Dear Judge Andrews: Defendants have decided to ignore the Court’s Scheduling Order that required them to “produce to Plaintiff the core technical documents related to the accused product(s) and accused networking functionalities (to the extent such documents exist), including but not limited to operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and specifications” by December 16, 2015.

Defendants Failed to Provide Schematics, Specifications and Other Non-Source Code Documents Describing the Accused Products and Networking Functionality 1 All citations are to Acceleration Bay v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 15-282-RGA.

There is no dispute that the responsive confidential core technical documents which the Court ordered Defendants to produce are critical given the specific infringement issues in these cases.

At Defendants’ insistence, under the protective order Acceleration Bay can only access source code by scheduling inspections during limited hours and cannot, inter alia, take notes with a computer, make a single copy, print more than a limited number of pages, scan the source code or share it electronically among the litigation team.

Nevertheless, in view of Defendants’ failures to produce the core technical documents by December 16, 2015, as required by the Scheduling Order and the upcoming February 17, 2016 deadline for infringement contentions, it is necessary to seek relief from the Court.

P. 12(b)(6), Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) moves to dismiss the induced infringement claims (Counts IV, VII, and IX) of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (D.I.

The grounds for this motion are more fully set forth in Activision’s Opening Brief, filed herewith.

This ___ day of ________ 2015, having considered Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims of Induced Infringement for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims of Induced Infringement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s claims of induced infringement (Counts IV, VII, and IX) are dismissed.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay will serve or have served the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit A on Bungie, LLC, 434 Kirkland Way, Kirkland WA 98033.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay will serve or have served the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit A on Bungie, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 505 Union Ave.

SE, Suite 120, Olympia, WA 98501.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay will serve the subpoena attached hereto as Exhibit A on Bungie, Inc., c/o CT Corporation System, 505 Union Ave.

SE, Suite 120, Olympia,

The deposition will commence at 9:00 am on January 26, 2016 at the offices of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP at 990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, or at such other time and place as counsel may mutually agree.

The terms “Defendant,” “Activision Blizzard, Inc.,” “Activision,” “You,” or “Your” mean Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. and shall include its predecessors, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, parents, assignees, joint ventures, and each other person directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, owned or controlled by it, and all present or former partners, principals, employees, officers, agents, legal representatives, consultants or other persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf.

The terms “Plaintiff” or “Acceleration Bay” mean Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC and shall include its predecessors, successors, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, parents, assignees, joint ventures, and each other person directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, owned or controlled by it, and all present or former partners, principals, employees, officers, directors, agents, legal representatives, consultants or other persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf.

The terms “concerning,” “relating to,” “relate to,” “refer to” and “referring to” mean alluding to, responding to, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing, showing, identifying, describing, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing, supporting, refuting, contradicting, memorializing, pertaining to, bearing upon or illuminating the subject matter into which inquiry is made.

The topology, protocols, design, structure, research, development, operation, features, testing and functionality of networks that allows for flooding used by You or in connection with the Accused Products.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 and the attached certification, counsel moves the admission pro hac vice of Sarah J. Kalemeris of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, 35 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601 to represent defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. in this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel’s motion for admission pro hac vice of Sarah J. Kalemeris is granted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, I certify that I am eligible for admission to this Court, am admitted, practicing and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of Illinois and pursuant to Local Rule 83.6 submit to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court for any alleged misconduct which occurs in the preparation or course of this action.

I also certify that I am generally familiar with this Court’s Local Rules.

In accordance with Standing Order for District Court Fund effective 3/25/14, I further certify that the annual fee of $25.00 has been paid to the Clerk of Court, or, if not paid previously, the fee payment will be submitted to the Clerk’s Office upon the filing of this motion.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that prior to 6 p.m. on December 30, 2015, true and correct copies of the following document were served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated:

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. Stephen J. Kraftschik, Esq. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O.

WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015, the parties submitted competing forms of a proposed protective order that included, among other things, competing provisions regarding the review of source code; WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the Court issued an order adopting the source code provisions contained in Defendants’ proposed protective order (the “December 1 Order”); WHEREAS, on December 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s December 1 Order (the “Motion for Reconsideration”); WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, Defendants filed a revised proposed protective order to be consistent with the Court’s December 1 Order (“the Interim Protective Order”); WHEREAS, the Motion for Reconsideration has not been adjudicated; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that entering the Interim Protective Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and is beneficial because inspection of Defendants’ source code began the week of December 28, 2015; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

The Interim Protective Order shall govern Plaintiff’s review of Defendants’ source code and the parties, their representatives and their retained experts shall be bound by the terms of the Interim Protective Order, including, inter alia, any requirement that certain parties execute a form of undertaking before viewing or receiving Designated Material (as defined in the Interim Protective Order);

Any restrictions contained in the Interim Protective order that are not contained in any Revised Protective Order shall be null and void upon entry of any Revised Protective Order;

If the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and does not otherwise modify the Protective Order, the Interim Protective Order shall continue to be binding in this case.

Entering into this stipulation does not waive or moot Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Reconsideration.

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.

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.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that prior to 6:00 p.m. on December 23, 2015, true and correct copies of the following document were served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2015, true and correct copies of the following document were served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated: