Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL
INVALIDITY DISCLOSURE RE: THE ‘690, ‘558, ‘856, ‘501 AND ‘998 PATENTS
Pursuant to the August 6, 2012 Joint Scheduling Statement (D.I. 27), the Court’s August
13, 2012, September 25, 2012 and November 26, 2012 Orders (D.I. 29, D.I. 35, and D.I. 40,
respectively) modifying the Joint Scheduling Statement, and the Court’s June 26, 2015 Markman
Order (D.I. 153), Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and
Activision Publishing, Inc. (collectively, “Activision”) hereby disclose their Third Supplemental
Invalidity Disclosure. Activision contends that each of the claims asserted by plaintiff Worlds,
Inc. (“Worlds”) is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or for
obviousness-type double patenting.
I. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
Worlds has served Activision with inter alia its Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of the
Claims Infringed, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,181,690 (“the ‘690 patent”),
7,493,558 (“the ‘558 patent”), 7,945,856 (“the ‘856 patent”), 8,082,501 (“the ‘501 patent”) and
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 30 -2-
8,145,998 (“the ‘998 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”). Specifically, Worlds has
alleged that Activision infringes claims 1-20 of the ‘690 patent, claims 4-9 of the ‘558 patent,
claim 1 of the ‘856 patent, claims 1-8, 10, 12 and 14-16 of the ‘501 patent, and claims 1-3, 7, 8
and 11-20 of the ‘998 patent (collectively, “Asserted Claims”).1
Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling
Statement ¶ 4.B, Activision does not provide any contentions regarding any claims not asserted
in Worlds’ Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of the Claims Infringed. To the extent that Worlds
asserts additional claims against Activision in the future, Activision reserves the right to disclose
new or supplemental invalidity contentions regarding such claims.
II. PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY DISCLOSURE
A. Identification of Prior Art
Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling Statement ¶ 4.B, and based on Activision’s current
understanding of Worlds’ Fifth Supplemental Disclosure of the Claims Infringed, Activision
identifies the following references and disclosures set forth in Table 1 as prior art that anticipates
or renders obvious one or more Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. As set forth in the charts
in Exhibits A-F2
, the prior art listed in Table 1 demonstrates that the alleged inventions claimed
in the Patents-in-Suit were well known and obvious as of the time of filing of the Patents-in-Suit.
1
On April 17, 2013, counsel for Worlds notified counsel for Activision via e-mail that
Worlds is no longer asserting infringement of ‘558 patent claims 1-3 and ‘998 patent claim 21
against Activision.
2
Exhibits A-D were first served and filed on December 3, 2012 with Activision’s
Preliminary Invalidity Disclosure relating to the ‘690, ‘558, ‘856 and ‘501 patents (D.I. 41).
Exhibit E was first served and filed on December 20, 2012 with Activision’s First Supplemental
Preliminary Invalidity Disclosure relating to the ‘690, ‘558, ‘856, ‘501 and ‘998 patents (D.I.
47). Exhibit F was first served and filed on May 24, 2015 with Activision’s Second
Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Disclosure relating to the ‘690, ‘558, ‘856, ‘501 and ‘998
patents (D.I. 73). Activision provides herewith updated versions of Exhibits A-F.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 30 -3-
TABLE 1
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Durward et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,659,691, titled
Virtual Reality Network With
Selective Distribution And Updating
Of Data To Reduce Bandwidth
Requirements, filed September 23,
1993 (“Durward patent”)
August 19,
1997
(issued)
Anticipation
and obviousness
Rick Kazman Making WAVES: On the Design of
Architecture for Low-end Distributed
Virtual Environments, Proceedings of
IEEE Virtual Reality Annual
International Symposium, Seattle,
WA, September 18-22, 1993, pp. 443-
49 (“Kazman Article”)
September
1993
Anticipation
and obviousness
Michael
Snoswell
Overview of Cyberterm, a Cyberspace
Protocol Implementation (“Snoswell
Article”)
July 17,
1992
Anticipation
and obviousness
Miroslav Stanic Surf’s Up – Things to see and do on
the Internet, Issue #2, pp. 4-6 (“Surf’s
Up Article”)
May 1995 Anticipation
and obviousness
Michael
Snoswell
Cyberterm system,
(See, e.g., Snoswell Article; Surf’s Up
Article)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1992
Anticipation
and obviousness
Kesmai
(Kelton Flinn)
Air Warrior MANUAL.txt, Air
Warrior Version 0.8, Preliminary
Draft (“First Air Warrior Manual”)
1988 Anticipation
and obviousness
Kesmai
(Kelton Flinn)
Air Warrior Manual, Version 1.2
(“Second Air Warrior Manual”)
December
1989
Anticipation
and obviousness
Kesmai Super VGA Air Warrior Flight
Manual (“SVGA AW Manual”) (See
also SVGA Air Warrior game
packaging)
1992 Anticipation
and obviousness
Andrew Reese,
Gregg Perlman
Online With Start - Kesmai Air
Warrior, Start Magazine, Vol. 3, No.
2, Special Issue #4, p. 73 (“Start
Magazine”)
1988 Anticipation
and obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 30 -4-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Video Games
& Computer
Entertainment
Worlds of Kesmai Article, Video
Games & Computer Entertainment,
pp. 75-76 (“Worlds of Kesmai”)
August
1989
Anticipation
and obviousness
Jerry Michalski Multi-User Virtual Environments, Part
I, Release 1.0, Esther Dyson’s
Monthly Report, (“Michalski Article”)
June 27,
1994
Anticipation
and obviousness
Kesmai
(Kelton Flinn)
Air Warrior Game
(See, e.g., First Air Warrior Manual;
Second Air Warrior Manual; SVGA
AW Manual; SVGA Air Warrior game
packaging; Start Magazine; Worlds of
Kesmai; Michalski Article; Air
Warrior Source Code and
Executables)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1986
Anticipation
and obviousness
Thomas
Funkhouser
RING: A Client-Server System for
Multi-User Virtual Environments,
1995 IEEE Symposium on Interactive
3D Graphics, pp. 85-92 (April 9-12,
1995) (“Funkhouser Article”)
April 12,
1995
Anticipation
and obviousness
Thomas
Funkhouser,
AT&T Bell
Labs
Network Services for Multi-User
Virtual Environments, IEEE Network
Realities ‘95, Boston, MA (“Second
Funkhouser Article”)
October
1995
Anticipation
and obviousness
Rick Kazman HIDRA: An Architecture for Highly
Dynamic Physically Based MultiAgent
Simulations (“HIDRA Article”)
1993 Anticipation
and obviousness
Michael
Macedonia,
Michael Zyda,
David Pratt,
Paul Barham,
Steven Zeswitz
NPSNET: A Network Software
Architecture for Large Scale Virtual
Environments, Presence, Vol. 3, No. 4
(“NPSNET Article”)
Fall 1994 Anticipation
and obviousness
Michael
Macedonia
A Network Software Architecture for
Large Scale Virtual Environments,
Naval Postgraduate School
(“Macedonia Dissertation”)
June 1995 Anticipation
and obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 30 -5-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
David Pratt A Software Architecture for the
Construction and Management of
Real-Time Virtual Worlds, Naval
Postgraduate School (“Pratt
Dissertation”)
June 1993 Anticipation
and obviousness
Michael
Macedonia,
Michael Zyda,
David Pratt,
Paul Barham,
Steven Zeswitz
NPSNET system
(See, e.g., NPSNET Article;
Macedonia Dissertation; Pratt
Dissertation; Network Software
Architectures for Real-Time
Massively-Multiplayer Online Games,
R. Delano, P. McFarlane (Feb. 2,
2005), pp. 64-68; NPSNET: A 3D
Visual Simulator for Virtual World
Exploration and Experience, D. Pratt,
M. Zydga, in Tomorrow’s Realities
(July 1991), p. 30))
Publicly
known
and/or used
by August
1993
Anticipation
and obviousness
Brad
Lineberger
Kingdom of Drakkar
(See, e.g., Kingdom of Drakkar Source
Code)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1989
Anticipation
and obviousness
Chip
Morningstar, F.
Randall Farmer
The Lessons of Lucasfilm’s Habitat,
Cyberspace: First Steps (1991)
(“Habitat A”)
1991 Anticipation
and obviousness
Lucasfilm Ltd. The Official Avatar Handbook: A
Comprehensive Guide To
Understanding Habitat (“Habitat B”)
1987 Anticipation
and obviousness
Kathy Yakal Habitat - A Look At The Future of
Online Games, Compute!, Issue 77, p.
32 (“Habitat C”)
October
1986
Anticipation
and obviousness
Chip
Morningstar
The Ghu Guide, Lucasfilm Ltd.
Games Division (“Habitat D”)
March 9,
1987
Anticipation
and obviousness
Margaret
Morabito
Enter The On-line World Of
Lucasfilm, Margaret Morabito
(“Habitat E”)
1986 Anticipation
and obviousness
Quantum
Comp. Tech.
Club Caribe Guidebook
(“Habitat F”)
1989 Anticipation
and obviousness
Kazutomo Hypermedia Personal Computer 1990 Anticipation
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 30 -6-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Fukuda,
Tadayuki
Tahara, Toru
Miyoshi
Communication System: Fujitsu
Habitat (“Habitat G”)
and obviousness
Lucasfilms, F.
Randall Farmer,
Chip
Morningstar
Habitat
(See, e.g., Habitat A-G; Habitat Source
Code; Habitat Videos)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1986
Anticipation
and obviousness
Greg
Thompson,
Mark Horowitz,
George
Woltman
The MAZE game (“Maze War H”) 1976 Anticipation
and obviousness
Callisto Super Maze Wars Brochure (“Maze
War I”)
1992 Anticipation
and obviousness
MacroMind Maze Wars+ Brochure (“Maze War
J”) 1987 (upon
information
and belief)
Anticipation
and obviousness
Oracle Maze at INTEROP Brochure (“Maze
War K”)
1992 Anticipation
and obviousness
Oracle Oracle at INTEROP 92 (“Maze War
L”)
October
1992
Anticipation
and obviousness
Greg Thompson
et al.
Maze War
(See, e.g., Maze War A-O3
)
Publicly
known
Anticipation
and obviousness
3 Maze War A-G and M-O are as follows: Webpage found at
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html, DigiBarn Computer
Museum (Printed on 10/15/2009) (“Maze War A”); Webpage found at http://www.digibarn.com/
collections/games/maze-war/other-mazes/MazeWar-for-Alto.html, DigiBarn Computer Museum
(Printed on 10/15/2009) (“Maze War B”); Webpage found at http://www.digibarn.com/history/
04-VCF7-MazeWar/stories/colley.html, DigiBarn Computer Museum (Printed on 10/15/2009)
(“Maze War C”); Webpage found at http://www.digibarn.com/history/04-VCF7-
MazeWar/stories/guyton.html, DigiBarn Computer Museum (Printed on 10/15/2009) (“Maze
War D”); Webpage found at http://www.digibarn.com/history/04-VCF7-
MazeWar/stories/lebling.html, DigiBarn Computer Museum (Printed on 10/15/2009) (“Maze
War E”); Webpage found at http://www.digibarn.com/history/04-VCF7-MazeWar/panelists.html,
DigiBarn Computer Museum (Printed on 10/15/2009) (“Maze War F”); The aMazing History of
Maze, Greg Thompson (2004) (“Maze War G”); Video of Maze War game in play on the Imlac
PDS-1D hardware, found at http://www.digibarn.com/collections/
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 30 -7-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
and/or used
by 1975
J. Calvin,
A. Dickens,
B. Gaines,
P. Metzger,
D. Miller,
D. Owen
The SIMNET Virtual World
Architecture, Virtual Reality Annual
International Symposium, 1993 IEEE
(“SIMNET Article”)
1993 Anticipation
and obviousness
Kevin Kelly The First Online Sports Game, Wired
(“Kelly Article”)
December
1993
Anticipation
and obviousness
Jonathan
Shekter
The Netrek Newbie Manual, Rev. 1.3
(“Netrek Manual”)
November
1995
Anticipation
and obviousness
Kevin Smith,
Scott Silvey
Netrek
(See, e.g., Declaration of Kevin Smith
(Dec. 17, 2007) (“Smith Dec.”);
Declaration of Kevin Smith (Oct. 9,
2008) (“Second Smith Dec.”);
Declaration of Andrew T. McFadden
(Oct. 13, 2008) (“McFadden Dec.”);
Declaration of Andrew T. McFadden
(Oct. 21, 2008) (“Second McFadden
Dec.”); Kelly Article; Netrek Manual;
Netrek Source Code)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1991
Anticipation
and obviousness
Matthew S. Fell The Unofficial Doom Specs, Release
v1.666 (“Doom Specs”)
December
15, 1994
Obviousness
id Software The Doom v1.2 Manual, readme.exe
file (“Doom v1.2 Manual”)
February
16, 1994
Obviousness
id Software Doom
(See, e.g., Doom Specs; Doom v1.2
Manual; http://everything2.com/title/
The+Doom+rendering+engine?display
type=printable (“Doom Rendering
Publicly
known
and/or used
by February
1993
Obviousness
games/maze-war/imlacs-pds1-maze/movies/tom-uban-mazewar-demo-400.mov, DigiBarn
Computer Museum (Downloaded on 10/16/2009) (“Maze War M”); Video of Maze War game in
play on Xerox Alto and 6085 hardware, found at http://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/
xerox-maze-war/movies/don-on-xerox-6085-maze.mov, DigiBarn Computer Museum
(Downloaded on 10/16/2009) (“Maze War N”); Video found at http://www.digibarn.com/
collections/games/xerox-maze-war/movies/maze-on-alto-fastart.mov, DigiBarn Computer
Museum (Downloaded on 10/16/2009) (“Maze War O”).
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 7 of 30 -8-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Engine”); http://doom.wikia.com/
wiki/Doom_networking_component
(“Doom Networking Component”);
Doom Source Code and Executables)
Sierra On-line Shadow of Yserbius Manual 1993 Anticipation
and obviousness
Sierra On-line Shadow of Yserbius
(See, e.g., Shadow of Yserbius
Manual; Shadow of Yserbius and INN
Executables)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1992
Anticipation
and obviousness
Bralick et al. Using a Multi-User Dialogue System
to Support Software Engineering
Distance Education, 7th SEI CSEE
Conference, SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING EDUCATION,
January 5-7, 1994 (“Bralick Article”)
January
1994
Anticipation
and obviousness
James Aspnes TinyMUD
(See, e.g., TinyMUD Source Code)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1989
Anticipation
and obviousness
MUDs
(See, e.g., Declaration of John K.
Bennett and exhibits (Oct. 28, 2008)
(“Bennett Decl.”); Bralick Article;
TinyMUD Source Code)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
at least
1989
Anticipation
and obviousness
MicroProse CyberStrike: Intense multiplayer
action in Cyberspace (Instruction
Manual) (“CyberStrike A”)
1994 Anticipation
and obviousness
MicroProse CyberStrike: Technical Supplement
(“CyberStrike B”)
1994 Anticipation
and obviousness
Simutronics CyberStrike
(See, e.g., CyberStrike A; CyberStrike
B)
Publicly
known
and/or used
by
1994
Anticipation
and obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 8 of 30 -9-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Honda U.S. Patent No. 6,020,885, titled
Three-Dimensional Virtual Reality
Space Sharing Method and System
Using Local and Global Object
Identification Codes, filed July 9, 1995
(“Honda patent”)
February 1,
2000
(issued)
Anticipation
and obviousness
Worlds, Inc. Worlds Ware Publicly
known
and/or used
by October
1994
Anticipation
and obviousness
Worlds, Inc. AlphaWorld Publicly
known
and/or used
by July
1995
Anticipation
and obviousness
Worlds, Inc. Worlds Chat Publicly
known
and/or used
by July
1995
Anticipation
and obviousness
Suzuki et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,736,982, titled
Virtual Space Apparatus With Avatars
And Speech, filed August 1, 1995
(“Suzuki patent”)
April 7,
1998
(issued)
Obviousness
Nitta U.S. Patent No. 5,347,306, titled
Animated Electronic Meeting Place,
filed December 17, 1993 (“Nitta
patent”)
September
13, 1994
(issued)
Obviousness
Benford and
Fahlén
A Spatial Model of Interaction In
Large Virtual Environments,
Proceedings of the Third European
Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work, September 13-17,
1993, Milan, Italy (“Benford Article”)
September
1993
Obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 9 of 30 -10-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Benford et al. Managing Mutual Awareness in
Collaborative Virtual Environments,
Virtual Reality Software &
Technology, Proceedings of the VRST
’94 Conference, August 23-26, 1994,
Singapore (“Second Benford Article”)
August
1994
Obviousness
Virtual
Universe Corp.
The Parallel Universe
From: info@virtual.cuc.ab.ca (Virtual
Universe Product Information)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware
Subject: Multi-user, Real-time
environments - New Product
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 18:58:49
GMT (“Virtual Univ. Newsgroup”)
August 23,
1994
Obviousness
Foley, Van
Dam, Feiner &
Hughes
Computer Graphics: Principles and
Practice, 2d ed. (“Foley & Van Dam”)
1990 Obviousness
Shaun Bangay Parallel Implementation Of A Virtual
Reality System On A Transputer
Architecture (“Bangay Dissertation”)
November
1993
Obviousness
Myers U.S. Patent No. 5,490,239, titled
Virtual Reality Imaging System, filed
September 8, 1994 (“Myers patent”)
February 6,
1996
(issued)
Obviousness
Bolas et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,513,129, titled
Method and System for Controlling
Computer-Generated Virtual
Environment in Response to Audio
Signals, filed July 14, 1993 (“Bolas
patent”)
April 30,
1996
(issued)
Obviousness
Maes et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,563,988, titled
Method and System for Facilitating
Wireless, Full-Body, Real-Time User
Interaction with a Digitally
Represented Visual Environment, filed
August 1, 1994 (“Maes patent”)
October 8,
1996
(issued)
Obviousness
Shiio et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,491,743, titled
Virtual Conference System and
Terminal Apparatus Therefor, filed
May 24, 1994 (“Shiio patent”)
February
13, 1996
(issued)
Obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 10 of 30 -11-
Author or
Inventor
Title or Patent Number of Prior Art Date Relevance
Itai et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,880,709, titled
Image Processing Devices and
Methods, filed August 29, 1995 (“Itai
patent”)
March 9,
1999
(issued)
Obviousness
Schneider et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,777,621, titled
Quality Control Mechanism for ThreeDimensional
Graphics Rendering
(“Schneider patent”)
July 7, 1998
(issued)
Obviousness
Sitrick U.S. Patent No. 4,521,014, titled
Video Game Including User Visual
Image
June 4,
1985
(issued)
Obviousness
Funkhouser U.S. Patent No. 5,784,570, titled
Server for Applying a Recipient Filter
and Compressing the Input Data
Stream Based Upon a Set of at Least
One Characteristics in a Multiuser
Interactive Virtual Environment
(“Funkhouser Patent”)
July 21,
1998
(issued)
Obviousness
Michael
Benedikt
Cyberspace: Some Proposals,
Cyberspace: First Steps (1991)
(“Benedikt Chapter”)
1991 Obviousness
Meredith
Bricken
Virtual Worlds: No Interface to
Design, Cyberspace: First Steps
(1991) (“Bricken Chapter”)
1991 Obviousness
Calvin et al. STOW Realtime Information Transfer
and Networking System Architecture
(“STOW Paper”)
March,
1995
Obviousness
Thomas
Funkhouser,
Carlo H. Séquin
Adaptive Display Algorithm for
Interactive Frame Rates
During Visualization of Complex
Virtual Environments, presented at
20th Annual Conference on Computer
Graphics and Interactive Techniques,
Aug. 1-6, 1993, Anaheim, CA (“1993
Funkhouser Article”)
August
1993
Obviousness
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 11 of 30 -12-
1. Worlds Chat and AlphaWorld
Worlds asserts that the Worlds Chat and AlphaWorld systems embody one or more of the
Asserted Claims. Activision’s investigation into the features and functionality of Worlds Chat
and AlphaWorld is ongoing. To the extent that Worlds Chat and/or AlphaWorld (including any
of its predecessor systems, including, e.g. Worlds Ware and related prototype systems) was
publicly known or used more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the Patents-inSuit,
one or more of the Asserted Claims are anticipated and/or obvious in view of Worlds Chat
and/or AlphaWorld.
2. The Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit Are Obvious In View Of
The Prior Art
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1739 (2007) held that a claimed invention can be obvious even if there is no explicit, written
teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combining the prior art to produce that invention. In
summary, KSR holds that patents that are based on new combinations of elements or components
already known in a technical field may be found to be obvious. See generally KSR, 127 S. Ct.
1727. Specifically, the Court in KSR rejected a rigid application of the “teaching, suggestion, or
motivation [to combine]” test. Id. at 1741. “In determining whether the subject matter of a
patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” Id. at 1741-1742. “Under the
correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”
Id. at 1742. In particular, in KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it
does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739. A key inquiry is whether the
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 12 of 30 -13-
“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740.
In view of the Supreme Court’s KSR decision, the PTO issued a set of new Examination
Guidelines. See Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 72 Fed. Reg.
57526 (October 10, 2007). Those Guidelines summarized the KSR decision, and identified
various rationales for finding a claim obvious, including those based on other precedents. Those
rationales include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the
same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for
improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either
the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the
variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 13 of 30 -14-
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one
of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to
arrive at the claimed invention.
Id. at 57529.
Activision contends that one or more of these rationales apply in considering the
obviousness of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. The claim charts in Exhibits A-E
provide example sections within the prior art references that teach or suggest each and every
element of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. To the extent that any elements of the
Asserted Claims are not found in a particular reference, or to the extent that Worlds argues that
any of the charted references does not disclose every element of an Asserted Claim, it would
have been obvious to combine such reference with other references listed in Table 1 or with the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Exemplary combinations and motivations to
combine references for specific elements of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit are set
forth in Exhibit F.
A person of ordinary skill at the time of the alleged inventions of the Patents-in-Suit had
reason to combine or modify the references listed in Table 1 in light of the knowledge of a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inventions and information in the
prior art cited herein. As a general matter, all of the references charted in Exhibits A-E relate to
systems and methods that provide for the interaction of multiple users in a networked virtual
environment. As such, they are all within the same field of art and would have been within the
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine these references is
evident from the fact that they are each directed to the same field of technology and each address
similar problems and propose similar solutions. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 14 of 30 -15-
time of filing of the Patents-in-Suit would be motivated to combine elements of any of these and
similar references and recognize that the combination of any of these systems and methods is a
predictable use of elements known in the art to solve a known problem and a use of known
techniques to solve a known problem in the same way.
B. Claim Charts
Activision provides in Exhibits A-F claim charts comparing the references listed in Table
1 with the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit, setting forth example sections within the prior
art that teach or suggest each and every element of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit and
explaining why, for each contention of obviousness, the prior art renders the Asserted Claim
obvious. Activision’s identification of specific portions of prior art references that disclose the
elements of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit is based, at least in part, on its present
understanding of the Asserted Claims, its present understanding of Worlds’ Fifth Supplemental
Disclosure of the Claims Infringed, its present understanding of the prior art, and/or its present
understanding of the qualifications and skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
The claim charts of Exhibits A-F provide Activision’s contentions about which claim
elements are taught by or obvious in view of the prior art references. In this regard, they identify
representative portions within the prior art references that disclose the elements of the Asserted
Claims of the Patents-in-Suit. The cited portions are merely exemplary and do not necessarily
reflect or include every portion of the prior art references that discloses or teaches particular
claim terms or claim limitations. It should be recognized that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would generally read a prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications,
literature, and general knowledge in the field. To understand and interpret any specific statement
or disclosure in a prior art reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely upon other
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 15 of 30 -16-
information including other publications and general scientific or engineering knowledge. In the
future, if necessary, Activision might cite additional portions of the cited references to
demonstrate and/or evidence the invalidity of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
Where Activision identifies a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification
should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure as well as any text
relating to the figure in addition to the figure itself. Similarly, where an identified portion of text
refers to a figure or other material, the identification should be understood to include the
referenced figure or other material as well.
C. Claim Construction
The Court issued its Claim Construction ruling on June 26, 2015. Based on the Court’s
finding that certain terms and phrases are indefinite, Activision submits that ‘690 patent claims 9,
18, and 20 and ‘998 patent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-17 and 19 cannot be infringed. These claims
have been removed from the charts provided herewith.
Activision’s Third Supplemental Invalidity Disclosure is based on the Court’s claim
constructions. Activision expressly reserves the right to argue that certain claim terms, phrases,
and elements, even as construed, are indefinite, lack written description, are not enabled, are not
patentable or are otherwise invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112.
D. Inter Partes Review
On May 26, 2015, Bungie, Inc. petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) of various claims of the
‘690, ‘558, and ‘856 patents, including all claims presently asserted by Worlds in this action. On
June 1, 2015, Bungie, Inc. further petitioned the PTAB for IPR of various claims of the ‘501 and
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 16 of 30 -17-
‘998 patents, again including all claims presently asserted by Worlds in this action. Six PTAB
IPR proceedings are presently pending against the patents-in-suit, to which Worlds is a party.
Activision incorporates by reference, as if expressly set forth in these contentions, all present and
future filings in Bungie’s six IPR petitions. Activision does not adopt as its own the positions
and arguments of Bungie, Worlds, or their experts, but expressly reserves the right to rely in the
future on any argument, references, or testimony presented in these IPRs.
E. Doctrine of Equivalents
Worlds has provided insufficient contentions regarding infringement under the doctrine
of equivalents. Worlds has not provided detailed contentions that identify each specific claim
limitation allegedly infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and its alleged equivalent element
in the accused products, or the basis for Worlds’ position regarding each such limitation and its
alleged equivalent. Accordingly, Activision contends that Worlds should be precluded from
asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. If, however, Worlds provides
additional information and is permitted to rely on the doctrine of equivalents, Activision reserves
the right to amend and supplement these invalidity contentions as appropriate.
F. Other Grounds For Invalidity
Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling Statement ¶ 4.B, Activision contends that certain claims
of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, or the doctrine of obviousnesstype
double patenting (“ODP”) because: (1) the claims are not directed to patentable subject
matter; (2) the claims lack adequate written description; (3) the claims are not enabled; (4) the
claims are indefinite; and/or (5) the claims are not patentably distinct from claims in other
patents obtained by Worlds for the same invention. Activision’s contentions that the following
claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, or for ODP are made in the alternative and do
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 17 of 30 -18-
not constitute, and should not be interpreted as, admissions regarding the construction or scope
of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit, or that any of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are not
anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art.
1. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Activision contends that the Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claims are not directed to patentable subject matter. In particular, none of these claims is
patentable because the claims are directed to abstract ideas and well-understood, routine,
conventional activity already engaged in by those in the field.
2. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1
The following claims are invalid under § 112, first paragraph, because the specification
does not contain a written description of the invention claimed, and of the manner and process of
making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled
in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
same:
(a) ‘690 patent claims 1, 6, 10, 11 and 15, ‘558 patent claims 4 and 6, ‘856 patent
claim 1, and the claims that depend from these independent claims, include the phrases
“determining, from the received positions, a set of the other users’ avatars that are to be
displayed to the first user,” “determining from the positions transmitted in step (c), by each client
process, a set of the avatars that are to be displayed,” “determine from the received positions a
set of the other users’ avatars that are to be displayed,” “determining from the positions received
in step (c), by said each client process, avatars that are to be displayed to the user associated with
said each client process,” and “determining, from the received positions, a set of the second
avatars that are to be displayed to the first user.” These limitations are not disclosed expressly or
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 18 of 30 -19-
inherently in the specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, these
claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitations absent
undue experimentation: “determining, from the received positions, a set of the other users’
avatars that are to be displayed to the first user,” “determining from the positions transmitted in
step (c), by each client process, a set of the avatars that are to be displayed,” “determine from the
received positions a set of the other users’ avatars that are to be displayed,” “determining from
the positions received in step (c), by said each client process, avatars that are to be displayed to
the user associated with said each client process,” or “determining, from the received positions, a
set of the second avatars that are to be displayed to the first user.” Accordingly, ‘690 patent
claims 1, 6, 10, 11, and 15, ‘558 patent claims 4 and 6, ‘856 patent claim 1, and the claims that
depend from these independent claims, are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
because the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the above claim elements.
(b) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, and the claims that depend from these
independent claims, include the phrases “determining, by the client device, a displayable set of
the other user avatars associated with the client device display” and “determine a set of the other
users’ avatars displayable on a screen associated with the client device.” These limitations are
not disclosed expressly or inherently in the specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Therefore, these claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 19 of 30 -20-
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitations absent
undue experimentation: “determining, by the client device, a displayable set of the other user
avatars associated with the client device display” or “determine a set of the other users’ avatars
displayable on a screen associated with the client device.” Accordingly, ‘501 patent claims 1, 12
and 14, and the claims that depend from these independent claims, are also invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for
the above claim elements.
(c) ‘690 patent claims 4, 8, 13 and 16 and ‘558 patent claims 5 and 7 include the
phrase “comparing the actual number to the maximum number to determine which of the . . .
avatars are to be displayed.” This limitation is not disclosed expressly or inherently in the
specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, these claims fail to comply
with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitation absent
undue experimentation: “comparing the actual number to the maximum number to determine
which of the . . . avatars are to be displayed.” Accordingly, ‘690 patent claims 4, 8, 13 and 16
and ‘558 patent claims 5 and 7 are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because
the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the above claim element.
(d) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, and the claims that depend from these
independent claims, include the phrase “fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars
displayable on a . . . display of the client device.” This limitation is not disclosed expressly or
inherently in the specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, these
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 20 of 30 -21-
claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitation absent
undue experimentation: “fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars displayable on
a . . . display of the client device.” Accordingly, ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, and the claims
that depend from these independent claims, are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the above claim
element.
(e) ‘998 patent claims 1 and 20 include the phrase “failing to satisfy a condition
imposed on displaying remote avatars to the local user.” This limitation is not disclosed
expressly or inherently in the specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, these claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitation absent
undue experimentation: “failing to satisfy a condition imposed on displaying remote avatars to
the local user.” Accordingly, ‘998 patent claims 1 and 20 are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the above
claim element.
(f) ‘998 patent claim 18 includes the phrase “failing to satisfy a condition.” This
limitation is not disclosed expressly or inherently in the specification as viewed by one of
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 21 of 30 -22-
ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, this claim fails to comply with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitation absent
undue experimentation: “failing to satisfy a condition.” Accordingly, ‘998 patent claim 18 is
also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an
enabling disclosure for the above claim element.
(g) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, the claims that depend from these independent
claims, and ‘998 patent claim 3 include the phrases “customizing, using a processor of a client
device, an avatar in response to input by the first user,” “create a custom avatar in response to
input by the first user” and “a custom avatar created based on input from the local user.” These
limitations are not disclosed expressly or inherently in the specification as viewed by one of
ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, these claims fail to comply with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitations absent
undue experimentation: “customizing, using a processor of a client device, an avatar in response
to input by the first user,” “create a custom avatar in response to input by the first user” or “a
custom avatar created based on input from the local user.” Accordingly, ‘501 patent claims 1, 12
and 14, the claims that depend from these independent claims, and ‘998 patent claim 3 are also
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an
enabling disclosure for the above claim elements.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 22 of 30 -23-
(h) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, ‘998 patent claim 18, and the claims that depend
from these independent claims, include the phrases “a three dimensional avatar” and “three
dimensional renderings of the less than all of the remote user avatars.” These limitations are not
disclosed expressly or inherently in the specification as viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, these claims fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitations absent
undue experimentation: “a three dimensional avatar” or “three dimensional renderings of the less
than all of the remote user avatars.” Accordingly, ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, ‘998 patent
claim 18, and the claims that depend from these independent claims, are also invalid under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for
the above claim elements.
(i) ‘998 patent claim 1, and the claim that depends from this independent claim,
include the phrase “switching between a rendering on the graphic display that shows at least a
portion of the virtual environment to the local user from a perspective of one of the remote user
avatars and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the virtual
environment.” This limitation is not disclosed expressly or inherently in the specification as
viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, these claims fail to comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Moreover, nowhere in the specification do applicants disclose the details that would be
needed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the following limitation absent
undue experimentation: “switching between a rendering on the graphic display that shows at
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 23 of 30 -24-
least a portion of the virtual environment to the local user from a perspective of one of the
remote user avatars and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the
virtual environment.” Accordingly, ‘998 patent claim 1, and the claim that depends from this
independent claim, are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the
specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the above claim elements.
3. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
The following claims are invalid under § 112, second paragraph, for failure to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicants regarded as
their alleged inventions:
(a) ‘690 patent claims 1, 6, 10, 11 and 15, ‘558 patent claims 4 and 6, ‘856 patent
claim 1, and the claims that depend from these independent claims, include the phrases
“determining, from the received positions, a set of the other users’ avatars that are to be
displayed to the first user,” “determining from the positions transmitted in step (c), by each client
process, a set of the avatars that are to be displayed,” “determine from the received positions a
set of the other users’ avatars that are to be displayed,” “determining from the positions received
in step (c), by said each client process, avatars that are to be displayed to the user associated with
said each client process,” and “determining, from the received positions, a set of the second
avatars that are to be displayed to the first user.” These phrases do not particularly and distinctly
claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their invention, and do not apprise a
person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims which include these phrases are
in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(b) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, and the claims that depend from these
independent claims, include the phrases “determining, by the client device, a displayable set of
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 24 of 30 -25-
the other user avatars associated with the client device display” and “determine a set of the other
users’ avatars displayable on a screen associated with the client device.” These phrases do not
particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their
invention, and do not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims
which include these phrases are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(c) ‘690 patent claims 4, 8, 13 and 16 and ‘558 patent claims 5 and 7 include the
phrase “comparing the actual number to the maximum number to determine which of the . . .
avatars are to be displayed.” This phrase does not particularly and distinctly claim subject matter
that the patent applicants regard as their invention, and does not apprise a person of ordinary skill
in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims which include this phrase are in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
112 ¶ 2.
(d) ‘690 patent claims 2 and 12 include the phrase “displaying the set of the other
users’ avatars from based on the orientation of the first user’s avatar.” This phrase does not
particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their
invention, and does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims
which include this phrase are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(e) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, and the claims that depend from these
independent claims, include the phrase “fail to satisfy a participant condition imposed on avatars
displayable on a . . . display of the client device.” This phrase does not particularly and distinctly
claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their invention, and does not apprise a
person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims which include this phrase are in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 25 of 30 -26-
(f) ‘998 patent claims 1 and 20 include the phrase “failing to satisfy a condition
imposed on displaying remote avatars to the local user.” This phrase does not particularly and
distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their invention, and does not
apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims which include this
phrase are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(g) ‘998 patent claim 18includes the phrase “failing to satisfy a condition.” This
phrase does not particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard
as their invention, and does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all
claims which include this phrase are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(h) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, the claims that depend from these independent
claims, and ‘998 patent claim 3 include the phrases “customizing, using a processor of a client
device, an avatar in response to input by the first user,” “create a custom avatar in response to
input by the first user” and “a custom avatar created based on input from the local user.” These
phrases do not particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as
their invention, and do not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all
claims which include these phrases are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(i) ‘501 patent claims 1, 12 and 14, ‘998 patent claim 18, and the claims that depend
from these independent claims, include the phrases “a three dimensional avatar” and “three
dimensional renderings of the less than all of the remote user avatars.” These phrases do not
particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent applicants regard as their
invention, and do not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. Thus, all claims
which include these phrases are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 26 of 30 -27-
(j) ‘501 patent claim 16 includes the phrase “the method.” This phrase has no
antecedent basis and does not particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the patent
applicants regard as their invention, and does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of
its scope. Thus, claim 16 is in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
(k) ‘998 patent claim 1, and the claim that depends from this independent claim,
include the phrase “switching between a rendering on the graphic display that shows at least a
portion of the virtual environment to the local user from a perspective of one of the remote user
avatars and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the virtual
environment.” This phrase does not particularly and distinctly claim subject matter that the
patent applicants regard as their invention, and do not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art
of its scope. Thus, all claims which include this phrase are in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
4. Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The asserted claims of the ’558 patent are unpatentable on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over one or more claims of Worlds’ other patents, including
at least the ‘856, ‘501, and ‘998 patents.
The ‘558 patent purports to claim an invention or inventions not patentably distinct from
the claims of the ‘856, ‘501, and ‘998 patents. As a non-limiting example, all the asserted claims
of the ‘558 patent are patentably indistinct from claim 1 of the ‘856 patent. Although the
conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
applicant merely uses slightly different claim language to claim the same invention. Because the
references are in the same field, address the same technology, and are intended to solve the same
general problem, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the
references, rendering the ‘558 patent obvious.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 27 of 30 -28-
III. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
To date, Activision has produced all prior art identified pursuant to the Joint Scheduling
Statement ¶ 4.B. The production numbers for this prior art are found within the following ranges
of documents: ACTV0000001 – ACTV0002513; ACTV00033180 – ACTV00033409;
ACTV00053307 – ACTV00053322. A production of newly-identified prior art accompanies the
filing of these contentions, at the following range: ACTV00070055 – ACTV00070287.
IV. ONGOING DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURES
Discovery and Activision’s investigation, including Activision’s search for prior art, is
ongoing. Activision might further supplement, amend, or alter the positions taken and
information disclosed in this Third Supplemental Invalidity Disclosure including, without
limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, to take into account
information or defenses that may come to light as a result of these continuing efforts. Activision
hereby incorporates by reference the testimony of any fact witnesses that are deposed, that
provide declarations, or that otherwise testify in this lawsuit. Activision also hereby incorporates
by reference the reports and testimony of Activision’s expert witnesses regarding invalidity of
the Patents-in-Suit.
For certain items of prior art, Activision is seeking discovery from third parties, as
appropriate. Activision is also seeking discovery from Worlds including, e.g., discovery
regarding conception and reduction to practice, commercial embodiments, etc. Activision,
therefore, may supplement or amend this Third Supplemental Invalidity Disclosure if and when
further information becomes available.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 28 of 30 -29-
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: July 27, 2015 By: Matthew J. Moffa
Jesse J. Jenner (pro hac vice)
Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
Brian P. Biddinger (pro hac vice)
Matthew J. Moffa (pro hac vice)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-8704
T: (212) 596-9000
F: (212) 596-9050
Kathryn N. Hong (pro hac vice)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
T: (650) 617-4000
F: (650) 617-4090
Samuel Brenner (BBO# 677812)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199-3600
T: (617) 951-7000
F: (617) 951-7050
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 29 of 30CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document and all attachments filed through the ECF
system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of
Electronic Filing (NEF) and that paper copies will be sent to those non-registered participants (if
any) on July 27, 2015.
/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
Matthew J. Moffa
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 162 Filed 07/27/15 Page 30 of 30
3518702v1/013049
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and ACTIVISION
PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WORLDS INC.’S SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCLOSURE OF THE CLAIMS INFRINGED
Worlds Inc. (“Worlds”) provides the following sixth supplemental disclosure of the
claims infringed. Worlds submits this supplemental disclosure in light of the Court’s June 26,
2015 claim construction order.1
Worlds’ statements herein are based on publicly available information and the computer
source code and documentation that Defendants have provided. Discovery is ongoing, and
certain documentation and information may not yet be available to Worlds that is fundamental to
its infringement claims. In particular, Worlds has not yet deposed officers or employees of any
defendants or third parties concerning the operation, functionality and integration, packaging, or
terminology of their respective products. Worlds reserves the right to amend its infringement
disclosures in light of further discovery.
With publicly available data, it is occasionally difficult to identify Defendants’ infringing
products by name. However, Defendants have given Worlds information regarding the titles in
the Call of Duty and World of Warcraft franchises. Therefore, Worlds’ identification is based on
1
The Court’s scheduling order permits Worlds to submit supplemental and amended infringement disclosures
within 30 days of its claim construction order. See D.I. 27, 29.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 63518702v1/013049 -2-
Defendants’ representations. If additional titles in the Call of Duty or World of Warcraft
franchises are identified during discovery (or if additional versions of previously identified titles
are discovered), Worlds reserves the right to add those versions to this lawsuit.
Based on the information provided by Defendants, the infringing products in the Call of
Duty franchise include the following games and all versions thereof, across all non-mobile
platforms (including PC, Mac, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox, Xbox 360,
Xbox One, Wii, and Wii-U)2
: Call of Duty; Call of Duty: United Offensive; Call of Duty 2; Call
of Duty 2: Big Red One; Call of Duty 3; Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare; Call of Duty 4:
Modern Warfare “Reflex Edition”; Call of Duty: World at War; Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
2; Call of Duty: Black Ops; Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3; Call of Duty: Ghosts; and Call of
Duty: Advanced Warfare. The infringing products in the World of Warcraft franchise include the
following games and all versions thereof, across all platforms: World of Warcraft; World of
Warcraft: Burning Crusade (expansion set); World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Litch King
(expansion set); World of Warcraft: Cataclysm (expansion set); World of Warcraft: Mists of
Pandaria (expansion set); World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor (expansion set). Collectively,
these titles in the Call of Duty and World of Warcraft franchises compose the Accused Products.
In Worlds’ First Requests for Production, served August 29, 2012, Worlds requested that
defendants produce and make available for inspection source code for all versions and iterations
of all titles in the Call of Duty and World of Warcraft franchises (i.e., the accused products
specified above). Worlds’ statements herein are based on the source code that defendants have
made available in response to those requests for production. Defendants have purported to make
available for inspection “source code relating to the Accused Products that is sufficient to show
the operation of the accused product(s) or method(s) that Worlds identified in its preliminary
2
Worlds does not allege that any mobile versions of Call of Duty or World of Warcraft are infringing products.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 63518702v1/013049 -3-
infringement disclosure.” See, e.g., Activision’s Second Supplemental Non-infringement
Contentions at 6 (D.I. 52). To the extent Defendants make additional source code available for
inspection — or to the extent Defendants’ tendered source code does not include code for all
World of Warcraft and Call of Duty titles and products, or to the extent Defendants’ release or
market new World of Warcraft or Call of Duty titles during the pendency of this lawsuit —
Worlds may supplement these contentions or seek other relief from the court. Furthermore,
Worlds expressly reserves the right to supplement, augment, or alter its responses herein based
on additional information obtained through discovery or other means concerning defendants’
respective products and services.
Worlds incorporates the allegations set forth in its Original and First Amended
Complaints as if fully set forth herein, as well as in its Original and Supplemental Disclosures of
Claims Infringed. Subject to the above limitations and reservations of right, Worlds makes the
following additional disclosures:
Worlds claims that each element of each asserted claim is directly infringed by
Defendants. If for any reason the Accused Products are not found to directly meet each element
of an asserted claim, Worlds alleges that Defendants are contributing to the infringement of such
claim or inducing its infringement by others because the accused functionalities have no
substantial non-infringing use, and because Defendants are aware that they are inducing the
direct infringement by its users and customers of the Accused Products. Moreover, Worlds
claims that each element of each asserted claim is present literally in the Accused Products.
Worlds reserves the right to contend that the Accused Products still infringe under the doctrine of
equivalents.
Based on information presently available to it, Worlds asserts that defendants infringe at
least the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,690 by their manufacture, sale, offer for sale,
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 63518702v1/013049 -4-
and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products having the accused functionality as
more fully set forth in Exhibits A and B-1 through B-13: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19.
Based on information presently available to it, Worlds asserts that defendants infringe at
least the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,493,558 by their manufacture, sale, offer for sale,
and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products having the accused functionality as
more fully set forth in Exhibits C and D-1 through D-13: claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Based on information presently available to it, Worlds asserts that defendants infringe at
least the following claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,856 by their manufacture, sale, offer for sale,
and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products having the accused functionality as
more fully set forth in Exhibits E and F-1 through F-13: claim 1.
Based on information presently available to it, Worlds asserts that defendants infringe at
least the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,082,501 by their manufacture, sale, offer for sale,
and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products having the accused functionality as
more fully set forth in Exhibits G and H-1 through H-13: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (World of
Warcraft only), 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16 (World of Warcraft only).
Based on information presently available to it, Worlds asserts that defendants infringe at
least the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,145,998 by their manufacture, sale, offer for sale,
and use of their Call of Duty and World of Warcraft products having the accused functionality as
more fully set forth in Exhibits I and J-1 through J-13: claims 1, 18, and 20.
At this time, Worlds knows of no specific limitations of the asserted claims where
infringement depends on equivalents. Worlds alleges that if there are any differences between the
claim elements in the aforementioned claims and the accused systems or methods, the
differences are insubstantial and infringement would exist under the doctrine of equivalents.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 63518702v1/013049 -5-
Worlds reserves the right to augment and supplement this disclosure after further discovery from
defendants.
DATED: July 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
WORLDS, INC.
By its attorneys,
/s/ Ryan V. Caughey
Max L. Tribble (admitted pro hac vice)
Chanler Langham (admitted pro hac vice)
Ryan Caughey (admitted pro hac vice)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
mtribble@susmangodfrey.com
clangham@susmangodfrey.com
rcaughey@susmangodfrey.com
Joel R. Leeman (BBO # 292070)
SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY
& TIMBERS LLP
125 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110-1618
Telephone: (617) 443-9292
Facsimile: (617) 443-0004
jleeman@sunsteinlaw.com
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 63518702v1/013049 -6-
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon Defendants’
counsel of record by CM/ECF and email on July 27, 2015.
/s/ Ryan V. Caughey
Ryan V. Caughey
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 160 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 6
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/16/2015 155 Transcript of Markman Hearing held on October 3, 2014, before Judge Denise J. Casper. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Debra Joyce at joycedebra@gmail.com Redaction Request due 8/6/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/17/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/14/2015. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 156 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 157 Assented to MOTION to Continue Status Conference to August 25, 2015 by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc..(Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 158 MEMORANDUM in Support re 157 Assented to MOTION to Continue Status Conference to August 25, 2015 filed by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.. (Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/21/2015 159 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 157 Motion to Continue Status Conference set for 9/9/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
07/27/2015 160 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Worlds, Inc.. Amendment to 34 Preliminary Disclosure of the Claims Infringed, Sixth Supplemental. (Caughey, Ryan) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
07/27/2015 161 MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by Worlds, Inc..(Caughey, Ryan) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
07/27/2015 162 Preliminary Invalidity and Non-Infringement Contentions by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
07/27/2015 163 MOTION to Seal Document Exhibits 1-10 of Sixth Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc..(Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
07/27/2015 164 Preliminary Invalidity and Non-Infringement Contentions by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.. (Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
07/30/2015 166 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 161 Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
07/30/2015 167 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 163 Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-10 of Sixth Supplemental Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions. (Maynard, Timothy) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
He could split the stock, say 1 for 100, driving the issued from 8b (assuming all have issued by then) to 80M. He could even reduce authorized to, say, 500M. Then he issues himself 100M shares and wooops he has diluted everyone in the end except himself.
Nobody will take such a company with 8b shares seriously. 80M shares only represents 1%. The R/S is in the cards but much worse is the financials delay and lack of information
Free to try'em out: http://pro.wrapmail.com/signup/agreement.asp
we were scheduled for end of July (23, 24 something if memory serves) and then Activision asked for a 3 week delay due to vacations. This is the only delay but it moved beyond 3 weeks as to accommodate the calendar
they asked for a 3 week delay and the judge found the next available date making it about a one month delay - pretty common, especially in the summer time with vacations etc
REH
NOT FOR THE MEETING BUT FOR THE TRIAL
HEARING NOW SCHEDULED FOR 9/9-2015
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Boston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12-cv-10576-DJC
Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc. et al
Assigned to: Judge Denise J. Casper
Cause: 28:1338 Patent Infringement
Date Filed: 03/30/2012
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 830 Patent
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/21/2015 159 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 157 Motion to Continue Status Conference set for 9/9/2015 03:00 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Denise J. Casper. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
51853636_1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 158 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 41
51853636_1
Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., and Activision
Publishing, Inc. (collectively “Activision”) submit this Memorandum in support of their
Unopposed Motion to Continue Status Conference.
This action is a patent lawsuit. Following a Markman hearing on October 3, 2014, the
Court issued its Memorandum and Order on claim construction on June 26, 2015. Also on
June 26, the Court set a status conference for July 30, 2015, at 3:15 pm.
Activision’s lead counsel and back-up counsel have scheduling conflicts with the July 30
date of the status conference because of long-standing travel plans. Activision’s lead counsel’s
travel plans continue through August 21, and he has a hearing in another matter on August 24.
In view of these scheduling conflicts, Activision respectfully requests that the Court continue the
status conference until August 25, 2015, or shortly thereafter, at the Court’s convenience.
Worlds does not oppose Activision’s Motion to Continue Status Conference.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 158 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 42
51853636_1
For the foregoing reasons, Activision respectfully requests that the Court continue the
status conference that is currently scheduled for July 30, 2015, until August 25, 2015, or shortly
thereafter, at the Court’s convenience.
Dated: July 16, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Matthew J. Moffa
Matthew J. Moffa (pro hac vice)
BBO#681965
matthew.moffa@ropesgray.com
Jesse J. Jenner (pro hac vice)
jesse.jenner@ropesgray.com
Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
gene.lee@ropesgray.com
Brian P. Biddinger (pro hac vice)
brian.biddinger@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-8704
T: (212) 596-9000
F: (212) 596-9050
Samuel L. Brenner (BBO #677812)
samuel.brenner@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
T: (617) 951-7000
F: (617) 951-7050
Kathryn N. Hong (pro hac vice)
kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
T: (650) 617-4000
F: (650) 617-4090
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING,
INC.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 158 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 43
51853636_1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
this 16th day of July, 2015.
By: /s/ Matthew J. Moffa________
Matthew J. Moffa
BBO#681965
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 158 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 4
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and
ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rules 7.1 and 40.3(a), Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard
Entertainment, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc. (collectively “Activision”) respectfully move
to continue the status conference that is currently scheduled for July 30, 2015, at 3:15 pm.
In support of this Motion, Activision is contemporaneously filing a Memorandum in
Support of Defendants’ Motion to Continue Status Conference. For the reasons set forth in the
accompanying Memorandum, Activision respectfully requests that the Court continue the status
conference that is currently scheduled for July 30, 2015, until August 25, 2015, or shortly
thereafter, at the Court’s convenience.
RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), Activision hereby certifies that counsel for Activision
conferred with counsel for Worlds, Inc. in a good faith attempt to resolve or narrow the issues
presented by this Motion, and that Worlds does not oppose this Motion.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 157 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 3-2-
Dated: July 16, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Matthew J. Moffa
Matthew J. Moffa (pro hac vice)
BBO#681965
matthew.moffa@ropesgray.com
Jesse J. Jenner (pro hac vice)
jesse.jenner@ropesgray.com
Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
gene.lee@ropesgray.com
Brian P. Biddinger (pro hac vice)
brian.biddinger@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-8704
T: (212) 596-9000
F: (212) 596-9090
Samuel L. Brenner (BBO #677812)
samuel.brenner@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
T: (617) 951-7000
F: (617) 951-7050
Kathryn N. Hong (pro hac vice)
kathryn.hong@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
T: (650) 617-4000
F: (650) 617-4090
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING,
INC.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 157 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 3-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
this 16th day of July, 2015.
By: /s/ Matthew J. Moffa________
Matthew J. Moffa
BBO#681965
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 157 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 3
Next hearing looks to be moving about 3 weeks to August 25th, not a big deal. Latest filings today:
07/16/2015 155 Transcript of Markman Hearing held on October 3, 2014, before Judge Denise J. Casper. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Debra Joyce at joycedebra@gmail.com Redaction Request due 8/6/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/17/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/14/2015. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 156 NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/attorneys/general-info.htm (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 157 Assented to MOTION to Continue Status Conference to August 25, 2015 by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc..(Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
07/16/2015 158 MEMORANDUM in Support re 157 Assented to MOTION to Continue Status Conference to August 25, 2015 filed by Activision Blizzard, Inc., Activision Publishing, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.. (Moffa, Matthew) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
$WDDD
from: https://www.facebook.com/StocksandMoney
$WDDD: STRONG BUY - we believe the forthcoming hearing in the WDDD vs $ATVI case scheduled for within the next couple of months will be the start towards trial. We further believe WDDD also has a VERY strong case in the IPR case filed by Activision partner; Bungee. There's been some shares dumped but we believe that is also near the end and that the stock price will firm up in short order. We do not foresee any splits below $1-2 as that would not make any sense from any perspective. We also note the vulnerability on the Activision side not having disclosed this ongoing case in any filings even after their own attorney in court said it is potentially about "billions of dollars" - even for ATVI that is material.
We remain extremely bullish and have a 12-24 month target of $2 per share.
$WDDD
from: https://www.facebook.com/StocksandMoney
$WDDD: STRONG BUY - we believe the forthcoming hearing in the WDDD vs $ATVI case scheduled for within the next couple of months will be the start towards trial. We further believe WDDD also has a VERY strong case in the IPR case filed by Activision partner; Bungee. There's been some shares dumped but we believe that is also near the end and that the stock price will firm up in short order. We do not foresee any splits below $1-2 as that would not make any sense from any perspective. We also note the vulnerability on the Activision side not having disclosed this ongoing case in any filings even after their own attorney in court said it is potentially about "billions of dollars" - even for ATVI that is material.
We remain extremely bullish and have a 12-24 month target of $2 per share.
from: https://www.facebook.com/StocksandMoney
$WDDD: STRONG BUY - we believe the forthcoming hearing in the WDDD vs $ATVI case scheduled for within the next couple of months will be the start towards trial. We further believe WDDD also has a VERY strong case in the IPR case filed by Activision partner; Bungee. There's been some shares dumped but we believe that is also near the end and that the stock price will firm up in short order. We do not foresee any splits below $1-2 as that would not make any sense from any perspective. We also note the vulnerability on the Activision side not having disclosed this ongoing case in any filings even after their own attorney in court said it is potentially about "billions of dollars" - even for ATVI that is material.
We remain extremely bullish and have a 12-24 month target of $2 per share.
SO DID i, COMMENTED ON THAT OLD ARTICLE AND WROTE A NEW ONE - LETS SEE IF THEY PUBLISH
ACTIVISION AND BUNGIE UNVEIL THE NEXT EPIC ADVENTURE IN THE DESTINY SAGA WITH THE TAKEN KING
Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter Email RSS
Jun 16, 2015
Previous Release | Next Release PDF
All-New Campaign, Sub-Classes and a Brand New Destination, Further Expand the Evolving Destiny Universe
Destiny Year Two Begins on September 15, 2015
SANTA MONICA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Bungie and Activision Publishing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI), announced The Taken King, a major expansion and by far the largest addition to the Destiny universe yet. Building upon Destiny, the biggest new video game franchise launch in history, The Taken King grows the universe with the first full destination to be added to the game since launch, an all-new campaign, three new Guardian subclasses, a massive arsenal of new armor, weapons and exotics, new Strikes and Crucible maps, a new Raid that will put players to the ultimate test, and more. The Taken King will be available world-wide on September 15, 2015.
"The Taken King is the next evolution of the saga, kicking off another great year of Destiny," said Harold Ryan, president of Bungie. "What's exciting for the studio is to continue to open new experiences for our existing, passionate community and to welcome new players to Destiny. We've loved listening to players' reaction so far and have provided nearly 30 updates along the way to continue to grow the universe. Our active players are still spending about three hours a day playing so it's important we give them a world to engage with and surprise them with new activities in The Taken King in September."
"The Taken King takes everything that was great about Destiny, and makes it even better," said Eric Hirshberg, CEO of Activision Publishing. "Our partners at Bungie have created something very special with this universe, and have also done a great job listening to our community as this saga continues to unfold. We are excited for the next chapter."
For new and existing Guardians ready to jump into the Destiny universe or continuing to carve their legends in the stars, the Legendary Edition is the ultimate place to start year two and includes content and updates for: Destiny, Expansion I: The Dark Below, Expansion II: House of Wolves, and features The Taken King. At launch PlayStation® gamers will also get access to a host of additional content for The Taken King, including a Strike, a Crucible map, three sets of gear and an exotic weapon, exclusive until Fall 2016.
Every Guardian class will get access to a third subclass with the purchase of The Taken King, and will be showcased through competitive multiplayer with two new modes and four new maps at the 2015 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3 Expo) taking place at the Los Angeles Convention Center on June 16-18.
The Taken King is rating pending by the ESRB, and will be available for the PlayStation®4 computer entertainment system (PlayStation Plus required for some features), PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, Xbox One, the all-in-one games and entertainment system and Xbox 360 games and entertainment system from Microsoft (Xbox Live Gold required for some features) on September 15, 2015.
The community can interact directly with the developers at www.Bungie.net, www.facebook.com/Bungie and @Bungie on Twitter. For game information, they can visit www.DestinyTheGame.com and follow the official Destiny social channels at www.facebook.com/DestinyTheGame and @DestinyTheGame on Twitter.
About Bungie
Bungie was founded in 1991 with two goals: develop kick ass games that combine state-of-the-art technology with uncompromising art, captivating storytelling, and deep gameplay, and then to sell enough copies to fund our ongoing quest for World Domination. Over the past twenty years, Bungie created a bunch of fun games, including the Halo franchise, the Marathon Trilogy, and the first two Myth games. Our independent, employee-owned development studio is located in Bellevue, Washington, the base where we launched our most ambitious project to date: Destiny.
More information about Bungie can be found at www.bungie.net.
About Activision Publishing, Inc.
Headquartered in Santa Monica, California, Activision Publishing, Inc. is a leading global producer and publisher of interactive entertainment. Activision maintains operations throughout the world. More information about Activision and its products can be found on the company's website, www.activision.com.
Destiny game, Expansions I & II required to play, all included in the Legendary and Collector's editions.
© 2015 Bungie, Inc. All rights reserved. Destiny, the Destiny Logo, Bungie and the Bungie Logo are among the trademarks of Bungie, Inc. Published and distributed by Activision. Activision is a registered trademark of Activision Publishing, Inc. All other trademarks or trade names are the properties of their respective owners.
View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150616006114/en/
Activision Publishing, Inc.
Genevieve Waldman, 425-440-6854
gwaldman@activision.com
Source: Activision Publishing, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media
OUR ELITE ROSTER
OF LEGENDARY TITLES
Game Logo
In Destiny you are a Guardian of the last city on Earth, able to wield incredible power. Explore the ancient ruins of our solar system, from the red dunes of Mars to the lush jungles of Venus. Defeat Earth's enemies. Reclaim all that we have lost. Become legend.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
As a leading entertainment franchise globally, Call of Duty delivers cinematic intensity, big moments and stunning visuals. Call of Duty games feature an award-winning multiplayer experience, a gripping campaign on par with a Hollywood blockbuster, and an engaging cooperative mode. The critically-acclaimed franchise continues to set the bar in the FPS genre and is enjoyed by millions and millions of gamers every year.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
Capture Evil. Unleash Good.
Kaos has blown up the walls of the feared Cloudcracker Prison freeing the most notorious villains in Skylands. It's up to you and the Skylanders to find and capture them. Using Traptanium™, a magic material that can harness the power of the Elements, you have the amazing ability to trap the villains and return them to Skylands to fight for you! Experience the ultimate adventure with the Skylanders as you explore Skylands in search of the escaped villains!
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
World of Warcraft® has brought the rich fantasy settings and epic characters of Blizzard Entertainment's celebrated Warcraft universe to life in massively multiplayer online role-playing game form for millions of players across the globe.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
In Blizzard Entertainment's award-winning Diablo® action-role-playing games, players take on the roles of brave heroes who are drawn into an epic conflict between the angels of the High Heavens and the demons of the Burning Hells over the fate of the gothic fantasy world of Sanctuary.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
Deceptively simple and epically engaging, Blizzard Entertainment's Hearthstone®: Heroes of Warcraft® is a cross-platform digital strategy card game that's designed to be instantly accessible and insanely fun.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Game Logo
Noted for their epic space-opera story lines and supremely balanced multiplayer gameplay, Blizzard Entertainment's StarCraft® real-time strategy games have been a longstanding fixture on players' and critics' "Best of" lists and a staple of professional eSports for as long as the category has existed.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Copyright 2015 Activision Blizzard, Inc.
LEGAL TERMS OF USE PRIVACY POLICY ONLINE SAFETY CONTACT
VISIT
Activision.com
Blizzard.com
CAUTION CONCERNING FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
COMPANY
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
CAREERS
NEWS AND EVENTS
INVESTOR RELATIONS
CONTACT
http://investor.activision.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=918209
The reason the stock is not moving up is very simply that just about nobody knows the news. I saw it one place only. Cannot find the story anywhere else really, not on any major IP blogs for example. Company must have opted for the cheapest possible news release they could find with extremely limited distribution. For those that have invested in this stock it might be an idea to help ourselves and spread the news to the various investor forums, social media, IP blogs etc etc
JMHO
ps On my cell TD Ameritrade app the latest news story is the one one about patents being invalidated from last year! People that see that and not the latest news will probably not rush to buy
deliveries surge Q2 - short squeeze could follow
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2611105-tesla-deliveries-surge-52-percent-to-company-record?app=1&uprof=25#email_link
why would anyone be surprised at the price falling? at 0.0008 they double AS to 9 billion shares. Then they announce Q1 just over Q1 2014 so sounds like revenues are declining. Then the CPA's leaving, not one but two. Then no mention of VGR Media. No notice of debt repayment as promised.
nuff said
what's interesting is that i only find the PR from Worlds on one site. It does not show up in TD Ameritrade on my cell - there the latest news is patents found invalid - that news comes from Benzinga PRO tweet. I still think a major problem for the stock is that this positive news simply is not reaching the masses. Stocksandmoney.com reached out to about 20K people through Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/StocksandMoney)
Might be an idea for us here to help spread the news, only helping ourselves
REH
again, Hudson are crooks and all they want is to dump and focus on the next company they can scam. They do not think like a normal investor
Hudson back selling so just lean back and wait until they are done - no reason to have those crooks get more money than necessary - scoop lower
3-4M
The reason for lackluster performance I believe is also very much related to the fact that nobody knows the news outside a very select few. The company does not seem to be working on getting the news out.
So we can just wait or we could in fact try to help ourselves by writing about the news other places than here such as IP blogs, other investor forums, other stock boards of infringing companies, social media etc etc
When people do not know they won't buy
Just my 2c
REH
Worlds Receives Favorable Markman Ruling in Lawsuit Against Activision Blizzard
Published: June 29, 2015 8:30 a.m. ET
0
BOSTON, MA, Jun 29, 2015 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- Worlds Inc. (otcqb:WDDD) received a favorable Markman Order from Judge Denise Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 26th related to its patent infringement lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc. (Activision et al)
"We are pleased that the Federal Court has ruled that the majority of our patent claims construction language means precisely what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) interpreted the claims to mean in the patents they granted to us," Thom Kidrin, Worlds' President and CEO, stated. "We can now move forward with our case against Activision Blizzard."
Kidrin added, "With this favorable Markman ruling, Worlds is in a strong position for a jury trial. The court has set a scheduling hearing for July 30th at which time we hope to receive a trial date."
A copy of the ruling is available at: http://www.worlds.com/text/2015-06-26_Worlds-Blizzard_Dkt_153_ClaimConstructionOrder.pdf. More information on the lawsuit and Worlds' patents can be found on the Worlds.com website.
About Worlds Inc.:
Worlds Inc. is a leading intellectual property developer and licensee of patents related to 3D online virtual worlds. The Company has a portfolio of 7 US patents for multi-server technology for 3D applications. The earliest of these patents issued on an application filed November 12, 1996. A provisional patent application, serial number 60/020,296, was filed on November 13, 1995. These patents are related to each other and disclose and claim systems and methods for enabling users to interact in a virtual space. Visit www.Worlds.com.
About Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Susman Godfrey L.L.P., a law firm with more than 80 lawyers, was recently named one of the top litigation boutiques in the country by The American Lawyer. The firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of commercial litigation matters, including antitrust, patent and intellectual property, securities and corporate governance litigation, energy, commercial and products liability, bankruptcy and financial restructuring, accounting malpractice, arbitration, climate change, and international litigation. The firm has offices in Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York. For additional information, visit www.susmangodfrey.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This release contains certain forward-looking statements and information relating to Worlds Inc. that are based on the beliefs of Worlds' management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company. Such statements reflect the current views of the Company with respect to future events including estimates and projections about its business based on certain assumptions of its management, including those described in this Release. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risk and uncertainties that are difficult to predict, including, among other factors, changes in demand for the Company's services and products, changes in the economic environment and changes in technology. Additional risk factors are included in the Company's public filings with the SEC. Should one or more of these underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described herein as "hoped," "anticipated," "believed," "estimated," "should," "preparing," "expected" or words of a similar nature. The Company does not intend to update these forward-looking statements.
Media Relations:
Julie Shepherd
Accentuate PR
847-275-3643
Email Contact
SOURCE: Worlds Inc.
(C) 2015 Marketwire L.P. All rights reserved.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/worlds-receives-favorable-markman-ruling-in-lawsuit-against-activision-blizzard-2015-06-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp
done bud
This Markman sets a precedent so now Worlds can go after the others who in total are much larger than activision. This could easily become a $5 stock
Sure will be exiting
REH
WDDD: 7
Activision: 1
we should. The most important claim language in WDDD's favor. This goes to trial next, can't wait!
REH
short squeeze coming - $300
Thanks!
I am of course only speculating but since they said more than q1 2014 and did not say more than that I expect slightly above $1M in that case there can't be anything from VGR I think.
who knows
Chum:
The no revenue followed my VGR Media comment - we were led to believe great revenues from that business and from what I hear all those employees are gone. I could be wrong but no mention of VGR in latest letter whereas it was pointed out as a strong part of the business last time.
I know what they have said but that does not mean they will keep their word. they also said all debt paid off several times, latest by end of this month so lets see. I also didn't say when but obviously a R/S is in the cards - maybe they wait until early 2016 - they seem to be using a lot of money so I am sure they are not personally hurting as they drive around in their Lambos.
Off course all IMHO - do your own DD after you stop drinking the coolaid
nuff said
don't hold your breath. one CPA left, they hired a new one and they quit - not a good sign indeed. This is really "how to screw up a good thing without really trying". I question managements shareholder loyalty unless they mean select few insider holders. Then the whole VGR mess which now seems to be gone, vanished, no revenue, what???? double AS, what? Looks like more dilution coming, Q1 probably a loss at least equal to 50% of Revenue, Split must follow and then probably more issue effectively erasing everyone's investment (except the people who get new shares, wonder who that would be, maybe the preferred holders?).
This one is a strong SELL at this juncture.
too many red flags
my guess, $1.1M revenue and loss of $500K+ in Q1 2015