Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 219 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 17984
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTSINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
`SPORTS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`deaee
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION REPLY BRIEF
`
`Public Version Dated: August 2, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 219 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 17985
`
`Defendants conceded during the Markman hearing that the Asserted Patents disclose
`
`structures for the means-plus-function (“MPF”’) claim termsat issue. Indeed, it was Defendants’
`
`new position that prompted the Court to order this additional briefing on these terms.
`
`Defendants now, however, try to claw back their concession. Regardless of Defendants’
`
`changing positions, as explained in its Opening Brief, Plaintiff identified the relevant structures
`
`proving the claimsare notindefinite.
`
`In addition, while Defendants identify additional functions
`
`in figures 8, 9, 11, and 13, describing how the m-regular network is configured, each MPF terms
`
`discloses a different function and not every structure is necessary to support the respective MPF
`
`terms. Accordingly, the Court should reject Defendants’ overly narrow construction.
`
`IL
`
`The Cited Structures Disclose the Steps for Performing the
`Recited Functions and are Not Mere “Black Boxes”
`
`Plaintiff identified the structures that perform the relevant functions, and doesnotrely on
`
`mere “Black Boxes.” As explained at the Markmanhearing, Figure 8, including boxes 801 to
`
`806, illustrate the connecting function. The correspondingstructures are further described in the
`
`specifications at 18:3-19:19, including the specific steps that are performed to configure the
`
`network. D.I. 226-1, Colucci Decl., Ex. 1 (Markman Tr.) at 78:5-79:23; Ex. A-2; D.L. 191, Ex. F
`
`(“Medvidovié Decl.”), | 57.' Based on the entirety of these disclosures—and notjust the
`
`“Boxes”—a POSA would understand that a processor programmedto perform at least one of the
`
`algorithms disclosed in steps 801 to 806 in Figure 8 is sufficient to perform the function of
`
`connecting a participantto the identified broadcast channel. Medvidovié Decl., 4] 57, 59.
`
`Defendants improperly include unnecessary structures associated with different
`
`functions. Specifically, Defendants seek to import the structure associated with Figure 9 into
`
`Box 803. Defendants argue “/s/eeking, and thenfinding a portal computeris unquestionably
`
`' Unless otherwise indicated, all docket citations are to C.A. No. 16-453-RGA. Exhibits A-E are
`attached to the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Chart (D.I. 117-124). Exhibits F-L are attached
`to the parties June 21, 2017 Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 191).
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 219 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #: 17986
`
`integral to the process of connecting a new participant.” The correct function for Term 4,
`
`however, is connecting — seeking and identifying are functions associated with different claims
`
`elements. Specifically, those functions are associated with MPF Terms1-3 (identifying
`
`broadcast channel/game) and MPF Terms5-7 (identifying the portal computer/call-in port). As
`
`Defendants acknowledge (Opp. at 2) the analysis for determining the proper structure must begin
`
`with understanding the correct function.” Here, Defendants conflate the function in Term 4 with
`
`other upstream functions. Thus, the additional structures Defendants identify to perform these
`
`upstream functions (seeking and finding) should not be included.
`
`Defendants incorrectly argue (Opp. at 4) that the structure in Figure 13 should be
`
`included with Box 806 becausethe structure associated with Figure 13 performs the function of
`
`connecting to the identified channel. The specification explains, however, the structure and
`
`function of Figure 13 “sets the state of this process to fully connected to the broadcast channel
`
`and invokesa callback routine to notify the application program that the process is now fully
`
`connected to the requested broadcast channel” Ex. A-2 at 21:47-51 (emphasis added). In other
`
`words, the connection occurs using structures associated with box 806, and Figure 13 illustrates
`
`the downstream processofsetting the correct state and notifying the application that the
`
`connection is complete. Jd. While part of the overall process, the structure associated with
`
`Figure 13 is not necessary for the function at issue—connecting to the broadcast channel.
`
`Defendants rely heavily on incomplete testimony of inventor Bourassa as purportedly
`
`supporting their construction of Term 4. However, Defendants omitted Mr. Bourassa's
`
`clarification that the testimony upon which they rely was directed to the operation of software he
`
`
`
`? Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiffs use of “an”rather than “the”is a red herring.
`Plaintiff acknowledged at the Markman hearing that the function should refer to the identified
`broadcast channel. D,I. 226-1, Colucci Decl., Ex. 1 (Markman Tr.) at 106:9-12. This (non-
`existent) dispute has no impact on the structures for connecting to the identified channel, and
`Defendants fail to explain how “an” impacts the relevant structure.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 219 Filed 08/02/17 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 17987
`
`developed based onhis inventionii and not to how the claims here
`
`should be construed. Colucci Reply Decl., Ex. 1 (7/18/17 Bourassa Tr.) at 261:6-262:23.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Bourassa testedhi
`
`a. Thus, to the extent the Court considers inventor testimony,it confirmsthat the
`
`ee. thereby undermining Defendants' argumentthat the Court
`
`should incorporate additional routines into the structures for these terms.
`
`Il.
`
`Defendants Exclude Embodimentsin the Partially Connected State
`
`Defendants incorrectly argue that Plaintiff conflates a partially connectedparticipant(the
`
`seeking computer) “with the state ofthe portal computer through which the seeking computer
`
`will join (whichwill always befully connected).” Opp. at 9 (emphasis added). Defendants’
`
`argumenthinges ontheir false assumption that the portal computer will always befully
`
`connected. The specification discloses embodiments where the network is forming and the
`
`portal computersare not alwaysfully connected. Ex. A-2 (‘966 Patent) at 12:63-13:15, 13:13-19
`
`(“two disjoint broadcast channels are formed because a seeking computer cannotlocate a fully
`
`connected port computer”). These embodiments, ignored by Defendants, confirm that the
`
`additional functions identified by Defendants in Figure 11 (wherethereis a fully connectedport
`
`computer) may not be required in other embodiments (whereit is only partially connected).
`
`Ill.
`
`Terms 1-3 Are Not Indefinite
`
`Asdiscussedin Plaintiff's opening brief, Defendants’ Markmanslides confirm that, at a
`
`minimum,the Asserted Patents disclose the structure for MPF Terms 1-3. D.I. 225 at 8-10.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 219 Filed 08/02/17 Page 5 of 5 PagelD #: 17988
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Philip A. Rovner
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`Jonathan A. Choa (#5319)
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`jchoa@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneysfor Plaintiff
`Acceleration Bay LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Hannah Lee
`KRAMERLEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`Dated: July 27, 2017
`Public Version Dated: August 2, 2017
`5323932
`
`