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

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

Docket 1:15-cv-00228, Delaware District Court (Mar. 11, 2015)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Special Master Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr.
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
Defendant Activision Blizzard Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 173 ORDER Denying Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (see D.I. 151 in 15-cv-282-RGA, 153 in 15-cv-311-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 173 (D.Del. Jan. 10, 2017)
Motion for Attorney FeesDenied
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 15-311-RGA For the reasons discussed in open court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Ill Ill The following motions: C.A.
!._ day of January, 2017.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 153 ORDER Granting MOTION to Dismiss (D.I. 100 in C.A. 15-228-RGA, D.I. 96 in C.A. 15-282-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 153 (D.Del. Jun. 20, 2016)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)Granted
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
In light of the Court's previous Memorandum (C.A.
145), filed on June 3, 2016, and Plaintiffs letter (C.A.
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing (C.A.
Entered this Jvo day of June, 2016.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 151 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 151 (D.Del. Jun. 6, 2016)
In light of Judge Andrews' Opinion and Order in these actions, as provided today by Mr. Blumenfeld, I am ordering that the June 8, 2016 hearing be cancelled.
The parties can advise me if these actions are ultimately dismissed or if Boeing joins in the cases.
If the latter occurs, we might have a conference to discuss how to proceed with any discovery issues.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 150 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 150 (D.Del. Jun. 6, 2016)
Today defendants have requested an 'emergency' conference tomorrow to postpone the scheduled hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel discovery.
For the reasons below, I decline to hold such emergency conference and require defendants to respond as follows: I was advised on May 20th that the parties had agreed on a schedule for briefing and hearing plaintiff's motion.
Nevertheless, if defendants sincerely believe that progress can be made to resolve some or all of the issues in plaintiff's motion, I would be pleased to learn that.
Nothing herein should preclude defendants from raising in their brief the points and issues in their e mail today if plaintiff won't participate in a meaningful 'meet and confer'.
Finally, defendants now or in their brief need to respond to the legal basis for plaintiff's motion, which is that the George-Pacific case makes much of the sought discovery relevant to calculating damages, assuming that liability is determined.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 148 MEMORANDUM regarding MOTION to Dismiss (D.I. 100 in C.A. 15-228-RGA, D.I. 96 in C.A. 15-282-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 148 (D.Del. Jun. 3, 2016)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)
Dev., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Cal., Inc., 248 F.3d 1333, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Just as "a patentee must be joined in any lawsuit involving his or her patent, there must be joinder of any exclusive licensee:" (citing Indep.
"[W]hether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license does not depend upon the name by which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its provisions:" Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A., 944 F.2d 870, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Boeing Field of Use also includes: military or national security uses (or a simulation under the auspices ofa government); "marine, rail, and multi-modal transportation;" "solar energy technology;" and "information surveillance and reconnaissance."
Gamco, 504 F.3d at 1278.7 Therefore, since Boeing's absence would place on Defendants a "substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations," it would be a required party to this action.
7 AB insists that since AB '"will be a party to any suit that [Boeing] initiates, it will be collaterally estopped from re-litigating an issue that received a final judgment on the merits,' removing any risk of inconsistent litigation."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 149

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 149 (D.Del. Jun. 3, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 129

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 129 (D.Del. Apr. 19, 2016)

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