This summons for (name ofindividual andtitle, zfany) was received by me on (date) [ 2/ l .

Cl I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or C!

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date A , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or , who is

M I served the summons on (name ofindividual) oflfzi /,7‘4,~f,,,;./ designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization) Sgt/\Hc€,.

do/WJ”/PM,’ Q //3‘z‘i3/‘W on(dare) 3!/lg/K ;or CI I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or Cl Other (speczfy): My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

LOCAL RlTLE 73.1 Magistrate Judges; Trial by Consent Where the parties consent, the Magistrate Judge may conduct a jury or nonjury trial in any civil action and order the entry of final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Fed. R. Civ.

(d) After the consent form has been executed and filed, the Clerk shall so advise the District Court Judge to whom the case has been assigned.

A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including a jury or nonjury trial) and to order the entry of a final judgment.

Parties' printed names Signatures ofparties or attorneys Dates IT IS ORDERED: This case is referred to a United States magistrate judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ.

A United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings and enter a final order dispositive of each motion.

I, Michael A. Tomasulo, make the following Declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:

Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the packaging for the following Accused Products for the Sony PlayStation platform.

Grand Theft Auto V Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 Destiny

Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the following documents: Exhibit CC Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics Co., No. 2015-1671, slip op.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay will serve the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit A on Bungie, LLC, 434 Kirkland Way, Kirkland WA 98033.

As written, these provisions impose undue prejudice on Plaintiff by preventing it from employing its counsel of choice, maintaining a cohesive litigation strategy, avoiding duplicated efforts and increased costs, and preparing its case for trial.

Any perceived risk to Defendants is far outweighed by the “significant” harm in denying Plaintiff the full benefit of its trial counsel in post-litigation proceedings, thereby damaging its ability to maintain a coherent legal strategy and minimize duplicative costs and efforts.

Because at least some of these schematics and descriptions of Defendants’ software are likely to be critical to Plaintiff’s burden of proving infringement, restriction of these documents – that do not contain any actual source code or programming language – from disclosure to the individuals described above severely hinders Plaintiff’s counsel from preparing this case for trial.

Such a provision will prevent Plaintiff from employing its counsel of choice, maintaining a cohesive litigation strategy, and avoiding duplicated costs and efforts, all of which are “significant” burdens this Court has previously held outweigh the associated risks to defendants.

Similarly, the Protective Order’s definition of “Restricted Confidential – Source Code Material” (¶ 1.10) is inconsistent with the Court’s own interpretation, grants an unfair advantage to Defendants in post-grant proceedings when combined with the Prosecution Bar, and will impair Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for trial through the use of experts, consultants, witnesses, vendors, and mock jurors.

The undersigned hereby certifies that copies of: (1) Defendant’s Rule 26(a) First Supplemental Initial Disclosures; and (2) Defendant’s Disclosures Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery were caused to be served on November 12, 2015 upon the following in the manner indicated: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul J. Andre, Esquire Lisa Kobialka, Esquire James R. Hannah, Esquire KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 990 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attorneys for Plaintiff Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Attorneys for Plaintiff

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that prior to 6 p.m. on February 25, 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: