Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 59 PageID #: 32980
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (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
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 59 PageID #: 32981
`
`
`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: April 26, 2019
`Redacted Filing Date: May 14, 2019
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 59 PageID #: 32982
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iii
`Table of Exhibits and Abbreviations .............................................................................................. v
`Nature and Stage of the Proceedings .............................................................................................. 1
`Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 1
`Summary Of Arguments ................................................................................................................. 2
`Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 3
`I. Defendants’ Do Not Infringe The ’344, ’966 And ’497 Patents For The Same
`Reasons The Court Found No Infringement In Activision and Electronic Arts. .................3
`A. Defendants Do Not “Make,” “Use,” “Sell,” or “Offer to Sell” any “Computer
`Network,” or “Broadcast Channel” and Thus Cannot Be Infringers of Any
`Asserted Claims of the ’344 and ’966 Patents. ...............................................................4
`1. Defendants Do Not “Make” the Claimed “Computer Networks” or “Broadcast
`Channels.” .......................................................................................................................4
`2. Defendants Do Not “Sell” or “Offer to Sell” the Claimed “Computer
`Networks” or “Broadcast Channels.” ..............................................................................5
`3. Defendants Do Not “Use” the Claimed “Computer Networks” or “Broadcast
`Channels” including through testing. ..............................................................................5
`B. Defendants Do Not Make, Use, Sell, or Offer to Sell Any Hardware
`“Component” and Thus Cannot Be Infringers of Any Asserted Claims of the
`‘497 Patent. ......................................................................................................................6
`C. Acceleration’s experts do not make a prima facie case that Defendants
`committed compensable acts of infringement during testing. .........................................7
`II. The Accused Games Do Not Infringe the M-regular and Incomplete Limitations
`of the Topology Patents. ......................................................................................................8
`A. GTAO Does Not Literally Infringe the M-Regular Limitations of the Topology
`Patents. ............................................................................................................................9
`1. Acceleration’s “drive the formation” arguments do not meet the Court’s claim
`construction. ..................................................................................................................10
`2. Acceleration’s “Proximity Rules” theory does not meet the claim limitation. .............13
`3. Acceleration Has No Evidence That the Precise Arrangement of Avatars It
`Claims Causes an M-Regular and Incomplete Network to Form in GTAO Has
`Ever Occurred. ...............................................................................................................16
`4. Acceleration’s
` does not meet the claim
`limitations. .....................................................................................................................22
`B. Dr. Mitzenmacher Admits that NBA 2K Does Not Literally Infringe the
`M-Regular Limitations of the Topology Patents ...........................................................24
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 59 PageID #: 32983
`
`D.
`
`1. Dr. Mitzenmacher admits that single player and “single court” multi-player
`modes are not accused of infringement. ........................................................................24
`2. The Accused “Multi-Court” Modes. .............................................................................25
`3. Dr. Mitzenmacher Admits Multi-Court Modes Do Not Literally Infringe
`Because Each Of The “Player Participants” Is Connected at the Application
`Layer To The “Park Relay Server,” Which Both Experts Agree Is Also A
`“Participant.” .................................................................................................................27
`C. Defendants Cannot Show Infringement of the M-Regular and Incomplete
`Limitations Through the Doctrine of Equivalents. ........................................................30
`1. Prosecution History Estoppel Bars Acceleration’s DOE Allegations For the
`’344, ’966, and ’147 patents. .........................................................................................30
`2. For the ’069 patent, Acceleration has failed to provide any expert analysis in
`support of its assertion that the m-regular limitation, as construed, is infringed
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents. ................................................................................32
`III. The Asserted Method Claims (’147/1 & ’069/1) Are Not Infringed. ................................33
`A. A. For GTAO, Acceleration has no proof Defendants ever performed the
`claimed methods. ...........................................................................................................33
`B. The Accused Games Do Not Literally Infringe The ’069 Patent Because Dr.
`Mitzenmacher Does Not Contend That They Practice The “Random Walk.” ..............36
`C. Defendants Cannot Show Infringement of this Limitation Through the Doctrine
`of Equivalents. ...............................................................................................................37
`
`...................39
`
`
`E. Defendants Cannot Show Infringement of the
`
`
`IV. The ’497 (Port Ordering Algorithm) Patent Is Not Infringed. ...........................................42
`A. NBA 2K: Summary Judgment of No Literal Or DOE Infringement Should Be
`Entered Because Acceleration Presents No Relevant or Admissible Evidence
`Showing Port Reordering of Claim Limitation 9(e) ......................................................42
`B. GTAO Does Not Literally Infringe Because A Port Ordering Algorithm Must
`Operate In A “Non-Random” Manner And Acceleration’s Expert Repeatedly
`Admitted
`
`
` ...........................................................................................................45
`C. A Random Port Ordering Algorithm Cannot Be the Equivalent of a Non-
`Random Port Ordering Algorithm As a Matter of Law. ...............................................46
`V. Conclusion. ........................................................................................................................49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 59 PageID #: 32984
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al.,
`No. 15-311-RGA, D.I. 1 ...........................................................................................................1
`
`Acceleration Bay v. Electronic Arts,
`Case No. 16-cv-00454-RGA (D. Del 3/27/2019) D.I. 545 ......................................................12
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................35
`
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................47
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................5
`
`Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp.,
`526 U.S. 795 ............................................................................................................................46
`
`Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`480 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................30, 32, 42
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................47
`
`Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs, Inc.,
`305 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................38
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ...............................................................................................30, 38, 48, 49
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................30
`
`Implicit Networks Inc. v. F5 Networks Inc.,
`No. C 10-4234 SI, 2013 WL 1007250 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) ..........................................44
`
`Joy Techs. Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................34
`
`L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................8
`
`Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`324 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................47
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 6 of 59 PageID #: 32985
`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................34
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,
`294 F.Supp. 2d 557 (D. Del. 2003), aff’d, 375 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................33
`
`Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................38
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................34
`
`Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. CV 13-2072 (KAJ), 2017 WL 1045912 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017), appeal
`dismissed, No. 2017-2042, 2017 WL 5897705 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2017) ...............................7
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech Int’l, Inc.,
`472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................47
`
`PODS, Inc. v. Porta Store, Inc.,
`484 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................38
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`TC Technology LLC v. Sprint Corp.,
`16-cv-153, slip op. (D. Delaware. April 15, 2019) ..................................................................33
`
`Under Sea Industries, Inc. v. Dacor Corp.,
`833 F.2d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1987)................................................................................................30
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .............................................................................................................47, 48
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 7 of 59 PageID #: 32986
`
`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
`
`Description
`
`Expert Report of Nenad Medvidović, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar
`Games, Inc., and 2KSports, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,732,147
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Med.Rpt.
`
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar
`Games, Inc., and 2KSports, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,920,497; 6,910,069
`
`Mitz.Rpt.
`
`Supplemental Opening Expert Report of Nenad Medvidović,
`Ph.D., Regarding Infringement by Take-Two Interactive
`Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2KSports, Inc., of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966; 6,732,147
`
`Med.Supp.Rpt.
`
`Supplemental Opening Expert Report of Michael
`Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., Regarding Infringement by Take-Two
`Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2KSports,
`Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,920,497; 6,910,069
`
`Mitz.Supp.Rpt.
`
`Expert Reply Report of Nenad Medvidović, Ph.D., Regarding
`Infringement by Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar
`Games, Inc., and 2KSports, Inc., of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,701,344; 6,829,634; 6,714,966
`
`Med.Reply
`
`v
`
`Ex.
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`A-4
`
`A-5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 8 of 59 PageID #: 32987
`
`Ex.
`
`A-6
`
`Description
`
`Expert Reply Report of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D.,
`Regarding Infringement by Take-Two Interactive Software,
`Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2KSports, Inc., of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,732,147; 6,920,497; 6,910,069
`
`A-7
`
`Take Two Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Description
`
`Appendix 1: Claim Amendments
`
`Appendix 2: Claim Amendments
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Mitz.Reply
`
`Resp. to Rogs 5
`and 9
`
`Abbreviation
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`D-1
`
`D-2
`
`Ex.
`
`E-1
`
`E-2
`
`E-3
`
`E-4
`
`E-5
`
`E-6
`
`E-7
`
`E-8
`
`
`
`DEPOSITION AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Eric Cole (February 7,
`2017)
`
`Cole.Tr
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Kevin Baca (March 29,
`2017)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of John Hynd (July 21,
`2017)
`
`Baca.Tr
`
`Hynd.Tr
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Daniel Yelland (July 20,
`2017)
`
`Yelland.Tr
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Michael
`Mitzenmacher (Jul. 27, 2018)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Dr. Nenad Medvidović
`(August 14, 2018)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Tim Walter (March 31,
`2017)
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Chris Larson (June 20,
`2017)
`
`Mitz.Tr.
`
`Med.Tr.
`
`Walt.Tr.
`
`Lars.Tr.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 9 of 59 PageID #: 32988
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Excerpts of Deposition Transcript of Evan Harsha (August 15,
`2017)
`
`Hars.Tr.
`
`ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
`
`Description
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Excerpts of ’344 Patent File History, annotated to show related
`amendment(s) and/or argument(s) made during prosecution
`
`’344 FH
`
`Excerpts of ’966 Patent File History, annotated to show related
`amendment(s) and/or argument(s) made during prosecution
`
`’966 FH
`
`Excerpts of ’147 Patent File History, annotated to show related
`amendment(s) and/or argument(s) made during prosecution
`
`’147 FH
`
`Excerpts of ’497 Patent File History, annotated to show related
`amendment(s) and/or argument(s) made during prosecution
`
`’497 FH
`
`Excerpts of ’147 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`(IPR2016-00747, Pap. 11), annotated to show related
`arguments made by the patentee
`
`’147 Pat., IPR
`POPR
`
`Excerpts of ’344 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`(IPR2015-01970, Pap. 6), annotated to show related arguments
`made by the patentee
`
`’344 Pat., IPR
`POPR
`
`Excerpts of ’966 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`(IPR2015-01951, Pap. 8), annotated to show related arguments
`made by the patentee
`
`’966 Pat., IPR
`POPR
`
`Excerpts of ’069 Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`(IPR2017-01600, Pap. 8), annotated to show related arguments
`made by the patentee
`
`’069 Pat., IPR
`POPR
`
`Ex.
`
`E-9
`
`Ex.
`
`F-1
`
`F-2
`
`F-3
`
`F-4
`
`F-5
`
`F-6
`
`F-7
`
`F-8
`
`F-9
`
`Document bearing Bates no. MS/SUB ACCELERATIONBAY
`000105-112, entitled (“Microsoft Winsock Overview”)
`
`F-10 Document bearing Bates no. MSFT/SUB
`ACCELERATIONBAY 000160-165 (entitled “Durango
`Teredo NAT detection handoff”)
`
`F-11
`
`Frankel-Tomasulo Correspondence from April 4, 2019 to April
`18, 2019
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 10 of 59 PageID #: 32989
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration”) accuses Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`
`Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc. of infringing five patents based on activities related to
`
`three video games. Plaintiff first alleged direct and indirect infringement in April 2015. See
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., No. 15-311-RGA, D.I. 1, ¶¶64–
`
`65. The indirect allegations were dismissed, and the entire action was dismissed for lack of standing.
`
`Plaintiff refiled and alleged only direct infringement. D.I. 1, ¶65. The patent claims have been
`
`construed. D.I. 244, 256, 345, 346, 356, 370, 379, 419. Trial is not currently scheduled. D.I. 448.
`
`Defendants move for summary judgment of no direct infringement.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Defendants Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
`
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. D.I. 270, ¶8. Rockstar Games, Inc. publishes a video game
`
`called Grand Theft Auto V (“GTA”), which has an online component called Grand Theft Auto Online
`
`(“GTAO”).
`
`
`
`. Ex. A-7 (Resp. to Rogs 5 and 9) at 4; Ex. E-4 (Yelland.Tr.) at 150:2–8, 230:15–22; Ex.
`
`E-3 (Hynd.Tr) at 13:21–24; Ex. E-2 (Baca.Tr) at 83:19–84:1.
`
`
`
` Ex. E-4
`
`(Yelland.Tr.) at 143:11–144:9.
`
`2K Sports publishes video games called NBA 2K15 and NBA 2K16. Those games use
`
`traditional prior art network techniques.
`
`
`
`. Ex. E-7 (Walt.Tr.) at
`
`82:13–83:14, 85:8–87:10, 88:10–17, 89:3–6, 89:10–15, 144:21–146:9; Ex. E-8 (Lars.Tr.) at 18:18–
`
`19:16.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 11 of 59 PageID #: 32990
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`Although Acceleration’s descriptions of the accused game networks are almost completely
`
`wrong, this motion does not seek to correct Acceleration’s erroneous descriptions of the accused
`
`networks. Instead, this motion establishes that, even according to Acceleration’s own contentions,
`
`the Court may enter summary judgment of non-infringement based solely on the testimony of
`
`Acceleration’s own experts and Acceleration’s failure to present evidence on numerous claim
`
`limitations. If any issue remains for trial after this, Defendants will then show how the networks are
`
`actually structured.
`
`Defendants seek summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents based solely on the testimony, admissions, and omissions of plaintiff’s
`
`experts. This is no battle of the experts. These arguments do not rely on Defendants’ expert’s
`
`opinions or reports. As shown below:
`
` Defendants do not directly infringe the ’344, ’966 and ’497 patents for the same reasons the
`Court found no direct infringement in the Activision and EA cases.
`
` Acceleration did not identify a prima facie case of infringement by use during testing.
`
` For the four Topology Patents (’344, ’966, ’069, ’147 patents), there is no infringement:
`o For GTAO, Acceleration’s infringement theory—that nearly a dozen factors
`somehow conspire together to “drive” or “converge” the network to be m-regular and
`incomplete when players happen to arrange their avatars in just such a way that they
`are “roughly evenly distributed through the gameplay area”—does not meet the
`claim limitations that the accused network be “configured” so that each participant be
`connected to the “exact” same number of neighbors.
`o For NBA 2K, only the “multi-court” game modes are accused, and Dr.
`Mitzenmacher admitted that those accused multi-court games do not literally meet
`the requirement of being an m-regular, incomplete network because
`
` in the “application
`
`overlay” network he accuses.
`o There is no infringement by equivalents as a matter of law.
` For the method claims (’069, ’147 patents), there is no infringement:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 12 of 59 PageID #: 32991
`
`o For GTAO, Acceleration acknowledges that, even under its theory, the accused
`method need not be used to the play the games, and it provides no evidence the
`claimed methods have ever been actually been performed by anyone.
`o For the ’069 patent because, neither game practices the “random walk” limitation.
`o For the ’147 patent, a list of all of the participants in the game is not the claimed
`“list of neighbors of the first computer.”
`o There is no infringement by equivalents as a matter of law.
` For the ’497 patent:
`o For NBA 2K, Acceleration relies only on inadmissible and irrelevant Microsoft
`documents for the “port ordering” algorithm element without any evidence that the
`documents are authentic or that they have anything to do with how the accused
`games actually operate.
`
`o
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Defendants’ Do Not Infringe the ’344, ’966 and ’497 Patents for the Same Reasons the
`Court Found No Infringement in Activision and Electronic Arts.
`
`Acceleration accuses Defendants of only direct infringement. D.I. 1 (Complaint). For the
`
`same reasons as in cases against Activision and Electronic Arts, the Court should grant summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement for the ’344, ’966, and ’497 patents because Defendants only make,
`
`sell, and distribute video game software, not consoles, not computers, not networks, not processors,
`
`and not broadcast channels. See D.I. 440 at 9–20.
`
`In its order in the EA case, the Court stated: “The Parties agree that, under my reasoning in
`
`the Activision Case, Defendant does not make or sell the inventions claimed in the ‘344, ‘966, and
`
`‘497 Patents” and that “my opinion in the Activision Case limits its use argument to Defendant’s
`
`alleged use by testing the Accused Products.” C.A. No. 16-454 at 5-6. The Court then granted
`
`summary judgment in favor of EA on the “conceded issues.” Id. at 6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 13 of 59 PageID #: 32992
`
`In light of the prior two orders, to ease the burden on the Court and Parties, Defendants asked
`
`Acceleration to withdraw its allegations of direct infringement other than “use” by testing (where it
`
`made them) or to explain how the its allegations are distinguishable from Activision and Electronic
`
`Arts. Acceleration declined to provide a substantive response, stating only that it would advance the
`
`arguments “as set forth in its experts’ reports” and that “it is still necessary to have a full record for
`
`appellate review.” Ex. F-11 (Frankel-Tomasulo correspondence) at 2 (April 17 email). Defendants
`
`asked Acceleration to explain what make, use, or sell theories, if any, beyond testing, it still asserts,
`
`but Acceleration declined to respond. Id. at 1 (April 18, 2019 email). So Defendants must brief these
`
`issues for the third time. Issues the Court has not previously decided in defendants’ favor in the
`
`Activision and EA cases begin in Section II of this brief.
`
`A.
`
` Defendants Do Not “Make,” “Use,” “Sell,” or “Offer to Sell” Any “Computer
`Network,” or “Broadcast Channel” and Thus Cannot Be Infringers of Any Asserted
`Claims of the ’344 and ’966 Patents.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’344 and ’966 patents require “computer networks,” “broadcast
`
`channels,” or both. See ’344 patent, cls. 12–15; ’966 patent, cls. 12–13. The claimed “computer
`
`networks” and “broadcast channels” comprise the “participants” and the “connections” between
`
`them. Id. A “computer network” is a “group of connected computers or group of connected computer
`
`processes.” D.I. 370 at 8. A “broadcast channel” is a “communications network consisting of
`
`interconnected participants where each participant receives all data broadcasted on that
`
`communications network.” D.I. 379 at 2. As in the Activision and EA cases, Defendants’
`
`manufacture and sale of video game software cannot infringe these claims. D.I. 440 at 18.
`
`1.
`
` Defendants Do Not “Make” the Claimed “Computer Networks” or
`“Broadcast Channels.”
`
`Acceleration cannot distinguish this Court’s rulings in the prior cases. As with Activision and
`
`EA, for both GTAO and NBA 2K, the alleged “participants” in the accused “networks” and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 14 of 59 PageID #: 32993
`
`“broadcast channels” include “application programs that are executing on the client computers.” Exs.
`
`A-1 (Med.Rpt.) at 1–2, 4; id., ¶¶ 86, 96; A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.) at 1–2, 5 (emphasis added). In both prior
`
`cases, the Court found that Activision and EA did not “make” the claimed system because “action by
`
`multiple customers is required here for the claimed ‘participants’ to be in place and to send data in
`
`the network.” D.I. 440 at 13, see also CA No. 16-454, D.I. 499 at 13. On that basis, the Court
`
`concluded that the finding of no direct infringement in Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest
`
`Commc’ns Int’l Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) “was indistinguishable.” CA No. 16-454,
`
`D.I. 545 at 9; D.I.440 at 10–14. The Court should enter that same ruling here.
`
` Defendants Do Not “Sell” or “Offer to Sell” the Claimed “Computer
`2.
`Networks” or “Broadcast Channels.”
`
`Acceleration also cannot distinguish the Court’s ruling that Activision did not “sell” the
`
`claimed computer networks and broadcast channels. Just as in the Activision and EA cases,
`
`Defendants sell software, not the accused networks, and Acceleration presents “no evidence that the
`
`software discs that [Defendants] sell[] are networks, or even the participants and connections that
`
`compose networks.” D.I. 440 at 18. Thus, just as with Activision and EA, the Court should find that
`
`“by selling software discs, [Defendants] do[] not sell the infringing networks, which require that
`
`multiple “participants” form a network.” Id.
`
`3.
`
` Defendants Do Not “Use” the Claimed “Computer Networks” or “Broadcast
`Channels” Including Through Testing.
`
`The Court noted that to show infringement by “use,” Acceleration must meet the standard set
`
`forth by the Federal Circuit in Centillion. D.I. 440 at 15-16 (citing Centillion and related cases). The
`
`Court held that Activision did not “use” the infringing system by “put[ting] the invention into service
`
`by controlling the system as a whole and obtaining the benefit from its use.” D.I. 440, at 16. There is
`
`no basis to distinguish the Court’s ruling that Activision does not “use” the accused computer
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 15 of 59 PageID #: 32994
`
`networks and broadcast channels. Id. at 15–17. Acceleration’s expert does not even contend there
`
`was infringement of ’344 and ’966 through internal testing.
`
` Defendants Do Not Make, Use, Sell, or Offer to Sell Any Hardware “Component” B.
`
`
`and Thus Cannot Be Infringers of Any Asserted Claims of the ’497 Patent.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’497 Patent recite, “A component in a computer system for
`
`locating a call-in port of a portal computer.” ’497 patent, cl. 9. In Activision, the Court rejected each
`
`of Plaintiff’s make, use, and sell arguments. Plaintiff alleged that the “component” was the game
`
`console. The Court found that Activision did not make the component as it did not make the game
`
`console or install its customers’ software on it. D.I. 440 at 19–20. The Court found that Activision
`
`did not “use” the accused component because the “function of the ’497 component is to enable
`
`players to join a multiplayer game by locating a portal computer through which the user can join a
`
`network” and “Activision does not use its customers’ processors ‘for locating a call-in port of a
`
`portal computer.’” Id. at 19. The Court found that Activision did not “sell” the claimed invention
`
`because “Activision does not sell any hardware components or processors, and thus does not sell the
`
`Xboxes Plaintiff ‘accuses of satisfying the claims.’” Id. at 20.
`
`Those holdings all apply with equal force here. For both Acceleration’s literal and
`
`equivalents arguments, the accused component “for locating a call-in port” of the accused “portal
`
`computers” is the player’s console or PC executing the client-side software. In other words, the
`
`allegation is that the player’s console includes the accused component and uses it to contact the
`
`identified “portal computers” so that the player can join the game.1 The players, not Defendants,
`
`provide and operate the computers seeking to join a multiplayer game.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Ex. A-2 (Mitz.Rpt.) ¶¶274, 278, 280, 285, 399; Ex. A-6 (Mitz.Reply) ¶¶ 191, 193, 196, 198, 200.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 467 Filed 05/14/19 Page 16 of 59 PageID #: 32995
`
`Thus, for the same reasons as in Activision, the Court should find that Defendants do not
`
`make, use, sell or offer to sell the “component” of the ’497 patent.
`
`C.
`
` Acceleration’s Experts Do Not Make a Prima Facie Case That Defendants
`Committed Compensable Acts of Infringement During Testing.
`
`To prove a compensable act of infringement by testing, Acceleration must show more than
`
`mere testing. It must show that the testing occurred during the damages period, that the testing was
`
`an act of infringement, and that the testing was compensable because it occurred for the accused
`
`games and on an accused platform. Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1335–36
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (no “specific evidence that [Defendant] tested [the accused products] in a way that
`
`would constitute infringement.”); see also Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machines
`
`Corp., No. CV 13-2072 (KAJ), 2017 WL 1045912, at *4–5 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017), appeal
`
`dismissed, No. 2017-2042, 2017 WL 5897705 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2017), and aff'd, 721 F. App'x 994
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (granting summary judgment of non-infringement because patentee failed to show
`
`that the defendant tested the accused product in an infringing manner in the relevant timeframe.).
`
`Acceleration stated that it would rely on its expert reports to show infringement, but neither Dr.
`
`Mitzemacher nor Dr. Medvidovic demonstrates that Defendants have tested the accused products in
`
`a manner that would constitute a compensable act of infringement of the’344,’966 and/or ’497
`
`patents.
`
`To the extent Acceleration’s experts even discuss “in