• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 144-158 of 1,636 results

No. 171 ORDER On Claim Construction Process: The MOTION to Strike (165 in 16-cv-453-RGA, 135 in 16-cv-454-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 171 (D.Del. Jul. 5, 2017)
Motion for Claim ConstructionDenied
I do not consider changing from plain meaning to something else for one out of fifty-six terms (No. 16-453, D.I.
The Defendants are to divide the remaining terms into four groups with approximately equal number of terms in each group, and the parties may have the standard number of pages to brief each of the four groups, with the joint claim construction briefs being due at regularly spaced intervals, that is, August 31, September 29, October 31, and November 30, 2017.
The parties should meet and confer on the interim dates, and submit a stipulated briefing schedule by COB July 10, 2017.
Markman hearings will be scheduled later, at a time convenient for the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this S°' day of July 2017. e~~ UniteastatesDi trict Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 232 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 7

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 232 (D.Del. Jul. 21, 2017)
After receiving competing urgent emails from the parties as to their disputes concerning possible limitations for the Hynd deposition that they are prepared to take in Scotland and as to
RD 10439285v.1 the arrangements for the Plaintiff's six days of source code review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
Plaintiff has six days [reasonable business hours] to review source code in total.
Plaintiff may use its time as it sees fit among the cases.
Mr. Hynd's deposition shall be limited to four hours but without restriction on the questions or topics.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 227 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 6 as to Various Pending Motions

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 227 (D.Del. Jul. 17, 2017)
On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC filed its motion to compel source code access with a supporting brief and exhibits 1-25.
It further argues that recent technical depositions in the case, relating to the functionality of the accused products, causes Plaintiff to need further source code inspection.
Plaintiff requests until August 18, 2017 to review Defendants source code, and allowing it until September 29, 2017 to serve its opening expert reports.
Frankly, time does not permit the Special Master to fully set forth all of the arguments pro and con by the parties as to each of the categories of documents being sought in Plaintiff’s motion.
Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc.’s motion to compel compliance with Special Master orders and sanctions under Rule 37 is vigorously opposed by Plaintiff, principally on the grounds that its interrogatory responses are satisfactory and meet the applicable legal test for stating infringement contentions.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 158 ORDER: Special Master's Order No. 3 entered on May 19, 2017, is ADOPTED

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 158 (D.Del. Jun. 23, 2017)
94 ("the parties must serve, file and docket with the Court ... any relevant portion of the record made before [the Special Master] which pertains specifically to the objections.
There may be a little ambiguity as to the exact requirements of the order, but as of today, Defendant has not filed anything with the Court to satisfy its representation.
Plaintiff responded, noting that Defendant had not done this, and identifying where the documents it wanted me to consider could be found.
First, in order to cure any ambiguity in the order appointing the Special Master, I specifically authorize the Special Master to decide any sanctions issues that are encompassed in or permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery.
Second, in view of the fact that the parties have a history with the Special Master, his input on a request for sanctions, even acknowledging that it would be subject to de nova review, would be of significant assistance to me.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 150 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 4 as to the Parties' Motions to Compel

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 150 (D.Del. Jun. 20, 2017)
The issue is whether plaintiff Acceleration Bay can obtain discovery with regard to alleged updated versions of the accused product that have been released since the date the suit was filed in 2015.
In response, plaintiff points to Exhibit 5 in its opening brief in support of this motion to argue that the parties have been trying to amicably resolve this issue.
Finally, defendants argue that it is extremely time consuming and burdensome to respond to plaintiff's discovery with regard to these alleged updated versions.
Plaintiff contends that it needs to take the deposition of John Hynd, a senior programmer for the accused Grand Theft Auto game ("GTA").
They proposed a stipulation that Special Master Order No. 3 would apply to all defendants, subject to any objections that plaintiff might file or motions that it might bring before the Court.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 212 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 5 as to Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 212 (D.Del. Jul. 6, 2017)
Plaintiff’s two page brief supporting its request for reconsideration argues that the relevant portion of Special Master Order No. 4, denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of updated versions, relied on a representation of Defendants’ counsel at the hearing on June 16, 2017.
Plaintiff contends that a June 22, 2017 deposition, taken after the Special Master Order No. 4 was issued, directly contradicts Defendants’ counsel.
That deposition testimony regarded the Frostbite engine and whether it changed the online multi-player functionality.
Their brief had extensive exhibits, including citations to other depositions regarding the use of the Frostbite engine, and satisfactorily supported the statements of Defendants’ counsel at the June 16, 2017 hearing.
Since further infringement contention interrogatory responses are due from Plaintiff later this month, it is not timely for the Special Master to specifically address that issue.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 206 ORDER On Claim Construction Process: The MOTION to Strike (165 in 16-cv-453-RGA, 135 in 16-cv-454-RGA, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 206 (D.Del. Jul. 5, 2017)
Motion for Claim ConstructionDenied
I do not consider changing from plain meaning to something else for one out of fifty-six terms (No. 16-453, D.I.
The Defendants are to divide the remaining terms into four groups with approximately equal number of terms in each group, and the parties may have the standard number of pages to brief each of the four groups, with the joint claim construction briefs being due at regularly spaced intervals, that is, August 31, September 29, October 31, and November 30, 2017.
The parties should meet and confer on the interim dates, and submit a stipulated briefing schedule by COB July 10, 2017.
Markman hearings will be scheduled later, at a time convenient for the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this S°' day of July 2017. e~~ UniteastatesDi trict Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 193 ORDER: Special Master's Order No. 3 entered on May 19, 2017, is ADOPTED

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 193 (D.Del. Jun. 23, 2017)
94 ("the parties must serve, file and docket with the Court ... any relevant portion of the record made before [the Special Master] which pertains specifically to the objections.
There may be a little ambiguity as to the exact requirements of the order, but as of today, Defendant has not filed anything with the Court to satisfy its representation.
Plaintiff responded, noting that Defendant had not done this, and identifying where the documents it wanted me to consider could be found.
First, in order to cure any ambiguity in the order appointing the Special Master, I specifically authorize the Special Master to decide any sanctions issues that are encompassed in or permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery.
Second, in view of the fact that the parties have a history with the Special Master, his input on a request for sanctions, even acknowledging that it would be subject to de nova review, would be of significant assistance to me.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 192 MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying MOTION to Dismiss and for Monetary Sanctions for Violations of Rule ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 192 (D.Del. Jun. 23, 2017)
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)Denied
Cf Safe-Strap Co. v. Koala Corp., 270 F.Supp.2d 407, 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("In assessing whether Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed, the court does not judge the merits of an action .... Rather, the 1 I do not think it is necessary that I examine attorney-client and/or work product protected materials in the middle of a case in order to consider a motion that I consider to be rebutted by the declarations submitted.
2 When I read the briefs, one of the things that troubled me was Defendant's assertions that appeared to be an allegation that lead counsel had lied.
Although the nature of the briefing as a whole made me dubious of the merits of Defendant's motion, my attention was caught by the prospect of a lying lawyer.
Second, in the email that is the basis for the "other story," which does not even seem to have been copied to lead counsel, one of his partners stated, "This is to confirm that [lead counsel] has not viewed RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE CODE material prior to [the PTAB] trial."
I t ' r court determines 'a collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate."').
cite Cite Document
Analyze

14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner: DECISIONDenying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271d

Document IPR2017-01600, No. 14 Decision Denying Request for Rehearing Petitioner - DECISIONDenying Petitioners Request for Rehearing37 CFR § 4271d (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)
Petitioner argues in the Request that the Decision “overlooks Petitioner’s arguments regarding the prior art as a whole and the rationale for combining the teachings of Francis (EX1005) and Gilbert (EX1021).” Req.
Petitioner has not explained how Francis and Gilbert would be combined to teach a portal computer “send[ing] an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants.” Dec. 12.
Petitioner argues that motivation to modify Francis in view of Gilbert with regard to “a seeking participant contacts a fully connected portal computer” was discussed at pages 49–50 of the Petition.
Petitioner then contends that a person having ordinary skill would have modified Francis to use Gilbert’s teachings of a portal node in order to improve network security and provide messaging efficiencies.
We concluded that Petitioner “fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious to combine Francis and Gilbert to have a seeking participant contact a fully connected portal computer as claimed.” Id. at 11–12.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 185

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 185 (D.Del. Jun. 20, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 125 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 3 as to Cross Motions to Compel and for Sanctions

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 125 (D.Del. May. 19, 2017)
During the course of the Hearing on this Motion, the parties appeared to be moving towards a compromise under which Defendant would possibly produce a couple hundred pages of technical documents with appropriate redactions.
If that occurs, Defendants would only have a few months thereafter to respond with their own expert reports, and there may be insufficient time to take possible discovery as to any newly fashioned infringement claims.
Even if the Special Master accepts Plaintiff’s contention as to the law, concerns remain as to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s disclosures as the parties approach the fact discovery cut off.
As set forth above, the Special Master is ordering Plaintiff to supplement its responses to a number of interrogatories in a specific and complete manner.
Defendants contend that Smith and Abarbanel are the most knowledgeable witnesses regarding certain key issues in this case, including when the patents where supposedly invented and built, and whether they are invalid as having been “on sale” more than one year prior to the date they were filed.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 476

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 476 (D.Del. Jul. 3, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 118 ORDER Granting in part Plaintiff's request for Leave to Amend its Preliminary Election of Asserted ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 118 (D.Del. May. 8, 2017)
INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and 2K
WHEREAS, the Court having considered Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC's ("Acceleration Bay") Motion for Leave to Amend its Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims ( tlo.
J~o, tt5") and the related briefin* IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this_[_ day of 111,,.- Bay's Motion is hereby GRANTEI{' /..i /'ARI -, , 2017, that Acceleration {l) Within three (3) days, Acceleration Bay shall serve its Amended Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims on Defendants (a) withdrawing its election of claims found o..rJ.. unpatentab~:_~n inter partes review proceedings; (b) adding claim 12 of U.S. Patent No .
Within ten ( 10) days, Acceleration Bay shall serve infringement contentions for claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,34~aREl s1aim 1 ()@I $.Patent No. (T,'829,~and (3) Within thirty one (31) days, Defendants shall serve invalidity contentions for claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,34~n'htaim 1 0 •f:ttS: ¥acem Jrqu, 6,~34'" faLilme t6 servrinnljdiJ:y CQ1ttct1L1~ wlthiR at.• 1 1j11ie.pwis6 ~ludl b8"8eemed aR aSAiiiisien tlutUhe Glaims ar~aliij..
Honorable Ric ard G. Andrews United States District Judge \ , !
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 155 SPECIAL MASTER ORDER No. 3 as to Cross Motions to Compel and for Sanctions

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 155 (D.Del. May. 19, 2017)
During the course of the Hearing on this Motion, the parties appeared to be moving towards a compromise under which Defendant would possibly produce a couple hundred pages of technical documents with appropriate redactions.
If that occurs, Defendants would only have a few months thereafter to respond with their own expert reports, and there may be insufficient time to take possible discovery as to any newly fashioned infringement claims.
Even if the Special Master accepts Plaintiff’s contention as to the law, concerns remain as to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s disclosures as the parties approach the fact discovery cut off.
As set forth above, the Special Master is ordering Plaintiff to supplement its responses to a number of interrogatories in a specific and complete manner.
Defendants contend that Smith and Abarbanel are the most knowledgeable witnesses regarding certain key issues in this case, including when the patents where supposedly invented and built, and whether they are invalid as having been “on sale” more than one year prior to the date they were filed.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... >>