Docket
1:16-cv-00455,
Delaware District Court
(June 17, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
Division | Wilmington |
Flags | CLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER |
Cause | 35:0145 |
Case Type | 830 Patent |
Tags | 830 Patent, 830 Patent |
Patent | 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497 67013446714966673214768296346910069 6920497 |
Special Master | Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr. |
Plaintiff | Acceleration Bay LLC |
Defendant | Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. |
Cite Docket
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455 (D.Del.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
1:16-cv-00453,
Delaware District Court
(June 17, 2016)
Judge William C. Bryson, presiding
Patent
Division | Wilmington |
Flags | CLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER |
Cause | 35:1 Patent Infringement |
Case Type | 830 Patent |
Tags | 830 Patent, 830 Patent |
Patent | 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497 67013446714966673214768296346910069 6920497 |
Special Master | Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr. |
Plaintiff | Acceleration Bay LLC |
Defendant | Activision Blizzard Inc. |
Cite Docket
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453 (D.Del.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
1:16-cv-00454,
Delaware District Court
(June 17, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
Division | Wilmington |
Flags | CLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER |
Cause | 35:1 Patent Infringement |
Case Type | 830 Patent |
Tags | 830 Patent, 830 Patent |
Patent | 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 8379038 67013446714966673214768296346910069 69204978379038 |
Special Master | Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr. |
Plaintiff | Acceleration Bay LLC |
Defendant | Electronic Arts Inc. |
Cite Docket
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454 (D.Del.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
IPR2017-01600,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(June 16, 2017)
Lynne Pettigrew, Marc Hoff, Sally Medley, presiding
Case Type | Inter Partes Review |
Patent | 6910069 |
Patent Owner | Acceleration Bay, LLC |
Petitioner | Bungie, Inc. |
Cite Docket
Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, IPR2017-01600 (P.T.A.B.)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 777 (D.Del. May. 23, 2023)
After clearing objections under the protective order, Activision’s substitute expert shall identify, by report and paragraph number, adopted opinions by no later than August 25, 2023.
Activision’s substitute expert shall not offer new opinions, rely on new documents or exhibits, or provide supplemental reports without agreement by the parties.
Activision will cover the cost of the court reporter and transcript for the deposition of the substitute expert.
Macedonia and Kelly during cross-examination of the substitute expert on issues germane to adopted opinions.
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239) Cameron P. Clark (#6647) 1201 North Market Street P.O.
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 777 (D.Del. May. 23, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 767 (D.Del. Mar. 28, 2023)
After substantial pretrial proceedings, he stayed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s disposition of the appeal in the related action of Acceleration Bay LLC v. 2K Sports, Inc., No. 16-455 (D.
Judge Andrews excluded Dr. Valerdi’s opinion because it provided “no basis in fact to conclude that the creation of the infringing network saved Defendant any money over a theoretical alternative.” Id. at 7.
In particular, Judge Andrews explained that the Activision surveys did not “attempt to discern what portion of a gamer’s decision to buy the game is driven by the multiplayer functionality versus all of the other unpatented features.” Dkt. No. 692 at 9.
Cognizant of that statutory directive, the Federal Circuit has held that “reasonable royalty damages can be awarded even without [expert] testimony” in an amount that “the record evidence will support.” Dow Chem.
It is true that the jury may not ultimately arrive at an award that is supported by the record, but it is “entirely speculative” to reach that conclusion before the trial has even begun and to foreclose Acceleration from even attempting to present a persuasive damages case.
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 767 (D.Del. Mar. 28, 2023)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 744 (D.Del. Oct. 25, 2022)
Motion for Summary JudgmentDenied
For the reasons stated in the corresponding Memorandum Opinion, Defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel (D.I.
Activision Blizzard does not infringe any of the asserted claims under the Doctrine of Equivalents because collateral estoppel establishes 11011- infringement.
Entered this 25th day of October, 2022.
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 744 (D.Del. Oct. 25, 2022)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 743 (D.Del. Oct. 25, 2022)
Defendant asserts that this theory is collaterally estopped because, as was considered with the player movement issue for GTAO, "whether the Destiny network ever becomes or stays m-regular ... depends on 'players' actions."'
454, Ex. 28 (Mitzenmacher Report) at ifif291-296 (explaining that "the [Destiny] software attempts to maintain connectivity among the players once a multiplayer game session has been established" even "when a peer migrates to a different Bubble")).
454, Ex. 28 at ,r,r80, 89, 191 ("Thus, once this information from the BAP server and gatherer is provided to the incoming participant, connections to the broadcast channel and neighbors in the game session will 1 I understand the expert to mean the asserted claims, not the specifications.
Defendant asserts that, in this case, "Plaintiff's expert opinions on DOE are nearly identical to the ones this Court found legally barred [in Take-Two], such that collateral estoppel applies here as well."
In granting summary judgment in the Take-Two SJ Opinion, I explained that Plaintiffs DOE arguments for both GTAO and NBA 2K were flawed because they attempt "to remove inconvenient claim elements, such as them-regular limitation."
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 743 (D.Del. Oct. 25, 2022)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 589 (D.Del. Oct. 7, 2022)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Cameron P. Clark, MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELLLLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Tomasulo (argued), David P. Enzminger, Gino Cheng,JoeS.
With the Take-Two Case’s appeal resolved, Defendant now moves for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating infringementissues it lost in the Take-Two Case.
Plaintiff argued that GTAO infringes the m-regular limitation because the players’ avatars “share more data when they are near each other” thus causing an m-regular network to “arise naturally as the players are moving throughout the game.” Take-Two SJ Opinion at *8 (cleaned up).
Player Movement Issue Defendant argues that, just as with GTAO in the Take-Two Case, Plaintiff's infringement arguments rely on a “claim that the [Defendant’s] networks may or may not be m-regular depending on the players’ actions in the game.” (D.I.
This reasoning was underscored by the fact that “for the °344, ’966, and ’147 patents ... the patentee added the m-regularlimitation during prosecution” to overcome “a specific prior art reference[,]” thus barring Plaintiff “by prosecution history estoppel from now attempting to erase that limitation from the patents.” (/d.
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 589 (D.Del. Oct. 7, 2022)
+ More Snippets
Docket
1:15-cv-00228,
Delaware District Court
(Mar. 11, 2015)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
Division | Wilmington |
Demand | Plaintiff |
Cause | 28:1338 Patent Infringement |
Case Type | 830 Patent |
Tags | 830 Patent, 830 Patent |
Patent | 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497 67013446714966673214768296346910069 6920497 |
Special Master | Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr. |
Plaintiff | Acceleration Bay LLC |
Defendant | Activision Blizzard Inc. |
Cite Docket
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:15-cv-00228 (D.Del.)
+ More Snippets
Docket
IPR2016-00726,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(Mar. 12, 2016)
Lynne Pettigrew, Sally Medley, William Fink, presiding
Case Type | Inter Partes Review |
Patent | 6910069 |
Petitioner | ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. |
Patent Owner | Acceleration Bay LLC |
Petitioner | Rockstargames |
Cite Docket
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, IPR2016-00726 (P.T.A.B.)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 533 (D.Del. Jul. 15, 2022)
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 533 (D.Del. Jul. 15, 2022)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 845 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 845 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 516 (D.Del. Nov. 15, 2021)
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 516 (D.Del. Nov. 15, 2021)
+ More Snippets
Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 514 (D.Del. Nov. 10, 2021)
Cite Document
Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 514 (D.Del. Nov. 10, 2021)
+ More Snippets