UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`__________________________________________________________
`
`Before the Honorable SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS’ CONSOLIDATED
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF THE
`DEFAULT PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO SEAL PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND
`42.54
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`__________________________________________________________
`
`Before the Honorable SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS’ CONSOLIDATED
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF THE
`DEFAULT PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO SEAL PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND
`42.54
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Acceleration Bay, Inc., (“Patent Owner”) filed its Patent Owner Response
`
`(Paper 31) on July 18, 2016 and corresponding Motion for Entry of the Default
`
`Protective Order and to Seal Patent Owner Response and Certain Exhibits
`
`(collectively, the “Motion to Seal”) on July 19, 2016. Paper 35. As Patent Owner
`
`indicated in its Motion to Seal, the Patent Owner Response and certain exhibits
`
`cited therein contain highly confidential information of a third party, Boeing
`
`Company (“Boeing”). Paper 35. To protect against public disclosure of Boeing’s
`
`highly sensitive information relating to (1) licensing practices and (2) the
`
`conception and development of the subject patent, Patent Owner filed its Response
`
`and confidential exhibits in accordance with the Scheduling Order. Paper 9, A.3.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner followed the guidelines of the Scheduling Order by
`
`filing documents containing such confidential information under the appropriate
`
`availability indicator in PRPS (i.e., “Board and Parties Only”). Paper 9, A.3.
`
`Patent Owner filed all 43 remaining documents that did not concern third party
`
`confidential information as public documents.
`
`On July 26, 2016, Petitioner contacted Patent Owner regarding the Motion to
`
`Seal, requesting that Patent Owner file redacted versions of the confidential
`
`documents. The Parties subsequently met and conferred on August 2, 2016, to
`
`discuss filing redacted versions of the confidential documents. Contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s contention, Patent Owner did not represent that it “was not aware of
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`any authority requiring the filing of redacted versions of these documents.” Paper
`
`39. In fact, Patent Owner invited Petitioner to propose a procedure to resolve
`
`Petitioner’s concerns regarding the filing of redacted versions of the confidential
`
`documents, yet Petitioner never followed up. Instead, Petitioner filed its
`
`Consolidated Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Entry of the Default
`
`Protective Order and to Seal Certain Exhibits (“Opposition to the Motion to Seal”),
`
`generating unnecessary motion practice that could have, at the minimum, been
`
`resolved through an instructive call with the Board.
`
`Patent Owner understands that the Petitioner does not oppose Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Seal in its entirety, and instead requests that Patent Owner file
`
`redacted versions of the confidential documents at issue. Based on this limited
`
`Opposition to the Motion to Seal, and to the extent the Board finds that Patent
`
`Owner must file redacted versions of the confidential documents, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests the Board’s guidance on the proper procedure for filing such
`
`redacted documents, particularly with the new PTAB E2E System.
`
`Dated: September 16, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`Michael Lee (Reg. No. 63,941)
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`Tel: 650.752.1700
`Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Shannon Hedvat (Reg. No. 68,417)
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.9185
`Fax: 212.715.8385
`
`
`
`
`
`(IPR2015-01972)
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Consolidated
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Entry of the Default Protective Order and
`
`to Seal Certain Exhibits under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54 was served on
`
`September 16, 2016, by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing
`
`System as well as delivering via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner and Joinder Petitioner:
`
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3948
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`Activision_Blizzard_PTAB_Service@ropesgray.com
`
`Matthew R. Shapiro
`Joseph E. Van Tassel
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`matthew.shapiro@ropesgray.com
`joseph.vantassel@ropesgray.com
`
`Andrew Thomases
`James Davis, Jr.
`Daniel W. Richards
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Ave., 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-01972 (U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344)
`
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`daniel.w.richards@ropesgray.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
