Dec. 15, 2014); WHEREAS, on August 29, 2018, in the Activision Action, the Court issued an Order striking the portion of Dr. Meyer's report which relied on that jury verdict (D.I.

509), the Court stated that it did "not intend to change [its] position that Plaintiffs expert's opinion based on the Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Dec. 15, 2014),jury verdict is inadmissible," denied the Parties' joint request to continue the trial in the EA Action "subject to reconsideration" at the summary judgment hearing in the EA action set for December 20, 2018, limited the December 20 hearing to "summary judgment motions," and Ordered that "if Plaintiff intends to offer any damages theories in this case other than the ones it currently has, it needs to meet-and-confer with Defendant and file any necessary motion no later than December 7, 2018;" WHEREAS, in an Order dated November 28, 2018 in the Activision Action (D.I.

WHEREAS, the trials in the EA and Take Two Actions are currently scheduled for March 4, 2019 and November 4, 2019; WHEREAS, given these trial dates, there is not sufficient time for the Parties to complete supplemental expert reports, take depositions, follow the procedures set forth in the Activision Case Management Order (D.I.

The parties shall follow the procedures set forth in the October 30, 2019 Case Management Order in the Activision Action (16-453 D.I.

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to submit a schedule for supplementation of the damages case in C.A.

619); WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay intends to provide an expert report from Russell Parr to supplement Acceleration Bay's damages claim; WHEREAS, Mr. Parr was first identified by Acceleration Bay on November 7, 2018; WHEREAS, Activision objects to Acceleration Bay serving a report from Mr. Parr on the basis that he was not disclosed during discovery; WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay agrees that it will only serve one supplemental report; WHEREAS, subject to Activision's objection to Acceleration Bay serving a report from Mr. Parr, Activision agrees to waive its objection to Mr. Parr receiving Activision's highly confidential information under the protective order; WHEREAS, Activision reserves the right to challenge Acceleration Bay's supplemental report and proffer of proof on damages and Acceleration Bay reserves the right to challenge the expert reports Activision submits in response to Acceleration Bay's supplemental reports regarding damages;

WHEREAS, the parties conferred regarding scheduling in the Activision act1on and failed to reach agreement on the following issues: 1.

WHEREAS, the Parties have set forth their proposed schedules below: Event Acceleration Bay serves supplemental damages expert report Activision serves supplemental damages expert reports Conclusion of depositions on supplemental expert reports Acceleration Bay's Proposal Activision's Proposal 12/7/18 12/7/18 1/18/19 1/25/19 2/1/19 2/8/19 Acceleration Bay files proffer on its damages case · 2/8/19 2/15/19 3/15/19 4/5/19 4/19/19 File opening brief(s) on challenge to proffer of proof and supplemental damages report( s) File responsive brief(s) File reply brief(s) Hearing date 2/22/19 3/15/19 3/25/19 To be set by the Court To be set by the Court The Parties will submit letter briefs of no more than three pages setting forth their positions on these two issues on November 20, 2018. '

\, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP By: Isl Philip A. Rovner Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) Hercules Plaza P.O.

WHEREAS, the Parties have submitted letters and a joint statement regarding suggested changes to the case schedule (D.I.

424,426,467,476), and Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I.

500) which resolved the motions then pending in a related action, Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., No. 16-453; WHEREAS, my resolution of certain Daubert motions significantly impacted Plaintiffs damages case in the Activision Blizzard matter; WHEREAS, trial in the Activision Blizzard matter has been postponed indefinitely pending resolution of the admissibility of Plaintiff's remaining damages case; WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay's proposed damages expert's opinion is very similar to the opinion I excluded in the Activision Blizzard matter; WHEREAS, I do not intend to change my position that Plaintiffs expert's opinion based oh the Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6: 13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Dec. 15, 2014), jury verdict is inadmissible; WHEREAS, I do not believe that issues with Plaintiffs damages case require delaying trial in this matter, but I agree that the pending damages motions should be addressed, if at all, at a later date; WHEREAS, my initial review of the briefing in this case has revealed that some of the same general summary judgment issues addressed in the Memorandum Opinion are repeated; and WHEREAS, the Parties are in a better position than the Court to determine if, and to what extent, issues resolved in the Memorandum Opinion bear on the appropriate resolution of the summary judgment motions; NOW THEREFORE this 26 day of November 2018, IT IS ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for December 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM is rescheduled to December 20, 2018 at

499) that may bear on the summary judgment motions; IT IS ORDERED that the Parties' request that I postpone the trial in this matter is DENIED subject to my reconsideration following discussion with the Parties at the December 20, 2018 argument; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff intends to offer any damages theories in this case other than the ones it currently has, it needs to meet-and-confer with Defendant and file any necessary motion no later than December 7, 2018.

The Parties completed the current briefing on Plaintiffs damages case in great haste and with a focus on the impending trial.

Moreover, I suspect Plaintiffs articulation of its damages case will evolve as it supplements its expert reports and develops its proffer.

Plaintiff argues that I committed legal error requiring reconsideration when I precluded introduction of an agreement between Microsoft and Defendant related to use of the Xbox platform.

Reconsideration is appropriate based on " (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion ... ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice."

1 Whether an expert is precluded from considering the Agreement among the ancillary indicators of the value of the patented invention is not the issue that was presented to me.

On August 29, 2018, two months before the scheduled trial, I issued an Order striking the portion of Plaintiff's primary damages expert' s reasonable royalty opinion which relied on a jury verdict in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA , No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

I reviewed Plaintiffs revised damages case and precluded certain inadmissible pieces of evidence in an order issued on October 17, 2018, twelve days before trial.

Based on the briefing, I determined that it would not be possible for me to reach a decision on Plaintiffs damages case prior to the scheduled start of trial.

However, neither party should interpret my decision to continue the trial as an indication of my disposition toward the proper resolution of issues surrounding Plaintiffs damages case.

Once any supplementation has occurred, and any further expert depositions have been conducted, Plaintiff shall provide me with a proffer of the case it intends to submit to the jury on damages.

Plaintiffs motion to exclude Pat Griffith' s testimony about non-infringing alternatives for Call of Duty is GRANTED.

Further review of the record confirms my initial view that Defendant did not sufficiently disclose Mr. Griffith as a witness who has knowledge of non-infringing alternatives.

591-1, Exh. HI) is GRANTED for the reasons which I expressed during the pre-trial conference, but is subject to reconsideration if Plaintiff opens the door during trial.

Defendant may not refer to the role of Plaintiffs attorneys in the formation of Acceleration Bay or in the acquisition of the asserted patents.

Since there is no obviousness defense, no evidence will be presented about Sony' s employee, Mr. Van Datta, and copying.

On August 29, 2018, I excluded the opinion of Plaintiffs reasonable royalty expert, Dr. Christine Meyer, to the extent that it relied on a jury verdict from Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Mr. Ward invoked attorney-client privilege or referenced counsel when asked more specifically about the value of the patents, about prospective licenses, or about any economic fact that might support a reasonable royalty.

At the bottom of the info graphic there are a series of boxes that represent various industries ( accessories, fast food, internet, entertainment, etc.).

Plaintiff has not argued that the "industry report" falls into an exception to the hearsay rule and I do not see any 1 An "infographic" is "a chart, diagram, or illustration ( as in a book or magazine, or on a website) that uses graphic elements to present information in a visually striking way."

The Agreement provides that Defendant will pay Microsoft a percentage of the wholesale price of each physical Xbox game that it produces.

EPIC GAMES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff,

In order to narrow the disputes between the parties and to help streamline discovery, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) and Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) hereby stipulate to a partial dismissal of this action.

Epic agrees that it will not challenge the validity or enforceability of any claims in the asserted patents other than the Asserted Claims in any proceeding, including inter partes review proceedings.

As part of this stipulation, the parties have also agreed that the only Epic product accused of infringement is Fortnite and hereby stipulate that any infringement or non-infringement claims with respect to any other past or present Epic product (but not future Epic products) are dismissed with prejudice.

The parties agree that this stipulated dismissal will not be used to argue in this or any future proceeding that other Epic products are non-infringing or non-infringing alternatives, or

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.

Defendants also represent that Mr. Kegel, the author of the reference, will testify that he last updated his website on July 17, 2 The Court of Appeals wrote under an earlier version of Rule 702, but the subsequent amendments to it were not intended to make any substantive change.

Claim 19 covers, "A non-routing tabled based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a method comprising" several steps.

Plaintiff urges that claim 19 should read: "A computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a non-routing tabled based method comprising" several steps.

In Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for lack of "specific evidence that [Defendant] tested [the accused products] in a way that would constitute infringement."

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.

Defendants also represent that Mr. Kegel, the author of the reference, will testify that he last updated his website on July 17, 2 The Court of Appeals wrote under an earlier version of Rule 702, but the subsequent amendments to it were not intended to make any substantive change.

Claim 19 covers, "A non-routing tabled based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a method comprising" several steps.

Plaintiff urges that claim 19 should read: "A computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a non-routing tabled based method comprising" several steps.

In Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for lack of "specific evidence that [Defendant] tested [the accused products] in a way that would constitute infringement."

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Validity and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton (D.I.

386) and Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Claim 19 of the '634 patent (D.I.

385) are DENIED; Activision' s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.

440) is GRANTED, as to the invalidity of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 and claims 11 , 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147, and as to non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701 ,344, 6,714,966, and 6,920,497, limited to the accused CoD and Destiny games, and is otherwise DENIED; and Activision' s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I.

441) is GRANTED, as to Dr. Meyer' s use of the Uniloc jury verdict to establish a royalty, and as to Dr. Meyer' s testimony that the Boeing/Sony License does not cover the accused products, and is otherwise DENIED.

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Validity and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton (D.I.

386) and Plaintiffs Motion to Correct Claim 19 of the '634 patent (D.I.

385) are DENIED; Activision' s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.

440) is GRANTED, as to the invalidity of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 and claims 11 , 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147, and as to non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701 ,344, 6,714,966, and 6,920,497, limited to the accused CoD and Destiny games, and is otherwise DENIED; and Activision' s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I.

441) is GRANTED, as to Dr. Meyer' s use of the Uniloc jury verdict to establish a royalty, and as to Dr. Meyer' s testimony that the Boeing/Sony License does not cover the accused products, and is otherwise DENIED.