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.

WHEREAS, a conflict has arisen for counsel for Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC due to the trial date for a case filed in 2014 being recently set for July 9, 2018, the same date scheduled for the start of the trial in the 16-454 action;

I ' ' f WHEREAS, the parties have conferred regarding changing the date for the trial in the 16- 454 action, while preserving the trial dates scheduled in the other two related actions and maintaining the current order of the trials; WHEREAS, in light of these proposed continuances of the trial dates, the parties propose further modifications to certain upcoming due dates in the above referenced actions; WHEREAS, the parties agree that the requested schedule changes will benefit both the parties and the Court (and will not disrupt the existing trial date set in the 16-453 action); IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the Scheduling Order (C.A.

No. 310) is amended as shown in the table below: Opening Expert Reports September 25,2017 Rebuttal Expert Reports November 8,2017 ·· ' :1· ;,~ •4~ 's' · .

February 2, 2018 February 23, 2017 February 2, 2018 (Unchanged) April 20, 2018 EA: June 29, April 20, 2018 2018 (Unchanged) Take-Two: August 17, 2018 Trial April 30, 2018 April 30, 2018 (Unchanged) EA: July 9, 2018 Take-Two: August 27, 2018 December 8, 2017: invalidity reply report January 24, 2018: all other reply reports January 10, 2018: validity expert depositions February 23: all other expert depositions February 2, 2018: invalidity/validity March 23, 2018: other motions EA: August 17, 2018 (previously held for Take-Two) Take-Two: Oct/Nov.

LLP By: Isl Philip A. Rovner Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) Hercules Plaza P.O.

In Defendants' Motion for Clarification to the Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order (No. 16-453, D.I.

281), the parties' positions on term 4 have evolved from those in the Joint Claim Construction Brief.

Thus, the parties are directed to submit additional briefs on the issues of ( 1) whether there is a substantive difference between the algorithm/"process of a new computer Z connecting to the broadcast channel" of Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications and the algorithm /"processing of the connect routine" of Figure 8 and corresponding specifications, and (2) if there is a difference, whether Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications constitute a separate algorithm.

Defendant should submit an opening brief of no more than 10 pages double-spaced 7 days from the date of this order.

Defendant may file a reply brief of no more than 5 pages within 7 days.

RLF1 18091364v.1 The Defendants and Sony contend that these agreements are extremely confidential and sensitive, such that the redacted financial terms should not be disclosed even under the Protective Order.

On July 17, 2017, Special Master Order No. 6 was entered, indicating that after receipt of Plaintiff’s expert reports, it may be appropriate to reconsider the Defendants’ Motion for sanctions and appropriate relief.

The Kramer Levin firm maintains that it acted properly and professionally with respect to representation of Dr. Abarbanel, including in connection with the errata sheet to his deposition.

Kramer Levin provided some documentation privately to the Special Master for an in camera review of certain of the communications with Dr. Abarbanel concerning his deposition.

Motion D involves Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, which seek the basis for Plaintiff’s claims that it is entitled to a royalty on foreign revenue and on products playable on the Sony Play Station System.

WHEREAS Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. (collectively, "Video Game Companies") filed the following actions in the Northern District of California on June 16, 2016 seeking declaratory judgment: Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, C.A.

6) ("Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer"), and that motion is still pending; WHEREAS on September 1, 2016, Judge Seeborg in the Northern District of California granted Acceleration Bay's motion to transfer the DJ Actions to the District of Delaware; WHEREAS the DJ Actions were transferred to the District of Delaware and docketed as Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, C.A.

); WHEREAS the parties have agreed that for the convenience of the parties and the Court the Video Game Companies will (1) withdraw their Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer and (2) dismiss the DJ Actions without prejudice, with the Video Game Companies reserving all rights, including to file the claims asserted in those actions as counterclaims in the 2016 Delaware Actions; .

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the above-captioned DJ Actions are dismissed without prejudice.

The parties shall each bear their own costs and attorney fees with respect to the dismissed DJ Actions.

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 numberof pages to be printed.

Defendants respond that additional supplements are not justified, due to the vagueness ofPlaintiff's infringement contentions and because Plaintiff has the burden of proving the lack of non-infringing alternatives.

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

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

It is Ordered that Plaintiffs motion to preclude Defendants from relying on belatedly disclosed invalidity materials and witnesses and quashing Defendants’ subpoenato Microsoft is denied.

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.