• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
228 results

Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 5:19-cv-04133, California Northern District Court (July 18, 2019)
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED, PROTO, PRVADR, REFDIS
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 7412537
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
69204977412537
Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
Counter Claimant Acceleration Bay LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC

Docket IPR2017-01600, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 16, 2017)
Lynne Pettigrew, Marc Hoff, Sally Medley, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6910069
Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC
Petitioner Bungie, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket IPR2016-00726, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 12, 2016)
Lynne Pettigrew, Sally Medley, William Fink, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6910069
Petitioner ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
Patent Owner Acceleration Bay LLC
Petitioner Rockstargames
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 80 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 53 Motion ...

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 80 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 1, 2020)
Motion to StrikeDenied
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) requests that the Court strike counterclaims-in-reply asserted by Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic Games”) in its counterclaim answer, or, in the alternative, to reclassify those counterclaims-in-reply as amendments to the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense and “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ.
Acceleration Bay argues that Epic Games seeks an end-run around rules governing availability of inter partes review (“IPR”) by bringing its patent invalidity claims as counterclaims-in-reply.
In order to fulfill its role of streamlining invalidity proceedings, Congress limited a party’s ability to seek an IPR after commencement of civil litigation in two ways.
Acceleration Bay now argues that the Court has the sole power to prevent Epic Games from benefiting from an apparent loophole in the IPR statutory scheme.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 53 MOTION to Strike 45 Answer to to CounterClaim Counterclaims-In-Reply filed by Acceleration ...

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 53 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 17, 2019)
Motion to Strike
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard by the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, United States District Court of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC will and hereby does move the court for an order granting Acceleration Bay’s Motion to Strike Epic Games, Inc.’s Counterclaims-in-Reply.
To the contrary, its infringement counterclaims were only a small subset of the non-infringement claims Epic Games asserted in its complaint.
In its answer, Epic Games included six purported “counterclaims-in-reply” seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity for each of the Asserted Patents (the “Invalidity Counterclaims-in-Reply”).
The Invalidity Counterclaims-in-Reply are not directed to any new material in Acceleration Bay’s Counterclaims, and Epic Games could have included them as affirmative claims in its complaint.
Epic Games appears to be attempting to evade this statutory scheme by withholding its invalidity claims from its complaint and characterizing them as Counterclaims-in-Reply.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jul. 18, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 49

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 49 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 47

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 47 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 3, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>