To: Global IP Law Group, LLC, 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL 60603 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ✔ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Attachment A. Place: Winston & Strawn LLP, c/o Michael A. Tomasulo 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Date and Time: 03/08/2016 5:00 pm Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study that was not requested by a party.

If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.

The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.

“Accused Products” shall mean any product or service manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States by or on behalf of any Defendants that Acceleration Bay alleges infringes the Asserted Patents.

v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-228-RGA; Acceleration Bay LLC.

v. Electronic Arts Inc., Civil Action No. 15-282-RGA; Acceleration Bay LLC.

v. Take- Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 15-311-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Subsequent to the February 12, 2016 discovery conference in the above-referenced actions, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has been retained by Hamilton Capital XXI LLC (“Hamilton Capital”) to respond to Defendants’ subpoenas in these matters.

Hamilton Capital hereby notifies the Court that it objects to the production of the loan agreement on the same grounds asserted by Acceleration Bay, including that the loan agreement is not relevant to any claim or defense in these cases.

Notwithstanding and without waiver of these objections and objections to any further discovery by Defendants, Hamilton Capital will not seek to disturb the Court’s ruling that Acceleration Bay will only produce the loan agreement in the Court-approved redacted form.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that prior to 6 p.m. on February 18, 2016, true and correct copies of the following documents were served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated:

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, Defendants have provided extensive discovery regarding the structure and operation of the network architecture for multiplayer modes of the Accused Products, including—as Plaintiff points out—

Instead of answering, Plaintiff stated that it “will provide disclosures related to the subject matter of this Interrogatory pursuant to the scheduling order in this action.” DX12 at 18.

Courts have repeatedly rejected in patent cases motions to compel production of source code that is not relevant to specific issues in dispute.

Apr. 23, 2012), was whether to compel production of source code that was “several hundred thousand lines The Honorable Richard G. Andrews February 11, 2016 Page 3 long.” DX16 at 8.

Without infringement contentions that implicate foreign activity, manufacture, use, sales or importing into the U.S. of the foreign-made software copies, Plaintiff’s reliance on Carnegie Mellon cuts the other way.

Defendants have provided extensive discovery regarding the structure and operation of the network architecture for the multiplayer modes for the Accused Products, including source code regarding their online gaming features.

  Plaintiff demands that Defendants answer interrogatories and produce documents and witnesses on the unaccused “multiple server network[s]” but refuses to articulate any theory of infringement.

Rule 30(b)(6) requires a deposition notice to “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination.” However, Topics 1-19 are improperly broad, defying any possibility of preparing a witness.

Indeed, Plaintiff refuses to forego further depositions on these topics or from these witnesses, arguing that its future document collection efforts may warrant additional testimony.

Taking depositions without proper infringement contentions and before substantial completion of document production is inefficient, costly, and almost guarantees duplicative discovery.

Some time ago, Acceleration Bay identified exemplary accused networks and functionality in detail, putting Defendants on notice of the issues for the requested depositions.

The relevance of this discovery is manifest—it goes directly to the functionality 1 Acceleration Bay has already explained its theory of infringement based on “multiple server networks,” during a meet and confer with Defendants and in its Complaint.

Acceleration Bay, a small startup company, will be efficient in its discovery efforts because it has to be, and should not be forced to make agreements regarding additional depositions before Defendants have even identified the proposed witnesses for the specific topics.

Finally, there is no need for the Court to modify the Interim Protective Order to require Acceleration Bay to provide a privilege log for communications after the date of the retention of litigation counsel.

Defendants’ suggestion that irrelevant negotiation communications between Acceleration Bay and Boeing or Hamilton Capital cannot be entitled to work product or common interest privilege is incorrect.

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. 15-311-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(b), I am attaching a recent memorandum order in Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., C.A.

The February 4, 2016 decision, which excludes post-grant proceedings from the prosecution bar, is relevant to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s December 1, 2015 Order, filed on December 7, 2015 (D.I.

A copy of the memorandum order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel are available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have any questions.