• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 24-38 of 233 results

No. 23 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Gino Cheng - filed by Activision Blizzard Inc

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 23 (D.Del. Sep. 15, 2015)
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission pro hac vice of Gino Cheng of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071to represent defendant Electronic Arts Inc. in this matter.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion for admission pro hac vice of Gino Cheng is granted.
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of California and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.
I also certify that I am generally familiar with this Court’s Local Rules.
In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 3/25:’ 14, I further certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid E to the Clerk of Court, or, if not paid previously, the fee payment will be submitted [:1 to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 126 REDACTED VERSION of 119 Reply Brief, by Activision Blizzard Inc., 2K Sports Inc., Rockstar ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 126 (D.Del. Apr. 11, 2016)
After all, “[w]hether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license” depends “upon the legal effect of its provisions,” not a litigation- inspired declaration.
Because the court “must examine the licensing agreement to determine whether the parties intended to effect a transfer,” a “patentee’s later second thoughts are irrelevant.” Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1032 Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Walker Digital, 950 F. Supp.
While AB criticizes Defendants for not filing similar affidavits, extrin- sic evidence is not necessary to interpret a contract’s plain language, and in any event, it is AB that bears the burden of establishing its standing.
But standing “depends entirely on the putative plaintiff’s proprietary interest in the patent, not on any contractual arrangements among the parties about who may sue.” Prima Tek II v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
In Pfizer, Inc. v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing where the transferor retained, inter alia, the right to market patented products commercially in the United States, 812 F. Supp.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 124 NOTICE of Subpoena to Joseph Ward by Activision Blizzard Inc., 2K Sports Inc., Rockstar Games ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 124 (D.Del. Apr. 7, 2016)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit 1 will be served upon Joseph Ward.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 121 Letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews from Philip A. Rovner regarding request for oral ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 121 (D.Del. Mar. 31, 2016)
Courthouse 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Re: Re: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. D.
No. 15-228-RGA Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc. D.
No. 15-282-RGA Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al., D.
No. 15-311-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to D. Del.
LR 7.1.4, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC believes oral argument on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (see C.A.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 120 Letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews from Stephen J. Kraftschik regarding request for ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 120 (D.Del. Mar. 30, 2016)
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Briefing has been completed on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (see C.A.
LR 7.1.4, Defendants request oral argument on that motion.
If the Court is amenable to oral argument, and subject to the Court’s availability, Defendants respectfully suggest April 15 as a possible date for oral argument because counsel will already be in Wilmington for a hearing with Special Master Terrell on April 14.
SJK/dla cc: Clerk of Court (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail) 9937408
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 116 REDACTED VERSION of 110 Declaration of Natasha Radovsky, by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 116 (D.Del. Mar. 25, 2016)
I was personally involved with the negotiations between Acceleration Bay and Boeing over the December 10, 2014 Patent Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”).
Boeing is among the largest global aircraft manufacturers and defense contractors in the world and designs, manufactures, and sells a variety of products, including airplanes, space ' rockets, satellites and very sophisticated training simulations, as well as related services, including training.
Boeing’s simulations are very expensive and sophisticated physical devices and software used to train pilots, astronauts and military personnel.
Boeing’s simulations replicate actual conditions in an airplane cockpit or spacecraft for training purposes, and are also used to develop and test real~world aircraft and aerospace products, such as validating the performance of missile defense systems.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 114 Corrected NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC's Initial Claim Charts Pursuant ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 114 (D.Del. Mar. 22, 2016)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, prior to 6:00 p.m., on March 22, 2016, a true and correct copy of the following document was served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated:
TO SECTION 1(e) OF THE RULE 16 SCHEDULING ORDER
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 112

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 112 (D.Del. Mar. 21, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 21

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 21 (D.Del. Jul. 13, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 108

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 108 (D.Del. Mar. 18, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 105

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 105 (D.Del. Mar. 8, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 104

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 104 (D.Del. Mar. 4, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 103

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 103 (D.Del. Mar. 3, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 99

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 99 (D.Del. Feb. 25, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 97

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 97 (D.Del. Feb. 24, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 15 16 >>