• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2,262 results

Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 5:19-cv-04133, California Northern District Court (July 18, 2019)
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED, PROTO, PRVADR, REFDIS
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 7412537
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
69204977412537
Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
Counter Claimant Acceleration Bay LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 1:16-cv-00774, Delaware District Court (Sept. 2, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Plaintiff Activision Blizzard Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 863 ORDER memorializing the claim construction ruling made at the charge conference

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 863 (D.Del. May. 8, 2024)
Acceleration Bay argued that Rufino “does not address receiving disconnect messages in the context of maintaining an m-regular non-complete topology, as required by claim 1.” Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR 2016-00747 at 25.
For the foregoing reasons, the statements made by Acceleration Bay in the inter partes review proceedings do not amount to the sort of “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer necessary for prosecution history estoppel to attach.
Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Aylus, 856 F.3d 1353 (considering statements made by a patent owner during an inter partes review proceeding for purposes of prosecution disclaimer).
That statement, however, was made in the general background section of the order, in which Judge Andrews was describing the nature of the claims of four different patents, the other three of which called for an “incomplete” or “non-complete” m-regular network.
For the foregoing reasons, I construed claim 1 as applying to any m-regular graph, regardless of its completeness, and I therefore precluded Activision from arguing a contrary construction to the jury.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 861 JUDGMENT in favor of Acceleration Bay LLC against Activision Blizzard Inc. in the amount of ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 861 (D.Del. May. 6, 2024)
Motion for Judgment
The plaintiff is awarded $18,000,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.
The plaintiff is awarded $5,400,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.
Judgment is further entered that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for prejudgment interest in an amount to be calculated.
The parties should submit letter briefs regarding (1) the interest owed by Activision to Acceleration Bay and (2) the amount of costs owed, including whether costs should be reduced based on the other claims on which Activision prevailed before trial, see Shum, 629 F.3d at 1370 (“It was not unreasonable for the district court to consider which claims the parties respectively won, or to reduce the prevailing party’s costs award to reflect the extent of its victory (i.e., the claims it lost).”).
Any motions should be filed by June 3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 28 days after the date of entry of this judgment.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 848 ORDER on various evidentiary issues

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 848 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)
In Dkt. No. 762, the court reiterated that “Acceleration will not be permitted to rely on damages theories that have already been excluded,” including apportionment based on Activision’s consumer survey evidence.
Acceleration Bay’s theory is that Activision uses the infringing system, which consists of servers located entirely within the United States, to support North and South American foreign World of Warcraft players.
Their evidentiary value is limited, however, by, inter alia, the fact that patentees could artificially inflate the royalty rate by making outrageous offers.”); see also Deere & Co. v. Int’l Harvester Co., 710 F.2d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Atl.
Activision objects to the inclusion of total user numbers for World of Warcraft and Call of Duty because the court has excluded any per-user damages opinions.
Acceleration argues that the total number of users is relevant to various disputed issues, such as the overall profitability, popularity, and commercial success of the games.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 810 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 810 (D.Del. Apr. 12, 2024)
The parties will be jointly responsible for providing lunches to the jurors for each of the five anticipated days of the trial.
The courtroom deputy will inform the parties if additional water is required as the trial progresses.
As previously states, each trial day will run from 9:00 a.m. to between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., depending on when a convenient breaking point is reached.
I will make myself available as early as 8 a.m. each morning to address any matters that need to be resolved before the jury arrives.
Additional details regarding trial procedures will be discussed at the pretrial conference, to be held by Zoom at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 25, 2024.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 797 ORDER: Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc., has filed a motion seeking leave to submit a supplemental ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 797 (D.Del. Jan. 10, 2024)
On July 14, 2023, Activision requested additional briefing to resolve a claim construction issue that had arisen in this case.
I noted that in Acceleration’s view the Call of Duty game set “is configured to create an m-regular network and does not depend on any specific pre-game actions to do so.” Id. at 5.
I added that if Acceleration “is able to establish that proposition as a factual matter at trial, my disposition of the present claim construction dispute would not preclude a finding of infringement.” Id.
Following the issuance of that order, Activision filed its motion seeking to supplement Dr. Wicker’s expert report in response to the court’s claim construction.
Contrary to Activision’s contention, the court’s September 20, 2023, order did not modify the prior claim construction with respect to in-game player actions.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 788 SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 788 (D.Del. Sep. 20, 2023)
In a related case involving the same patents, Judge Andrews clarified his construction of “m-regular,” noting that a network is not “configured to maintain” m-regularity when “the players’ actions determine how connections are formed.” Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., No. 16-455, Dkt. No. 492 at 15 (D. Del.
In my July 19 order, I agreed with Judge Andrews’ construction and concluded that in this case, a network will similarly “not be considered ‘m-regular’ if the players’ actions determine how connections are formed.” Dkt. No. 781 at 2.
In view of Judge Andrews’s order in Take-Two and the intrinsic record, it is clear that the operative distinction for purposes of determining m-regularity is not whether a player’s actions were taken during the game or prior to the start of gameplay.
For example, Acceleration suggests that regardless of the players’ actions, “so long as there are a sufficient number of participants, the ultimate network that Call of Duty assembles will be m-regular.” Dkt. No. 785 at 6.
If Acceleration is able to establish that proposition as a factual matter at trial, my disposition of the present claim construction dispute would not preclude a finding of infringement.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>