Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 525
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`KOG GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`NEXON AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ONNET USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-178-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-179-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-180-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-183-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 526
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TURBINE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SPOTIFY USA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-184-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-808-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-826-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-827-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 527
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-828-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-914-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-1205-RGA
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SG INTERACTIVE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`KONTIKI, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NC INTERACTIVE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC’S
`MOTION TO LIFT STAY
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC (“Parallel”) hereby moves the Court to lift the stay in
`
`each of the above-captioned cases as to claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-28 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,188,145 B2 because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) has denied
`
`the petition for inter partes review of these claims. In further support of this motion, Parallel
`
`states as follows:
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 528
`
`
`1.
`
`On November 11, 2013, Reloaded Games, Inc. (“Reloaded”), defendant in C.A.
`
`No. 13-827-RGA, filed two petitions in the PTO to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,188,145 B2 (“the ’145 Patent”) and 7,730,262 B2 (“the ’262 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`On February 5, 2014, the Court stayed each of the above-captioned actions
`
`pending the outcome of the inter partes review.1
`
`3.
`
`Regarding the ’145 Patent, Reloaded petitioned for review of claims 1-36. On
`
`May 16, 2014, the PTAB granted Reloaded’s petition only as to claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20,
`
`21, 24, and 29-36 on the alleged ground those claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See
`
`Ex. A, Case IPR2014-00136, Paper 15, at 39-40.
`
`4.
`
`The PTAB denied Reloaded’s petition on the following sixteen (16) claims,
`
`despite having been challenged by Reloaded in its petition: 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-
`
`28. See id.
`
`5.
`
`Regarding the ’262 Patent, on May 16, 2014, the PTAB granted Reloaded’s
`
`petition and instituted inter partes review for claims 1-27. See Ex. B, Case IPR2014-00139,
`
`Paper 16, at 19-20.
`
`6.
`
`Because the PTAB denied Reloaded’s petition with respect to claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-
`
`15, 19, 22-23, and 25-28 of the ’145 Patent, and these claims are no longer subject to inter partes
`
`review, the stay should be lifted and Parallel allowed to proceed in litigation with respect to these
`
`sixteen claims. Cf. Otto Bock Healthcare LP v. Össur HF, et al., No. 8:13-cv-00891-CJC-AN,
`
`slip. op. at 3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) (denying stay, finding “petition for inter partes review
`
`encompass[ing] only two of the four asserted claims in [the] case” to weigh against stay) (Order
`
`attached as Ex. C). Indeed, the Court contemplated that the stay would be lifted in the event that
`
`
`1 The Court denied defendant’s motion to stay in related action Parallel Networks, LLC v. Ignite
`Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1083-RGA. (D.I. 21.)
`01:15534233.1
`2
`
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 529
`
`
`an IPR was not instituted. See C.A. No. 13-827-RGA, D.I. 25, 2/10/2014 Transcript at 65:11-20.
`
`Just as the case against Ignite Technologies, Inc. was allowed to move forward based on two
`
`patents, the ’911 and ’433 Patents, that were not subject to the Reloaded IPR petitions, so too
`
`should the now stayed cases be allowed to move forward based on the aforementioned claims of
`
`the ’145 Patent as to which the IPR was not instituted. See 2/10/2014 Transcript at 67 (allowing
`
`the case against Ignite to move forward at least “through the initial stages”).
`
`7.
`
`Reloaded and the other defendants claim that lifting the stay would somehow be
`
`“premature” given that Reloaded alleges it “will be filing a follow-on IPR challenging the claims
`
`that were not instituted, and moving to join the two proceedings.” See Ex. D, 5/29/14 Email from
`
`Reloaded’s Counsel to M. Squire. This claim is without merit. Reloaded’s intention to possibly
`
`at some unknown time in the future challenge the claims that were not instituted and, if so,
`
`whether the PTAB will or will not entertain such challenge is too speculative and does not justify
`
`continuing the stay.
`
`8.
`
`On the contrary, continuing to stay these cases while Reloaded purportedly
`
`prepares and files some follow-on petition for inter partes review, and while the PTAB considers
`
`that petition, is fundamentally unfair and would only present a clear tactical advantage to
`
`defendants and unduly prejudice Parallel in its ability to proceed with claims that the PTAB has
`
`already decided are not subject to the inter partes review.
`
`9.
`
` It is uncertain and highly speculative as to when, if ever, Reloaded’s follow-on
`
`petition will be filed. Even if that petition were filed today, Parallel and this Court would likely
`
`have to wait at least another six months for a decision from the PTAB regarding that petition. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(b).
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`
`3
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 530
`
`
`10. Moreover, Reloaded is barred from appealing the non-institution decision to the
`
`Federal Circuit. St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., No. 2014-1183, 2014
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 7731, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2014); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Because
`
`Reloaded would be filing its follow-on petition more than one year after Parallel asserted its
`
`Complaint against Reloaded, (C.A. No. 13-827-RGA, D.I. 1), the only procedural mechanism
`
`available to Reloaded to institute that petition is the inter partes review joinder provision.2
`
`Again, whether joinder of the late-filed petition would be granted is highly speculative, and
`
`maintaining the stay pending a decision on any late-filed petition would only further prejudice
`
`Parallel and impair its right to litigate its claims in this Court.
`
`11.
`
`Continuing to stay these cases while Reloaded seeks serial inter partes reviews
`
`and for the PTAB to consider yet another petition is nothing more than a tactic that would allow
`
`defendants to create further delay that would unduly prejudice Parallel. Reloaded already had a
`
`full and fair opportunity to present the denied claims to the PTAB, and should not be permitted
`
`to engage in the gamesmanship of extending the stay by filing serial inter partes review
`
`petitions. Cf. Voda v. Medtronic Inc., No. 09-95-L, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104959, at *8 (W.D.
`
`Okla. Jan. 31, 2011) (“Neither the court nor plaintiff anticipated that defendants would file serial
`
`reexamination requests each time they failed to achieve their objectives at the USPTO. At some
`
`point, the court cannot continue to defer to that body and to the reexamination proceedings at the
`
`expense of this litigation.”).
`
`
`2 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the
`proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest,
`or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time
`limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under
`subsection (c)”). That is, the PTO would have to agree to join the new petition with the pending
`petition.
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`
`4
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 531
`
`
`12.
`
`As Reloaded argued in its Opening Brief in Support of its Motion to Stay, “there
`
`[would be] no prejudice to Parallel in awaiting expertise from the PTO in response to Reloaded’s
`
`[original] IPR Petitions.” (D.I. 13 at 6.) The PTO has now responded, and with its expertise, has
`
`denied inter partes review with respect to claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-28 of the
`
`’145 Patent. Parallel should now be allowed to move forward in litigation with respect to these
`
`sixteen claims. Any serial petition addressing claims already presented to the PTAB must be
`
`seen for what it is, merely tactical, and, therefore, does not warrant a stay. See Fifth Mkt., Inc. v.
`
`CME Grp., Inc., No. 08-520-GMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87334, at *3, *7 n.1 (D. Del. June 19,
`
`2013) (lifting stay pending reexamination where “delays appear to be ‘impermissibly tactical,’
`
`suggesting that a continuation of the stay might result in undue prejudice”). Reloaded should
`
`have presented its very best art in the initial petitions, as acknowledged by Reloaded’s counsel
`
`during oral argument. See 2/04/2014 Transcript at 51:3-6. The fact that it now threatens to
`
`submit additional art shows that either the art is no better than what was submitted, or that
`
`Reloaded violated its obligation to submit the best art and instead has been caught in
`
`gamesmanship. Either way, the equities now lie with Parallel, and Reloaded should not be
`
`allowed to further delay these actions.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Parallel respectfully requests that the Court (a) lift the stay in
`
`each of the above-captioned cases at least as to claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 19, 22-23, and 25-28 of
`
`the ’145 Patent and (b) convene a common Rule 16 scheduling conference. A proposed form of
`
`order is attached.
`
`
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`
`5
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 532
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`Brian A. Carpenter
`Eric W. Buether
`Christopher M. Joe
`Michael D. Ricketts
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4750
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 446-1273
`Eric.Buether@BJCIPlaw.com
`Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com
`Chris.Joe@BJCIPlaw.com
`Mickey.Ricketts@BJCIPlaw.com
`
`Dated: May 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`
`/s/ Monté T. Squire
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Monté T. Squire (No. 4764)
`Gregory J. Brodzik (No. 5722)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`msquire@ycst.com
`gbrodzik@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Parallel Networks, LLC
`
`
`01:15534233.1
`
`
`6
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 533
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Monté T. Squire, hereby certify that on May 30, 2014, I caused to be electronically
`
`filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using
`
`CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and downloading
`
`to the following counsel of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esquire
`Morris James LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants KOG Games, Inc., Nexon America, Inc.,
`Riot Games, Inc., Turbine, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.,
`Reloaded Games, Inc. and NC Interactive, LLC
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
`Paul Saindon, Esquire
`Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`psaindon@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants OnNet USA, Inc. and SG Interactive, Inc.
`
`Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire
`David E. Moore, Esquire
`Bindu A. Palapura, Esquire
`Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
`rhorwitz@potteranderson.com
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Spotify USA Inc. and Kontiki, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01:15534595.1
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:28)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 534
`
`
`I further certify that on May 30, 2014, I caused a copy of the foregoing
`
`
`document to be served by e-mail on the above-listed counsel and on the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eric A. Buresh, Esquire
`Michelle L. Marriott, Esquire
`Mark C. Lang, Esquire
`Erise IP, P.A.
`6201 College Boulevard, Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`michelle.marriott@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KOG Games, Inc.
`
`Fred I. Williams, Esquire
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1900
`Austin, TX 78701
`fwilliams@akingump.com
`
`Eric J. Klein, Esquire
`Kellie M. Johnson, Esquire
`Todd E. Landis, Esquire
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`eklein@akingump.com
`kmjohnson@akingump.com
`tlandis@akingump.com
`
`Ashley E. Brown, Esquire
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002-5200
`ambrown@akingump.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Nexon America, Inc.Riot Games, Inc.,
`Turbine, Inc., and Blizzard Entertinment, Inc.
`
`D. James Pak, Esquire
`Baker & McKenzie LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`d. james.pak@bakermckenzie.com
`
`01:15534595.1
`
`2
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 535
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Julie Petruzzelli, Esquire
`Matt S. Dushek, Esquire
`Baker & McKenzie LLP
`815 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`julie.a.petruzzelli@bakermckenzie.com
`matt.dushek@bakermckenzie.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant OnNet USA, Inc.
`
`Stefani E. Shanberg, Esquire
`Jennifer J. Schmidt, Esquire
`Michael J. Guo, Esquire
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`sshanberg@wsgr.com
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`mguo@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Spotify USA Inc.
`
`Eric A. Buresh, Esquire
`Michelle L. Marriott, Esquire
`Mark C. Lang, Esquire
`Erise IP, P.A.
`6201 College Boulevard, Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`michelle.marriott@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Reloaded Games, Inc.
`
`Clement S. Roberts, Esquire
`Alex J. Feerst, Esquire
`Durie Tangri LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3007
`croberts@durietangri.com
`afeerst@durietangri.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant SG Interactive, Inc.
`
`01:15534595.1
`
`3
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27 Filed 05/30/14 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 536
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`Michael S. Dowler, Esquire
`Shane A. Nelson, Esquire
`Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP
`5847 San Felipe, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77018
`mike@parklegal.com
`shane@parklegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Kontiki, Inc.
`
`Benjamin S. Lin, Esquire
`Matthew H. Poppe, Esquire
`Gabriel M. Ramsey, Esquire
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`2050 Main Street, Sutie 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`blin@orrick.com
`mpoppe@orrick.com
`gramsey@orrick.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant NC Interactive, LLC
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
` TAYLOR, LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Monté T. Squire
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Monté T. Squire (No. 4764)
`Gregory J. Brodzik (No. 5722)
`1000 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`msquire@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`01:15534595.1
`
`4
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27-1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 537
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-178-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-179-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-180-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-183-RGA
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`KOG GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`NEXON AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ONNET USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01:15528980.1
`
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27-1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 538
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TURBINE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SPOTIFY USA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-184-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-808-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-826-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-827-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01:15528980.1
`
`2
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27-1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 539
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-828-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-914-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-1205-RGA
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SG INTERACTIVE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`KONTIKI, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NC INTERACTIVE, LLC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S LOCAL RULE 7.1.1 STATEMENT
`
`The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.1, prior to filing
`
`
`
`this Motion, Plaintiff made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with Defendants regarding the
`
`matters set forth in the Motion and all Defendants indicated that they oppose the Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`01:15528980.1
`
`3
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00827-RGA Document 27-1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 540
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`Brian A. Carpenter
`Eric W. Buether
`Christopher M. Joe
`Michael D. Ricketts
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4750
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 446-1273
`Eric.Buether@BJCIPlaw.com
`Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com
`Chris.Joe@BJCIPlaw.com
`Mickey.Ricketts@BJCIPlaw.com
`
` Dated: May 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Monté T. Squire
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Monté T. Squire (No. 4764)
`Gregory J. Brodzik (No. 5722)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`msquire@ycst.com
`gbrodzik@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC
`
`
`
`01:15528980.1
`
`4
`
`(cid:51)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`