1.9 “Confidential -- Outside Counsel Only Material” means Confidential Material that the Designating Party believes in good faith has significant competitive value such that unrestricted disclosure to others would create a substantial risk of serious injury.

For information in documentary form (apart from transcripts of depositions, or other pretrial or trial proceedings), the Producing Party shall affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL-- OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY,” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” on each page that contains Designated Material.

These prohibitions shall begin when access to “CONFIDENTIAL-- OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” or “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL –SOURCE CODE” materials are first received by the affected individual, and shall end one (1) year after the final resolution of this action, including all appeals.

Every individual who has signed the “Acknowledgement and Agreement To Be Bound By Confidentiality Order” attached as Exhibit A, or who received any Designated Material, agrees to subject himself or herself to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of any proceedings related to performance under, compliance with, or violation of this Order.

I, _______________________________________________ [print or type full name], of _______________________ hereby affirm that: Information, including documents and things designated as “Confidential,” “CONFIDENTIAL-- OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY,” or “Restricted Confidential – Source Code,” as defined in the Protective Order entered in this Litigation, is being provided to me

Acceleration Bay is informed and believes that Destiny provides a hybrid system where each area within the game called “destination” has its own dedicated servers while all the players that are in that “destination” are connected to a peer- to-peer network and capable of communicating and interacting with each other.

As a way of example and not a limitation, Destiny provides a multiplayer mode, such as “The Crucible,” where multiple participants can simultaneously interact and communicate with each other utilizing the network technology claimed in the Acceleration Bay Patents.

As a way of example and not a limitation, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare provides a multiplayer mode, such as “Domination,” where multiple participants can concurrently interact and communicate with each other while also having an option to leave the game without affecting other players in the match by utilizing the network technology as claimed in the Acceleration Bay Patents.

Defendant’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare products infringe the ‘966 Patent through, at minimum, its multiplayer technology, which allows individual players to interact and communicate with each other by sending data through neighbor participants.

Defendant’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare products infringe the ‘497 Patent through, at minimum, its multiplayer technology, which allows individual players to join, communicate and interact with each other by utilizing a portal computer.

Pursuant to the October 29, 2015 Scheduling Order and further direction from the Court, the parties set forth below brief statements in support of their respective proposals.

As Defendants have filed six IPR petitions against Plaintiff’s patents, there is considerable potential harm in excluding litigation counsel from those proceedings.

The Court has previously declined to include post-grant proceedings within the scope of a prosecution bar, noting that such proceedings do “not raise the same risk of competitive misuse as does involvement in prosecution,” and that there is “little risk that confidential information learned in litigation will be competitively used to draft claims that read on Defendants’ products” because “only narrowing claim amendments may be made during post-grant proceedings.” Two- Way Media, at 4 (Ex. 3), citing Xerox., 270 F.R.D.

As Judge Robinson and the Federal Circuit recognized, “strategically amending or surrendering claim scope during prosecution” can implicate competitive decision-making thus giving rise to a risk of inadvertent use of confidential information learned in litigation.” Id. (citing In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 605 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).

Defendants have filed 6 IPR petitions (directed to three asserted patents), each of which presents opportunity for strategic narrowing of claims.

Acceleration Bay is informed and believes that Destiny provides a hybrid system where each area within the game called “destination” has its own dedicated servers while all the players that are in that “destination” are connected to a peer- to-peer network and capable of communicating and interacting with each other.

As a way of example and not a limitation, Destiny provides a multiplayer mode, such as “The Crucible,” where multiple participants can simultaneously interact and communicate with each other utilizing the network technology claimed in the Acceleration Bay Patents.

As a way of example and not a limitation, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare provides a multiplayer mode, such as “Domination,” where multiple participants can concurrently interact and communicate with each other while also having an option to leave the game without affecting other players in the match by utilizing the network technology as claimed in the Acceleration Bay Patents.

Defendant’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare products infringe the ‘966 Patent through, at minimum, its multiplayer technology, which allows individual players to interact and communicate with each other by sending data through neighbor participants.

Defendant’s Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare products infringe the ‘497 Patent through, at minimum, its multiplayer technology, which allows individual players to join, communicate and interact with each other by utilizing a portal computer.

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.

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.

Since long before the filing date of the ’069 patent, graph theory has been actively applied in a variety of industries and fields, includ- ing integrated circuit design, operations research, and computer networks.

These topologies were routinely represented using graph theory (with computers as nodes, and connections as edges), with mathematical proofs or simulations developed to model the performance and reliability of the network.

“A given refer- ence is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).