Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Mike Tomasulo, page 3

No. 589 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 589 (D.Del. Oct. 7, 2022)

Jack B. Blumenfeld, Cameron P. Clark, MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELLLLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael A. Tomasulo (argued), David P. Enzminger, Gino Cheng,JoeS.

With the Take-Two Case’s appeal resolved, Defendant now moves for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating infringementissues it lost in the Take-Two Case.

Plaintiff argued that GTAO infringes the m-regular limitation because the players’ avatars “share more data when they are near each other” thus causing an m-regular network to “arise naturally as the players are moving throughout the game.” Take-Two SJ Opinion at *8 (cleaned up).

Player Movement Issue Defendant argues that, just as with GTAO in the Take-Two Case, Plaintiff's infringement arguments rely on a “claim that the [Defendant’s] networks may or may not be m-regular depending on the players’ actions in the game.” (D.I.

This reasoning was underscored by the fact that “for the °344, ’966, and ’147 patents ... the patentee added the m-regularlimitation during prosecution” to overcome “a specific prior art reference[,]” thus barring Plaintiff “by prosecution history estoppel from now attempting to erase that limitation from the patents.” (/d.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Allen M. -SM- Terrell, JR.
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 284 FINAL VERDICT FORM

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 284 (D.Del. Sep. 27, 2024)

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.

Question 2: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company used CloudFront prior to December 2014?

Question 4: Has Acceleration Bay proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Virtual Private Cloud (“VPC”) infringed either of the Asserted Claims?

Question 5: Has Amazon proven by a preponderance of the evidence that The Boeing Company used VPC prior to December 2014?

The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the courtroom.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 233 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order regarding case narrowing by Acceleration Bay, LLC

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 233 (D.Del. Sep. 19, 2024)

The purpose of this Stipulation is to narrow the issues in dispute and to streamline the presentation of evidence at the trial scheduled to begin on September 23, 2024.

Acceleration Bay may reassert its willful infringement claims against Transit Gateway and Lambda of claim 12 of the ’966 Patent and claim 6 of the ’147 Patent only in the event the case is remanded after appeal with reversal or vacatur of the Court’s grant of summary judgment that Acceleration Bay’s 2019 letter to AWS (D.I.

Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 233 Filed 09/19/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 26550 Patent, and may assert that defense in the event that Acceleration Bay reasserts Transit Gateway or Lambda as accused products.

AWS may reassert that there are non-infringing alternatives in the event that Acceleration Bay reasserts its infringement allegations against Transit Gateway or Lambda of claim 12 of the ’966 Patent and claim 6 of the ’147 Patent, so long as Mr. MacCarthaigh is offered for an up-to-two-hour deposition on non-infringing alternatives.

Acceleration Bay’s claim that AWS’ infringement is willful as to CloudFront; c. AWS’s license and non-infringement defenses (including no willfulness) to Acceleration Bay’s claims of infringement; and Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 233 Filed 09/19/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 26551 d. The parties’ respective damages cases.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 188

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 188 (D.Del. Aug. 23, 2024)

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case

No. 183 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 (D.Del. Jul. 24, 2024)

I am duly licensed to practice law in the State Maryland and the District of Columbia and am admitted pro hac vice in this action.

Attached as Exhibit 54 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 1 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated March 22, 2013, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 55 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 2 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated April 2, 2013, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 56 is a true and correct copy of Amendment No. 3 to the AWS- Boeing Enterprise Customer Agreement, dated January 26, 2018, bearing production number

Attached as Exhibit 66 is a true and correct copy of the October 11, 2022 version of a webpage entitled, “Amazon EKS features,” bearing production number

Cite Document

Analyze