`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`))
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF STANDING
`
`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 Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`REDACTED -
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2121
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`David P. Enzminger
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-3510
`
`October 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`- Original Filing Date
`
`November 10, 2016 - Redacted Filing Date
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 2122
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`THERE IS NO RESTRICTION
` ......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 5
`
` ............ 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 2123
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Canon Inc. v. Tesseron Ltd.,
`2015 WL 7308663 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2015) .................................................................... 4
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`High Point SARL v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`640 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2016) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................... 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 ................................................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)............................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 2124
`
`illusory and so deprives it of constitutional standing. Acceleration Bay is incorrect both factually
`
` renders any injury to Acceleration Bay
`
`and legally
`
` are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286. All claims related to games
`
`, therefore, should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, Acceleration Bay’s procedural arguments regarding the propriety of
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(g) (D.I. 27 at 2 n.3)1 have been addressed in
`
`Defendants’ October 13, 2016 letter to the Court. (D.I. 26). As explained in that letter,
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing is procedurally proper, particularly given
`
`“[t]he requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for
`
`a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). Additionally, Rule 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the
`
`court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
`
`action.”
`
`I.
`
`THERE IS NO RESTRICTION
`
`
` and Acceleration Bay’s assertions to the
`
`
`
`
`contrary are both factually and legally wrong. First, Acceleration Bay does not and cannot point
`
`to any language
`
`
`1
`All citations to docket entries refer to C.A. No. 16-453 unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 2125
`
`Second, Acceleration Bay is incorrect on the law;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acceleration Bay cites Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456,
`
`1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998), but Ethicon is limited to the situation of co-owners of the entire patent,
`
`such as joint inventors or spouses. See Canon Inc. v. Tesseron Ltd., 2015 WL 7308663, at *4
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2015) (“[T]he arguments against retroactive patent licensing have real force
`
`only in the context of co-ownership.”). The holding of Ethicon is narrow: “Absent agreement to
`
`the contrary, a co-owner cannot grant a release of another co-owner’s right to accrued damages.”
`
`135 F.3d at 1467.
`
`
`
`
`
` See, e.g., Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1467 (noting
`
`“retroactive licenses” of patent rights have been enforced by the courts without specifically
`
`referring to them in this way.”); High Point SARL v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 640 F. App’x 917, 927
`
`(Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2016); Canon, 2015 WL 7308663, at *4.
`
`And the unpublished order in Adaptix cited by Acceleration Bay is incomplete and
`
`unpersuasive. The Report and Recommendation that the cited order addresses does not appear to
`
`be available on PACER, and the limited recitation of facts and arguments do not support
`
`Acceleration Bay’s arguments. At the very least, the case is distinguishable because it involved
`
`a “now-expired option to purchase the right to grant a sublicense to Ericsson.” Id. at 3. Thus, it
`
`appears that Samsung had at one time the ability to purchase extra rights that would have
`
`allowed it to sublicense the patent in suit to the Ericsson defendant. Here, in contrast,
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 2126
`
`
`
`Even if Acceleration Bay was correct
`
`, its argument still fails.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “[T]he
`
`touchstone of constitutional standing in a patent infringement suit is whether a party can
`
`establish that it has an exclusionary right in a patent that, if violated by another, would cause the
`
`party holding the exclusionary right to suffer legal injury.” WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc.,
`
`631 F.3d 1257, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Where the defendant “has the ability to obtain . . . a
`
`license from another party,” the plaintiff “does not have an exclusionary right with respect to the
`
`alleged infringer and thus is not injured by that alleged infringer.” Id. at 1266. Acceleration Bay
`
`characterizes this portion of WiAV as dicta, but the Federal Circuit’s reasoning is necessary to the
`
`result and part of the holding.
`
`And any claims predating
`
` would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 286
`
` Id. (“no
`
`recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of
`
`the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss all
`
`claims
`
` for lack of constitutional standing.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 39 Filed 11/10/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 2127
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`_____________________________________
`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 Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`David P. Enzminger
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-3510
`
`October 31, 2016
`
`6
`
`- Original Filing Date
`
`November 10, 2016 - Redacted Filing Date
`
`