
`authorized Acceleration Bay to " serve a single supplemental expert report, from Mr.
`
`Parr, in each of the EA Action and the Take-Two Action, which shall be substantially
`
`similar to the supplemental damages report Mr. Parr is providing in the Activision
`
`Action conformed
`
`to
`
`the specific facts of these actions (i.e.,
`
`the damages
`
`methodologies presented in the Parr report in these actions will be the same as the
`
`damages methodologies presented in the Activ ision Action)"; and
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 485 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 34290
`
`• ordered the parties to "follow the procedures set forth in the October 30, 2018 Case
`
`Management Order in the Activision Action (16-453 D.I. 619), i.e., Acceleration Bay will
`
`serve a supplemental damages expert report, EA and Take-Two will serve responsive
`
`reports, Acceleration Bay will serve a proffer of the damages case it intends to offer in
`
`each of the EA and Take-Two Actions, and the parties will have an opportunity to take
`
`depositions and present further briefing" (EA Action D.I. 513; Take-Two Action D.I.
`
`448);
`
`WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Court Ordered that the Parties would begin the
`
`foregoing procedures 30 days (in the EA Action) and 40 days (in the Take-Two Action) "after
`
`the Court rules on the parties' damages motions in the Activision Action." (the "Scheduling
`
`Order," EA Action, D.I. 521 , Take-Two Action, D.I. 455);1
`
`WHEREAS, the Court issued an Opinion and Order on damages issues in C.A. No. 16-
`
`453 (RGA) (the "Activision Action") (the "Damages Order," Activision Action, D.I. 693);
`
`WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay has moved for reconsideration of the Damages Order in
`
`the Activision case;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties in the Activision case have presented a Status Report in the
`
`Activision case stating their very different positions on the status of the case and the impact of
`
`the Damages Order, with Acceleration stating that the case is "ready to proceed to trial" and that
`
`"Acceleration Bay will present a fact-based damages case based on the already developed fact
`
`record and evidence with expert support" and Activision stating that "Acceleration failed in its
`
`1 Specifically, the Scheduling Order provides that thirty days after the Damages Order
`Acceleration Bay is to serve a supplemental damages expert report in the EA Action and forty
`days after the Damages Order Acceleration Bay is to serve a supplemental damages expert report
`in the Take-Two Action, with EA and Take-Two to then serve responsive supplemental damages
`expert reports, followed by the exchange of damages proffers, depositions and briefing on
`damages issues.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 485 Filed 09/26/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 34291
`
`' ..
`
`'final opportunity' to disclose an admissible damages case that it can present to the jury" and that
`
`"[e]ntry of judgment ofno damages is therefore appropriate." (Activision Action D.I. 694);
`
`WHEREAS, the parties in the EA and Take-Two Actions also have very different
`
`positions regarding how the Damages Order impacts the EA and Take-Two Actions;
`
`WHEREAS, the Court has ruled on the Parties' summary judgment motions in the EA
`
`Action, but has not yet ruled on Take-Two 's Motion for Summary Judgment ofNoninfringement
`
`in the Take-Two Action; and
`
`WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred and agree that it would conserve the resources
`
`of the Court and of the parties to defer addressing damages issues until such time as the damages
`
`issues in the Activision Action are fully resolved and the Court has had an opportunity to rule on
`
`Take-Two' s Motion for Summary Judgment ofNoninfringement;
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that
`
`the deadlines in the Scheduling Order in the EA Action and the Take-Two Action are taken off
`
`calendar until after both the conclusion of the resolution of damages issues in the Activision
`
`Action and the Court issues a ruling on Take-Two' s Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Noninfringement. Upon the conclusion of the resolution of damages issues in the Activision
`
`Action and the issuance of a ruling on Take-Two's Motion for Summary Judgment of
`
`Noninfringement, the parties will submit a Joint Report to the Court with proposals on how the
`
`damages issues should proceed in the EA and Take-Two Actions.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 485 Filed 09/26/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 34292
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & T UNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ <Pliiup jl.. <J?s)vner
`
`/s/ Jack, <B. <B{umenfeU
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`j choa@potteranderson.com
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`j bl umenfeld@rnnat.com
`skraftschik@rnnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Attorneys for Def endants
`
`September 24, 2019
`
`SO ORDERED this ~
`
`day of ~ , 2019.
`
`4
`
`