Plaintiff has filed three substantially identical complaints against different defendants in this Court.

On May 4, 2015, Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) moved to dismiss plaintiff’s induced infringement claims in this action.

Thereafter, on May 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., No. 2009- 1372, 2015 WL 2216261 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2015), concerning the requirements for a claim of joint infringement.

Activision hereby joins in and incorporates by reference Electronic Arts’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of joint infringement and its Opening Brief in support thereof.

Specifically, Activision seeks dismissal of Counts III, VI and VIII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, asserting that Activision infringes the method claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,732,147, 6,910,069 and 6,920,497 based on a theory of joint infringement.

Activision’s motion should be denied because Acceleration Bay plausibly pleads that Activision’s customers, users and developers are each singledirect infringers who have been induced by Activision to perform “all the steps of the method claims.” D.I.

In opposing Activision’s motion to dismiss, Acceleration Bay is entitled to have all factual allegations in the Complaint deemed as true and viewed in the most favorable light.

2012) (“The court is not prepared to engage in a claim construction exercise at this stage of the proceedings, with no context whatsoever provided by discovery or a motion practice.”);Internet Media Corp. v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Civ.

In finding that post-filing knowledge of patents is sufficient for inducement claims as of the date of the complaint, this Courtopined that “the fundamental purpose of asserting indirect infringement” is “to ensure that the patentee can recover full compensation for any damages suffered as a result of infringement.” Id.

This Court further stated that “[t]he fact that Walker Digital would be prohibited from collecting damages related to indirect infringement for any pre-knowledge (e.g., pre-filing) conduct is the only substantive consequence of allowing allegations such as those at bar to go forward.” Id.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc. states that it is a publicly traded corporation and that ASAC II LP is the beneficial owner of more than 10% of its common stock.

Defendant indirectly infringes the [] Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by instructing, directing and/or requiring others, including but not limited to, its customers, users and developers, to perform one or more of the steps of the method claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of the [] Patent, where all the steps of the method claims are performed by either Defendant, its customers, users or developers, or some combination thereof.

Plaintiff pleads no facts supporting a claim that Activision knew of the patents or intended to induce infringement of them before the filing of the original complaint.

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Instead, the Amended Complaint alleges and relies on the very multiple-actor conduct that the Supreme Court found cannot sustain a claim for induced infringement in Limelight.

This Court found that these factual assertions failed to make actual knowledge of the patent by defendants plausible and dismissed the plaintiff’s pre-filing inducement claim.

INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., 2K SPORTS, INC., and ROCKSTAR

Patent Owner, Acceleration Bay, LLC, hereby appoints the Practitioners associated with KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, USPTO Customer Number 31013, as its attorneys to prosecute and to transact all business in the Patent Trial & Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office connected with the above-identified Inter Partes Review matter.

); Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA (D.

); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D.

Service Information Patent Owner may be served through its counsel identified above.

Dated: April 1, 2016 Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices

Respectfully submitted, /James Hannah/ James Hannah Registration No. 56,369 Counsel for Patent Owner Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the time for the defendant to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is extended until May 4, 2015.

Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) Hercules Plaza P.O.

Attorneys for Plaintiff SO ORDERED this

Exhibit Description Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 (“the ’147 patent”) Ex. 1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 File History Ex. 1003 Expert Declaration of David R. Karger (“Karger”) Ex. 1004 Declaration of Scott Bennett, Ph.D Ex. 1005 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, “Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Net- works,” IEEE International Conference on Communications, Montreal, 1997 (“Shoubridge”) Ex. 1006 Declaration of Steven Silvio Pietrobon attaching as Exhibit F Peter J. Shoubridge, “Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of South Australia, December 1996) (“Shoubridge Thesis”) Ex. 1007 John M. McQuillan, et al., “The New Routing Algorithm for the AR- PANET,” IEEE Transactions Comms., Vol.

28, No. 5, 1980 (“McQuil- lan”) Ex. 1008 Yogen Kantilal Dalal, “Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Com- puter Networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University 1977) (“Dalal”) Ex. 1009 Katia Obraczka, et al., “A Tool for Massively Replicating Internet Ar- chives: Design, Implementation, and Experience,” Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 27- 30 May 1996, Hong Kong (New York, NY: 1996), 657-664 (“Obraczka Paper”) Ex. 1010 Katia Obraczka, “Massively Replicating Services In Wide-Area Inter- networks,” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California December 1994) (“Obraczka”) Ex. 1011 Jose Rufino, et al., “A Study On The Inaccessibility Characteristics Of ISO 8802/4 Token-Bus LANs,” IEEE INFOCOM ’92: The Conference on Computer Communications.

2 (Picataway, NJ: IEEE Service Center, 1992), 0958-0967 (“Rufino”) Ex. 1012 U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 patent”) Ex. 1013 Kuo-Jui Raymond Lin, “Routing and Broadcasting in Two-dimensional Linear Congruential Graphs of Degree Four,” (Master’s Thesis, Con- cordia University, June 1994) (“Kuo-Jui Lin”) Ex. 1014 William S. Davis and David C. Yen, The Information System Consult- ant’s Handbook: Systems Analysis and Design, CRC Press, 1998 (“Da- vis”) Ex. 1015 Topological Design Considerations in Computer Communication Networks, Computer Communication Networks (V.G.

Mullin), 1975 (“Cerf”) Ex. 1016 Stephen M. Grimes certification of English translation attaching Eng- lish translation and original text of Tamás Dénes, “The ‘Evolution’ of Regular Graphs of Even Order by their Verticies,” Matematikai Lapok, 27, 3-4 (1976/1979): 365-377 (“Denes”) Ex. 1017 English language translation from Exhibit 1016: Tamás Dénes, “’The ‘Evolution’ of Regular Graphs of Even Order by their Verticies,” Ma- tematikai Lapok, 27, 3-4 (1976/1979): 365-377 (“Denes”) Ex. 1018 S. Toida, “Construction of Quartic Graphs,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 16.2 (April 1974): 124-133 (“Toida”) Ex. 1019 T. Todd, “The Token Grid Network,” IEEE/ACM Transactions On Networking, 2.3 (June 1994): 279-287 (“Todd”) Ex. 1020 Declaration of Peter John Shoubridge and, as Exhibit A, Peter J. Shoubridge, Adaptive Strategies for Routing in Dynamic Networks, Ph.D. Thesis (Univ.

Respectfully submitted, /Andrew R. Sommer/ Andrew R. Sommer Reg. No. 53,932 Lead Counsel for Petitioners Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take- Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.

Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc., Petitioners

Acceleration Bay, LLC, Patent Owner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark Office Post Office Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 Submitted Electronically via the Patent Review Processing System Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4.28(a)(3), the Petitioners submit the following updated mandatory notice, which supplements the notices of related matters that Petitioners have filed previously: Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))

Between March 11 and 12, 2016 Petitioners filed petitions for inter partes review having case numbers IPR2016-00724, -726, and -727.

All other mandatory notices provided in the Petition, including the additional related matters, remain unchanged.

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that on March 11, 2016, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing

password for the thumb drive is: winstonIPRs*

Respectfully submitted, /Andrew R. Sommer/ Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. No. 53,932) Counsel for Petitioners Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc.

This summons for (name ofindividual andtitle, zfany) was received by me on (date) [ 2/ l .

Cl I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or C!

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date A , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or , who is

M I served the summons on (name ofindividual) oflfzi /,7‘4,~f,,,;./ designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name oforganization) Sgt/\Hc€,.

do/WJ”/PM,’ Q //3‘z‘i3/‘W on(dare) 3!/lg/K ;or CI I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or Cl Other (speczfy): My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Petitioners, Activision Blizzard, Inc.; Electronic Arts Inc.; Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.; 2k Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc., hereby appoint the following practitioners as their attorneys to transact all business in the United States Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the above-captioned inter partes reviews: Andrew R. Sommer (Reg. # 53,932) – Lead Counsel Gregg A. Duffey (Reg. #42,501 – Back-Up Counsel WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1700 K Street, N.W.

The individual signing below has the authority to execute this document on behalf of Activision Blizzard, Inc. 352 /»/o/c, Date 4% Signature wwler 3-.

The individual signing below has the authority to execute this document on behalf of Electronic Arts Inc.

The individual signing below has the authority to execute this document on behalf of Take—Two Interactive Software, Inc.; 2k Sports, Inc.; and Rockstar Games, Inc.

Courthouse 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 June 24, 2016 Re: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et a].

Instead, Boeing and Plaintiff Acceleration Bay entered into the attached Amended and Restated Patent Purchase Agreement and Patent License Agreement, which confirm that Acceleration Bay has standing to pursue its claims against the Defendants without Boeing.

In View of the foregoing, Acceleration Bay respectfully requests that the above-referenced actions be dismissed without prejudice.

Acceleration Bay, therefore, respectfully requests that the Court reserve the current 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.

Yesterday, before the deadline for Acceleration Bay to cure prudential standing or dismissal of the above—referenced actions, Defendants filed declaratory judgment actions against Acceleration Bay in the District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dev., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Cal., Inc., 248 F.3d 1333, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Just as "a patentee must be joined in any lawsuit involving his or her patent, there must be joinder of any exclusive licensee:" (citing Indep.

"[W]hether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license does not depend upon the name by which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its provisions:" Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A., 944 F.2d 870, 873 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

The Boeing Field of Use also includes: military or national security uses (or a simulation under the auspices ofa government); "marine, rail, and multi-modal transportation;" "solar energy technology;" and "information surveillance and reconnaissance."

Gamco, 504 F.3d at 1278.7 Therefore, since Boeing's absence would place on Defendants a "substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations," it would be a required party to this action.

7 AB insists that since AB '"will be a party to any suit that [Boeing] initiates, it will be collaterally estopped from re-litigating an issue that received a final judgment on the merits,' removing any risk of inconsistent litigation."