Defendants point out that Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration stated that he had been retained by Accleration Bay to conduct a pre-filing expert analysis of its infringement claims.

P. 26(b)(4), as it is not a “draft of a report ultimately submitted in the litigation”, and work product protection under this Rule does not extend to materials prepared by or for a testifying expert.

Defendants’ request on December 18, 2017 also argues that a recent decision, subsequent to Special Master Order No. 13, supports Defendants’ argument that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis

Acceleration Bay’s response to Defendants request of December 18, 2017 argues that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis is work product and need not be produced under the above cited Rule 26.

Thus, according to Plaintiff, Dr. Medvidovic’s pre-filing analysis is covered by the Protective Order in this case which precludes from discovery any conversation or communication between counsel

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.

The Court is, nevertheless, concerned that Plaintiffs national counsel cannot be relied upon for "candor to the tribunal."

On February 11, 2016, counsel wrote to the Court, in connection with a discovery dispute, "Acceleration Bay has already represented that there have been no exchanges of diligence information regarding the Asserted Patents between Acceleration Bay and Hamilton Capital or Boeing."

"Acceleration Bay already produced the limited documents that its counsel provided to Hamilton Capital in connection with due diligence."

In the Court's experience, any honest patent lawyer would agree that whether a preamble is limiting is classic claim construction.

It does not take a term off the table to say that we can continue to dispute whether it is limiting, and it also makes no sense to go through a lengthy hearing and never revisit terms 24 and 25 if counsel honestly thought its limiting status remained in dispute.

Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.

r Accordingly, in light of the intrinsic evidence, it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that "network" refers to a "broadcast channel."

Term 24: "A non-routing table based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network" ('634/19) a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: Not indefinite and covers patent eligible subject matter.

Accordingly, given that the parties agree that "non-routing table based computer-readable medium" is "nonsensical," claim 19 of the '634 patent "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs "continued ... advance[ ment o:fJ new interpretations of 'routing table's' meaning in the IPRs to distinguish other prior art" renders term 25 indefinite.

The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 February 5, 2020

Re: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al. C.A.

Attached is plaintiff’s first Rule 30(b)(6) notice served in March 2017.

Each of the first 14 topics includes “testing” of or related to the Accused Products.

JBB/bac Attachment cc: Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery; w/attachment) All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail; w/attachment)

No. 16-455 (RGA) Dear Judge Andrews: We write on behalf of Defendants in response to the Court’s request during yesterday’s summary judgment hearing for authority supporting the grant of summary judgment where the patentee had initially accused certain products but later dropped those accusations.

In Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc., the patentee’s expert “did not include in his expert report numerous products listed in [the patentee’s] infringement contentions,” and the defendant sought “summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to such ‘omitted’ products.” 143 F. Supp.

It is undisputed that the no-longer-accused game modes do not infringe for at least the reasons explained in Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Defendants therefore request the Court dismiss with prejudice the game modes of NBA2K that Plaintiff no longer contends infringe the asserted claims.

JBB/bac cc: Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)

1313 North Market Street P.O.

Courthouse 844 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., C.A.

Acceleration Bay asserts literal infringement for all elements of the asserted claims.

Acceleration Bay further asserts, in the alternative, that the Take-Two Defendants infringe the following claim elements under the Doctrine of Equivalents: ’344 Patent  Claim 12: processor; at least 3 neighbors; originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants; m-regular; non-complete; broadcast channel; The Honorable Richard G. Andrews February 5, 2020 Page 2  Claim 13: distributed game; broadcast channel; provide game information; at least 3 neighbors; originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its neighbor participants; m-regular; non-complete; identify broadcast channel for game of interest; connecting to the identified broadcast channel;  Claim 14: accessing web server that maps game to broadcast channel;  Claim 15: broadcast channel formed by at least 3 other computers; ’966 Patent  Claim 12: network; computer network at least 3 neighbor participants; relaying; m- regular; incomplete; broadcast channel for a topic of interest;  Claim 13: information delivery service; plurality of broadcast channels; each broadcast channel provides information to plurality of participants; at least 3 neighbors; relaying; m-regular; non-complete; identifying a broadcast channel; connecting to identified broadcast channel; ’497 Patent  Claim 9: locate call-in port; identifying portal computer having dynamically selected call-in port; repeatedly trying to establish connection; port ordering algorithm; reordering communications port; ’147 Patent  Claim 1: m-regular; disconnect message; connection port search; third computer being one of the neighbors on said list of neighbors; ’069 Patent  Claim 1: m-regular; identifying a pair of participants; contact a portal computer; edge connection request; disconnecting participants of the identified pair; connecting participants of the identified pair.

The Honorable Richard G. Andrews February 5, 2020 Page 3 Should Your Honor have any further questions, counsel is available at the Court’s convenience.

Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.

r Accordingly, in light of the intrinsic evidence, it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that "network" refers to a "broadcast channel."

Term 24: "A non-routing table based computer readable medium containing instructions for controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network" ('634/19) a. Plaintiff's proposed construction: Not indefinite and covers patent eligible subject matter.

Accordingly, given that the parties agree that "non-routing table based computer-readable medium" is "nonsensical," claim 19 of the '634 patent "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention."

Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs "continued ... advance[ ment o:fJ new interpretations of 'routing table's' meaning in the IPRs to distinguish other prior art" renders term 25 indefinite.