Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-10576-DJC ) ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and ) ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. ) WORLDS, INC.,

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC. TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Activision Publishing, Inc. (collectively “Activision”), by and through its undersigned counsel, for its answer to the First Amended Complaint of plaintiff Worlds, Inc. (“Worlds”): PARTIES 1.

Admits that Worlds purports to assert a claim for patent infringement arising

under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1. 2.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 2, and therefore denies them. 3.

Admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.

4.

Admits that Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of Delaware, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 1

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 10

5.

Admits the allegations of Paragraph 5.

6.

Admits that Activision Blizzard, Inc. is the parent corporation of Blizzard

Entertainment, Inc., conducts business, either directly or through its agents, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6. 7.

Admits the allegations of Paragraph 7.

8.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 8.

9.

Admits that Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. publishes subscription-based massively

multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9. 10.

Admits that Blizzard Entertainment is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10. 11.

Admits that Activision Blizzard, Inc. is the parent corporation of Activision

Publishing, Inc., and that Activision Publishing sells products in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11. 12.

Admits that Activision Publishing has offered for sale and sold Call of Duty

videogames, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12. 13.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 13.

14.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 14.

15.

Admits that Activision Publishing is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard, Inc., and

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15. 16.

States that Paragraph 16 purports to be definitional, and therefore does not require

a response.

2

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17.

Admits that this Court has general subject matter jurisdiction over actions

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 18.

Admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Activision, and denies the

remaining allegations of Paragraph 18. 19.

Admits that Activision offers to sell World of Warcraft and Call of Duty products

in Massachusetts, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19. 20.

Admits that Activision derives substantial revenue from interstate and

international commerce, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20, and therefore denies them. 21.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 21.

22.

Admits that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), but states that

this forum is not convenient within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1404. COUNT ONE 23.

Admits that U.S. Patent 8,082,501 (“the ‘501 patent”) states on its face that it

issued on December 20, 2011 and is titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space,” denies that the ‘501 patent was duly or lawfully issued, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 23, and therefore denies them. 24.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 24, and therefore denies them. 25.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 25.

26.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 26.

27.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 27. 3

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 10

28.

Admits that it was aware of Worlds’ prior litigation against NCsoft Corporation,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 28. COUNT TWO 29.

Admits that U.S. Patent 7,945,856 (“the ‘856 patent”) states on its face that it

issued on May 17, 2011 and is titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space,” denies that the ‘856 patent was duly or lawfully issued, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29, and therefore denies them. 30.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 30, and therefore denies them. 31.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 31.

32.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 32.

33.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 33.

34.

Admits that it was aware of Worlds’ prior litigation against NCsoft Corporation,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34. COUNT THREE 35.

Admits that U.S. Patent 7,493,558 (“the ‘558 patent”) states on its face that it

issued on February 17, 2009 and is titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space,” denies that the ‘558 patent was duly or lawfully issued, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 35, and therefore denies them. 36.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 36, and therefore denies them.

4

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 10

37.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 37.

38.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 38.

39.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 39.

40.

Admits that it was aware of Worlds’ prior litigation against NCsoft Corporation,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40. COUNT FOUR 41.

Admits that U.S. Patent 7,181,690 (“the ‘690 patent”) states on its face that it

issued on February 20, 2007 and is titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space,” denies that the ‘690 patent was duly or lawfully issued, and lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 41, and therefore denies them. 42.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 42, and therefore denies them. 43.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 43.

44.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 44.

45.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 45.

46.

Admits that it was aware of Worlds’ prior litigation against NCsoft Corporation,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 46. COUNT FIVE 47.

Admits that U.S. Patent 8,145,998 (“the ‘998 patent”) states on its face that it

issued on March 27, 2012 and is titled “System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space,” denies that the ‘998 patent was duly or lawfully issued, and lacks knowledge or

5

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 10

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 47, and therefore denies them. 48.

Lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 48, and therefore denies them. 49.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 49.

50.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 50.

51.

Denies the allegations of Paragraph 51.

52.

Admits that it was aware of Worlds’ prior litigation against NCsoft Corporation,

and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 52. OTHER 53.

Denies that Worlds is entitled to the relief requested in Paragraphs a-e of the

Prayer for Relief or to any other relief. 54.

Denies all allegations set forth in the First Amended Complaint not heretofore

specifically admitted. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST DEFENSE Worlds has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND DEFENSE Activision is not infringing and has not infringed, either by direct infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of infringement, any valid claim of the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent or the ‘998 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

6

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 7 of 10

THIRD DEFENSE One or more claims of the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent or the ‘998 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. FOURTH DEFENSE By reason of the proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the applications for the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent, the ‘998 patent and related patents, Worlds is estopped from claiming infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Activision of one or more claims of the ‘501, ‘856, ‘558, ‘690 and ‘998 patents. FIFTH DEFENSE Any claim by Worlds for damages is limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. SIXTH DEFENSE Worlds’ claims for relief are barred by one or more of the doctrines of estoppel, laches, waiver, and/or implied license. SEVENTH DEFENSE Worlds is not entitled to injunctive relief at least because any alleged injury is not immediate or irreparable, and because Worlds has an adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, defendant and counterclaimant Activision respectfully requests a judgment: A.

That Worlds take nothing by its First Amended Complaint;

7

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 8 of 10

B.

That Worlds’ First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that all relief requested by Worlds be denied with prejudice;

C.

Declaring that Activision has not infringed and does not infringe in any manner any claim of the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent or the ‘998 patent;

D.

Declaring that each claim of the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent and the ‘998 patent asserted by Worlds against Activision is invalid, void, and without any force of effect against Activision, its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and customers;

E.

Declaring that each claim of the ‘501 patent, the ‘856 patent, the ‘558 patent, the ‘690 patent and the ‘998 patent asserted by Worlds against Activision is unenforceable against Activision;

F.

Declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and granting to Activision an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs;

G.

Awarding to Activision its costs associated with this case; and

H.

Awarding to Activision such further relief, in law or in equity, as this Court deems just and proper.

8

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 9 of 10

Dated: October 9, 2012

By: /s/ Blake B. Greene Blake B. Greene (BBO #681781) ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 T: (617) 951-7000 F: (617) 951-7050 Jesse J. Jenner (pro hac vice pending) Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice pending) Christopher J. Harnett (pro hac vice pending) David S. Chun (pro hac vice pending) Brian P. Biddinger (pro hac vice pending) ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-8704 T: (212) 596-9000 F: (212) 596-9050 Matthew R. Clements (pro hac vice pending) ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.

9

Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 36 Filed 10/09/12 Page 10 of 10

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 9th day of October, 2012.

By: /s/ Blake B. Greene Blake B. Greene

10