Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Andrew Sommer, page 5

No. 705 MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 692 ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 705 (D.Del. Jan. 29, 2020)

Motion for ReconsiderationDenied

I concluded that, because Dr. Valerdi's opinion was "speculative, untestable, and divorced from the facts of the case," it was not a proper basis for assessing costs saved by using an accused infringing technology.

A motion for reconsideration is only appropriate to "correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest injustice in the District Court's original ruling.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that clear error led me to determine that Dr. Valerdi ' s cost savings conclusions do "not articulate any characteristics of a non-infringing network."

LLC v. Sprint Spectrum LP, 849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), ignores the fact that the expert's estimation in that case was "based on [the defendant's] particular technical requirements" as opposed to generic ones.

Plaintiff does not claim an intervening change in controlling law or that new evidence has become available since September 4, 2019 which would warrant reconsideration.

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. 737 REDACTED VERSION of 735 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 737 (D.Del. Dec. 23, 2021)

Activision’s infringing games, which have no relationship to the gamesof its competitor Take-Two, use networkstructures that are very different from those at issue in Take-Two, precluding any application of collateral estoppel, particularly on summary judgment, where Acceleration Bayis entitled to all reasonable inferences from the record.

Activision, as “[t]he proponent of claim or issue preclusion bears the burden of showing that the accused devices are essentially the sameas thosein the prior litigation.” ArcelorMittal, 908 F.3d at 1274; In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

At most, Activision’s arguments, which are contradicted by the record, highlight the material disputed factual issues that preclude summary judgment, including that Call of Dutyis configured to have an m-regular Connectivity Graph Network that is not dependent on player action.

At a minimum,this substantial evidence confirms the existence of a genuine material factual dispute, precluding summary judgment that WoW is indistinguishable from GTAandtherefore subject to collateral estoppel.

at 12 (WoW:“Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s hypothetical is at most a transient and coincidental occurrence resulting from howplayers are interacting with each other”) (citation and footnote omitted); id. at 19-20 (Destiny: “Setting an optimal number or maximum numberof neighbors does not meet this limitation”); D.I.

Cite Document

Analyze