Updated from Yahoo Finance two months ago. :
WDDD Updated most recent calendar v ATVI
Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 299 Motion to Amend Schedule.
Fact discovery to be completed by 2/18/21.
Worlds Narrowing of Asserted Claims 2/25/21.
Activision's Narrowing of Prior Art by 3/11/21.
Opening Expert Reports by 3/25/21.
Rebuttal Expert Reports by 4/29/21.
Close of Expert Discovery by 5/20/21.
Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions by 6/17/21.
Opposition to Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions by 7/15/21.
Reply Briefs in Support of Dispositive and Daubert Motions by 7/29/21. (Hourihan, Lisa) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
Microsoft case-
Case 6:20-cv-00872-ADA Document 22 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
§ WORLDS INC., §
DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW OF THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
This action presents an extraordinary case for a stay pending inter partes review (“IPR”). It involves an expired patent already found unpatentable in an IPR vacated by the Federal Circuit only because it found that the petition was technically barred due a real-party-in-interest issue. The identical—and successful—grounds from that earlier petition are now before the Board again in a new petition that lacks the earlier procedural defect. Moreover, the patent-in-suit is subject to an additional ground in the IPR petition and a pending summary judgment motion for invalidity under § 101 in co-pending litigation in the District of Massachusetts. The patent is expired, so Worlds will not suffer prejudice from a stay. This case is in the very earliest stages; Microsoft filed its IPR before it filed its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint. The institution decision is due by June 3, 2021, and the final written decision will issue by June 3, 2022. Even given the speed of this Court’s typical case schedule, the final written decisions will issue at least contemporaneously with—if not before—the anticipated trial date.
The ’501 patent is invalid. The only outstanding question is what jurisdiction—the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the District of Massachusetts, or this Court—will be the one to confirm invalidity again after the PTAB’s earlier decision was vacated for non-merits reasons.
Plaintiff,
v. § MICROSOFT CORPORATION, §
§ Defendant. §
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-872-ADA
From 10-Q back in NOvember
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
The Company is seeking damages for patent infringement of the Company’s patents in three active proceedings. The first proceeding, filed by the Company against Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2012, was temporarily stayed in 2015. In April 2020, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper lifted the stay and entered a schedule to complete the case. The Company also filed a complaint for patent infringement against Linden Research, Inc., d/b/a Linden Lab in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in 2019, and a complaint for patent infringement against Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in September, 2020.
