INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K

WHEREAS, the Court, having considered both parties' submissions setting forth their respective positions concerning pre-trial deadlines in the above captioned action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 2f day of-++-"~'"',.___••_""-_..,..-~- -~ 2018, that: Acceleration Bay' s proposed schedule is..aci~M-9!==•!!?.

ichard G. Andrews Honorable United St es District Judge 5850581

INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to file a stipulation with trial dates for C.A.

No. 16-455 (RGA (the "Take-Two Action) as well as certain due dates concerning the conclusion of expert discovery in the Take-Two Action; and WHEREAS, the parties conferred regarding scheduling in these actions; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court that the trials and pre-trial conferences shall be scheduled as follows: • Pre-Trial Conference (EA Action) - February 22, 2019 @ \Q".OO A-r" • Trial (EA Action) - March 4, 2019 @ q:~ NV\ • Pre-Trial Conference (Take-Two Action) -April 26, 2019-(ifthe trial starts Ma)' 6, 2019) or May 3, 2019 (if the trial starts May 13, 2019) @ oi·,oo NY' • Trial (Take-Two Action) - May 6, 2019 or Ma:y 13, 2019 (ifthe Court is unavailable on May 6, 2019); and @ C\~-WA-1"'- The parties shall simultaneously file letters explaining their respective competing positions concerning pre-trial deadlines and briefing issues in the Take-Two Action by June 22, 2018: Event Reply Expert Reports (Take Two Action Close of expert discovery (Take-Two Action Opening summary judgment and Daubert motions (Take Two Action Oppositions to summary judgment and Daubert motions Take-Two Action Reply briefs in support of summary judgment and Daubert motions.

At the pretrial conference on April 20, 2018, I indicated that I would direct the parties to specific summary judgment issues on which I want to hear argument on May 17, 2018.

The parties are directed to focus their arguments on the following issues: (1) whether Kegel and ActiveNet do not invalidate the asserted claims of the '497 patent (D.I.

448 at 14); (2) whether the asserted claims of the '634 patent are indefinite and therefore invalid (D.I.

474 at 32); (3) whether the "computer readable media" claims are invalid as including non-statutory subject matter (Id. at 37); (4) whether Activision does not infringe the '344 and '966 patents because Activision does not make, use, or sell the accused networks (CoD, Destiny) (Id. at 3); and (5) whether Activision does not infringe the '474 patent because it does not make, use, or sell the accused hardware component (CoD, Destiny) (Id. at 6).

Entered this Ji_ day of May, 2018. t ~ t