• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 9-23 of 2,262 results

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al

Docket 1:16-cv-00455, Delaware District Court (June 17, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER
Cause35:0145
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Special Master Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr.
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
Defendant Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

Docket 1:16-cv-00453, Delaware District Court (June 17, 2016)
Judge William C. Bryson, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER
Cause35:1 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Special Master Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr.
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
Defendant Activision Blizzard Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.

Docket 1:16-cv-00454, Delaware District Court (June 17, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsCLOSED, MEDIATION-MPT, PATENT, SPECIALMASTER
Cause35:1 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 8379038
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
69204978379038
Special Master Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr.
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
Defendant Electronic Arts Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC

Docket IPR2017-01600, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (June 16, 2017)
Lynne Pettigrew, Marc Hoff, Sally Medley, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6910069
Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC
Petitioner Bungie, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 777 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding D.I. 776 . Signed by Judge William C. Bryson on 5/23/2023

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 Cite Document
Analyze

No. 767 REDACTED VERSION of 762 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

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 Cite Document
Analyze

No. 744 ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on collateral estoppel ...

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 Cite Document
Analyze

No. 743 MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 Cite Document
Analyze

No. 589 MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 Cite Document
Analyze

Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.

Docket 1:15-cv-00228, Delaware District Court (Mar. 11, 2015)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Special Master Allen M. -SM- Terrell, Jr.
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC
Defendant Activision Blizzard Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket IPR2016-00726, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Mar. 12, 2016)
Lynne Pettigrew, Sally Medley, William Fink, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
6910069
Petitioner ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.
Patent Owner Acceleration Bay LLC
Petitioner Rockstargames
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 533

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 533 (D.Del. Jul. 15, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 845

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 845 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 516

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 516 (D.Del. Nov. 15, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 514

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 514 (D.Del. Nov. 10, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... >>