`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`On April 22, 2016, Bungie, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Bungie”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–12 and 16–19 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1 (Ex. 1101, “the ’344 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`On the same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), seeking to join this proceeding with Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al.
`
`v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, Case IPR2015-01972 (“the 1972 IPR”). Paper 3
`
`(“Mot.”). In the 1972 IPR, which was requested by Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports,
`
`Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (“the Activision Petitioners”), we instituted
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent, but we did
`
`not institute inter partes review of claims 12–15 of the ’344 patent. See
`
`1972 IPR, slip op. at 18, 20, 23 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2016) (Paper 8).
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response to Bungie’s Petition. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`
`also filed an Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Paper 9 (“Opp.”).
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent,
`
`and we grant Bungie’s Motion for Joinder. We exercise our discretion,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), to deny institution of inter partes review as to
`
`claim 12.
`
`B. The ’344 Patent
`
`The ’344 patent relates to a “broadcast technique in which a broadcast
`
`channel overlays a point-to-point communications network.” Ex. 1101, 4:3–
`
`5. The broadcast technique overlays the underlying network system with a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`graph of point-to-point connections between host computers or nodes
`
`through which the broadcast channel is implemented. Id. at 4:23–26.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’344 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a broadcast channel represented by a “4-regular, 4-
`
`connected” graph. Id. at 4:48–49. The graph of Figure 1 is “4-regular”
`
`because each node is connected to exactly four other nodes (e.g., node A is
`
`connected to nodes E, F, G, and H). Id. at 4:38–39, 4:49–53. A node in a 4-
`
`regular graph can only be disconnected if all four of the connections to its
`
`neighbors fail. Id. at 4:39–42. Moreover, the graph of Figure 1 is “4-
`
`connected” because it would take the failure of four nodes to divide the
`
`graph into two separate sub-graphs (i.e., two broadcast channels). Id. at
`
`4:42–47.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`To broadcast a message over the network, an originating computer
`
`sends the message to each of its four neighbors using the point-to-point
`
`connections. Id. at 4:30–32. Each computer that receives the message sends
`
`it to its other neighbors, such that the message is propagated to each
`
`computer in the network. Id. at 4:32–38. The minimum number of
`
`connections needed to traverse any two computers in the network is known
`
`as the “distance” between them, while the maximum of the distances in the
`
`network is called the “diameter” of the broadcast channel. Id. at 4:57–5:3.
`
`In Figure 1, the diameter is 2 because a message originating at any node
`
`(e.g., A) traverses no more than 2 connections to reach every other node.
`
`Id. at 5:3–6.
`
`In one embodiment described in the ’344 patent, a distributed game
`
`environment is implemented using broadcast channels. Id. at 16:30–31.
`
`Each player’s computer executes a game application program, and a player
`
`joins a game by connecting to the broadcast channel on which the game is
`
`played. Id. at 16:31–36. Each time a player takes an action in the game, a
`
`message representing that action is broadcast on the game’s broadcast
`
`channel. Id. at 16:36–38.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Among the claims challenged by Petitioner, claims 1, 16, and 18 are
`
`independent. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed subject matter,
`
`and claim 12, which depends from claim 1, are reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer network for providing a game environment
`for a plurality of participants, each participant having
`connections to at least three neighbor participants, wherein an
`originating participant sends data to the other participants by
`sending the data through each of its connections to its neighbor
`participants and wherein each participant sends data that it
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor
`participants, further wherein the network is m-regular, where m
`is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant
`and further wherein the number of participants is at least two
`greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph.
`
`12. The computer network of claim 1 wherein the
`interconnections of participants form a broadcast channel for a
`game of interest.
`
`Id. at 19:26–37, 30:3–6.
`
`D. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following pending judicial
`
`matters as relating to the ’344 patent: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision
`
`Blizzard, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015);
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA
`
`(D. Del., filed Mar. 30, 2015); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two
`
`Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D. Del., filed
`
`Apr. 13, 2015). Pet. 4; Mot. 2; Paper 8, 1. Petitioner indicates it is not a
`
`party to the underlying district court proceedings. Pet. 4; Mot. 2.
`
`In the 1972 IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–11
`
`and 16–19 of the ’344 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Shoubridge.1 Recently, in IPR2016-00931 (“the 931 IPR”),
`
`we denied another petition filed by the Activision Petitioners directed to
`
`claim 12 of the ’344 patent. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. v. Acceleration
`
`Bay, LLC, Case IPR2016-00931 (PTAB June 23, 2016) (Paper 13) (“931-
`
`Decision”).
`
`
`
`1 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMS. CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997)
`(Ex. 1105) (“Shoubridge”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`In addition, claims 1–12 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent are the subject
`
`of inter partes review in Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. v. Acceleration Bay,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2015-01970 (“the 1970 IPR”). Bungie has been joined as a
`
`petitioner in the 1970 IPR. See Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2016-00933 (PTAB June 23, 2016) (Paper 11).
`
`The 1972 IPR
`
`As noted above, in the 1972 IPR we instituted inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent, but we did not institute inter
`
`partes review of claims 12–15 of the ’344 patent. 1972 IPR, Paper 8
`
`(“1972-Decision”). In the 1972 IPR, the Activision Petitioners contended
`
`that claim 12 would have been obvious over Shoubridge and DirectPlay.2
`
`See 1972 IPR, Paper 2 (“1972-Pet.”). As summarized in the 1972-Decision,
`
`Shoubridge models a communication network as a graph in which each node
`
`serves as a source of user traffic entering the network, where traffic can be
`
`sent to the other nodes in the network. 1972-Decision 12 (citing Ex. 1105,3
`
`2). Shoubridge describes a 64 node network with connectivity of degree 4
`
`modeled as a large, regular graph and routing protocols known as
`
`constrained flooding and minimum hop routing. Id. Ultimately, Shoubridge
`
`proposes a hybrid routing strategy, which may rely on a combination of
`
`constrained flooding and minimum hop routing depending on whether valid
`
`routing information exists. Id.
`
`
`
`2 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX (Microsoft Press,
`1998) (Ex. 1103) (“DirectPlay”).
`3 Shoubridge and DirectPlay have the same exhibit numbers in the 1972 IPR
`and in this proceeding.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`In the 1972 IPR, the Activision Petitioners argued that Shoubridge
`
`discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 1972-Pet. 28–34. For claim 12,
`
`the Activision Petitioners relied on DirectPlay, which describes an
`
`application program interface for providing medium-independent
`
`communications for multiplayer games over networks, to teach the recited
`
`“computer network of claim 1 wherein the interconnections of participants
`
`form a broadcast channel for a game of interest.” Id. at 42–43. The
`
`Activision Petitioners contended it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to apply Shoubridge’s teaching of flooding over a
`
`network to the gaming environment taught by DirectPlay to achieve
`
`DirectPlay’s objective of high reliability. Id. at 23–27. However, we
`
`determined the obviousness analysis in the petition to be insufficient. 1972-
`
`Decision 21–23. Accordingly, we found the Activision Petitioners did not
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in their challenge against
`
`claim 12. Id.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Bungie asserts that claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Shoubridge.4 Pet. 18–32. As noted, this is the
`
`same ground, and these are the same claims, for which we instituted inter
`
`partes review in the 1972 IPR.
`
`Bungie also asserts that claim 12 of the ’344 patent would have been
`
`obvious over Shoubridge. Pet. 32–36. Bungie describes this asserted
`
`
`
`4 Bungie articulates this ground as obviousness based on “Shoubridge and
`the knowledge of a POSITA.” Pet. 14. Because obviousness is determined
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we refer to this
`ground simply as obviousness over Shoubridge.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`ground as “substantially similar” to the Activision Petitioners’ challenge to
`
`claim 12 as obvious over Shoubridge in the 931 IPR. Id. at 6 n.1. In the
`
`931 IPR, we denied inter partes review of claim 12 on this ground.
`
`931-Decision 8–11.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claims 1–11 and 16–19
`
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts that claims 1–11 and 16–19 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Shoubridge, i.e., the same ground of
`
`unpatentability on which we instituted review in the 1972 IPR. Compare
`
`Pet. 14–32, with 1972-Decision 23. Indeed, the Petition filed in this
`
`proceeding is “practically a copy” of the petition in the 1972 IPR “with
`
`respect to its instituted ground, including the same analysis of the prior art
`
`and expert testimony.” Mot. 2. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does
`
`not address Petitioner’s assertion that claims 1–11 and 16–19 would have
`
`been obvious over Shoubridge. See Prelim. Resp. 1.
`
`For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the
`
`1972 IPR, we determine that the information presented in Bungie’s Petition
`
`shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 would have been obvious over Shoubridge. See
`
`1972-Decision 11–18. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 on the asserted ground of obviousness over
`
`Shoubridge.
`
`B. Claim 12
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claim 12 would have been obvious over
`
`Shoubridge. Pet. 32–36. As a threshold matter, Patent Owner argues that
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`the Board should decline to institute review with respect to claim 12 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “because the Petition recycles substantially the same
`
`prior art as well as substantially the same arguments that were already
`
`presented to the Patent Office.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Petitioner does not
`
`address the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to this proposed ground.
`
`Institution of inter partes review is subject to the Board’s discretion.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). In particular, “[i]n determining whether to
`
`institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31,
`
`the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`
`were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Having considered the parties’ contentions, we determine the asserted
`
`ground challenging claim 12 as unpatentable over Shoubridge relies on the
`
`same prior art and substantially the same arguments as the petition in the
`
`1972 IPR. Although Shoubridge alone was not raised as a basis for
`
`challenging claim 12 in the 1972 IPR, it was raised as a basis for challenging
`
`claim 1, from which claim 12, among other claims, depends. 1972-Decision
`
`11–12. Moreover, the claim mapping provided for claim 12 in the instant
`
`petition relies on nearly identical disclosures in Shoubridge as relied upon
`
`for claim 1 in the 1972 petition. Compare Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1105,
`
`2 ¶ 11–3 ¶ 1) (mapping Shoubridge’s disclosures of broadcasting a user
`
`packet on outgoing links to claim 12’s “broadcast channel for a game of
`
`interest”), with 1972-Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1105, 2 ¶ 11–3 ¶ 1) (mapping
`
`Shoubridge’s disclosures of broadcasting a user packet on outgoing links to
`
`claim 1’s “send[ing] data to the other participants”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`Our determination that Petitioner’s challenge to claim 12 relies on the
`
`same prior art and substantially the same arguments that were presented in
`
`the 1972 IPR is consistent with our decision in the 931 IPR, in which we
`
`reached the same conclusion with respect to the Activision Petitioners’
`
`substantially similar challenge to claim 12. See 931-Decision 9. We also
`
`noted in the 931 IPR that the Activision Petitioners had presented no
`
`persuasive reason why claim 12 could not have been challenged based on
`
`Shoubridge alone in the 1972 IPR. Id. at 9–10.
`
`As in the 931 IPR, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny
`
`institution of inter partes review of claim 12 on the asserted ground of
`
`obviousness over Shoubridge, which relies on the same prior art and
`
`substantially the same arguments previously presented to the Office. In the
`
`931 IPR we provided a further reason for exercising our discretion not to
`
`institute review of claim 12 based on Shoubridge—the parallel challenge to
`
`claim 12 based on DirectPlay and Lin5 in the 1970 IPR. See id. at 11 (citing
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., Case IPR2014-00436,
`
`slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (Paper 17) (informative); Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. v. Affinity Labs of Tex. LLC, Case IPR2015-00820, slip op. at 4–5
`
`(PTAB May 15, 2015) (Paper 12)). As noted above, we granted Bungie’s
`
`motion for joinder with the 1970 IPR, and therefore Bungie already is a
`
`petitioner in an instituted review of claim 12.
`
`
`
`5 Meng-Jang Lin, et al., Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low
`Message Overhead and High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small
`Networks, Technical Report No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego,
`1999) (Ex. 1104 (Exhibit B)) (“Lin”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`One additional factor weighing in favor of denying institution with
`
`respect to claim 12 under § 325(d) is that Bungie indicates it is not a party to
`
`any district court proceeding involving the ’344 patent. Pet. 4. This
`
`suggests Bungie is not facing a bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Based on the
`
`current record, we are aware of no reason Bungie would be unable to file
`
`another petition challenging claim 12 should it be dissatisfied with the
`
`ultimate determination regarding the patentability of claim 12 in the existing
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Grant of Motion for Joinder
`
`The Petition and Motion for Joinder in this proceeding were accorded
`
`a filing date of April 22, 2016. See Paper 4. Thus, Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder is timely because joinder was requested no later than one month
`
`after the institution date of the 1972 IPR, i.e., March 24, 2016. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review
`
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response
`under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review under section 314.
`
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate;
`
`(2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`
`(3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for
`
`the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-
`
`00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`
`As discussed above, the Petition in this case asserts the same
`
`invalidity ground with respect to claims 1–11 and 16–19 on which we
`
`instituted review in the 1972 IPR. See Mot. 1–2, 5. Bungie also relies on
`
`the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Activision
`
`Petitioners. See id. at 6. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the
`
`petition filed by the Activision Petitioners with respect to the ground on
`
`which review was instituted in the 1972 IPR. See id. at 6–7. Thus, this inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent does not present
`
`any ground or matter not already at issue in the 1972 IPR. Patent Owner
`
`does not oppose Bungie’s Motion for Joinder with respect to the asserted
`
`ground of obviousness of claims 1–11 and 16–19 over Shoubridge. See
`
`Opp. 3 (opposing joinder only with respect to claim 12).
`
`If joinder is granted, Bungie anticipates participating in the
`
`proceeding in a limited capacity absent termination of at least one of the
`
`Activision Petitioners as a party. Id. at 12. Bungie agrees to “coordinate
`
`with the [Activision] Petitioners to consolidate filings, manage questioning
`
`at depositions, manage presentations at the hearing, ensure that briefing and
`
`discovery occur within the time normally allotted, and avoid redundancies.”
`
`Id. at 13. Bungie also states it “is willing to take a ‘backseat’ role to the
`
`[Activision] Petitioners, in which it would not file any separate papers
`
`without consultation with the [Activision] Petitioners and prior authorization
`
`from the Board.” Id. Because Bungie expects to participate only in a
`
`limited capacity, Bungie submits that joinder will not impact the trial
`
`schedule for the 1972 IPR. Id. at 12.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`We agree with Petitioner that joinder with the 1972 IPR is appropriate
`
`under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`V. ORDER
`
` ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted in IPR2016-00934
`
`as to claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent on the ground of obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shoubridge;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to this ground, and no
`
`other ground is authorized;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-
`
`01972 is granted, and Bungie, Inc. is joined as a petitioner in IPR2015-
`
`01972;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2016-00934 is terminated under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings shall be made only in IPR2015-
`
`01972;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the grounds for
`
`trial in IPR2015-01972 remain unchanged;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the modified
`
`Scheduling Order in place for IPR2015-01972 (Paper 13) remains
`
`unchanged;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2015-01972, the Activision
`
`Petitioners and Bungie will file each paper, except for a motion that does not
`
`involve the other party, as a single, consolidated filing, subject to the page
`
`limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify each such filing as a
`
`consolidated filing;
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that for any consolidated filing, if Bungie
`
`wishes to file an additional paper to address points of disagreement with the
`
`Activision Petitioners, Bungie must request authorization from the Board to
`
`file a motion for additional pages, and no additional paper may be filed
`
`unless the Board grants such a motion;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Activision Petitioners and Bungie
`
`shall collectively designate attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of
`
`any witness produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness
`
`produced by the Activision Petitioners and Bungie, within the timeframes set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) or agreed to by the parties;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Activision Petitioners and Bungie
`
`shall collectively designate attorneys to present a consolidated argument at
`
`the oral hearing, if requested and scheduled;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-01972 shall
`
`be changed to reflect joinder of Bungie as a petitioner in accordance with the
`
`attached example; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2015-01972.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah
`Michael Lee
`Shannon Hedvat
`Jeffrey Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.