To: Global IP Law Group, LLC, 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3400, Chicago, IL 60603 (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) ✔ Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See Attachment A. Place: Winston & Strawn LLP, c/o Michael A. Tomasulo 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Date and Time: 03/08/2016 5:00 pm Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s study that was not requested by a party.

If an objection is made, the following rules apply: (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.

The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.

“Accused Products” shall mean any product or service manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States by or on behalf of any Defendants that Acceleration Bay alleges infringes the Asserted Patents.

I am an attorney with the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, counsel of record for Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) for the above referenced matter.

Acceleration Bay filed complaints against Electronic Arts Inc. (15-CV-282-RGA) and Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc. (15-CV-311-RGA) in the District of Delaware on March 30, 2015, and April 13, 2015.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service of Acceleration Bay’s Initial Infringement Contentions on Activision on March 2, 2016.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Service of Activision’s Invalidity Contentions on Acceleration Bay on May 6, 2016.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from Activision’s Answer to Acceleration Bay’s Amended Complaint in case 15-CV-228-RGA, filed on July 13, 2015.

v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-228-RGA; Acceleration Bay LLC.

v. Electronic Arts Inc., Civil Action No. 15-282-RGA; Acceleration Bay LLC.

v. Take- Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al. Civil Action No. 15-311-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Subsequent to the February 12, 2016 discovery conference in the above-referenced actions, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has been retained by Hamilton Capital XXI LLC (“Hamilton Capital”) to respond to Defendants’ subpoenas in these matters.

Hamilton Capital hereby notifies the Court that it objects to the production of the loan agreement on the same grounds asserted by Acceleration Bay, including that the loan agreement is not relevant to any claim or defense in these cases.

Notwithstanding and without waiver of these objections and objections to any further discovery by Defendants, Hamilton Capital will not seek to disturb the Court’s ruling that Acceleration Bay will only produce the loan agreement in the Court-approved redacted form.