Search court records on patent:(6910069) - not party Electronic Arts, page 10

No. 39 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO TRANSFER AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Document Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, 1:16-cv-00774, No. 39 (D.Del. Sep. 1, 2016)

It informed the PTAB “that subsequent to th[e] [Delaware court’s] Order, Acceleration Bay and the Boeing Company entered into an Amended and Restated Patent Purchase Agreement resolving all of the issues identified by the District Court in its June 3, 2016 Order.” Lin Decl. Ex. 32.

AB indicated it would “now” refile complaints against the video game companies, and asked the court to reserve the existing trial dates, “as only minor adjustments to the schedule will be necessary in view of the resolution of this standing issue within two weeks of the Court’s Order.” Id. AB also requested the 2015 Delaware actions be dismissed without prejudice.

The video game companies contend they sought declaratory judgments upon learning AB rightfully owned the patents, and they submit their suits were prompted by “significant uncertainty” because the Delaware court “did not impose any obligation on Acceleration Bay at all and certainly did not set a deadline for filing new suits.” Opp’n at 15:3–5, 16 n.16.

Oct. 11, 2013), another case upon which the video game companies rely, the court agreed the declaratory judgment action was anticipatory but found that sole factor did not warrant transfer in light of additional considerations of judicial efficiency.

The district judge and special master, however, held six hearings and issued ten orders covering scheduling, source code, infringement contentions, third party discovery, depositions, interrogatories, testing data, and standing.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Richard Andrews
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Activision Blizzard
Analyze Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 294 ORDER Denying request for delay (see D.I. 253 in C.A. 16-453-RGA)

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 294 (D.Del. Sep. 8, 2017)

Defendants request a delay in the schedule.

The request is that the schedule be adjusted so that everything "proceed[ s] in an orderly fashion after claim construction is complete."

I would give Defendants more latitude ifl thought the excessive amount of claim construction was Plaintiffs responsibility, but I am pretty sure that, on claim construction at least, it is Defendants who have said that every last word in the claims needs to be construed.

Defendants cannot have their cake and eat it too.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 day of September 2017. '

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- William Bryson
Analyze Party
- Acceleration Bay
- Allen M. -SM- Terrell, JR.
Analyze Firm
- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
- Potter Anderson & Corroon

No. 293 ORDER: The objections to a procedural ruling of the Special Master (see 288 in 16-cv-453-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 293 (D.Del. Sep. 8, 2017)

I am asked to sustain objections to a procedural ruling of the Special Master.

The Special Master set a page limit on expert reports.

The limit set by the Special Master was 2500 pages.

To put this in perspective, War and Peace, one of the longest works of fiction ever published, is 1440 pages when translated to English.

I also note that it is routine to put limits on the length of a trial; I do not think it is unreasonable to put a limit on the length of expert reports.

Cite Document

Analyze