It informed the PTAB “that subsequent to th[e] [Delaware court’s] Order, Acceleration Bay and the Boeing Company entered into an Amended and Restated Patent Purchase Agreement resolving all of the issues identified by the District Court in its June 3, 2016 Order.” Lin Decl. Ex. 32.

AB indicated it would “now” refile complaints against the video game companies, and asked the court to reserve the existing trial dates, “as only minor adjustments to the schedule will be necessary in view of the resolution of this standing issue within two weeks of the Court’s Order.” Id. AB also requested the 2015 Delaware actions be dismissed without prejudice.

The video game companies contend they sought declaratory judgments upon learning AB rightfully owned the patents, and they submit their suits were prompted by “significant uncertainty” because the Delaware court “did not impose any obligation on Acceleration Bay at all and certainly did not set a deadline for filing new suits.” Opp’n at 15:3–5, 16 n.16.

Oct. 11, 2013), another case upon which the video game companies rely, the court agreed the declaratory judgment action was anticipatory but found that sole factor did not warrant transfer in light of additional considerations of judicial efficiency.

The district judge and special master, however, held six hearings and issued ten orders covering scheduling, source code, infringement contentions, third party discovery, depositions, interrogatories, testing data, and standing.

Section 2.1 grants Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. a "nonexclusive, nontransferable license under the [asserted patents] within the Field of Use .... " (D.I.

With these principles in mind, the key question in determining whether WiA V has 3 As a side note, Defendants assert they have actual licenses (Tr. 37:2-12), and have produced them.

I also think, by the way the language was drafted, that Boeing surrendered its right to enforce the patent with respect to Sony's potential licensees within the Field of Use.

This citation is not persuasive for this proposition because it does not mention, let alone discuss, WiA V. Alternatively, even if this was not enough to defeat standing, Defendants also have the ability to obtain a retroactive license from Sony.

The license agreement evinces the intent to give Sony the rights necessary to protect their "Third Party developers, publishers, Affiliates and end-users of Products" within the Field of Use.

Defendants request a delay in the schedule.

The request is that the schedule be adjusted so that everything "proceed[ s] in an orderly fashion after claim construction is complete."

I would give Defendants more latitude ifl thought the excessive amount of claim construction was Plaintiffs responsibility, but I am pretty sure that, on claim construction at least, it is Defendants who have said that every last word in the claims needs to be construed.

Defendants cannot have their cake and eat it too.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 day of September 2017. '

I am asked to sustain objections to a procedural ruling of the Special Master.

The Special Master set a page limit on expert reports.

The limit set by the Special Master was 2500 pages.

To put this in perspective, War and Peace, one of the longest works of fiction ever published, is 1440 pages when translated to English.

I also note that it is routine to put limits on the length of a trial; I do not think it is unreasonable to put a limit on the length of expert reports.

Even if there had been communications between the parties, Activision states that its representative was not authorized to modify the Protective Order with regard to the number of pages to be printed.

Plaintiffs motion seeks to compel a supplemental response to lnterrogatory No. 4, regarding Defendants’ damages theories and the facts upon which they will rely.

***** Plaintiffs fourth motion is described as precluding Defendants from relying on belatedly disclosed invalidity materials and witnesses, and quashing Defendants’ untimely subpoena to Microsoft.

Similarly, as to Plaintiffs motion to preclude testimony from Messrs. Terrano and Kegel, there is evidence that they were identified long before the fact discovery cut-off.

It is Ordered that Plaintiffs motion to preclude Defendants from relying on belatedly disclosed invalidity materials and witnesses and quashing Defendants” subpoena to Microsoft is

The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.I.

Patent"), 6, 732, 14 7 (the"' 147 Patent"), and 6,920,497 (the "'497 Patent") set forth below are construed as follows: "means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" '344/13 Function: "Identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest" "means for identifying a game of interest includes accessing a web server that maps games to corresponding broadcast channel" "means for identifying a broadcast channel for a topic of interest" '966/13 Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in the '344 Patent at 16:57-17:1, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for the game of interest.

'344/14 Function: Identifying a game of interest includes accessing a web server that maps games to corresponding broadcast channel Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in '344 Patent at 16:57-17:1, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for the game of interest Function: Identifying a broadcast channel for a topic of interest Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in steps described in '966 Patent at 16:41-51, which involves connecting to a web server and downloading a broadcaster component that identifies the broadcast channel for a topic of interest

' "means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel" '344/13 '966113 Function: "Connecting to the identified broadcast channel" '344 Structure: A processor programmed to perform at least one of the algorithms disclosed in steps 801 to 809 in Figure 8 and described in the '344 Patent at 17:67- 19:34, 19:66-20:44, 21 :4-53, 22:61-24:6, andFigures9, 11, 13, 14, 17and 18,or Figures 3A and 3B and described in the '344 Patent at 5:33-55, which involves invoking the connecting routine with the identified broadcast channel's type and instance, connecting to the broadcast.

Function: "Selecting the call-in port of the identified portal computer using a port ordering algorithm" Structure: A processor programmed to perform the algorithm described in the '497 Patent at 11:60-12:12, which involves performing the steps of using a port ordering algorithm for selecting the call in port of the identified portal computer by using an algorithm that provides a se uence of ort numbers.

As to RFP Nos. 150 & 165, I do not think Defendants need the documents to contest Plaintiffs assertion in the Complaint that it is an operating company, as, if it does not produce the requested documents, I will bar it at trial (and at the injunction stage, if we get there) from offering evidence that it is an operating (including incubating, whatever that means) company (which in any event, it does not appear in any substantial sense to be).

I would expect the testimony to be, from Ward, I'm the President and CEO of this one-person company (or two persons, if it also employs a patent valuation expert)).

I do not think the unredacted agreement, or any other documents, are likely relevant to the determining the purchase price, which appears to be $250,000 with the possibility of substantial additional payments of up to $22,000,000.

Thus, as stated above, I adopt the Special Master's Order as to RFP No. 167, and as to the balance, Plaintiff need not produce any of the requested documents, as they are not relevant to the issues that will remain in the case.

If, however, Plaintiff wants to be able to argue that it should be allowed to present evidence at trial that it is an "operating company," then it must comply with the Special Master's Order as to the other three RFPs.

By agreement among the parties, Defendants' Motion Regarding Expert Report Framework (“'Expert Motion”) was expedited because opening expert reports are due within a month under the Court's current Scheduling Order.

Plaintiff responds that its infringement contentions are several hundred pages per game at issue and it would be prejudiced if any limitations were imposed on its reports.

As I am tasked by the Court to manage discovery in these cases, I am seeking to balance the needs of the parties.

I will set a page limitation on the expert reports that is more than the Defendants requested but less than Plaintiff suggested.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS TO THE EXPERT MOTION: expert reports in each case shall be limited to 2,500 pages per case, exclusive of CVs and inclusive of substantive attachments.

Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law."'

"In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words."

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.

This citation provides that in one embodiment, seeking computers may reorder the first few port numbers created by a hashing algorithm.

For the reasons given above in connection with the previous term, I am changing "seeks" to "is configured" and striking "at all times" from Defendants' proposed construction.

The Broadcast Claims meet the need for "a reliable communications network that is suitable for the simultaneous sharing of information among a large number of the processes that are widely distributed."

A. Motion to Dismiss Rule 8 requires a complainant to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .... " Fed. R. Civ.

"A claim has facial plausibility when the [complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged."

It provides: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."

I t I t Defendants' argument, belatedly raised in their reply brief, that the Broadcast Claims are not physical or tangible structures and thus are not patent-eligible subject matter, is waived.

INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K SPORTS, INC., Delaware Corporations, Defendants.

WHEREAS, the Special Master having considered Non-Party Sony Interactive Entertainment America, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Intervene (“Sony’s Motion”); NOW, THEREFORE, on this 28th day of August, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Sony’s Motion is GRANTED; (2) the deadline for Sony to respond to Plaintiff’s August 16, 2017 Letter Brief is extended to and including two business days after the date of this Order; and (3) oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel will take place on September 6, 2017 rather than August 31, 2017.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission pro hac vice of Tanya Chaney of SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P., 600 Travis Street, Suite 3400, Houston, TX 77002 to represent defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. in this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion for admission pro hac vice of

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of Texas and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.

I also certify that I am generally familiar with this Court’s Local Rules.

In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 9/1/16, I further certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid to the Clerk of Court, or, if not paid previously, the fee payment will be submitted to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.

Section 2.1 grants Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc. a "nonexclusive, nontransferable license under the [asserted patents] within the Field of Use .... " (D.I.

With these principles in mind, the key question in determining whether WiA V has 3 As a side note, Defendants assert they have actual licenses (Tr. 37:2-12), and have produced them.

I also think, by the way the language was drafted, that Boeing surrendered its right to enforce the patent with respect to Sony's potential licensees within the Field of Use.

This citation is not persuasive for this proposition because it does not mention, let alone discuss, WiA V. Alternatively, even if this was not enough to defeat standing, Defendants also have the ability to obtain a retroactive license from Sony.

The license agreement evinces the intent to give Sony the rights necessary to protect their "Third Party developers, publishers, Affiliates and end-users of Products" within the Field of Use.

After receiving competing urgent emails from the parties as to their disputes concerning possible limitations for the Hynd deposition that they are prepared to take in Scotland and as to

RD 10439285v.1 the arrangements for the Plaintiff's six days of source code review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

Plaintiff has six days [reasonable business hours] to review source code in total.

Plaintiff may use its time as it sees fit among the cases.

Mr. Hynd's deposition shall be limited to four hours but without restriction on the questions or topics.

On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC filed its motion to compel source code access with a supporting brief and exhibits 1-25.

It further argues that recent technical depositions in the case, relating to the functionality of the accused products, causes Plaintiff to need further source code inspection.

Plaintiff requests until August 18, 2017 to review Defendants source code, and allowing it until September 29, 2017 to serve its opening expert reports.

Frankly, time does not permit the Special Master to fully set forth all of the arguments pro and con by the parties as to each of the categories of documents being sought in Plaintiff’s motion.

Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s motion to compel compliance with Special Master orders and sanctions under Rule 37 is vigorously opposed by Plaintiff, principally on the grounds that its interrogatory responses are satisfactory and meet the applicable legal test for stating infringement contentions.