• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 39-53 of 2,280 results

No. 516 SO ORDERED Granting 515 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for (1) Defendants to file any motion and ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 516 (D.Del. Nov. 15, 2021)
Motion to Extend TimeGranted
WHEREAS the parties previously stipulated that any motion for attorneys’ fees or costs under Fed. R. Civ.
LR 54.1, including any motion that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or for any other relief the Court is authorized to make, should be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the Mandate of the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit on that appeal (D.I.
514); WHEREAS the parties have conferred and reached an agreement on the schedule for Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees or costs.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that: (1) Defendants shall file any motion and their opening brief by January 10, 2022; (2) Plaintiff shall file its answering brief by February 10, 2022; and (3) Defendants shall file their reply brief by February 28, 2022.
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Cameron P. Clark (#6647) 1201 North Market Street P.O.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 514 MANDATE of USCA as to 497 Notice of Appeal (Federal Circuit) filed by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 514 (D.Del. Nov. 10, 2021)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:16-cv-00455-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered October 4, 2021, and pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.
November 10, 2021
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 58 NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC's Opening Claim Construction Brief (with ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 58 (D.Del. Jun. 28, 2023)
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. )
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that before 5:00 p.m. on June 28, 2023, the following document was served on the following counsel of record at the addresses and in the manner indicated:
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 55 REDACTED VERSION of 53 Notice of Subpoenas, by Amazon Web Services, Inc

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 55 (D.Del. Jun. 20, 2023)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the subpoenas attached hereto as Exhibits A and B will be served upon Virgil Bourassa.
P. 34 and 45, Defendant Amazon Web Services (“Amazon”) provides notice that it, through undersigned counsel, requests the production of documents by third party Virgil Bourassa, on July 21, 2023 at 9:00 am, at the office of Fisch Sigler LLP, 400 Concar Drive, San Mateo, CA 94402, or at another mutually agreeable time and place.
Please take further notice that Amazon will take the oral deposition of Virgil Bourassa on August 4, 2023 at 9:00 am at the office of Fisch Sigler LLP, 400 Concar Drive, San Mateo, CA 94402, or at another mutually agreeable time and place.
The deposition will be taken before a notary public or other officer authorized to administer an oath and will continue day-to-day until concluded or may be continued until completed at a future date(s).
P. 30(b)(3), the deposition will be videotaped and/or recorded stenographically.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 50 JOINT Claim Construction Chart, by Acceleration Bay, LLC

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 50 (D.Del. Jun. 7, 2023)
14) in the above-captioned action, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration Bay” or Plaintiff”) and Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“Amazon” or “Defendant”) submit this Joint Claim Construction Chart.
9/25/15 Petition for Inter Partes Review 10/14/16 Petitioner’s Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response [CONF] 3/23/17 Final Written Decision
9/24/15 Petition for Inter Partes Review 10/14/16 Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply to Patent Owner’s Response 3/23/17 Final Written Decision (with errata)
Defendants’ Proposed Construction & Intrinsic Support topology), 7 (“[t]he invention claimed in the ’069 Patent focuses on a process for adding nodes, or participants, to an existing network”).
See also ’344 File History (“Exhibit B-1a”) at April 24, 2002 Information Disclosure Statement (citing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,790,553, Acceleration Bay’s Proposed Construction & Intrinsic Support Amendment and Response; August 26, 2004, Notice of Allowance.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement with jury demand against Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Filing ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 1 (D.Del. Jul. 6, 2022)
Complaint
Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS Inc.”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and upon information and belief, has its principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109.
Data will still be rapidly delivered, even if individual connections fail or operate slowly, because of the alternative pathways formed by the network, i.e. each neighbor is the start of a potential path to all other participants.
Lambda supports built-in fault tolerance and “maintains compute capacity across multiple Availability Zones (AZs) in each AWS Region to help protect ... code against individual machine or data center facility failures.
Amazon CloudFront “peers with thousands of Tier 1/2/3 telecom carriers globally, is well connected with all major access networks for optimal performance, and has hundreds of terabits of deployed capacity.
This allows VPC resources including EC2 instances, Amazon RDS databases and Lambda functions that run in different AWS Regions to communicate with each other using private IP addresses, without requiring gateways, VPN connections, or separate network appliances ... .
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 513 MANDATE of USCA as to 499 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by 2K Sports, Inc., Take-Two Interactive ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 513 (D.Del. Oct. 2, 2020)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:16-cv-00455-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 2, 2020
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 712 ORDER Administratively Closing the Case (see Order for further details)(CASE CLOSED)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 712 (D.Del. Apr. 21, 2020)
WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was stayed on April 21, 2020, due to litigation that is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see D.I.
711); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the related litigation has been resolved so this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 562 ORDER Administratively Closing Case (see Order for further details)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 562 (D.Del. Apr. 21, 2020)
WHEREAS, the above-captioned case was stayed on April 21, 2020, due to litigation that is presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (see D.I.
561); NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the above-captioned case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
The parties shall promptly notify the Court when the related litigation has been resolved so this case may be reopened and other appropriate action may be taken.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 492 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 492 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Testing a system can constitute an infringing use under§ 271(a), but to survive summary judgment, the plaintiff must "provide evidence sufficient, if unopposed, to prevail as a matter of law."
As noted by the Court of Appeals in an analogous situation, "If it was inconceivable to [Plaintiff] that the accused features were not practiced ... , it should have no difficulty in meeting its burden of proof and introducing testimony."
Plaintiff has failed to show there is a genuine dispute of material fact that Defendants "made," "sold," "offered to sell," or "used" the claimed inventions within the damages period.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it appears Defendants, not their customers, perform the methods for adding or disconnecting participants from the game networks.
Grand Theft Auto Online Plaintiffs infringement theory is that the GTAO software applies various rules and constraints that cause the gameplay network to "converge to the same number of connections for each participant."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 495 JUDGMENT in favor Defendants and against Plaintiff (CASE CLOSED)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 495 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Motion for Judgment
For reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2020 (D.I.
493); IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 493 ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 462 ) is GRANTED

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 493 (D.Del. Mar. 23, 2020)
Motion for Summary JudgmentGranted
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
Civil Action No. 16-455-RGA For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.
462) is GRANTED.
Entered this 23rd day of March, 2020.
Isl Richard G. Andrews United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 526 REDACTED VERSION of 524 Answering Brief in Opposition, by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 526 (D.Del. Mar. 17, 2022)
Indeed, Take-Two’s counsel acknowledged during a deposition that the image was “to illustrate your testimony as opposed to evidence that it actually happened.” Declaration of Aaron Frankel (“Frankel Decl.”) filed herewith, Ex. 1 (Mitzenmacher Tr.) at 66:5-7 (emphasis added).
Thus, Take Two recognized long ago that this image was illustrative and not evidence, but nonetheless argues now that this demonstrative is “evidence.” Take Two’s reliance on an easily disproven claim as its lead argument confirms the meritless nature of its Motion.
For example, Acceleration Bay cooperated with Take Two on numerous occasions to provide extensions of time requested by Take Two or to use streamlined case management procedures to minimize the burden on the Court and the parties.
“[B]ad faith is a necessary predicate for a violation of section 1927 in order to ‘avoid chilling an attorney’s legitimate ethical obligation to represent his client zealously.’” Hackman v. Valley Fair, 932 F.2d 239, 243 (3d Cir. 1991) (quoting Baker Indus., Inc. v. Cerberus Ltd., 764 F.2d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 1985)).
To the contrary, as noted in Section III(D), Acceleration Bay cooperated with Take Two on numerous occasions to provide extensions of time requested by Take Two or to use streamlined case management procedures to minimize the burden on the Court and the parties.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 527 REDACTED VERSION of 525 Declaration of Aaron Frankel, by Acceleration Bay LLC

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 527 (D.Del. Mar. 17, 2022)
Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza P.O.
I am an attorney with the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, counsel of record for Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) for the above referenced matter.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpted pages 54-69 and 166-169 from the deposition transcript of Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D., taken on July 27, 2018 in this matter.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of excerpted pages 130- 137 from the deposition transcript of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D., taken on August 14, 2018 in this matter.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 705

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 705 (D.Del. Jan. 29, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... >>