• 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 COMPLAINT against Acceleration Bay LLC ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-13531811

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jul. 18, 2019)
Complaint
Client-server middleware systems where a server coordinates the communications between the various clients who are sharing the information existed and were in public use prior to the alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents.
Defendant Acceleration, upon information and belief, is a Delaware limited liability company, which has at all times represented that it has a principal place of business within the Northern District of California.
Presently, Acceleration’s website states that its principal and only place of business is located at 951 Mariners Island Blvd, San Mateo, California, 94404.
Acceleration has established minimum contacts with the forum and the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the right to challenge prudential standing, Plaintiff brings this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it and the Accused Products do not infringe any of the Asserted Patents.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 49 Proposed Order re 44 Joint Case Management Statement per Court Order at 12/2/2019 CMC by Epic ...

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 49 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)
After meeting and conferring, the parties intend to file a stipulated Protective Order by the date shown in § XVII, Exhibit A. 6.
After meeting and conferring, the parties intend to file a stipulated ESI Order by the date shown in § XVII, Exhibit A. 7.
The Court will resolve any disputes regarding expert reports or depositions at a CMC to be held after the issuance of a claim construction order.
3-8 Parties to file Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement including citations to evidence (intrinsic and/or extrinsic) Court-ordered Date
One month after the latter of the Markman decision or the close of fact discovery Within 14 days after Acceleration Bay narrows its asserted claims
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 47 STIPULATION of Partial Dismissal filed by Epic Games, Inc., Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 47 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 3, 2019)
EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff,
In order to narrow the disputes between the parties and to help streamline discovery, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) hereby stipulate to a partial dismissal of this action.
Epic agrees that it will not challenge the validity or enforceability of any claims in the asserted patents other than the Asserted Claims in any proceeding, including inter partes review proceedings.
As part of this stipulation, the parties have also agreed that the only Epic product accused of infringement is Fortnite and hereby stipulate that any infringement or non-infringement claims with respect to any other past or present Epic product (but not future Epic products) are dismissed with prejudice.
The parties agree that this stipulated dismissal will not be used to argue in this or any future proceeding that other Epic products are non-infringing or non-infringing alternatives, or
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 >>