Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 31913
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`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.
`
`2) For the four Topology Patents (’344, ’966, ’069, ’147 patents), GTAO and NBA 2K
`do not meet the m-regular and incomplete limitations, either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3) For the method claims (’069, ’147 patents), there is no infringement because:
`
`a. For GTAO, Acceleration has not shown that the accused methods have ever
`been performed. For the ’069 patent because, neither game practices the
`“random walk” limitation.
`
`b. For the ’147 patent, a list of all of the participants in the game is not the
`claimed “list of neighbors of the first computer.”
`
`c. There is no infringement by equivalents as a matter of law.
`
`4) For the ’497 patent, there is no infringement because:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`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.
`
`2) For the four Topology Patents (’344, ’966, ’069, ’147 patents), GTAO and NBA 2K
`do not meet the m-regular and incomplete limitations, either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3) For the method claims (’069, ’147 patents), there is no infringement because:
`
`a. For GTAO, Acceleration has not shown that the accused methods have ever
`been performed. For the ’069 patent because, neither game practices the
`“random walk” limitation.
`
`b. For the ’147 patent, a list of all of the participants in the game is not the
`claimed “list of neighbors of the first computer.”
`
`c. There is no infringement by equivalents as a matter of law.
`
`4) For the ’497 patent, there is no infringement because:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 31914
`
`
`a. For NBA 2K, Acceleration relies only on inadmissible and irrelevant
`Microsoft documents for the “port ordering” algorithm element.
`
`b. For GTAO: Acceleration’s expert repeatedly stated that the accused algorithm
`generates a list of ports in a “random” manner, which does not meet the claim
`limitation that the list of ports be generated in a “non-random manner,” nor
`does the law permit the Court to accept Acceleration’s new argument that
`“random” is equivalent to “non-random.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`Louis L. Campbell
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`
`Daniel K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`_______________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 31915
`
`
`Paul N. Harold
`Joseph C. Masullo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`April 26, 2019
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 31916
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-455 (RGA)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`6) For the four Topology Patents (’344, ’966, ’069, ’147 patents), GTAO and NBA 2K
`do not meet the m-regular and incomplete limitations, either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`7) For the method claims (’069, ’147 patents), there is no infringement because:
`
`a. For GTAO, Acceleration has not shown that the accused methods have ever
`been performed. For the ’069 patent because, neither game practices the
`“random walk” limitation.
`
`b. For the ’147 patent, a list of all of the participants in the game is not the
`claimed “list of neighbors of the first computer.”
`
`1
`Acceleration is asserting the following claims: (a) claims 12, 13, 14, 15 from the ’344
`patent; (b) claims 12 and 13 from the ’966 patent; (c) claim 1 from the ’147 patent; (d) claims 9
`and 16 from the ’497 patent; and (e) claims 1 and 11 from the ’069 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 31917
`
`
`c. There is no infringement by equivalents as a matter of law.
`
`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.
`
`b. For GTAO: Acceleration’s expert repeatedly stated that the accused algorithm
`generates a list of ports in a “random” manner, which does not meet the claim
`limitation that the list of ports be generated in a “non-random manner,” nor
`does the law permit the Court to accept Acceleration’s new argument that
`“random” is equivalent to “non-random.”
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 462 Filed 04/26/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 31918
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 26, 2019, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`April 26, 2019, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`_______________________________________
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`Greg Proctor, Esquire
`KRAMER KEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`Cristina Martinez, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
