WHEREAS, the Parties have submitted letters and a joint statement regarding suggested changes to the case schedule (D.I.

424,426,467,476), and Defendant's Daubert Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher, Dr. Christine Meyer, Dr. Harry Bims, and Dr. Ricardo Valerdi (D.I.

500) which resolved the motions then pending in a related action, Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., No. 16-453; WHEREAS, my resolution of certain Daubert motions significantly impacted Plaintiffs damages case in the Activision Blizzard matter; WHEREAS, trial in the Activision Blizzard matter has been postponed indefinitely pending resolution of the admissibility of Plaintiff's remaining damages case; WHEREAS, Acceleration Bay's proposed damages expert's opinion is very similar to the opinion I excluded in the Activision Blizzard matter; WHEREAS, I do not intend to change my position that Plaintiffs expert's opinion based oh the Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA, No. 6: 13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

Dec. 15, 2014), jury verdict is inadmissible; WHEREAS, I do not believe that issues with Plaintiffs damages case require delaying trial in this matter, but I agree that the pending damages motions should be addressed, if at all, at a later date; WHEREAS, my initial review of the briefing in this case has revealed that some of the same general summary judgment issues addressed in the Memorandum Opinion are repeated; and WHEREAS, the Parties are in a better position than the Court to determine if, and to what extent, issues resolved in the Memorandum Opinion bear on the appropriate resolution of the summary judgment motions; NOW THEREFORE this 26 day of November 2018, IT IS ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for December 19, 2018 at 10:00 AM is rescheduled to December 20, 2018 at

499) that may bear on the summary judgment motions; IT IS ORDERED that the Parties' request that I postpone the trial in this matter is DENIED subject to my reconsideration following discussion with the Parties at the December 20, 2018 argument; and IT IS FURTHER 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.

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.

On August 29, 2018, two months before the scheduled trial, I issued an Order striking the portion of Plaintiff's primary damages expert' s reasonable royalty opinion which relied on a jury verdict in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. EA , No. 6:13-cv-00259-RWA (E.D.

I reviewed Plaintiffs revised damages case and precluded certain inadmissible pieces of evidence in an order issued on October 17, 2018, twelve days before trial.

Based on the briefing, I determined that it would not be possible for me to reach a decision on Plaintiffs damages case prior to the scheduled start of trial.

However, neither party should interpret my decision to continue the trial as an indication of my disposition toward the proper resolution of issues surrounding Plaintiffs damages case.

Once any supplementation has occurred, and any further expert depositions have been conducted, Plaintiff shall provide me with a proffer of the case it intends to submit to the jury on damages.

Plaintiffs motion to exclude Pat Griffith' s testimony about non-infringing alternatives for Call of Duty is GRANTED.

Further review of the record confirms my initial view that Defendant did not sufficiently disclose Mr. Griffith as a witness who has knowledge of non-infringing alternatives.

591-1, Exh. HI) is GRANTED for the reasons which I expressed during the pre-trial conference, but is subject to reconsideration if Plaintiff opens the door during trial.

Defendant may not refer to the role of Plaintiffs attorneys in the formation of Acceleration Bay or in the acquisition of the asserted patents.

Since there is no obviousness defense, no evidence will be presented about Sony' s employee, Mr. Van Datta, and copying.