Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Cristina Martinez, page 2

No. 49

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

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

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. 46 SO ORDERED Granting (36 in 16-cv-775-RGA, 45 in 16-cv-774-RGA, 33 in 16-cv-776-RGA) Stipulation ...

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 46 (D.Del. Sep. 19, 2016)

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.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Activision Blizzard
Analyze Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 39 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 39 (D.Del. Sep. 1, 2016)

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.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Activision Blizzard
Analyze Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner: DECISIONDenying Petition...

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner - DECISIONDenying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271d (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)