DCT
1:16-cv-00774
Activision Blizzard Inc v. Acceleration Bay LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Activision | Blizzard, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Acceleration Bay LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Winston & Strawn LLP
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00774, N.D. Cal., 06/16/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because the Defendant’s principal place of business is located within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Activision | Blizzard seeks a declaratory judgment that its online multiplayer video games do not infringe six patents asserted by Defendant Acceleration Bay, which relate to peer-to-peer networking technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for creating and managing reliable, decentralized "broadcast channels" for communication among numerous participants in a distributed network, a foundational element for applications like large-scale online multiplayer games.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a prior lawsuit filed by Acceleration Bay against Activision in the District of Delaware in March 2015. The Delaware court questioned Acceleration Bay's standing to sue, finding it was a licensee rather than the full owner of the asserted patents. This action was filed after Acceleration Bay represented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it had entered a new patent purchase agreement with the original patent owner, The Boeing Company, creating a renewed threat of litigation. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, several asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-07-31 | Priority Date for all six Asserted Patents |
| 2004-03-02 | U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 Issues |
| 2004-03-30 | U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 Issues |
| 2004-05-04 | U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 Issues |
| 2004-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 Issues |
| 2005-06-21 | U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 Issues |
| 2005-07-19 | U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 Issues |
| 2015-03-12 | Acceleration Bay files infringement complaint against Activision in Delaware |
| 2016-06-16 | Activision files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 - Distributed Game Environment, Issued 03/02/2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the shortcomings of existing network communication techniques for applications with many widely distributed users, such as online games. Client-server architectures create performance bottlenecks and a single point of failure at the server, while standard peer-to-peer connections become difficult to manage as the number of participants grows (’344 Patent, col. 1:36-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a logical "broadcast channel" that overlays a standard point-to-point network like the Internet. This channel is formed by a structured graph of connections between participants, where each participant is connected to a set number of "neighbors." To broadcast a message, an originating participant sends it only to its direct neighbors, who then propagate the message to their other neighbors until all participants have received it, eliminating the need for a central server (’344 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-24; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach creates a scalable and resilient communication network for distributed applications by decentralizing message broadcasting, thereby avoiding the reliability risks and performance limitations of a central server architecture (’344 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 13, and 18 as being asserted in the prior Delaware action (Compl. ¶10).
- Claim 1 recites:
- A computer network for providing a game environment for a plurality of participants,
- each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
- wherein an originating participant sends data to other participants by sending it through each of its connections to its neighbors,
- wherein each participant relays received data to its other neighbors,
- wherein the network is "m-regular" (each participant has exactly "m" neighbors), and
- wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than "m", resulting in a "non-complete graph."
- Claim 13 recites a distributed game system comprising a plurality of broadcast channels and means for identifying and connecting to a channel, with network structure limitations similar to Claim 1.
- Claim 18 recites a computer network for a game environment with data relaying and an "m-regular" structure forming an "incomplete graph."
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 6-8, 10, and 13-15 were also asserted (Compl. ¶10).
U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 - Broadcasting Network, Issued 12/07/2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of reliable, simultaneous information sharing among many distributed computers, noting that conventional multicasting protocols can create unacceptable overhead on the underlying network or require special-purpose hardware like routers (’634 Patent, col. 1:37-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "non-routing table based" network built on a peer-to-peer graph architecture. A key technical feature is the sequential numbering of data, which allows a receiving participant to identify out-of-order messages, queue them, and rearrange them into the correct sequence. This ensures reliable data delivery in a dynamic network where message paths and timings can vary (’634 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-4).
- Technical Importance: This design provides for reliable data broadcasting in a decentralized network by solving the problem of out-of-order message delivery without relying on conventional routing tables or specialized network infrastructure (’634 Patent, col. 5:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 19 as being asserted in the prior Delaware action (Compl. ¶10).
- Claim 1 recites:
- A non-routing table based computer network with a plurality of participants,
- each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
- a data relaying structure similar to the ’344 Patent,
- wherein data is numbered sequentially so that out-of-order data can be queued and rearranged, and
- wherein the network is "m-regular and m-connected."
- Claim 19 recites a computer-readable medium with instructions for a participant to join a broadcast channel by locating a "portal computer" and using it to establish connections with indicated neighbor participants.
- The complaint notes that dependent claims 4, 5, 19, and 22 were also asserted (Compl. ¶10).
U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147 - Leaving a Broadcast Channel, Issued 05/04/2004
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the process of a computer disconnecting from the broadcast channel. The invention provides a method for a disconnecting computer to notify its neighbors, allowing them to establish new connections with each other to repair the "hole" in the network and maintain the graph's structural integrity (e.g., its "m-regular" property) (’147 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:1-20).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 14, 15, and 16 (Compl. ¶10).
- Accused Features: The complaint denies that the accused products' functionality for players leaving a game session infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶35).
U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966 - Information Delivery Service, Issued 03/30/2004
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a computer network for an "information delivery service" that uses the same underlying m-regular, non-complete graph structure as the other patents in the family. It is framed more broadly for distributing information related to a "topic" rather than being limited to a game environment (’966 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 7, 9, and 12 (Compl. ¶10).
- Accused Features: The complaint denies that the accused products' delivery of game-related information infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶43).
U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 - Contacting a Broadcast Channel, Issued 07/19/2005
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the initial step of joining a network: locating a "portal computer" to connect through. The method involves a seeking computer attempting to communicate with a portal computer's "call-in port" by using a "port ordering algorithm" to identify the correct port, which may be dynamically selected (’497 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claims 8 and 16 (Compl. ¶10).
- Accused Features: The complaint denies that the accused products' functionality for players initiating a connection to a game session infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶51).
U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069 - Joining a Broadcast Channel, Issued 06/21/2005
- Technology Synopsis: This patent details a method for adding a new participant to an existing network graph. The method involves identifying a connected pair of existing participants, disconnecting them from each other, and then connecting each of those two participants to the new seeking participant, a process the specification refers to as "edge pinning" (’069 Patent, Abstract; ’344 Patent, col. 5:5-10).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1, and dependent claims 11, 12, and 13 (Compl. ¶10).
- Accused Features: The complaint denies that the accused products' functionality for players joining a game session infringes the asserted claims (Compl. ¶59).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the online multiplayer video games World of Warcraft, Destiny, and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (Compl. ¶9).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint identifies these as "software products and services" that Activision manufactures, uses, and sells (Compl. ¶9). It alleges that Acceleration Bay's prior infringement claims were directed at the networking functionality that enables online multiplayer gameplay in these products (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10). The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the network architecture (e.g., client-server, peer-to-peer, or hybrid models) of the accused games or any information on their market context.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants, | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶19 | col. 30:26-27 |
| wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶19 | col. 30:28-32 |
| wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants, | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶19 | col. 30:33-35 |
| further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant and | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶19 | col. 30:37-39 |
| further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph. | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶19 | col. 30:40-42 |
U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A non-routing table based computer network having a plurality of participants, | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶27 | col. 30:10-11 |
| wherein data is numbered sequentially so that data received out of order can be queued and rearranged, | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶27 | col. 30:20-22 |
| further wherein the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the number of neighbor participants of each participant, and | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶27 | col. 30:23-25 |
| further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph. | The complaint denies that the Accused Products meet this limitation but does not specify the accused functionality. | ¶27 | col. 30:26-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Architectural Questions: The patents claim highly structured peer-to-peer network graphs with specific mathematical properties (e.g., "m-regular," "m-connected"). A central question will be evidentiary: what is the actual network architecture of the accused games, and does it conform to these strict structural requirements? The complaint's lack of technical detail suggests a fundamental dispute over whether the accused products employ this type of structured peer-to-peer system at all, versus a more conventional client-server or a less structured hybrid model.
- Scope Questions: What is the scope of a "non-routing table based computer network" (’634 Patent, cl. 1)? The dispute may turn on whether the networking protocols used by the accused games can be characterized as operating without routing tables in the manner contemplated by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "m-regular"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of multiple asserted patents and imposes a strict structural requirement on the claimed network. Its definition is critical because modern, large-scale online games often involve dynamic networks where the number of connections per player may fluctuate, making it questionable whether a strictly "m-regular" state (where every participant has the exact same number of neighbors) is maintained.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specifications do not appear to provide an alternative definition that would broaden the term beyond its established meaning in graph theory.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a precise definition: "where m is the exact number of neighbor participants of each participant" (’344 Patent, col. 30:37-39). The specification’s frequent reference to "4-regular" graphs supports a narrow, literal interpretation consistent with its mathematical definition (’344 Patent, col. 4:39).
The Term: "participant"
- Context and Importance: The definition of a "participant" will be key to mapping the claims onto the accused systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is unclear whether a "participant" refers to a player's client computer, a specific software process, a user account, or another entity within the game's architecture. The infringement analysis depends on what nodes in the accused systems are identified as the claimed "participants."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses several terms that may be viewed as interchangeable, such as "host computers," "processes," and "computers," suggesting the term is not limited to one specific type of entity (’344 Patent, col. 4:9, 4:28-30).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context of a "distributed game environment" and a "plurality of participants" in claims of the ’344 Patent could support an interpretation where a "participant" is tied to a human player's computer or client process within the game (’344 Patent, cl. 1).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint notes that in the prior Delaware action, Acceleration Bay alleged that Activision contributes to and induces infringement of the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶9). This declaratory judgment complaint seeks a ruling of non-infringement for both indirect and direct infringement but does not provide any specific facts from the prior case (e.g., allegations regarding user manuals or instructions) that formed the basis of the original inducement and contributory infringement claims (Compl. ¶20).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that any infringement was not willful (Compl. p. 12, ¶1.a). The complaint does not detail the basis on which willfulness was previously alleged by Acceleration Bay.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mismatch: can evidence show that the accused online games, which likely utilize highly dynamic and potentially server-managed networks, actually implement the specific, structurally rigid "m-regular" peer-to-peer graph topologies required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental difference in technical operation?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: as the complaint does not detail the accused products' networking functionality, the case will likely depend on whether discovery reveals processes in the accused games that perform the claimed functions, such as sequentially numbering data packets for reordering (’634 Patent) or using "edge pinning" to add new players to the network (’069 Patent).
- A critical threshold question will be the viability of the asserted claims: given that numerous asserted claims across multiple patents-in-suit were cancelled in inter partes review proceedings that concluded after this complaint was filed, a central issue will be to what extent Acceleration Bay's infringement theories remain viable under any surviving asserted claims.