Dec. 15, 2014); WHEREAS, on August 29, 2018, in the Activision Action, the Court issued an Order striking the portion of Dr. Meyer's report which relied on that jury verdict (D.I.

509), the Court stated that it did "not intend to change [its] position that Plaintiffs expert's opinion based on the Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Dec. 15, 2014),jury verdict is inadmissible," denied the Parties' joint request to continue the trial in the EA Action "subject to reconsideration" at the summary judgment hearing in the EA action set for December 20, 2018, limited the December 20 hearing to "summary judgment motions," and Ordered that "if Plaintiff intends to offer any damages theories in this case other than the ones it currently has, it needs to meet-and-confer with Defendant and file any necessary motion no later than December 7, 2018;" WHEREAS, in an Order dated November 28, 2018 in the Activision Action (D.I.

WHEREAS, the trials in the EA and Take Two Actions are currently scheduled for March 4, 2019 and November 4, 2019; WHEREAS, given these trial dates, there is not sufficient time for the Parties to complete supplemental expert reports, take depositions, follow the procedures set forth in the Activision Case Management Order (D.I.

The parties shall follow the procedures set forth in the October 30, 2019 Case Management Order in the Activision Action (16-453 D.I.

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to submit a schedule for supplementation of the damages case in C.A.

619); WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay intends to provide an expert report from Russell Parr to supplement Acceleration Bay's damages claim; WHEREAS, Mr. Parr was first identified by Acceleration Bay on November 7, 2018; WHEREAS, Activision objects to Acceleration Bay serving a report from Mr. Parr on the basis that he was not disclosed during discovery; WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay agrees that it will only serve one supplemental report; WHEREAS, subject to Activision's objection to Acceleration Bay serving a report from Mr. Parr, Activision agrees to waive its objection to Mr. Parr receiving Activision's highly confidential information under the protective order; WHEREAS, Activision reserves the right to challenge Acceleration Bay's supplemental report and proffer of proof on damages and Acceleration Bay reserves the right to challenge the expert reports Activision submits in response to Acceleration Bay's supplemental reports regarding damages;

WHEREAS, the parties conferred regarding scheduling in the Activision act1on and failed to reach agreement on the following issues: 1.

WHEREAS, the Parties have set forth their proposed schedules below: Event Acceleration Bay serves supplemental damages expert report Activision serves supplemental damages expert reports Conclusion of depositions on supplemental expert reports Acceleration Bay's Proposal Activision's Proposal 12/7/18 12/7/18 1/18/19 1/25/19 2/1/19 2/8/19 Acceleration Bay files proffer on its damages case · 2/8/19 2/15/19 3/15/19 4/5/19 4/19/19 File opening brief(s) on challenge to proffer of proof and supplemental damages report( s) File responsive brief(s) File reply brief(s) Hearing date 2/22/19 3/15/19 3/25/19 To be set by the Court To be set by the Court The Parties will submit letter briefs of no more than three pages setting forth their positions on these two issues on November 20, 2018. '

\, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP By: Isl Philip A. Rovner Philip A. Rovner (#3215) Jonathan A. Choa (#5319) Hercules Plaza P.O.

The Parties completed the current briefing on Plaintiffs damages case in great haste and with a focus on the impending trial.

Moreover, I suspect Plaintiffs articulation of its damages case will evolve as it supplements its expert reports and develops its proffer.

Plaintiff argues that I committed legal error requiring reconsideration when I precluded introduction of an agreement between Microsoft and Defendant related to use of the Xbox platform.

Reconsideration is appropriate based on " (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion ... ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice."

1 Whether an expert is precluded from considering the Agreement among the ancillary indicators of the value of the patented invention is not the issue that was presented to me.