Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 100

ANSWER to 85 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC.(Baxter, Samuel)

Download PDF
Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. Defendants. CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269 Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT MATCH.COM LLC'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COUNTERCLAIMS, AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC ("Bedrock") files this Reply to Defendant Match.com, LLC's ("Match.com's") First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Jury Demand, served on September 28, 2009 (Dkt. No. 85). All allegations not expressly admitted are denied. Paragraphs 1-21, as well as Match.com's statement denying that Bedrock is entitled to Bedrock's requested relief, do not require a response. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Bedrock incorporates by reference the allegations in its Complaint for Patent Infringement in response to each and every of Match.com's Affirmative Defenses. 2. Defense. 3. Defense. Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Second Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's First Affirmative Dockets.Justia.com 4. Defense. 5. Defense. 6. Defense. 7. Defense. 8. Defense. 9. Defense. 10. Defense. 11. Defense. Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Third Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Fourth Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Fifth Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Sixth Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Seventh Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Eighth Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Ninth Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Match.com's Tenth Affirmative RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS 12. Bedrock incorporates by reference the allegations in its Complaint for Patent Infringement in response to each and every of Match.com's Counterclaims. 13. 14. 15. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that this Court has jurisdiction as alleged in Paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims but denies that Match.com is entitled to any relief requested. 16. Bedrock admits venue for Match.com's counterclaims is proper in this district as alleged in Paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims, but Bedrock denies that Match.com is entitled to any relief request and also denies that the case should be transferred to the Northern District of California. 17. 18. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that it asserts Match.com infringes the `120 Patent and an actual case or controversy exists between the parties.. Maybe insert that Bedrock denies Google's allegations of noninfringement and invalidity of the `120 Patent contained in this paragraph. 19. 20. 21. Paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims does not require a response. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that Match.com seeks a judicial declaration of noninfringement as described in Paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims but denies that Match.com is entitled to any relief requested. 22. 23. 24. Paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims does not require a response. Bedrock admits the allegation of Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that Match.com seeks a judicial declaration of invalidity as described in Paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims but denies that Match.com is entitled to any relief requested. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Bedrock incorporates by reference the Prayer for Relief set forth in Bedrock's Complaint for Patent Infringement. Bedrock denies that Match.com is entitled to any relief. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Bedrock respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action. DATED: October 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. _/s/ Sam F. Baxter_________ Sam F. Baxter, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 0 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 923-9000 Facsimile: (903) 923-9099 Douglas A. Cawley Texas Bar No. 04035500 dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 acurry@mckoolsmith.com McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-978-4000 Facsimile: 214-978-4044 Robert M. Parker Texas Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt Texas Bar No. 00787165 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: 903-531-3535 Facsimile: 903-533-9687 E-mail: rmparker@pbatyler.com E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service on this, the 16th day of October, 2009. Local Rule CV53(a)(3)(A). /s/ Austin Curry Austin Curry