We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.

Question 2: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company used CloudFront prior to December 2014?

Question 4: Has Acceleration Bay proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Virtual Private Cloud (“VPC”) infringed either of the Asserted Claims?

Question 5: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company used VPC prior to December 2014?

The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the courtroom.

The purpose of this Stipulation is to narrow the issues in dispute and to streamline the presentation of evidence at the trial scheduled to begin on September 23, 2024.

Acceleration Bay may reassert its willful infringement claims against Transit Gateway and Lambda of claim 12 of the ’966 Patent and claim 6 of the ’147 Patent only in the event the case is remanded after appeal with reversal or vacatur of the Court’s grant of summary judgment that Acceleration Bay’s 2019 letter to AWS (D.I.

Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 233 Filed 09/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 26550 Patent, and may assert that defense in the event that Acceleration Bay reasserts Transit Gateway or Lambda as accused products.

AWS may reassert that there are non-infringing alternatives in the event that Acceleration Bay reasserts its infringement allegations against Transit Gateway or Lambda of claim 12 of the ’966 Patent and claim 6 of the ’147 Patent, so long as Mr. MacCarthaigh is offered for an up-to-two-hour deposition on non-infringing alternatives.

Acceleration Bay’s claim that AWS’ infringement is willful as to CloudFront; c. AWS’s license and non-infringement defenses (including no willfulness) to Acceleration Bay’s claims of infringement; and Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 233 Filed 09/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 26551 d. The parties’ respective damages cases.

Below, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) identifies the remaining asserted patents claims:

Obviousness based on the combination of Du, Hughes, Hwang, and Olson ’966 Patent Claim Prior Art Grounds 1.

Obviousness based on the combination of Du, Hughes, Hwang, and Olson ’147 Patent Claim Prior Art Grounds 1.

The claim is directed to unpatentable subject matter (35 U.S.C. § 101) The Honorable Richard G. Andrews August 23, 2024 Page 3 1.

Further excerpts of Mr. Greene’s Opening Report were filed as Exhibit I to AWS’s Opposition to Acceleration Bay’s Motion and can be found at D.I.

I am duly licensed to practice law in the State Maryland and the District of Columbia and am admitted pro hac vice in this action.

Attached as Exhibit 54 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 1 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated March 22, 2013, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 55 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 2 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated April 2, 2013, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 56 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 3 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated January 26, 2018, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of the October 11, 2022 version of a webpage entitled, “Amazon EKS features,” bearing production number

There is no genuine disputefortrial that in 2010 bocinii PE Boeing thus could not transferthat right to ABin 2014—indeed, as AWS’s opening brief detailed, patent owners “cannot transfer an interest greaterthanthat which [they] possess[].”!

.8 Thus, of the 2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement unambiguously Nothing supports limiting this license to any time period before patent expiration.10 And there is no genuine dispute that, by 2014, Boeing had AWS produced two spreadsheets detailing , including .9 .

And regardless, it is dispositive that AB’s 2019 letter does not contain any “specific charge[s] of infringement by … specific accused product[s] or device[s].”60 Thus, partial summary judgment limiting the damages period to after July 6, 2022 is warranted.

Similar cases AWS cited further support that, including Bench Walk, in which this Court dismissed willfulness based on substantially identical facts.67 AB only attempts to

AB’s opposition argues Dr. Cole “details his assessment of these considerations on a function-by-function basis.”113 But the passage AB cites does not address whether VPC’s features were standard in the industry (Factor 1) or how much they cost to develop (Factor 2);114 and his analysis of consumer demand (Factor 6) is limited to unsupported assertions regarding how much consumers would use or value particular features.115 AB does not dispute that Dr. Cole never reviewed any evidence underlying these considerations, including customer surveys, financial records, or competitor product materials.116 Instead, it argues his “industry experience and expertise” gave him an “understand[ing]” of these issues, and evidentiary support was unnecessary.117 But Dr. Cole testified, for example, that he did not know whether any AWS competitors offered the features he analyzed.118 And AB cites no caselaw for the proposition that “industry experience” exempts an expert from the requirement their opinions be based on “sufficient facts or data.”119 Furthermore, AB fails to address Dr. Cole’s misapplication of apportionment percentages to the accused products.

The standard to do so is “high,” because to assert inherency for obviousness, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

But that case, Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., pertains to whether an expert’s report met the disclosure requirements of Rule 26, not whether an opinion was sufficiently supported to be admissible under FRE 702 and Daubert to carry the challenger’s clear and convincing evidentiary burden.

Here, the technology is complex, as demonstrated by Mr. Greene’s admission that explaining how to “combine the teachings of Du, Hughes, Hwang and/or Olson to arrive at the asserted claims” to a jury would not be possible “in a short period of time” and would require “several, fairly thick books on the topic.” D.I.

Finally, AWS’ claim that Ms. Sultanik has 20 years of experience and reviewed “hundreds of documents,” two dozen depositions, and all of the asserted patents is not a basis for her to give an unexplained opinion and just ask the jury to take her word for it.

The result is an input for Ms. Kindler’s Georgia- Pacific analysis that rests exclusively on a stack of assumptions, and not on any reliable basis.6 Ms. Kindler intends to testify to the jury that, inter alia, the alleged NIAs involved minimal cost and effort.