Search court records on patent:(6910069)

No. 863 ORDER memorializing the claim construction ruling made at the charge conference

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 863 (D.Del. May. 8, 2024)

Acceleration Bay argued that Rufino “does not address receiving disconnect messages in the context of maintaining an m-regular non-complete topology, as required by claim 1.” Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR 2016-00747 at 25.

For the foregoing reasons, the statements made by Acceleration Bay in the inter partes review proceedings do not amount to the sort of “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer necessary for prosecution history estoppel to attach.

Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Aylus, 856 F.3d 1353 (considering statements made by a patent owner during an inter partes review proceeding for purposes of prosecution disclaimer).

That statement, however, was made in the general background section of the order, in which Judge Andrews was describing the nature of the claims of four different patents, the other three of which called for an “incomplete” or “non-complete” m-regular network.

For the foregoing reasons, I construed claim 1 as applying to any m-regular graph, regardless of its completeness, and I therefore precluded Activision from arguing a contrary construction to the jury.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Bryson
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Allen M. -SM- Terrell, JR.
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 861 JUDGMENT in favor of Acceleration Bay LLC against Activision Blizzard Inc. in the amount of ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 861 (D.Del. May. 6, 2024)

Motion for Judgment

The plaintiff is awarded $18,000,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.

The plaintiff is awarded $5,400,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.

Judgment is further entered that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for prejudgment interest in an amount to be calculated.

The parties should submit letter briefs regarding (1) the interest owed by Activision to Acceleration Bay and (2) the amount of costs owed, including whether costs should be reduced based on the other claims on which Activision prevailed before trial, see Shum, 629 F.3d at 1370 (“It was not unreasonable for the district court to consider which claims the parties respectively won, or to reduce the prevailing party’s costs award to reflect the extent of its victory (i.e., the claims it lost).”).

Any motions should be filed by June 3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 28 days after the date of entry of this judgment.

Cite Document

Analyze