• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 114-128 of 2,058 results

No. 396 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO. 14

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 396 (D.Del. Dec. 28, 2017)
Defendants point out that Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration stated that he had been retained by Accleration Bay to conduct a pre-filing expert analysis of its infringement claims.
P. 26(b)(4), as it is not a “draft of a report ultimately submitted in the litigation”, and work product protection under this Rule does not extend to materials prepared by or for a testifying expert.
Defendants’ request on December 18, 2017 also argues that a recent decision, subsequent to Special Master Order No. 13, supports Defendants’ argument that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis
Acceleration Bay’s response to Defendants request of December 18, 2017 argues that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis is work product and need not be produced under the above cited Rule 26.
Thus, according to Plaintiff, Dr. Medvidovic’s pre-filing analysis is covered by the Protective Order in this case which precludes from discovery any conversation or communication between counsel
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 398 SO ORDERED re Supplemental Claim Construction Order

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 398 (D.Del. Dec. 28, 2017)
The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.1.
321 )1, and in accordance with the reasoning set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinions (D.1.
"thus the graph is configured to maintain a non-complete state" "data" "broadcast channel(s)"
plain and ordinary meaning "communications network consisting of interconnected participants where each participant receives all data broadcasted on that communications network"
"connection port search message" "in order to maintain an m-regular graph"
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 360 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER NO. 14

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 360 (D.Del. Dec. 28, 2017)
Defendants point out that Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration stated that he had been retained by Accleration Bay to conduct a pre-filing expert analysis of its infringement claims.
P. 26(b)(4), as it is not a “draft of a report ultimately submitted in the litigation”, and work product protection under this Rule does not extend to materials prepared by or for a testifying expert.
Defendants’ request on December 18, 2017 also argues that a recent decision, subsequent to Special Master Order No. 13, supports Defendants’ argument that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis
Acceleration Bay’s response to Defendants request of December 18, 2017 argues that Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis is work product and need not be produced under the above cited Rule 26.
Thus, according to Plaintiff, Dr. Medvidovic’s pre-filing analysis is covered by the Protective Order in this case which precludes from discovery any conversation or communication between counsel
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 361 SO ORDERED re Supplemental Claim Construction Order

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 361 (D.Del. Dec. 28, 2017)
The Court, having considered the parties' briefing on claim construction (D.1.
321 )1, and in accordance with the reasoning set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinions (D.1.
"thus the graph is configured to maintain a non-complete state" "data" "broadcast channel(s)"
plain and ordinary meaning "communications network consisting of interconnected participants where each participant receives all data broadcasted on that communications network"
"connection port search message" "in order to maintain an m-regular graph"
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 387 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 387 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'"
Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Defendants' alternative construction captures Plaintiff's binding argument to the PTAB by requiring that the claimed networks are configured to maintain a non-complete state.
Plaintiff admits that as a "matter of science," many broadcast channels, including those of the accused products, have a unique identifier.
However, Defendants point to no lexicography, disclaimer, or other support for the proposition that the "broadcast channels" in these particular claims require a "unique identifier."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 388 ORDER regarding MOTION for Clarification of The Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 388 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
In response to Defendants' Motion for Clarification to the Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order (No. 16-453, D.I.
That brings us to issue (2), where Defendants argue that Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications are a "black box" and do not provide an independent algorithm for "connecting."
Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications do in fact provide an independent algorithm for "connecting," citing a new declaration from Dr. Medvidovic (D.I.
Thus, the issue is whether that structure is "sufficient," which "requir[ es] consideration of what one skilled in the art would understand from that disclosure, whether by way of expert testimony or otherwise."
Accordingly, the parties are directed to produce expe1i witness testimony on this second issue at a hearing to be scheduled.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 386 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 386 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
Defendants' proposed construction: "any medium for storing or transporting computer readable instructions, including memory, storage devices, carrier waves and communications links" c. Court's construction: "any medium for storing or transporting computer readable instructions, including memory, storage devices, carrier waves, and communications links" The parties agree that the term "computer readable medium" covers media for storing instructions and data such as hard disks and memory storage devices.
Defendants cite Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017), in which the Federal Circuit found that a "computer readable medium containing instructions" included carrier waves and thus was invalid under§ 101.
First, the claim language provides that the portal computer "sends an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants."
Plaintiffs proposed construction, unlike Defendants', reads the "edge connection request" out of the claim by failing to explain how the "random walk" happens.
In briefing, Plaintiff argued that Defendants' construction is "unhelpful" because it "misleadingly suggests that the message itself must somehow include features that enable it to locate a computer with less than m neighbors."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 352 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 352 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
Instead, the court is free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources 'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.'"
Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Defendants' alternative construction captures Plaintiff's binding argument to the PTAB by requiring that the claimed networks are configured to maintain a non-complete state.
Plaintiff admits that as a "matter of science," many broadcast channels, including those of the accused products, have a unique identifier.
However, Defendants point to no lexicography, disclaimer, or other support for the proposition that the "broadcast channels" in these particular claims require a "unique identifier."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 353 ORDER regarding MOTION for Clarification of The Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 353 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
In response to Defendants' Motion for Clarification to the Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order (No. 16-453, D.I.
That brings us to issue (2), where Defendants argue that Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications are a "black box" and do not provide an independent algorithm for "connecting."
Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that Figures 3A and 3B and corresponding specifications do in fact provide an independent algorithm for "connecting," citing a new declaration from Dr. Medvidovic (D.I.
Thus, the issue is whether that structure is "sufficient," which "requir[ es] consideration of what one skilled in the art would understand from that disclosure, whether by way of expert testimony or otherwise."
Accordingly, the parties are directed to produce expe1i witness testimony on this second issue at a hearing to be scheduled.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 351 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 351 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)
Defendants' proposed construction: "any medium for storing or transporting computer readable instructions, including memory, storage devices, carrier waves and communications links" c. Court's construction: "any medium for storing or transporting computer readable instructions, including memory, storage devices, carrier waves, and communications links" The parties agree that the term "computer readable medium" covers media for storing instructions and data such as hard disks and memory storage devices.
Defendants cite Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017), in which the Federal Circuit found that a "computer readable medium containing instructions" included carrier waves and thus was invalid under§ 101.
First, the claim language provides that the portal computer "sends an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants."
Plaintiffs proposed construction, unlike Defendants', reads the "edge connection request" out of the claim by failing to explain how the "random walk" happens.
In briefing, Plaintiff argued that Defendants' construction is "unhelpful" because it "misleadingly suggests that the message itself must somehow include features that enable it to locate a computer with less than m neighbors."
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 322 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 13

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 322 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)
Plaintiff argues that it has been prejudiced and will be subject to more prejudice if the Alagar prior art is not dismissed because of the delay by the Defendants and the schedule to present expert reports.
However, Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosures in the few months leading up to the fact discovery cut-off date put pressures on the Defendants to amend their invalidity contentions, including prior art references.
The motion concerns documents that Plaintiff provided to Hamilton Capital and/or its counsel, Reed Smith, during their negotiation of a litigation financing agreement in 2014 and 2015.
Defendants maintain that the documents sought are clearly relevant to issues such as patent valuation, damages, royalty rates and Plaintiff’s status as an operating company.
Plaintiff also represented in oral argument at the Hearing that there was an understanding of confidentiality between the two law firms as to the documents provided in Hamilton Capital’s due diligence.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 462 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement - filed by 2K Sports, Inc., Rockstar Games, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 462 (D.Del. Apr. 26, 2019)
Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Defendants Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc., and 2K Sports, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment of noninfringement.
The grounds for this motion are set forth in Defendants’ opening brief and supporting papers filed contemporaneously herewith, namely: 1) Defendants do not directly infringe the ’344, ’966 and ’497 patents for the same reasons the Court found no direct infringement in the Activision and EA cases, namely, that Defendants do not make, use, sell or offer to sell the claimed inventions, including through testing.
4) For the ’497 patent, there is no infringement because: a. For NBA 2K, Acceleration relies only on inadmissible and irrelevant Microsoft documents for the “port ordering” algorithm element.
WHEREAS, the Court, having consider Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this _______ day of _______________, 2019, that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to the following:1 5) Defendants do not directly infringe the ’344, ’966 and ’497 patents for the same reasons the Court found no direct infringement in the Activision and EA cases, namely, that Defendants do not make, use, sell or offer to sell the claimed inventions, including through testing.
8) For the ’497 patent, there is no infringement because: a. For NBA 2K, Acceleration relies only on inadmissible and irrelevant Microsoft documents for the “port ordering” algorithm element.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 309 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 12

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 309 (D.Del. Nov. 7, 2017)
Activision’s motion is based upon its conclusion that Plaintiff’s expert reports contain infringement contentions that had not previously been disclosed, allegedly in violation of prior orders of the Special Master.
It is hard to fault with the expert’s use of cross referencing, in light of the number of games, extensive source code and over 100 elements involved in the various patents at issue in this litigation.
The Special Master wishes that Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses, as to its contentions, would have been more complete at an earlier stage in this litigation, but there is not convincing evidence of any bad faith by Plaintiff.
In addition, Dr. Meyer through the expert report of Dr. Valerdi, offers an allegedly new theory that the cost of re-writing the source code to avoid any potential infringement would be billions of dollars.
According to Plaintiff, Defendants invalidity contentions made no attempt to explain the basis for purported lack of written description, definiteness or enablement for any claim element upon which Dr. Karger opines.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 361

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 361 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 327

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., 1:16-cv-00454, No. 327 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... >>