Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 8, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`On April 22, 2016, Bungie, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Bungie”) filed a
`
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–12 and 16–19 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,701,344 B1 (Ex. 1101, “the ’344 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`
`On the same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), seeking to join this proceeding with Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al.
`
`v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, Case IPR2015-01972 (“the 1972 IPR”). Paper 3
`
`(“Mot.”). In the 1972 IPR, which was requested by Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports,
`
`Inc., and Rockstar Games, Inc. (“the Activision Petitioners”), we instituted
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent, but we did
`
`not institute inter partes review of claims 12–15 of the ’344 patent. See
`
`1972 IPR, slip op. at 18, 20, 23 (PTAB Mar. 24, 2016) (Paper 8).
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`
`Response to Bungie’s Petition. Paper 10 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner
`
`also filed an Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Paper 9 (“Opp.”).
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent,
`
`and we grant Bungie’s Motion for Joinder. We exercise our discretion,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), to deny institution of inter partes review as to
`
`claim 12.
`
`B. The ’344 Patent
`
`The ’344 patent relates to a “broadcast technique in which a broadcast
`
`channel overlays a point-to-point communications network.” Ex. 1101, 4:3–
`
`5. The broadcast technique overlays the underlying network system with a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`graph of point-to-point connections between host computers or nodes
`
`through which the broadcast channel is implemented. Id. at 4:23–26.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’344 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a broadcast channel represented by a “4-regular, 4-
`
`connected” graph. Id. at 4:48–49. The graph of Figure 1 is “4-regular”
`
`because each node is connected to exactly four other nodes (e.g., node A is
`
`connected to nodes E, F, G, and H). Id. at 4:38–39, 4:49–53. A node in a 4-
`
`regular graph can only be disconnected if all four of the connections to its
`
`neighbors fail. Id. at 4:39–42. Moreover, the graph of Figure 1 is “4-
`
`connected” because it would take the failure of four nodes to divide the
`
`graph into two separate sub-graphs (i.e., two broadcast channels). Id. at
`
`4:42–47.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`To broadcast a message over the network, an originating computer
`
`sends the message to each of its four neighbors using the point-to-point
`
`connections. Id. at 4:30–32. Each computer that receives the message sends
`
`it to its other neighbors, such that the message is propagated to each
`
`computer in the network. Id. at 4:32–38. The minimum number of
`
`connections needed to traverse any two computers in the network is known
`
`as the “distance” between them, while the maximum of the distances in the
`
`network is called the “diameter” of the broadcast channel. Id. at 4:57–5:3.
`
`In Figure 1, the diameter is 2 because a message originating at any node
`
`(e.g., A) traverses no more than 2 connections to reach every other node.
`
`Id. at 5:3–6.
`
`In one embodiment described in the ’344 patent, a distributed game
`
`environment is implemented using broadcast channels. Id. at 16:30–31.
`
`Each player’s computer executes a game application program, and a player
`
`joins a game by connecting to the broadcast channel on which the game is
`
`played. Id. at 16:31–36. Each time a player takes an action in the game, a
`
`message representing that action is broadcast on the game’s broadcast
`
`channel. Id. at 16:36–38.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Among the claims challenged by Petitioner, claims 1, 16, and 18 are
`
`independent. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed subject matter,
`
`and claim 12, which depends from claim 1, are reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer network for providing a game environment
`for a plurality of participants, each participant having
`connections to at least three neighbor participants, wherein an
`originating participant sends data to the other participants by
`sending the data through each of its connections to its neighbor
`participants and wherein each participant sends data that it
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor
`participants, further wherein the network is m-regular, where m
`is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant
`and further wherein the number of participants is at least two
`greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph.
`
`12. The computer network of claim 1 wherein the
`interconnections of participants form a broadcast channel for a
`game of interest.
`
`Id. at 19:26–37, 30:3–6.
`
`D. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following pending judicial
`
`matters as relating to the ’344 patent: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision
`
`Blizzard, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00228-RGA (D. Del., filed Mar. 11, 2015);
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00282-RGA
`
`(D. Del., filed Mar. 30, 2015); and Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two
`
`Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00311-RGA (D. Del., filed
`
`Apr. 13, 2015). Pet. 4; Mot. 2; Paper 8, 1. Petitioner indicates it is not a
`
`party to the underlying district court proceedings. Pet. 4; Mot. 2.
`
`In the 1972 IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–11
`
`and 16–19 of the ’344 patent on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Shoubridge.1 Recently, in IPR2016-00931 (“the 931 IPR”),
`
`we denied another petition filed by the Activision Petitioners directed to
`
`claim 12 of the ’344 patent. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. v. Acceleration
`
`Bay, LLC, Case IPR2016-00931 (PTAB June 23, 2016) (Paper 13) (“931-
`
`Decision”).
`
`
`
`1 Peter J. Shoubridge & Arek Dadej, Hybrid Routing in Dynamic Networks,
`3 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON COMMS. CONF. REC. 1381-86 (Montreal, 1997)
`(Ex. 1105) (“Shoubridge”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`In addition, claims 1–12 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent are the subject
`
`of inter partes review in Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. v. Acceleration Bay,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2015-01970 (“the 1970 IPR”). Bungie has been joined as a
`
`petitioner in the 1970 IPR. See Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2016-00933 (PTAB June 23, 2016) (Paper 11).
`
`The 1972 IPR
`
`As noted above, in the 1972 IPR we instituted inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent, but we did not institute inter
`
`partes review of claims 12–15 of the ’344 patent. 1972 IPR, Paper 8
`
`(“1972-Decision”). In the 1972 IPR, the Activision Petitioners contended
`
`that claim 12 would have been obvious over Shoubridge and DirectPlay.2
`
`See 1972 IPR, Paper 2 (“1972-Pet.”). As summarized in the 1972-Decision,
`
`Shoubridge models a communication network as a graph in which each node
`
`serves as a source of user traffic entering the network, where traffic can be
`
`sent to the other nodes in the network. 1972-Decision 12 (citing Ex. 1105,3
`
`2). Shoubridge describes a 64 node network with connectivity of degree 4
`
`modeled as a large, regular graph and routing protocols known as
`
`constrained flooding and minimum hop routing. Id. Ultimately, Shoubridge
`
`proposes a hybrid routing strategy, which may rely on a combination of
`
`constrained flooding and minimum hop routing depending on whether valid
`
`routing information exists. Id.
`
`
`
`2 Bradley Bargen & Peter Donnelly, INSIDE DIRECTX (Microsoft Press,
`1998) (Ex. 1103) (“DirectPlay”).
`3 Shoubridge and DirectPlay have the same exhibit numbers in the 1972 IPR
`and in this proceeding.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`In the 1972 IPR, the Activision Petitioners argued that Shoubridge
`
`discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. 1972-Pet. 28–34. For claim 12,
`
`the Activision Petitioners relied on DirectPlay, which describes an
`
`application program interface for providing medium-independent
`
`communications for multiplayer games over networks, to teach the recited
`
`“computer network of claim 1 wherein the interconnections of participants
`
`form a broadcast channel for a game of interest.” Id. at 42–43. The
`
`Activision Petitioners contended it would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to apply Shoubridge’s teaching of flooding over a
`
`network to the gaming environment taught by DirectPlay to achieve
`
`DirectPlay’s objective of high reliability. Id. at 23–27. However, we
`
`determined the obviousness analysis in the petition to be insufficient. 1972-
`
`Decision 21–23. Accordingly, we found the Activision Petitioners did not
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in their challenge against
`
`claim 12. Id.
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Bungie asserts that claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Shoubridge.4 Pet. 18–32. As noted, this is the
`
`same ground, and these are the same claims, for which we instituted inter
`
`partes review in the 1972 IPR.
`
`Bungie also asserts that claim 12 of the ’344 patent would have been
`
`obvious over Shoubridge. Pet. 32–36. Bungie describes this asserted
`
`
`
`4 Bungie articulates this ground as obviousness based on “Shoubridge and
`the knowledge of a POSITA.” Pet. 14. Because obviousness is determined
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we refer to this
`ground simply as obviousness over Shoubridge.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`ground as “substantially similar” to the Activision Petitioners’ challenge to
`
`claim 12 as obvious over Shoubridge in the 931 IPR. Id. at 6 n.1. In the
`
`931 IPR, we denied inter partes review of claim 12 on this ground.
`
`931-Decision 8–11.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claims 1–11 and 16–19
`
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts that claims 1–11 and 16–19 are
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Shoubridge, i.e., the same ground of
`
`unpatentability on which we instituted review in the 1972 IPR. Compare
`
`Pet. 14–32, with 1972-Decision 23. Indeed, the Petition filed in this
`
`proceeding is “practically a copy” of the petition in the 1972 IPR “with
`
`respect to its instituted ground, including the same analysis of the prior art
`
`and expert testimony.” Mot. 2. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does
`
`not address Petitioner’s assertion that claims 1–11 and 16–19 would have
`
`been obvious over Shoubridge. See Prelim. Resp. 1.
`
`For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the
`
`1972 IPR, we determine that the information presented in Bungie’s Petition
`
`shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 would have been obvious over Shoubridge. See
`
`1972-Decision 11–18. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–11 and 16–19 on the asserted ground of obviousness over
`
`Shoubridge.
`
`B. Claim 12
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claim 12 would have been obvious over
`
`Shoubridge. Pet. 32–36. As a threshold matter, Patent Owner argues that
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`the Board should decline to institute review with respect to claim 12 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “because the Petition recycles substantially the same
`
`prior art as well as substantially the same arguments that were already
`
`presented to the Patent Office.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Petitioner does not
`
`address the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to this proposed ground.
`
`Institution of inter partes review is subject to the Board’s discretion.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). In particular, “[i]n determining whether to
`
`institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31,
`
`the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously
`
`were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Having considered the parties’ contentions, we determine the asserted
`
`ground challenging claim 12 as unpatentable over Shoubridge relies on the
`
`same prior art and substantially the same arguments as the petition in the
`
`1972 IPR. Although Shoubridge alone was not raised as a basis for
`
`challenging claim 12 in the 1972 IPR, it was raised as a basis for challenging
`
`claim 1, from which claim 12, among other claims, depends. 1972-Decision
`
`11–12. Moreover, the claim mapping provided for claim 12 in the instant
`
`petition relies on nearly identical disclosures in Shoubridge as relied upon
`
`for claim 1 in the 1972 petition. Compare Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1105,
`
`2 ¶ 11–3 ¶ 1) (mapping Shoubridge’s disclosures of broadcasting a user
`
`packet on outgoing links to claim 12’s “broadcast channel for a game of
`
`interest”), with 1972-Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1105, 2 ¶ 11–3 ¶ 1) (mapping
`
`Shoubridge’s disclosures of broadcasting a user packet on outgoing links to
`
`claim 1’s “send[ing] data to the other participants”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`Our determination that Petitioner’s challenge to claim 12 relies on the
`
`same prior art and substantially the same arguments that were presented in
`
`the 1972 IPR is consistent with our decision in the 931 IPR, in which we
`
`reached the same conclusion with respect to the Activision Petitioners’
`
`substantially similar challenge to claim 12. See 931-Decision 9. We also
`
`noted in the 931 IPR that the Activision Petitioners had presented no
`
`persuasive reason why claim 12 could not have been challenged based on
`
`Shoubridge alone in the 1972 IPR. Id. at 9–10.
`
`As in the 931 IPR, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny
`
`institution of inter partes review of claim 12 on the asserted ground of
`
`obviousness over Shoubridge, which relies on the same prior art and
`
`substantially the same arguments previously presented to the Office. In the
`
`931 IPR we provided a further reason for exercising our discretion not to
`
`institute review of claim 12 based on Shoubridge—the parallel challenge to
`
`claim 12 based on DirectPlay and Lin5 in the 1970 IPR. See id. at 11 (citing
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., Case IPR2014-00436,
`
`slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB June 19, 2014) (Paper 17) (informative); Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. v. Affinity Labs of Tex. LLC, Case IPR2015-00820, slip op. at 4–5
`
`(PTAB May 15, 2015) (Paper 12)). As noted above, we granted Bungie’s
`
`motion for joinder with the 1970 IPR, and therefore Bungie already is a
`
`petitioner in an instituted review of claim 12.
`
`
`
`5 Meng-Jang Lin, et al., Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low
`Message Overhead and High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small
`Networks, Technical Report No. CS1999-0637 (Univ. of Cal. San Diego,
`1999) (Ex. 1104 (Exhibit B)) (“Lin”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`One additional factor weighing in favor of denying institution with
`
`respect to claim 12 under § 325(d) is that Bungie indicates it is not a party to
`
`any district court proceeding involving the ’344 patent. Pet. 4. This
`
`suggests Bungie is not facing a bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Based on the
`
`current record, we are aware of no reason Bungie would be unable to file
`
`another petition challenging claim 12 should it be dissatisfied with the
`
`ultimate determination regarding the patentability of claim 12 in the existing
`
`proceedings.
`
`C. Grant of Motion for Joinder
`
`The Petition and Motion for Joinder in this proceeding were accorded
`
`a filing date of April 22, 2016. See Paper 4. Thus, Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder is timely because joinder was requested no later than one month
`
`after the institution date of the 1972 IPR, i.e., March 24, 2016. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review
`
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response
`under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review under section 314.
`
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate;
`
`(2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`
`(3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for
`
`the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-
`
`00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`
`As discussed above, the Petition in this case asserts the same
`
`invalidity ground with respect to claims 1–11 and 16–19 on which we
`
`instituted review in the 1972 IPR. See Mot. 1–2, 5. Bungie also relies on
`
`the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Activision
`
`Petitioners. See id. at 6. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the
`
`petition filed by the Activision Petitioners with respect to the ground on
`
`which review was instituted in the 1972 IPR. See id. at 6–7. Thus, this inter
`
`partes review of claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent does not present
`
`any ground or matter not already at issue in the 1972 IPR. Patent Owner
`
`does not oppose Bungie’s Motion for Joinder with respect to the asserted
`
`ground of obviousness of claims 1–11 and 16–19 over Shoubridge. See
`
`Opp. 3 (opposing joinder only with respect to claim 12).
`
`If joinder is granted, Bungie anticipates participating in the
`
`proceeding in a limited capacity absent termination of at least one of the
`
`Activision Petitioners as a party. Id. at 12. Bungie agrees to “coordinate
`
`with the [Activision] Petitioners to consolidate filings, manage questioning
`
`at depositions, manage presentations at the hearing, ensure that briefing and
`
`discovery occur within the time normally allotted, and avoid redundancies.”
`
`Id. at 13. Bungie also states it “is willing to take a ‘backseat’ role to the
`
`[Activision] Petitioners, in which it would not file any separate papers
`
`without consultation with the [Activision] Petitioners and prior authorization
`
`from the Board.” Id. Because Bungie expects to participate only in a
`
`limited capacity, Bungie submits that joinder will not impact the trial
`
`schedule for the 1972 IPR. Id. at 12.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`We agree with Petitioner that joinder with the 1972 IPR is appropriate
`
`under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`V. ORDER
`
` ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted in IPR2016-00934
`
`as to claims 1–11 and 16–19 of the ’344 patent on the ground of obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shoubridge;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to this ground, and no
`
`other ground is authorized;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2015-
`
`01972 is granted, and Bungie, Inc. is joined as a petitioner in IPR2015-
`
`01972;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2016-00934 is terminated under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings shall be made only in IPR2015-
`
`01972;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the grounds for
`
`trial in IPR2015-01972 remain unchanged;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the modified
`
`Scheduling Order in place for IPR2015-01972 (Paper 13) remains
`
`unchanged;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2015-01972, the Activision
`
`Petitioners and Bungie will file each paper, except for a motion that does not
`
`involve the other party, as a single, consolidated filing, subject to the page
`
`limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify each such filing as a
`
`consolidated filing;
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that for any consolidated filing, if Bungie
`
`wishes to file an additional paper to address points of disagreement with the
`
`Activision Petitioners, Bungie must request authorization from the Board to
`
`file a motion for additional pages, and no additional paper may be filed
`
`unless the Board grants such a motion;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Activision Petitioners and Bungie
`
`shall collectively designate attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of
`
`any witness produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness
`
`produced by the Activision Petitioners and Bungie, within the timeframes set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) or agreed to by the parties;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Activision Petitioners and Bungie
`
`shall collectively designate attorneys to present a consolidated argument at
`
`the oral hearing, if requested and scheduled;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-01972 shall
`
`be changed to reflect joinder of Bungie as a petitioner in accordance with the
`
`attached example; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2015-01972.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00934
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah
`Michael Lee
`Shannon Hedvat
`Jeffrey Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-019721
`Patent 6,701,344 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Bungie, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00934, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
