Some time ago, Acceleration Bay identified exemplary accused networks and functionality in detail, putting Defendants on notice of the issues for the requested depositions.

The relevance of this discovery is manifest—it goes directly to the functionality 1 Acceleration Bay has already explained its theory of infringement based on “multiple server networks,” during a meet and confer with Defendants and in its Complaint.

Acceleration Bay, a small startup company, will be efficient in its discovery efforts because it has to be, and should not be forced to make agreements regarding additional depositions before Defendants have even identified the proposed witnesses for the specific topics.

Finally, there is no need for the Court to modify the Interim Protective Order to require Acceleration Bay to provide a privilege log for communications after the date of the retention of litigation counsel.

Defendants’ suggestion that irrelevant negotiation communications between Acceleration Bay and Boeing or Hamilton Capital cannot be entitled to work product or common interest privilege is incorrect.

Courthouse 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Re: Re: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. D.

No. 15-228-RGA Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc. D.

No. 15-311-RGA Dear Judge Andrews: Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(b), I am attaching a recent memorandum order in Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., C.A.

The February 4, 2016 decision, which excludes post-grant proceedings from the prosecution bar, is relevant to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s December 1, 2015 Order, filed on December 7, 2015 (D.I.

A copy of the memorandum order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel are available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have any questions.

The undersigned hereby certifies that copies of Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Second Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants (Nos. 5-9) were caused to be served on February 10, 2016 upon the following in the manner indicated: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul J. Andre, Esquire Lisa Kobialka, Esquire James R. Hannah, Esquire KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 990 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attorneys for Plaintiff Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Attorneys for Plaintiff