Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1074
`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 22 PagelD #: 1074
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT G
`EXHIBIT G
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`MQ GAMING, LLC, and CREATIVE KINGDOMS
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`LEGO SYSTEMS, INC., LEGO BRAND RETAIL,
`INC., WARNER BROS. HOME ENTERTAINMENT
`INC., WARNER BROS. INTERACTIVE
`ENTERTAINMENT INC., and WB GAMES INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-00905-MN
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 6568Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1075
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`
`Richard L. Renck (#3893)
`rlrenck@duanemorris.com
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1600
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 657-4900
`Facsimile: (302) 657-4901
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants LEGO Systems,
`Inc., LEGO Brand Retail, Inc., Warner
`Bros. Home Entertainment Inc.,
`Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
`Inc., and WB Games Inc.
`
`Dated: February 18, 2021
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Anthony J. Fitzpatrick (admitted pro hac vice)
`ajfitzpatrick@duanemorris.com
`Gregory S. Bombard (admitted pro hac vice)
`gbombard@duanemorris.com
`Bryan Harrison (admitted pro hac vice)
`BHarrison@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`100 High Street, Suite 2400
`Boston, MA 02110-1724
`Telephone: (857) 488-4200
`
`Patrick D. McPherson (admitted pro hac vice)
`pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`505 9th Street, Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2166
`Telephone: (202) 776 5214
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 6569Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1076
`
`Joseph A. Powers (admitted pro hac vice)
`JAPowers@duanemorris.com
`Daniel Tarr (admitted pro hac vice)
`dtarr@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: (215) 671-0158
`
`Robin McGrath (admitted pro hac vice)
`rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
`Telephone: (404)253-6900
`
`Jordana A. Garellek (admitted pro hac vice)
`JGarellek@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1540 Broadway
`New York, NY 10036-4086
`Telephone: (212) 471-1829
`
`Nicole E. Grigg (admitted pro hac vice)
`NEGrigg@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`2475 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 847- 4176
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 6570Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1077
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims and the Procedural Posture of the Litigation ............................. 2
`
`Defendants’ Attempts to Avoid Motion Practice Regarding the Stay .................... 5
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`Granting A Stay Will Simplify the Issues For Trial ............................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The PTAB Will Consider Validity Challenges to 32 of the 40 Presently-
`Asserted Claims Through the Petitions....................................................... 7
`
`If the PTAB Invalidates the 32 Instituted Claims, Then Defendants Will
`Likely Seek Summary Judgment on the 8 Remaining Claims. .................. 9
`
`A Stay Permits the Court and the Parties to Avoid Significant Expert
`Discovery, Daubert Motions, and a Jury Trial. .................................................... 10
`
`Plaintiffs Will Suffer No Meaningful Prejudice From a Stay. .............................. 12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 6571Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1078
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`454 Life Scis. Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153978, at *12 ........................................................13
`
`AIP, 2014 WL 12642000, at *3 .....................................................................................................13
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., No. 12-1107, 2014
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47430 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) ..............................................................6, 8, 13
`
`British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166651 (D. Del. Sep. 27, 2019) ........................................... 5-6, 10, 12
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. Gopro, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95627 (D. Del. July 14, 2016) .......................................................7, 13
`
`Destination Maternity Corp. v. Target Corp., 12 F. Supp. 3d 762 (E.D. Pa. 2014) ......................11
`
`DivX, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. CV191602PSGDFMX, 2020 WL 3026034 (C.D.
`Cal. May 11, 2020) ..................................................................................................................14
`
`Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 17-871-LPS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`45452 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2019)....................................................................................... 7, 11-12
`
`Ever Win Int’l Corp. v. Radio Shack Corp., 902 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012).........................14
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-452-WCB, 2019
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141545, at *15 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) ............................................... 11-12
`
`Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-04275-EDL, 2015 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 191521 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015) ...............................................................................11
`
`Neste Oil OYJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *15 ..................................................................... 8, 13-14
`
`Nexans, Inc. v. Belden, Inc., No. 12-1491-SLR-SRF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`20116 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2014) ...................................................................................................8
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`29573, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) .................................................... 5-7, 11
`
`Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 00-1020, 2003 WL 21105073 (D. Del.
`May 14, 2003) ............................................................................................................................8
`
`Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Konami Dig. Entm’t, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-
`1461-LPS-CJB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61555 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) ....................... 6, 12-13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 6572Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1079
`
`Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Konami Dig. Entm’t Inc., Civil Action No. 12-
`1461-LPS-CJB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4234 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2015) .....................................8
`
`Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. Dental Wings Inc., C.A. No. 14-460-LPS-CJB D.I.
`67, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155706 (D. Del. March 30, 2016) ................................................13
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 621 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................11
`
`SZ DJI Tech. Co. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, C.A. No. 16-706, 2019 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 44056, 2019 WL 1244948 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019) ....................................................12
`
`Tas Energy, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., No. 12cv2777-GPC(BGS), 2014
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26107 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014) .................................................................11
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................8
`
`Williamson v. Google Inc., No. 15-966, 2015 WL 10890658 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8,
`2015) ..........................................................................................................................................7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98, Part I (2011)....................................................................................................5
`
`https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
`actions/2021/01/25/proclamation-on-the-suspension-of-entry-as-immigrants-
`and-non-immigrants-of-certain-additional-persons-who-pose-a-risk-of-
`transmitting-coronavirus-disease/ ............................................................................................10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,234,902................................................................................................................9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,475,275............................................................................................................ 2-4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,790,180............................................................................................... 2-4, 7, 9-10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,814,688............................................................................................................ 2-4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,039,533........................................................................................................2, 4, 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,162,149............................................................................................................ 2-4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,393,500.................................................................................................... 2, 4-5, 9
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,463,380............................................................................................................ 2-4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,770,652........................................................................................................ 2-4, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6573Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1080
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 16 and 17, 2021, the PTAB instituted five inter partes review proceedings
`
`that cover five of the eight asserted patents and 32 of the 40 presently-asserted patent claims in
`
`this case. The IPRs will greatly simplify the issues to be addressed by this Court, will likely
`
`assist the Court in determining patent validity and non-infringement, and may eliminate the need
`
`for trial. Defendants therefore request the Court stay all further proceedings in this case pending
`
`the outcome of those IPRs.
`
`Under Plaintiffs’ adopted proposal for this case, Plaintiffs intend to try 15 claims from up
`
`to 6 patents. Thus, under the current schedule, there will necessarily be overlap between the
`
`claims and patents selected for trial and the claims and patents subject to IPRs. Indeed, as shown
`
`herein, all of the asserted claims in all eight of the currently-asserted patents are simply different
`
`variations and combinations of the same claim elements. Thus, the eight asserted claims from the
`
`three patents that are not covered by instituted IPRs will unquestionably be impacted by any
`
`invalidity decision of the PTAB, as such claims are not patentably distinct from those being
`
`addressed in the IPR proceedings. Simply put, the outcome of the IPRs will have a substantial
`
`impact on the invalidity and infringement issues in this case, and may well eliminate the need for
`
`any trial.
`
`A stay will neither prejudice Plaintiffs nor create any tactical advantage for any party.
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs will have a full and fair opportunity to defend the patentability of the 32 claims
`
`under review in the IPR proceedings. Additionally, a stay will not meaningfully delay resolution
`
`of this case. The PTAB will issue its final written decision for all of the IPR proceedings by
`
`February 17, 2022. Neither Plaintiff practices any of the patents-in-suit, and Defendants are no
`
`longer selling the accused products in this case. A delay in the trial date will not subject Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 6574Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1081
`
`to any risk of ongoing or increased alleged injury. For these reasons and those set forth in greater
`
`detail below, the Court should enter a stay of this case pending resolution of the IPR petitions.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims and the Procedural Posture of the Litigation
`
`Plaintiffs filed the present suit on May 14, 2019, nearly three years after sending their
`
`first demand letter regarding this dispute. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants
`
`infringed up to 514 claims in 17 patents through their manufacture, import, use, offer for sale,
`
`and sale of “LEGO® Dimensions” products. (D.I. 1). Plaintiffs waited until August 7, 2019,
`
`three months after filing, to serve the Complaint. (D.I. 5-9.) Presently, Plaintiffs are asserting 40
`
`claims from eight patents – U.S. Patent No. 9,162,149 (“the ’149 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,463,380 (“the ’380 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,770,652 (“the ’652 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,790,180 (“the ’180 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,475,275 (“the ’275 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,814,688 (“the ’688 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,039,533 (“the ’533 patent”) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,393,500 (“the ’500 patent”) (hereafter, the “Asserted Patents”).1 The 40 asserted claims
`
`are all directed to the same general subject matter and are simply different variations of verbiage
`
`and combinations of the same elements.
`
`All four of the shared specifications of the Asserted Patents disclose a “fully immersive”
`
`role-playing game in which participants have the opportunity to “carry out and immerse
`
`themselves in a realistic fantasy experience of practicing, performing, and mastering ‘real’
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs are currently asserting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9,11, 13-15 of the ’149 patent, claims 1, 6,
`and 7 of the ’380 patent, claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14, 15, 19 of the ’652 patent, claims 1, 16, 19, 33, 41
`of the ’180 patent, claims 1, 2, 6 and 38 of the ’275 patent, claims 47, 49, 50, and 51 of the ’688
`patent, claim 3 of the ’533 patent and claims 1 and 8 of the ’500 patent (collectively, “the
`Asserted Claims”). Per order of this Court, Plaintiffs are required to further narrow the number
`of asserted claims and patents to 15 claims across a maximum of 6 patents before trial.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 6575Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1082
`
`magic.” ’275 Patent, 1:66-2:2. The specifications all describe an RFID-enabled “magic wand”
`
`that game participants manipulate to “electronically and ‘magically’ interact with their
`
`surrounding play environment by pointing or using their wands in a particular manner to achieve
`
`desired goals or produce desired effects within the play environment.” ’275 Patent, 9:47-51. The
`
`Asserted Claims, however, are not directed towards use of a magic wand. Rather, with few
`
`variations, they are directed to various functionality enabled by simply placing an RFID chip into
`
`a toy. Plaintiffs allege that the LEGO® Dimensions product, which uses RFID technology,
`
`infringes the Asserted Claims.
`
`Plaintiffs did not invent “smart” toys, as the concept of using wireless, inductively-
`
`coupled technology in toys has been known for at least forty years. Plaintiffs also did not invent
`
`the video game category known as “toys to life,” as storing game data in a toy that wirelessly
`
`communicates with and appears in a video game has likewise been known since the 1990s. Nor
`
`did Plaintiffs invent using an RFID chip in a toy, as that concept has been known since at least
`
`1998. Indeed, as demonstrated in Defendants’ IPR petitions, now instituted by the PTAB, art
`
`published in the 1990s (and before the earliest claimed priority date of the Asserted Patents)
`
`teaches or predicts the claim limitations of the Asserted Claims.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Defendants filed six petitions for inter partes review of the ’149
`
`patent (IPR2020-01443), ’380 patent (IPR2020-01444), ’652 patent (IPR2020-01445), ’180
`
`patent (IPR2020-01446), ’275 patent (IPR2020-01447), and ’688 patent (IPR2020-01448)
`
`(collectively, “the Challenged Patents”). The IPRs requested review of 40 out of the 50 then-
`
`asserted claims of the Challenged Patents: claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9,11, 13-16 of the ’149 patent,
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the ’380 patent, claims 1, 5-10, 12, 14, 15, 19 of the ’652 patent, claims
`
`1, 16, 19, 22, 33, 41 of the ’180 patent, claims 1, 2, 6 and 38 of the ’275 patent, and claims 47,
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 6576Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1083
`
`49, 50, and 51 of the ’688 patent (collectively, “the Challenged Claims”). These forty Challenged
`
`Claims include 37 of the currently asserted 40 claims in this litigation.
`
`Defendants selected the Challenged Claims in particular because they include all the
`
`claim elements appearing in each of the claims asserted in this case, including the claims in the
`
`’533 and ’500 Patents that were not the subject of an IPR petition. The Appendix attached to this
`
`brief maps the claim elements contained in the Challenged Claims to those of the Unchallenged
`
`Claims.
`
`On February 16 and 17, 2021, the PTAB instituted trials on all asserted grounds and for
`
`all Challenged Claims in the Petitions for the ’149 patent, the ’380 patent, the ’652 patent, the
`
`’275 patent, and the ’688 patent. (Exs. 1-6 to Bombard Declaration). In instituting those
`
`Petitions, the PTAB found that Defendants have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Defendants will succeed in their challenges to the patentability of the 32 instituted claims. (Id.).
`
`The PTAB denied institution of the petition for the ’180 Patent. Yet, as shown in the Appendix,
`
`with two of the asserted claims of the ’180 Patent, (claims 33 and 41), the PTAB separately
`
`found that each element of those claims was in the combination of art used in the Petitions for
`
`the 32 Instituted Claims. For the other three claims (claims 1, 16, and 19), the PTAB’s decision
`
`not to institute demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ infringement theory for those claims is not viable.
`
`As a result of the institution decisions, the IPRs will address 32 of the 40 Asserted Claims
`
`in this action (the “Instituted Claims”), leaving only 8 claims that will not be directly addressed
`
`by these IPRs − the five asserted claims of the ’180 Patent for which the PTAB denied
`
`institution, dependent claim 3 of the ’533 patent, and claims 1 and 8 of the ’500 patent which
`
`were not challenged in the IPRs (the “Unchallenged Claims”). Yet, given the similarities
`
`between the Instituted Claims and the 8 claims that are not addressed by the IPRs, the PTAB’s
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 6577Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1084
`
`IPR decisions may have the practical effect of being dispositive as to all claims currently
`
`asserted.
`
`Expert discovery in this Court is only just about to start, with opening expert reports due
`
`to be served on February 26, 2021. (D.I. 143) The parties are scheduled to exchange two
`
`additional rounds of expert disclosures in March and April of 2021, with the close of expert
`
`discovery occurring on May 3, 2021. (Id.) The pretrial conference is currently scheduled for
`
`September 2, 2021, with a five-day jury trial scheduled to start on September 13, 2021.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Attempts to Avoid Motion Practice Regarding the Stay
`
`On February 17, 2020, counsel for Defendants engaged in a telephonic meet and confer
`
`with counsel for Plaintiffs and asked whether Plaintiffs would stipulate to a stay of this litigation
`
`pending the IPRs. Plaintiffs said they would oppose any effort to stay the litigation pending the
`
`IPRs.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Congress intended for district courts to be liberal in granting stays pending” the outcome
`
`of IPRs. British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, Civil Action No. 18-366-WCB, 2019
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166651, at *7 (D. Del. Sep. 27, 2019). The reason for this liberal approach is
`
`that Congress intended IPR proceedings to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation.”
`
`H. Rep. No. 112-98, Part I, at 48 (2011) (emphasis added). “A stay is particularly justified when
`
`‘the outcome of a PTO proceeding is likely to assist the court in determining patent validity or
`
`eliminate the need to try infringement issues.’” British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp,
`
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166651, at *4-5 (quoting NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No.
`
`2:13-cv-1058, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29573, 2015 WL 1069111, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11,
`
`2015)). Therefore, “‘after the PTAB has instituted review proceedings, the parallel district court
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 6578Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1085
`
`litigation ordinarily should be stayed.’” Id. at *9 (quoting NFC Tech. LLC, 2015 WL 1069111, at
`
`*7).
`
`In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court should consider: “(1) whether granting
`
`the stay will simplify the issues for trial; (2) the status of the litigation, particularly whether
`
`discovery is complete and a trial date has been set; and (3) whether a stay would cause the non-
`
`movant to suffer undue prejudice from any delay, or allow the movant to gain a clear tactical
`
`advantage.” Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Konami Dig. Entm't, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1461-
`
`LPS-CJB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61555, at *6 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014). In this case, all three
`
`factors favor a stay pending resolution of the IPR proceedings.
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Granting A Stay Will Simplify the Issues For Trial
`
`Courts in this District have recognized that there “are many important ways in which
`
`granting a stay pending [IPR] can simplify the issues in a litigation.” Bonutti Skeletal
`
`Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., No. 12-1107, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47430, at *4-
`
`5 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014). Examples of how litigation can be simplified include: “the outcome of
`
`the reexamination may encourage a settlement without further involvement of the court,” “the
`
`record of the reexamination would probably be entered at trial, reducing the complexity and the
`
`length of the litigation,” “defenses, and evidence will be more easily limited in pre-trial
`
`conferences,” and “the cost will likely be reduced both for the parties and the court.” Id.
`
`Staying this proceeding until the conclusion of the instituted IPRs will simplify the issues
`
`in this case. In fact, if successful, the IPRs could even eliminate the need for a trial in its
`
`entirety, either due to settlement or the effect of the IPR decisions on the eight claims not
`
`addressed in the IPRs (the “Remaining Claims”). Indeed, the PTAB’s decision to institute five
`
`Petitions strongly suggests that “there is a substantial likelihood of simplification of the district
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 6579Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1086
`
`court litigation.” NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015). If the IPRs are successful, then the overwhelming majority of the
`
`claims in this case – 32 of 40 – will no longer be at issue. Even in the event that a subset of the
`
`claims survive IPRs or in the unlikely event that all 32 Instituted Claims survive the IPRs, the
`
`PTAB’s decision will provide guidance to both sides that could affect both the invalidity and
`
`infringement arguments asserted at trial. Indeed, the PTAB’s institution denial decision relating
`
`to the ’180 Patent has already provided guidance that will affect Plaintiffs’ infringement claims
`
`for that patent. Specifically, the PTAB’s determination that the claimed limitations “first gaming
`
`device” and “game control system” read on two separate devices eliminates Plaintiffs’
`
`infringement assertion that the LEGO Dimensions product infringes claims 1, 16, and 18 of the
`
`‘180 Patent, because that assertion is based on Plaintiffs reading those limitations on the same
`
`game console device.
`
`1.
`
`The PTAB Will Consider Validity Challenges to 32 of the 40 Presently-
`Asserted Claims Through the Petitions.
`
`In granting each of the five Petitions, the PTAB noted that “the merits of the Petition
`
`appear strong.” This is a “strong factor that weighs in favor of a stay.” See Williamson v. Google
`
`Inc., No. 15-966, 2015 WL 10890658 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015). The PTAB has already
`
`ruled it is “reasonably likely” that it will invalidate 32 of the 40 claims asserted in this case.
`
`Courts in this District frequently enter litigation stays where, as here, a “very high percentage” of
`
`the asserted claims are subject to IPRs. See e.g. Contour IP Holding, LLC v. Gopro, Inc., Civil
`
`Action No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95627, at *6-7 (D. Del. July 14, 2016)
`
`(“GoPro has . . . demonstrated to the PTAB that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will
`
`prevail as to its arguments regarding the invalidity of those many claims.”); see also Ethicon
`
`LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 17-871-LPS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45452, at *4 (D. Del.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 6580Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 1087
`
`Mar. 20, 2019) (“The potential for simplification of the issues in this case is quite
`
`substantial. Fourteen of the 15 asserted claims are under IPR review and it is likely that some of
`
`these claims will be modified or invalidated.”).
`
`Even when a relatively small number of asserted patents are the subject of instituted
`
`IPRs, Courts in this District commonly stay corresponding infringement litigation pending IPRs.
`
`See e.g., Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., No. 12-1107, 2014 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 47430, at *4-5 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) (finding “the issue simplification to be had
`
`through PTO review of the claims subject to IPR petitions weighs in favor of a stay”
`
`notwithstanding that only two of six asserted patents were the subject of instituted petitions). See
`
`also Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 00-1020, 2003 WL 21105073, at *2 (D. Del.
`
`May 14, 2003) (granting a stay where a reexamination request had been granted for only one of
`
`six asserted patents because “a stay may result in simplification or reduction of issues for the
`
`court’s consideration. . . .”). Indeed, it is generally accepted that “‘there can still be
`
`simplification of the issues when only some, but not all, of the claims asserted in [the] litigation
`
`are challenged’ in a PTO proceeding.” Princeton Dig. Image Corp. v. Konami Dig. Entm't Inc.,
`
`Civil Action No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4234, at *8 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2015)
`
`(“Princeton II”) (quoting Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1372
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)); Nexans, Inc. v. Belden, Inc., No. 12-1491-SLR-SRF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`20116, at *11 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2014) (“[A] complete overlap of the issues in the litigation and
`
`the IPR is not required to establish simplification of the case.”); Neste Oil OYJ, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS at *15 (“the `issue simplification' factor does not require complete overlap.”)
`
`Here, the PTAB will be reviewing the vast majority of the Asserted Claims – 32 of 40
`
`claims. Given the similarities between and among the 32 Instituted Claims, it is likely that all 32
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 6581Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 1088
`
`will rise or fall together, because Defendants’ arguments and prior art references apply across all
`
`32 Instituted Claims. Indeed, the PTAB found that UK Patent Application GB 2,334,456
`
`(“Stamper”) will likely invalidates all 32 Instituted Claims, either alone or in combination with
`
`other references, including U.S. Patent No. 6,234,902 (“Hazama”), a prior art reference used in
`
`obviousness combinations in all five instituted Petitions. Therefore, if Defendants are successful,
`
`it is likely that all 32 of the Instituted Claims will be invalidated.
`
`2.
`
`If the PTAB Invalidates the 32 Instituted Claims, Then Defendants Will
`Likely Seek Summary Judgment on the 8 Remaining Claims.
`
`If Defendants are successful in their Petitions, they will likely seek leave to file summary
`
`judgment, either for non-infringement or invalidity, on the Remaining Claims in light of the
`
`PTAB’s decision. The prior art used in the IPRs likewise qualifies as prior art against the ’500
`
`and ’533 Patents, so if the PTAB invalidates the Instituted Claims, then the three Unchallenged
`
`Claims would also be invalid over the same art for the same reasons. As shown in the attached
`
`Appendix, every limitation of asserted claims 1 and 8 of the ’500 Patent and claim 3 of the ’533
`
`Patent (the three Unchallenged Claims) also appears in at least one of the 32 Instituted Claims.
`
`Compare ’500 Patent, claim 1 to ’652 Patent, claim 15; compare ’500 patent claim 8 to ’652
`
`Patent, claim 9; compare ’533 Patent claim 3 to ’652 Patent, claim 9. Other examples showing
`
`the similarities between the limitations of Claims 33 and 41 of the ’180 Patent and Claims 7 and
`
`8 of the ’652 Patent, respectively, are set forth in the attached Appendix.
`
`Additionally, the eight asserted claims of the ’180 Patent will also likely be subject to
`
`Defendants’ request to file summary judgment after the PTAB issues its final written decisions
`
`on the Petitions. The institution denial decision on the ’180 Patent IPR provides strong additional
`
`evidence rebutting Plaintiffs’ infringement position with respect to claims 1, 16, or 18 of the
`
`’180 Patent. The PTAB’s ruling shows that Plaintiffs’ infringement read is not supported by the
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00905-MN Document 145 Filed 02/18/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 6582Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 54-7 Filed 02/09/24 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 1089
`
`claim language because it relies on a gaming console to satisfy both the “first gaming device”
`
`and “gaming control system” claim limitations.
`
`The likely dispositive effect of the PTAB’s decisions on the Petitions on the eight
`
`Remaining Claims weighs strongly in favor of staying this case. For example, in British
`
`Telecomms, Circuit Judge Bryson granted a stay where “[i]t appear[ed] likely that any decision
`
`of the PTAB with regard to the validity of [the challenged claims would] have a significant
`
`impact on the issue of the validity of [the other] claims.” 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166651, at *24.
`
`Specifically, Judge Bryson found “the remaining two claims are likely to be affected by the
`
`outcome of the IPR proceedings.” Id. Here, not only would the eight Remaining Claims be
`
`“affected by the outcome of” the instituted Petitions, they may in fact be disposed of entirely by
`
`the PTAB’s decisions.
`
`Thus, notwithstanding the eight total Remaining Claims, the PTAB’s decision with
`
`respect to the 32 Instituted Claims will likely “have a significant impact on the issue of the
`
`validity” of the three Unchallenged claims and will impact the validity and infringement issues
`
`relating to the ’180 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`A Stay Permits the C