Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Andrew Sommer, page 2

No. 861 JUDGMENT in favor of Acceleration Bay LLC against Activision Blizzard Inc. in the amount of ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 861 (D.Del. May. 6, 2024)

Motion for Judgment

The plaintiff is awarded $18,000,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.

The plaintiff is awarded $5,400,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.

Judgment is further entered that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for prejudgment interest in an amount to be calculated.

The parties should submit letter briefs regarding (1) the interest owed by Activision to Acceleration Bay and (2) the amount of costs owed, including whether costs should be reduced based on the other claims on which Activision prevailed before trial, see Shum, 629 F.3d at 1370 (“It was not unreasonable for the district court to consider which claims the parties respectively won, or to reduce the prevailing party’s costs award to reflect the extent of its victory (i.e., the claims it lost).”).

Any motions should be filed by June 3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 28 days after the date of entry of this judgment.

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. 848 ORDER on various evidentiary issues

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 848 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)

In Dkt. No. 762, the court reiterated that “Acceleration will not be permitted to rely on damages theories that have already been excluded,” including apportionment based on Activision’s consumer survey evidence.

Acceleration Bay’s theory is that Activision uses the infringing system, which consists of servers located entirely within the United States, to support North and South American foreign World of Warcraft players.

Their evidentiary value is limited, however, by, inter alia, the fact that patentees could artificially inflate the royalty rate by making outrageous offers.”); see also Deere & Co. v. Int’l Harvester Co., 710 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Atl.

Activision objects to the inclusion of total user numbers for World of Warcraft and Call of Duty because the court has excluded any per-user damages opinions.

Acceleration argues that the total number of users is relevant to various disputed issues, such as the overall profitability, popularity, and commercial success of the games.

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. 810 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 810 (D.Del. Apr. 12, 2024)

The parties will be jointly responsible for providing lunches to the jurors for each of the five anticipated days of the trial.

The courtroom deputy will inform the parties if additional water is required as the trial progresses.

As previously states, each trial day will run from 9:00 a.m. to between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., depending on when a convenient breaking point is reached.

I will make myself available as early as 8 a.m. each morning to address any matters that need to be resolved before the jury arrives.

Additional details regarding trial procedures will be discussed at the pretrial conference, to be held by Zoom at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 25, 2024.

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. 797 ORDER: Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc., has filed a motion seeking leave to submit a supplemental ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 797 (D.Del. Jan. 10, 2024)

On July 14, 2023, Activision requested additional briefing to resolve a claim construction issue that had arisen in this case.

I noted that in Acceleration’s view the Call of Duty game set “is configured to create an m-regular network and does not depend on any specific pre-game actions to do so.” Id. at 5.

I added that if Acceleration “is able to establish that proposition as a factual matter at trial, my disposition of the present claim construction dispute would not preclude a finding of infringement.” Id.

Following the issuance of that order, Activision filed its motion seeking to supplement Dr. Wicker’s expert report in response to the court’s claim construction.

Contrary to Activision’s contention, the court’s September 20, 2023, order did not modify the prior claim construction with respect to in-game player actions.

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. 77 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 77 (D.Del. Oct. 19, 2023)

On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay filed a complaint against Defendant Amazon Web Services, alleging infringement of the ' 344, ' 966, ' 147, ' 634, and ' 069 patents.

... [It is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."

Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.

Defendant also contends that all asserted claims of the ' 344, ' 966, ' 634, ' 147, and ' 069 patents "include substantially similar limitations requiring ' at least three,' or 'three or more,' directly connected participants."

Defendant contends that the prosecution history supports its position because Plaintiff added '" peer-to-peer connections' and other amended language to overcome rejections" during inter partes review ("IPR").

Cite Document

Analyze