Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Christa Anderson, page 6

No. 600 MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion to Preclude Inadmissible and Undisclosed Damages Theories and ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 600 (D.Del. Oct. 17, 2018)

On August 29, 2018, I excluded the opinion of Plaintiffs reasonable royalty expert, Dr. Christine Meyer, to the extent that it relied on a jury verdict from Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Mr. Ward invoked attorney-client privilege or referenced counsel when asked more specifically about the value of the patents, about prospective licenses, or about any economic fact that might support a reasonable royalty.

At the bottom of the info graphic there are a series of boxes that represent various industries ( accessories, fast food, internet, entertainment, etc.).

Plaintiff has not argued that the "industry report" falls into an exception to the hearsay rule and I do not see any 1 An "infographic" is "a chart, diagram, or illustration ( as in a book or magazine, or on a website) that uses graphic elements to present information in a visually striking way."

The Agreement provides that Defendant will pay Microsoft a percentage of the wholesale price of each physical Xbox game that it produces.

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. 49 Proposed Order re 44 Joint Case Management Statement per Court Order at 12/2/2019 CMC by Epic ...

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 49 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)

After meeting and conferring, the parties intend to file a stipulated Protective Order by the date shown in § XVII, Exhibit A. 6.

After meeting and conferring, the parties intend to file a stipulated ESI Order by the date shown in § XVII, Exhibit A. 7.

The Court will resolve any disputes regarding expert reports or depositions at a CMC to be held after the issuance of a claim construction order.

3-8 Parties to file Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement including citations to evidence (intrinsic and/or extrinsic) Court-ordered Date

One month after the latter of the Markman decision or the close of fact discovery Within 14 days after Acceleration Bay narrows its asserted claims

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Analyze Party
- Epic Games
Analyze Firm
- Fenwick & West
- Winston & Strawn

No. 47 STIPULATION of Partial Dismissal filed by Epic Games, Inc., Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 47 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 3, 2019)

EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff,

In order to narrow the disputes between the parties and to help streamline discovery, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) hereby stipulate to a partial dismissal of this action.

Epic agrees that it will not challenge the validity or enforceability of any claims in the asserted patents other than the Asserted Claims in any proceeding, including inter partes review proceedings.

As part of this stipulation, the parties have also agreed that the only Epic product accused of infringement is Fortnite and hereby stipulate that any infringement or non-infringement claims with respect to any other past or present Epic product (but not future Epic products) are dismissed with prejudice.

The parties agree that this stipulated dismissal will not be used to argue in this or any future proceeding that other Epic products are non-infringing or non-infringing alternatives, or

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Analyze Party
- Epic Games
Analyze Firm
- Fenwick & West
- Winston & Strawn

No. 440 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 440 (D.Del. Aug. 29, 2018)

By means of a so-called "Daubert hearing," the district court acts as a gatekeeper, preventing opinion testimony that does not meet the requirements of qualification, reliability and fit from reaching the jury.

Defendants also represent that Mr. Kegel, the author of the reference, will testify that he last updated his website on July 17, 2 The Court of Appeals wrote under an earlier version of Rule 702, but the subsequent amendments to it were not intended to make any substantive change.

Claim 19 covers, "A non-routing tabled based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a method comprising" several steps.

Plaintiff urges that claim 19 should read: "A computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a non-routing tabled based method comprising" several steps.

In Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for lack of "specific evidence that [Defendant] tested [the accused products] in a way that would constitute infringement."

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. 441 ORDER: The Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Validity and Motion to Exclude Expert ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 441 (D.Del. Aug. 29, 2018)

Motion for Summary Judgment

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Validity and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton (D.I.

386) and Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Claim 19 of the '634 patent (D.I.

385) are DENIED; Activision' s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.

440) is GRANTED, as to the invalidity of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 and claims 11 , 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147, and as to non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701 ,344, 6,714,966, and 6,920,497, limited to the accused CoD and Destiny games, and is otherwise DENIED; and Activision' s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I.

441) is GRANTED, as to Dr. Meyer' s use of the Uniloc jury verdict to establish a royalty, and as to Dr. Meyer' s testimony that the Boeing/Sony License does not cover the accused products, and is otherwise DENIED.

Cite Document

Analyze