• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 24-38 of 2,262 results

No. 80 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 53 Motion ...

Document Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 5:19-cv-04133, No. 80 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 1, 2020)
Motion to StrikeDenied
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) requests that the Court strike counterclaims-in-reply asserted by Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic Games”) in its counterclaim answer, or, in the alternative, to reclassify those counterclaims-in-reply as amendments to the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense and “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ.
Acceleration Bay argues that Epic Games seeks an end-run around rules governing availability of inter partes review (“IPR”) by bringing its patent invalidity claims as counterclaims-in-reply.
In order to fulfill its role of streamlining invalidity proceedings, Congress limited a party’s ability to seek an IPR after commencement of civil litigation in two ways.
Acceleration Bay now argues that the Court has the sole power to prevent Epic Games from benefiting from an apparent loophole in the IPR statutory scheme.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 513 MANDATE of USCA as to 499 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by 2K Sports, Inc., Take-Two Interactive ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 513 (D.Del. Oct. 2, 2020)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:16-cv-00455-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 2, 2020
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 712 ORDER Administratively Closing the Case (see Order for further details)(CASE CLOSED)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 712 (D.Del. Apr. 21, 2020)
WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was stayed on April 21, 2020, due to litigation that is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see D.I.
711); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the related litigation has been resolved so this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 562 ORDER Administratively Closing Case (see Order for further details)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 562 (D.Del. Apr. 21, 2020)
WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was stayed on April 21, 2020, due to litigation that is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see D.I.
561); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the related litigation has been resolved so this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 492 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 492 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Testing a system can constitute an infringing use under§ 271(a), but to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must "provide evidence sufficient, if unopposed, to prevail as a matter of law."
As noted by the Court of Appeals in an analogous situation, "If it was inconceivable to [Plaintiff] that the accused features were not practiced ... , it should have no difficulty in meeting its burden of proof and introducing testimony."
Plaintiff has failed to show there is a genuine dispute of material fact that Defendants "made," "sold," "offered to sell," or "used" the claimed inventions within the damages period.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it appears Defendants, not their customers, perform the methods for adding or disconnecting participants from the game networks.
Grand Theft Auto Online Plaintiffs infringement theory is that the GTAO software applies various rules and constraints that cause the gameplay network to "converge to the same number of connections for each participant."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 495 JUDGMENT in favor Defendants and against Plaintiff (CASE CLOSED)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 495 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Motion for Judgment
For reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2020 (D.I.
493); IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 493 ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 462 ) is GRANTED

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 493 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Motion for Summary JudgmentGranted
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
Civil Action No. 16-455-RGA For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.
462) is GRANTED.
Entered this 23rd day of March, 2020.
Isl Richard G. Andrews United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 530 REQUEST for Oral Argument by Acceleration Bay LLC re 520 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 530 (D.Del. Apr. 4, 2022)
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
Pursuant to D. Del.
LR 7.1.4, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC hereby requests oral argument on Defendants Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc.’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (D.I.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 526 REDACTED VERSION of 524 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 526 (D.Del. Mar. 17, 2022)
Indeed, Take-Two’s counsel acknowledged during a deposition that the image was “to illustrate your testimony as opposed to evidence that it actually happened.” Declaration of Aaron Frankel (“Frankel Decl.”) filed herewith, Ex. 1 (Mitzenmacher Tr.) at 66:5-7 (emphasis added).
Thus, Take Two recognized long ago that this image was illustrative and not evidence, but nonetheless argues now that this demonstrative is “evidence.” Take Two’s reliance on an easily disproven claim as its lead argument confirms the meritless nature of its Motion.
For example, Acceleration Bay cooperated with Take Two on numerous occasions to provide extensions of time requested by Take Two or to use streamlined case management procedures to minimize the burden on the Court and the parties.
“[B]ad faith is a necessary predicate for a violation of section 1927 in order to ‘avoid chilling an attorney’s legitimate ethical obligation to represent his client zealously.’” Hackman v. Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 243 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting Baker Indus., Inc. v. Cerberus Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 1985)).
To the contrary, as noted in Section III(D), Acceleration Bay cooperated with Take Two on numerous occasions to provide extensions of time requested by Take Two or to use streamlined case management procedures to minimize the burden on the Court and the parties.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 527

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 527 (D.Del. Mar. 17, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 705

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 705 (D.Del. Jan. 29, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 523

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 523 (D.Del. Feb. 15, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 518

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 518 (D.Del. Jan. 5, 2022)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 737

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 737 (D.Del. Dec. 23, 2021)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 485

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 485 (D.Del. Sep. 26, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... >>