• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
Displaying 99-113 of 1,636 results

No. 345 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 345 (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. 346 MEMORANDUM OPINION providing claim construction for multiple terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 346 (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. 347 ORDER regarding MOTION for Clarification of The Court's Claim Construction Opinion and Order ...

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 347 (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. 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. 387

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 387 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 388

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 388 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 386

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 386 (D.Del. Dec. 20, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 322

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 322 (D.Del. Nov. 22, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 462

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 462 (D.Del. Apr. 26, 2019)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 309

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 309 (D.Del. Nov. 7, 2017)

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. 297

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 297 (D.Del. Oct. 25, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 294

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al, 1:16-cv-00455, No. 294 (D.Del. Oct. 23, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 347

Document Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 1:16-cv-00453, No. 347 (D.Del. Nov. 7, 2017)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
<< 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... >>