A. Complete one of the following: ) A transcript is not needed for the appeal ( ) A transcript is already on file ( ) Request is hereby made to the reporter for a transcript of the following proceedings (give particu- ( ✔ lars): Note: voir dire and closing arguments are not prepared unless specifically requested.

Note: Unless the entire transcript is ordered, appellant must attach a statement of the issues to Copies 4 and 5.

Payment is by: ) Private Funds ( ) Government expense (civil case).

Date Purchase Order received: _____________________ Estimated completion date: _______________________ Estimated number of pages: _______________________ I certify that satisfactory financial arrangements have/have not (strike one) been completed with appellant for payment of the cost of the transcript.

_________ volumes of transcript have been filed with the Trial Court today.

Defendants Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby cross-appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the final judgment entered by this Court on March 23, 2020 (D.I.

495), together with any orders, judgments, and rulings subsidiary thereto and subsumed therein, including but not limited to:   The orders, judgments and rulings identified in Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s Notice of Appeal (D.I.

497), and The determination in the Memorandum Opinions entered on August 29, 2017 (D.I.

370) that certain claims of the patents in suit are not invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112.

With this notice, Defendants have remitted payment of $505 for the filing fee and docketing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1917, Federal Circuit Rule 52(a), Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(e), and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware fee schedule.

Federal Circuit Docket No.: 2020-1700 Federal Circuit Short Title: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software Date of Docketing: April 14, 2020 Originating Tribunal: United States District Court for the District of Delaware Originating Case No.: 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Appellant: Acceleration Bay LLC

A notice of appeal has been filed and assigned the above Federal Circuit case number.

Note: The Docketing Statement is due in 30 days if the United States or its officer or agency is a party in the appeal.

Unrepresented parties must submit documents intended for filing to the court in paper.

Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this court in writing of any improper or inaccurate designations.

INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K SPORTS, INC., Delaware Corporations, Defendants.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the March 23, 2020 Final Judgment in the above-captioned case (D.I.

495), and also appeals all prior orders, judgments and rulings entered in this action leading to, underlying or subsumed within the Final Judgment, including but not limited to the following orders:  The Order granting Defendant’s Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.

455), Acceleration Bay’s Notice of Appeal covers all oral and written rulings, which include all related hearing transcripts, and all related oral and written arguments.

Further, the impact on each of the patents-in-suit, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344; 6,714,966; 6,732,147; 6,829,634; 6,910,069; and 6,920,497, by entry of the foregoing Orders is hereby also noticed for appeal.

The Court reviews the Special Master's order de nova as to factual findings and legal conclusions, and for abuse of discretion as to procedural matters.

A document will be granted protection from disclosure if the court finds that the "primary" purpose behind its creation was to aid in possible future litigation.

I accordingly overrule Plaintiffs objection to the Special Master's Order on the ground that the communications are non-discoverable attorney work product.

Furthermore, the Special Master explained that the "documents were provided before any agreement was reached between Plaintiff and Hamilton Capital, and before any litigation was filed."

Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the communications are "irrelevant to the limited scope of discovery permitted by the Court" in a past Order.

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.

The Court should deny Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a second supplemental summary judgment brief (D.I.

Activision also did not move for reargument when the Court denied its first motion for leave to file further summary judgment briefing on the m-regular and participant limitations in this case.

In the Take-Two Order, the Court concluded that Grand Theft Auto V Online’s proximity rules and NBA 2K’s park relay server are not infringing networks.

 Call of Duty infringes through the use of a peer-to-peer connectivity graph relay network for distributing quality of service messages and voice data (VoIP).

2 Activision did move for clarification of two unrelated claim terms, demonstrating its willingness to avail itself of this procedure when it thought it had good reason to do so.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the appearance of Paul N. Harold of WINSTON & STRAWN LLP for defendants Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) is hereby withdrawn.

Defendants will continue to be represented by the firms of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP and WINSTON & STRAWN LLP.

Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Jeffrey J. Lyons (#6437) 1201 North Market Street P.O.

The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.I.

366) 1, and in accordance with the reasoning set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion (D.I.

'634119, "each of the broadcast channels" "computers that are equally able to send and receive information" Preamble is limiting.

"peers" "A non-routing table based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network" "A computer-based, non-routing table based, non-switch based method for adding a participant to a network of participants" "A method of disconnecting a first computer from a second computer, the first computer and the second computer being connected to a broadcast channel, said broadcast channel forming an m-regular graph No.

"a hardware component programmed to locate a call-in port of a portal computer" "port ordering algorithm" '497/9, 16 "rule-based procedure for generating an order of portal computer ports in a non-random manner" Furthermore, Term 18 is modified as follows: No.