• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2,262 results

Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 5:19-cv-04133, California Northern District Court (July 18, 2019)
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim
Patent
DivisionSan Jose
FlagsADRMOP, AO279, CLOSED, PROTO, PRVADR, REFDIS
Cause28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497; 7412537
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
69204977412537
Plaintiff Epic Games, Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
Counter Claimant Acceleration Bay LLC
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC

Docket 1:16-cv-00774, Delaware District Court (Sept. 2, 2016)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
DemandPlaintiff
Cause28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069; 6920497
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
6920497
Plaintiff Activision Blizzard Inc.
Defendant Acceleration Bay LLC
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 863 ORDER memorializing the claim construction ruling made at the charge conference

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 863 (D.Del. May. 8, 2024)
Acceleration Bay argued that Rufino “does not address receiving disconnect messages in the context of maintaining an m-regular non-complete topology, as required by claim 1.” Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, IPR 2016-00747 at 25.
For the foregoing reasons, the statements made by Acceleration Bay in the inter partes review proceedings do not amount to the sort of “clear and unmistakable” disclaimer necessary for prosecution history estoppel to attach.
Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Aylus, 856 F.3d 1353 (considering statements made by a patent owner during an inter partes review proceeding for purposes of prosecution disclaimer).
That statement, however, was made in the general background section of the order, in which Judge Andrews was describing the nature of the claims of four different patents, the other three of which called for an “incomplete” or “non-complete” m-regular network.
For the foregoing reasons, I construed claim 1 as applying to any m-regular graph, regardless of its completeness, and I therefore precluded Activision from arguing a contrary construction to the jury.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 861 JUDGMENT in favor of Acceleration Bay LLC against Activision Blizzard Inc. in the amount of ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 861 (D.Del. May. 6, 2024)
Motion for Judgment
The plaintiff is awarded $18,000,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.
The plaintiff is awarded $5,400,000 for the infringement, the amount found by the jury in its verdict.
Judgment is further entered that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for prejudgment interest in an amount to be calculated.
The parties should submit letter briefs regarding (1) the interest owed by Activision to Acceleration Bay and (2) the amount of costs owed, including whether costs should be reduced based on the other claims on which Activision prevailed before trial, see Shum, 629 F.3d at 1370 (“It was not unreasonable for the district court to consider which claims the parties respectively won, or to reduce the prevailing party’s costs award to reflect the extent of its victory (i.e., the claims it lost).”).
Any motions should be filed by June 3, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, 28 days after the date of entry of this judgment.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 848

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 848 (D.Del. Apr. 28, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 810

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 810 (D.Del. Apr. 12, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 797

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 797 (D.Del. Jan. 10, 2024)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 788

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 788 (D.Del. Sep. 20, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>