• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 24-38 of 153 results

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. 183-2 REDACTED VERSION of 171 Declaration, by Amazon Web Services, Inc

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 183-2 (D.Del. Jul. 24, 2024)
Amazon further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because it seeks the identification of “any documents or other evidence supporting those defenses” without limitation.
Aug. 24, 2017) (granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing because Boeing licensed the asserted patents to Sony in 2006 with the ability to sublicense to, inter alia, end users).
19 Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp., Case No. C-12-00660-RMW, 2013 WL 3354390, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal 2013) (holding that an assignee purchases a patent subject to all prior licenses, including any covenants not to sue).
Similarly, the networks that each of the Accused Products utilize aren’t configured to maintain a non-complete graph of participants as required by the claims in all of the Asserted Patents.
Amazon reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this response, as appropriate, based on Acceleration Bay’s infringement contentions, claim construction, Amazon’s further investigation, and as discovery proceeds.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 183-1 REDACTED VERSION of 171 Declaration, by Amazon Web Services, Inc

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 183-1 (D.Del. Jul. 24, 2024)
DEPOSITION OF KEVIN GASPER, taken before Brianne L. Starkey, RPR, CRR, Online Notary Public within and for the State of Nebraska, beginning at 9:00 a.m. PST, on February 7, 2024.
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 183-1 Filed 07/24/24 Page 132 of 137 PageID #: 24989 2022.449 From July 2016 through August 2022, Lambda generated in net revenue and in variable costs, resulting in a and a contribution margin of for the Virginia, Oregon, San Francisco, and Columbus Data Centers (Exhibit 23).
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 183-1 Filed 07/24/24 Page 133 of 137 PageID #: 24990 includes financial information beginning in 2018 Q2 through 2022 Q3.452 From 2018 Q2 to 2022 Q3, EKS generated in revenue and in variable costs, resulting in a , and a contribution margin of for the Virginia, Oregon, San Francisco, and Columbus Data Centers (Exhibit 24).
Generally, the royalty rate paid to Boeing should leave sufficient gross profit for AWS to continue to be rewarded for its contributions to the sales of the infringing Accused Products.
Based on my review of Amazon’s marketing materials, deposition testimony, and technical documents, the subject matter of the Asserted Claims makes a substantial contribution to the customer demand for the Accused Products.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 46 SO ORDERED Granting (36 in 16-cv-775-RGA, 45 in 16-cv-774-RGA, 33 in 16-cv-776-RGA) Stipulation ...

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 46 (D.Del. Sep. 19, 2016)
WHEREAS Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports, Inc. (collectively, "Video Game Companies") filed the following actions in the Northern District of California on June 16, 2016 seeking declaratory judgment: Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, C.A.
6) ("Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer"), and that motion is still pending; WHEREAS on September 1, 2016, Judge Seeborg in the Northern District of California granted Acceleration Bay's motion to transfer the DJ Actions to the District of Delaware; WHEREAS the DJ Actions were transferred to the District of Delaware and docketed as Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, C.A.
); WHEREAS the parties have agreed that for the convenience of the parties and the Court the Video Game Companies will (1) withdraw their Motion to Dismiss, Stay or Transfer and (2) dismiss the DJ Actions without prejudice, with the Video Game Companies reserving all rights, including to file the claims asserted in those actions as counterclaims in the 2016 Delaware Actions; .
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that the above-captioned DJ Actions are dismissed without prejudice.
The parties shall each bear their own costs and attorney fees with respect to the dismissed DJ Actions.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 39 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 39 (D.Del. Sep. 1, 2016)
It informed the PTAB “that subsequent to th[e] [Delaware court’s] Order, Acceleration Bay and the Boeing Company entered into an Amended and Restated Patent Purchase Agreement resolving all of the issues identified by the District Court in its June 3, 2016 Order.” Lin Decl. Ex. 32.
AB indicated it would “now” refile complaints against the video game companies, and asked the court to reserve the existing trial dates, “as only minor adjustments to the schedule will be necessary in view of the resolution of this standing issue within two weeks of the Court’s Order.” Id. AB also requested the 2015 Delaware actions be dismissed without prejudice.
The video game companies contend they sought declaratory judgments upon learning AB rightfully owned the patents, and they submit their suits were prompted by “significant uncertainty” because the Delaware court “did not impose any obligation on Acceleration Bay at all and certainly did not set a deadline for filing new suits.” Opp’n at 15:3–5, 16 n.16.
Oct. 11, 2013), another case upon which the video game companies rely, the court agreed the declaratory judgment action was anticipatory but found that sole factor did not warrant transfer in light of additional considerations of judicial efficiency.
The district judge and special master, however, held six hearings and issued ten orders covering scheduling, source code, infringement contentions, third party discovery, depositions, interrogatories, testing data, and standing.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner: DECISIONDenying Petition...

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner - DECISIONDenying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271d (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

11 Decision Denying Institution: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 11 Decision Denying Institution - Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

9 Order: Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 9 Order - Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Accord Filing Date

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 5 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Accord Filing Date (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 22

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 22 (D.Del. Jul. 15, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 1 (D.Del. Jun. 16, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 45

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 45 (D.Del. Sep. 15, 2016)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

10 Reply: Bungies Reply to the Preliminary Response

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 10 Reply - Bungies Reply to the Preliminary Response (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

8 Other Not for motions: Patent Owners Preliminary Response Redacted

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 8 Other Not for motions - Patent Owners Preliminary Response Redacted (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

7 Motion: Patent Owners Motion for Entry of Proposed Protective Order and to Sea...

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 7 Motion - Patent Owners Motion for Entry of Proposed Protective Order and to Seal Certain Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11 >>