• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
492 results

Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Docket 1:22-cv-00904, Delaware District Court (July 6, 2022)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding, Judge Sherry R. Fallon
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsDISCOVERY-SRF, PATENT
Cause35:1 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10217462; 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC
Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 5:19-cv-04133, California Northern District Court (July 18, 2019)
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED, PROTO, PRVADR, REFDIS
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 7412537
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
69204977412537
Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
Counter Claimant Acceleration Bay LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 294 FINAL JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 294 (D.Del. Oct. 7, 2024)
Motion for Judgment
P. 58(b) as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration Bay") and against Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("A WS") with respect to Acceleration Bay' s claims of infringement of Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No .
290); Judgment is entered in favor of Acceleration Bay and against A WS for damages in the amount of $30,500,000 for AWS ' s infringement of the two asserted claims, subject to any enhanced damages, interest, fees, and/or costs that may subsequently be sought and awarded by the Court; Of the $30,500,000 damages award, the amount of $1 ,000,000 is based on Virtual Private Cloud ("VPC")'s infringement of the ' 147 Patent from July 6, 2022 to July 22, 2022, and the
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 294 Filed 10/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36388 amount of$29,500,000 is based on CloudFront's infringement of the '966 Patent and ' 147 Patent from March 13, 2019 through July 5, 2022.
Judgment is entered in favor of Acceleration Bay and against A WS with respect to Acceleration Bay's claim that A WS's infringement of the two asserted claims by CloudFront was willful.
This JUDGMENT serves to trigger the time for filing post-trial motions on issues that were decided by the jury, as well as other post-trial matters.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 259 MEMORANDUM ORDER: Regarding the testimony of Mr. Hayden; Ms. Kindler's "portfolio licenses; ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 259 (D.Del. Sep. 20, 2024)
Motion to Strike ReportDenied
The issue arose because Mr. Hayden was on the live witness list, and I asked Defendant at the pretrial conference about what he was going to testify.
But since I doubt its relevance, if Defendant wants me to consider permitting such testimony, it needs to submit a detailed proffer about what Mr. Hayden would say no later than Monday, September 23, at 10 a.m.
200), which I denied, I asked that Plaintiff submit a proffer regarding Dr. Medvidovic' s proposed testimony about how the accused products meet the "broadcast channel" limitation.
In response, Defendant raised a different issue, saying that one paragraph at pp. 4-5 of the proffer was a previously undisclosed (or new) infringement theory.
The proffer' s disputed paragraph states that Dr. Medvidovic "explains that BigMac ... utilizes a 'HyperPlane Health Layer' .
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 219

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 219 (D.Del. Sep. 12, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 220 ORDER: Plaintiff's summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I. 150 ) are GRANTED IN PART and ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 220 (D.Del. Sep. 12, 2024)
Motion for Summary JudgmentPartial
Civil Action No. 22-904-RGA For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY
Plaintiff’s summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I.
150) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in the Memorandum Opinion; 2.
Defendant’s summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I.
United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 1:16-cv-00774, Delaware District Court (Sept. 2, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Plaintiff Activision Blizzard Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 77 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 77 (D.Del. Oct. 19, 2023)
On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay filed a complaint against Defendant Amazon Web Services, alleging infringement of the ' 344, ' 966, ' 147, ' 634, and ' 069 patents.
... [It is] the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application."
Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Defendant also contends that all asserted claims of the ' 344, ' 966, ' 634, ' 147, and ' 069 patents "include substantially similar limitations requiring ' at least three,' or 'three or more,' directly connected participants."
Defendant contends that the prosecution history supports its position because Plaintiff added '" peer-to-peer connections' and other amended language to overcome rejections" during inter partes review ("IPR").
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>