Search court records on patent:(6910069) - party John Phillips, page 9

No. 309 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 12

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 309 (D.Del. Nov. 7, 2017)

Activision’s motion is based upon its conclusion that Plaintiff’s expert reports contain infringement contentions that had not previously been disclosed, allegedly in violation of prior orders of the Special Master.

It is hard to fault with the expert’s use of cross referencing, in light of the number of games, extensive source code and over 100 elements involved in the various patents at issue in this litigation.

The Special Master wishes that Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses, as to its contentions, would have been more complete at an earlier stage in this litigation, but there is not convincing evidence of any bad faith by Plaintiff.

In addition, Dr. Meyer through the expert report of Dr. Valerdi, offers an allegedly new theory that the cost of re-writing the source code to avoid any potential infringement would be billions of dollars.

According to Plaintiff, Defendants invalidity contentions made no attempt to explain the basis for purported lack of written description, definiteness or enablement for any claim element upon which Dr. Karger opines.

Cite Document

Analyze

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

No. 361 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 13

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 361 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)

Plaintiff argues that it has been prejudiced and will be subject to more prejudice if the Alagar prior art is not dismissed because of the delay by the Defendants and the schedule to present expert reports.

However, Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures in the few months leading up to the fact discovery cut-off date put pressures on the Defendants to amend their invalidity contentions, including prior art references.

The motion concerns documents that Plaintiff provided to Hamilton Capital and/or its counsel, Reed Smith, during their negotiation of a litigation financing agreement in 2014 and 2015.

Defendants maintain that the documents sought are clearly relevant to issues such as patent valuation, damages, royalty rates and Plaintiff’s status as an operating company.

Plaintiff also represented in oral argument at the Hearing that there was an understanding of confidentiality between the two law firms as to the documents provided in Hamilton Capital’s due diligence.

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. 327 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 13

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 327 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)

Plaintiff argues that it has been prejudiced and will be subject to more prejudice if the Alagar prior art is not dismissed because of the delay by the Defendants and the schedule to present expert reports.

However, Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures in the few months leading up to the fact discovery cut-off date put pressures on the Defendants to amend their invalidity contentions, including prior art references.

The motion concerns documents that Plaintiff provided to Hamilton Capital and/or its counsel, Reed Smith, during their negotiation of a litigation financing agreement in 2014 and 2015.

Defendants maintain that the documents sought are clearly relevant to issues such as patent valuation, damages, royalty rates and Plaintiff’s status as an operating company.

Plaintiff also represented in oral argument at the Hearing that there was an understanding of confidentiality between the two law firms as to the documents provided in Hamilton Capital’s due diligence.

Cite Document

Analyze