WHEREAS, on December 7, 2018, the Court entered a Stipulated Order which, among other things: • took the trial dates off calendar for C.A.

619), i.e., Acceleration Bay will serve a supplemental damages expert report, EA and Take-Two will serve responsive reports, Acceleration Bay will serve a proffer of the damages case it intends to offer in each of the EA and Take-Two Actions, and the parties will have an opportunity to take depositions and present further briefing" (EA Action D.I.

694); WHEREAS, the parties in the EA and Take-Two Actions also have very different positions regarding how the Damages Order impacts the EA and Take-Two Actions; WHEREAS, the Court has ruled on the Parties' summary judgment motions in the EA Action, but has not yet ruled on Take-Two 's Motion for Summary Judgment ofNoninfringement in the Take-Two Action; and WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred and agree that it would conserve the resources of the Court and of the parties to defer addressing damages issues until such time as the damages issues in the Activision Action are fully resolved and the Court has had an opportunity to rule on Take-Two' s Motion for Summary Judgment ofNoninfringement; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the deadlines in the Scheduling Order in the EA Action and the Take-Two Action are taken off calendar until after both the conclusion of the resolution of damages issues in the Activision Action and the Court issues a ruling on Take-Two' s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement.

Upon the conclusion of the resolution of damages issues in the Activision Action and the issuance of a ruling on Take-Two's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement, the parties will submit a Joint Report to the Court with proposals on how the damages issues should proceed in the EA and Take-Two Actions.

On April 21, 2020, the Court sua sponte stayed these actions pending the resolution of the appeal from related case Acceleration Bay LLC, v. 2K Sports, Inc., 1:16-cv-00455 (the “Take Two Action”).

1 See also Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., 854 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining collateral estoppel applies on infringement “where the differences between” two products are “unrelated to the limitations in the claim of the patent”); Studiengesellschaft Kohle, mbH v. USX Corp., 675 F. Supp.

As to the ‘344 and ‘966 patents, the only remaining claim is Acceleration Bay’s argument that the Plants vs. Zombies (PvZ) and NHL games supposedly infringe through internal testing.

As to the ‘497 patent, although the Court declined to grant summary judgment on the issue of internal testing, it negated the significance of that ruling when it rejected Acceleration Bay’s sole, substantive infringement theory.

Notably, Acceleration Bay did not appeal this Court’s decision that neither of the accused networks meets the m-regular limitations, either literally or by equivalents, because each participant player connects to a server, which cannot be m-regular.

By means of a so-called "Daubert hearing," the district court acts as a gatekeeper, preventing opinion testimony that does not meet the requirements of qualification, reliability and fit from reaching the jury.

I will grant Defendant's motion to strike in 1 The Court of Appeals wrote under an earlier version of Rule 702, but the 2011 amendments to it were not intended to make any substantive change.

LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming damages award that was based, in part, on the costs saved by renting an infringing backhaul structure versus building a non-infringing backhaul structure); Powell v. Home Depot US.A ., Inc. , 663 F.3d 1221 , 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming jury damages award that was based, in part, on savings from a reduction in injuries caused by a prior art radial arm saw as a result of the patented invention).

Mr. Parr's use of Defendant's survey to apportion between the value to consumers of the multiplayer functionality versus unpatented features is insufficient to meet the standard set by the Federal Circuit for proper apportionment. "

Although Plaintiff pushed the bounds of what I reasonably meant to allow it to do in supplementing its damages case, I find that, regardless of anything else, the changes do not prejudice Defendant under Pennypack.