• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2,058 results

Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Docket 1:22-cv-00904, Delaware District Court (July 6, 2022)
Judge Richard G. Andrews, presiding, Judge Sherry R. Fallon
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsDISCOVERY-SRF, PATENT
Cause35:1 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10217462; 6701344; 6714966; 6732147; 6829634; 6910069
6701344671496667321476829634
6910069
Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC
Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 294 FINAL JUDGMENT: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 294 (D.Del. Oct. 7, 2024)
Motion for Judgment
P. 58(b) as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Acceleration Bay, LLC ("Acceleration Bay") and against Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("A WS") with respect to Acceleration Bay' s claims of infringement of Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No .
290); Judgment is entered in favor of Acceleration Bay and against A WS for damages in the amount of $30,500,000 for AWS ' s infringement of the two asserted claims, subject to any enhanced damages, interest, fees, and/or costs that may subsequently be sought and awarded by the Court; Of the $30,500,000 damages award, the amount of $1 ,000,000 is based on Virtual Private Cloud ("VPC")'s infringement of the ' 147 Patent from July 6, 2022 to July 22, 2022, and the
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 294 Filed 10/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 36388 amount of$29,500,000 is based on CloudFront's infringement of the '966 Patent and ' 147 Patent from March 13, 2019 through July 5, 2022.
Judgment is entered in favor of Acceleration Bay and against A WS with respect to Acceleration Bay's claim that A WS's infringement of the two asserted claims by CloudFront was willful.
This JUDGMENT serves to trigger the time for filing post-trial motions on issues that were decided by the jury, as well as other post-trial matters.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 259 MEMORANDUM ORDER: Regarding the testimony of Mr. Hayden; Ms. Kindler's "portfolio licenses; ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 259 (D.Del. Sep. 20, 2024)
Motion to Strike ReportDenied
The issue arose because Mr. Hayden was on the live witness list, and I asked Defendant at the pretrial conference about what he was going to testify.
But since I doubt its relevance, if Defendant wants me to consider permitting such testimony, it needs to submit a detailed proffer about what Mr. Hayden would say no later than Monday, September 23, at 10 a.m.
200), which I denied, I asked that Plaintiff submit a proffer regarding Dr. Medvidovic' s proposed testimony about how the accused products meet the "broadcast channel" limitation.
In response, Defendant raised a different issue, saying that one paragraph at pp. 4-5 of the proffer was a previously undisclosed (or new) infringement theory.
The proffer' s disputed paragraph states that Dr. Medvidovic "explains that BigMac ... utilizes a 'HyperPlane Health Layer' .
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 219 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 219 (D.Del. Sep. 12, 2024)
“Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
“Extrinsic evidence is to be used to determine the meaning of specific words and terms used and not to show an intention independent of the instrument or to vary, contradict or modify the written word.” Viking Bank, 183 Wash. App. at 713 (quoting Hearst, 154 Wash. 2d at 503) (cleaned up).
The author interprets the contract language as “appear[ing] to give AWS the right to deflect patent lawsuits filed by current and former customers—no matter the amount of services they had used during their business relationship with AWS—until the end of time.” (Id.).
According to http://aws.amazon.com/CloudFront: Amazon CloudFront is a fast content delivery network (CDN) service that securely delivers data, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally with low latency, high transfer speeds, all within a developer-friendly environment.
AB- AWS_011654-973 at 11814-818 (explaining, inter alia, that GameLift can “use [VPC] peering connections to enable [customer] game services to communicate directly and privately with [the customer’s] other AWS resources”); Byskal Tr. at 17:4-17:16 (“GameLift will create – for every deployment ... what we call ... a
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 220 ORDER: Plaintiff's summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I. 150 ) are GRANTED IN PART and ...

Document Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., 1:22-cv-00904, No. 220 (D.Del. Sep. 12, 2024)
Motion for Summary JudgmentPartial
Civil Action No. 22-904-RGA For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY
Plaintiff’s summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I.
150) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in the Memorandum Opinion; 2.
Defendant’s summary judgment and Daubert motions (D.I.
United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
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
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>