• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 99-113 of 468 results

No. 55 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Subpoena on Bungie, LLC filed by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 55 (D.Del. Dec. 30, 2015)
ACCELERATION BAY LLC, a Delaware ) Limited Liability Corporation, C.A.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC will serve the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit A on Bungie LLC, 434 Kirkland Way, Kirkland, WA 98033.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 53 RESPONSE to 48 MOTION for Reconsideration, filed by Activision Blizzard Inc

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 53 (D.Del. Dec. 28, 2015)
Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff does not explain how barring any of Plaintiff’s counsel who actually review Defendants’ source code from participating in patent prosecution proceedings is manifestly unjust or clearly erroneous.
Apr. 29, 2015).2 Although Plaintiff uses the words “manifest injustice” in attacking this Court’s resolution of the disputed protective order provisions regarding source code and inter partes review proceedings, it ignores the legal All citations to docket entries refer to C.A.
In order for a court to reconsider a decision due to “manifest injustice,” the record presented must be so patently unfair and tainted that the error is manifestly clear to all who view it.
Nor does Plaintiff cite any case law supporting its position that the Court’s decision on the prosecution bar constitutes an “error [that] is apparent to the point of being indisputable” such that it could be considered manifest injustice warranting reconsideration.
Moreover, according to its website, Plaintiff’s law firm has nearly 50 lawyers in its intellectual property group, and Plaintiff does not explain why barring only those attorneys who actually access Defendants’ source code from participating in the IPRs constitutes manifest injustice.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 52

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 52 (D.Del. Dec. 23, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 51

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 51 (D.Del. Dec. 18, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 50

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 50 (D.Del. Dec. 17, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 8

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 8 (D.Del. Apr. 7, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 49

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 49 (D.Del. Dec. 8, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 7

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 7 (D.Del. Mar. 31, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 45

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 45 (D.Del. Nov. 23, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 44

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 44 (D.Del. Nov. 23, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 1 (D.Del. Mar. 11, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

2 Petition: IPR2016 00726 Final 069 Petition

Document IPR2016-00726, No. 2 Petition - IPR2016 00726 Final 069 Petition (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 37

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 37 (D.Del. Nov. 2, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 36

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 36 (D.Del. Nov. 2, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 39

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228, No. 39 (D.Del. Nov. 2, 2015)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... >>