IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 66

SECOND AMENDED ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against IconFind, Inc. by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C, # 5 Appendix D, # 6 Appendix E, # 7 Appendix F, # 8 Appendix G, # 9 Appendix H, # 10 Appendix I, # 11 Appendix J, # 12 Appendix K)(Malecek, Michael)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Michael J. Malecek (State Bar No. 171034)
Email address: [e-mail]
Kenneth M. Maikish (State Bar No. 267265)
Email address: [e-mail]
KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 400
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ICONFIND, INC.,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
COUNTERCLAIMS

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

Defendant and counterclaimant Google Inc. (“Google”), by and through the undersigned

2

counsel, answers the Complaint of Patent Infringement of Plaintiff (the “Complaint”) and

3

counterclaim defendant IconFind, Inc. (“IconFind”) as follows:

4

1.

Google admits that Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to state an action for patent

5

infringement and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent law claims. Google

6

denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 1.

7
8
9
10
11

2.

Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations of paragraph 2, and therefore denies them.
3.

Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations of paragraph 3, and therefore denies them.
4.

Google admits that Google is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of

12

business in Mountain View, California. Google admits that it owns and operates

13

www.google.com, knol.google.com, books.google.com, and picasa.google.com.

14

5.

Solely for the purposes of this action, Google does not contest personal jurisdiction

15

in this District. Google denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within this or any

16

other district and denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 5.

17
18

6.

Solely for the purposes of this action, Google admits that venue is proper in the

Eastern District of California.

19

7.

Denied.

20

8.

Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

21
22

truth of the allegations of paragraph 8, and therefore denies them.
9.

Google admits that it received a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel, dated January 19,

23

2009 regarding IconFind and related to the U.S. Patent No. 7,181,459 (“the ’459 patent” or the

24

Patent-in-Suit”). Google also admits that reference to the ’459 patent appears on the face of U.S.

25

Patent Nos. 7,664,734; 7,693,825; and 7,788,274. Google denies that it has committed any acts of

26

infringement of the ’459 patent and denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 9.

27
28

1
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

10.

Denied.

2

11.

Denied.

3

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

4

12.

Further answering the Complaint, Google asserts the following defenses. In doing

5

so, Google does not assume the burden of proof with respect to those related matters for which,

6

pursuant to law, Plaintiff bears the burden. In addition to the affirmative defenses described

7

below, subject to its responses above, Google specifically reserves all rights to allege additional

8

affirmative defenses that become known through the course of discovery.

9

First Defense

10

13.

Google does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, contributorily, or by

11

inducement) and is not liable for infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’459

12

patent.

13
14

Second Defense
14.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they fail to

15

claim patentable subject matter insofar as each seeks to claim an abstract idea and for at least the

16

reasons set forth in Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference

17

and included as Exhibit 1 to this pleading, Defendant Google Inc.’s Second Amended Answer To

18

Plaintiff’s Complaint For Patent Infringement And Counterclaims.

19
20

Third Defense
15.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid for claiming non-novel and/or obvious

21

subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), 102 (b), 102 (e), and/or 103 (a) for at least the

22

reasons set forth in Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference

23

and included as Exhibit 1.

24
25
26

Fourth Defense
16.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure satisfy one

or more conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112 including failure of written

27
28

2
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

description, lack of enablement, and claim indefiniteness for at least the reasons set forth in

2

Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference and included as

3

Exhibit.

4

Fifth Defense

5
6

17.

IconFind’s claim for damages, if any, against Google for alleged infringement of the

’459 patent are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.

7

Sixth Defense

8
9

18.

On information and belief, IconFind’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in

part, by the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel.

10

Seventh Defense

11

19.

Any and all products or actions accused of infringement have substantial uses that

12

do not infringe and do not induce or contribute to the alleged infringement of the claims of the ’459

13

patent.

14
15
16

COUNTERCLAIMS
Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Google for its Counterclaims
against IconFind, alleges as follows:

17
18

THE PARTIES
1.

Google is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

19

Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,

20

California 94043.

21

2.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff IconFind, Inc. is a corporation organized and

22

existing under the laws of California with a principal place of business at 1660 Drew Circle #27,

23

Davis, California 95618.

24
25
26

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and by

virtue of IconFind’s admissions in the Complaint that venue is proper in this District.

27
28

3
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over IconFind.

2

5.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant to 28

3

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

4

COUNT ONE - Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’459 Patent

5

6.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Google restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-5 of its

Answer and Counterclaims.
7.

An actual case or controversy exists between Google and IconFind as to whether the

’459 patent is infringed by Google.
8.

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its

rights regarding the ’459 patent.
9.

Google has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid and

enforceable claim of the ’459 patent.

13

COUNT TWO - Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’459 Patent

14

10.

15
16

Google restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-5 of its

Counterclaims.
11.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they fail to

17

claim patentable subject matter insofar as each seeks to claim an abstract idea for at least the

18

reasons set forth in Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference

19

and included as Exhibit 1 to this pleading, Defendant Google Inc.’s Second Amended Answer To

20

Plaintiff’s Complaint For Patent Infringement And Counterclaims.

21

12.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid for claiming non-novel and/or obvious

22

subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a), 102 (b), 102 (e), and/or 103 (a) for at least the

23

reasons set forth in Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference

24

and included as Exhibit 1.

25
26

13.

The claims of the ’459 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure satisfy one

or more conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112 including failure of written

27
28

4
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

description, lack of enablement, and claim indefiniteness for at least the reasons set forth in

2

Google’s Invalidity Contentions which are hereby incorporated by reference and included as

3

Exhibit 1.

4
5

EXCEPTIONAL CASE
14.

On information and belief, this is an exceptional case entitling Google to an award

6

of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with defending and prosecuting this action pursuant to

7

35 U.S.C. § 285, as a result of, inter alia, IconFind’s assertion of the Patent-in-Suit against Google

8

with the knowledge that Google does not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the Patent-in-

9

Suit and/or that the Patent-in-Suit is invalid and/or unenforceable.

10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11

WHEREFORE, Google prays for judgment as follows:

12

a.

A judgment dismissing IconFind’s Complaint against Google with prejudice;

13

b.

A judgment declaring that Google has not infringed, contributed to the infringement

14

of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and

15

enforceable claim of the ’459 patent;

16

c.

A judgment declaring that the ’459 patent is invalid and unenforceable;

17

d.

A judgment declaring that Google has not willfully infringed and is not willfully

18
19

infringing any valid and/or enforceable claim of the ’459 patent.
e.

A judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and an award to Google of its

20

reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and expert

21

witness fees;

22

f.

23
24

A judgment declaring, limiting or barring IconFind’s ability to enforce the ’459
patent in equity; and

g.

Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

25
26
27
28

5
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM

1

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
3
4
5

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Google demands a trial by jury on all issues so
triable.
Dated: August 12, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
KAYE SCHOLER LLP

6
7
8
9

By: /s/ Michael J. Malecek
Michael J. Malecek
Attorney for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Case No. 2:11-CV-00319 GEB JFM