Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 43

Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Doc. 43

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 1 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP Marshall B. Grossman (No. 35958) William J. O'Brien (No. 99526) Tony D. Chen (No. 176635) Dominique N. Thomas (No. 231464) The Water Garden 1620 26th Street Fourth Floor, North Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 310-907-2000 Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, Blockbuster Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, vs. BLOCKBUSTER INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-50, Defendants. BLOCKBUSTER INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterclaimant, vs. NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterclaim Defendant. ANSWER Blockbuster Inc. ("Blockbuster") responds as follows to the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint") filed against it by Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix").
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Complaint Filed: April 4, 2006

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 2 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

1.

Answering paragraph 1, Blockbuster admits the allegations about

Netflix's corporate status and principal place of business, as well as Netflix's website address and that it has for some time been renting DVDs on a subscription basis. Except as expressly admitted, Blockbuster lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1 and thereon generally and specifically denies the allegations thereof. 2. Answering paragraph 2, Blockbuster admits that it is a Delaware corporation; that its principal place of business is in Dallas, Texas; that it has a registered agent for service as stated in paragraph 2; that Blockbuster launched Blockbuster Online in 2004; that it has described Blockbuster Online in words similar to those in paragraph 2; that it is registered to do business in the State of California; and that it has conducted business in California and in this District. Except as expressly admitted, Blockbuster lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 2 and thereon generally and specifically denies the allegations thereof. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Blockbuster admits that this action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Blockbuster denies that Netflix has any meritorious claims against Blockbuster. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 3. 4. Answering paragraph 4, Blockbuster admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Blockbuster and that Blockbuster regularly conducts business in this District. Blockbuster denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 4. 5. Answering paragraph 5, Blockbuster does not contest venue in
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

this case and admits that it regularly conducts business in this District. Blockbuster

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 3 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 5. 6. thereof. ANSWER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Alleging Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,381) 7. Answering paragraph 7, Blockbuster admits that Netflix is listed on the '381 patent as its assignee; that the number, title, and issuance date of the patent are as stated in paragraph 7; and that a copy of the '381 patent was attached as Exhibit A to the copy of the Complaint served on Blockbuster. Blockbuster lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Netflix is the "sole and exclusive owner" of the '381 patent, and Blockbuster thereon denies that allegation. Blockbuster admits and alleges that the scope of each of the numbered claims of the '381 patent is as stated in those respective claims, and Blockbuster denies that paragraph 7 accurately sets forth the scope of the patent. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 7. 8. Answering paragraph 8, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing denial, Blockbuster denies that it has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and denies that it has infringed any rights of Netflix under the '381 patent, whether under § 271(a) or any other provision of the patent laws. 9. Answering paragraph 9, Blockbuster denies generally and specifically the allegations thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing denial, Blockbuster denies that it has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c) and denies that it has infringed any rights of Netflix under the '381 patent, whether under § 271(b), § 271(c), or any other provision of the patent laws.
2
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Answering paragraph 6, Blockbuster admits the allegations

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 4 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

10.

Answering paragraph 10, Blockbuster admits that it has known

of the '381 patent since Blockbuster received Netflix's original complaint in this case. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 10. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing denial, Blockbuster further denies that it has infringed or is infringing the '381 patent, whether willfully, deliberately, or in any manner whatsoever; denies that Netflix has suffered or will suffer any injury whatsoever ­ whether irreparable or otherwise ­ due to any infringement by Blockbuster; and denies that Netflix is entitled to an injunction or to any other relief, order, or judgment against Blockbuster whatsoever. ANSWER TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Alleging Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,584,450) 11. 12. Answering paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Blockbuster repeats Answering paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Blockbuster admits its foregoing responses to paragraphs 1 through 10. that Netflix is listed on the '450 patent as its assignee; that the number, title, and issuance date of the patent are as stated in paragraph 12; and that a copy of the '450 patent was attached as Exhibit B to the copy of the Complaint served on Blockbuster. Blockbuster lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Netflix is the "sole and exclusive owner" of the '450 patent and, on that basis, Blockbuster denies that allegation. Answering the remainder of paragraph 12, Blockbuster admits and alleges that the scope of each of the numbered claims of the '450 patent is as stated in those respective claims, and Blockbuster denies that paragraph 12 accurately sets forth the scope of the patent. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations thereof. 13. Answering paragraph 13, Blockbuster denies generally and
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

specifically the allegations thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing
3

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 5 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

denial, Blockbuster denies that it has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and denies that it has infringed any rights of Netflix under the '450 patent, whether under § 271(a) or any other provision of the patent laws. 14. Answering paragraph 14, Blockbuster denies generally and specifically the allegations thereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing denial, Blockbuster denies that it has violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c) and denies that it has infringed any rights of Netflix under the '450 patent, whether under § 271(b), § 271(c), or any other provision of the patent laws. 15. Answering paragraph 15, Blockbuster admits that it knew of the '450 patent before Netflix commenced this case. Except as expressly admitted and denied, Blockbuster generally and specifically denies the allegations of paragraph 15. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing denial, Blockbuster further denies that it has infringed or is infringing the '450 patent, whether willfully, deliberately, or in any manner whatsoever; denies that Netflix has suffered or will suffer any injury whatsoever ­ whether irreparable or otherwise ­ due to any infringement by Blockbuster; and denies that Netflix is entitled to an injunction or to any other relief, order, or judgment against Blockbuster whatsoever. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO BLOCKBUSTER'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS BACKGROUND 16. In its Complaint, Netflix alleges that Blockbuster's online DVD rental service infringes two U.S. patents, Nos. 6,584,450 (the '450 patent) and 7,024,381 (the '381 patent). Blockbuster denies Netflix's allegations of infringement, as set forth herein. In addition, Blockbuster sets forth affirmative defenses that both the '450 patent and the '381 patent are invalid and unenforceable and that Netflix's Complaint is barred by patent misuse, laches, and estoppel. Blockbuster also counterclaims against Netflix, under federal antitrust laws, for
4
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 6 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the DVD rental market through fraudulent patenting and sham litigation. Additionally, Blockbuster counterclaims for a Court judgment declaring that Blockbuster has not violated any patent rights of Netflix. 17. The patents asserted by Netflix fail to describe any technology that was not already widely known and in general use well before any purported inventions of Netflix. Instead, the patents merely describe use of existing technology to practice business methods for renting movies and other items to customers. The business of renting movies, as well as renting other items, was widely known long before any purported invention by Netflix. So was renting on a subscription basis. From at least the mid-1990s, it was obvious to adapt "brickand-mortar" businesses to the Internet ­ as Netflix did with Blockbuster's highly popular movie rental business. The advent of the DVD format in the late 1990s provided the opportunity to send and receive video disks by mail at a far lower cost than VHS videotapes, which increased the economic feasibility of renting movies over the Internet. Netflix merely exploited an obvious market opportunity created by developments in Internet and DVD technology, which had been entirely the work of others. Netflix is not entitled to monopolize the resulting opportunities to rent DVDs over the Internet. 18. The '450 patent asserted by Netflix is particularly broad and is not even limited to DVD or movie rental. It purports to cover stated methods for renting any and all "items" whatsoever. Nor are the '450 patent claims limited to online rentals. They could cover in-store rentals having nothing to do with the Internet. 19. While the claims of the later '381 patent require rental of "movies" and use of the Internet, along with other limitations, they too are directed to rental business methods and, like the claims of the '450 patent, are overbroad and invalid, as set forth below.
5
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 7 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

20.

Various claims of the '450 and '381 patents recite additional

features related to subscription rental and to implementing online subscription ­ such as a "queue" of desired items. However, none of the claims is properly patentable in view of the business methods that others had already used before Netflix and the teachings of publications, products, and patents that predated Netflix's purported inventions (all as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 102 and collectively referred to as "prior art"). Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the '450 and '381 patents mostly or entirely claim subject matter that was already known and used by others before Netflix. Such "anticipation" by prior art renders some or all of Netflix's patent claims invalid because they lack the novelty required by 35 U.S.C. § 102. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the patent claims are also invalid because the matter claimed was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as well as for other reasons alleged below. 21. Examples include: a. Prior art subscription methods, systems, and publications, ranging from libraries for the blind and other subscription libraries to cable and satellite television services and pay television services such as HBO and Showtime, as well as TiVo and other video and film subscription services; b. Prior art video rental stores and related methods, systems, and publications, including long-standing and widely-known practices in the video rental industry, such as the use of waiting or reservation lists for out-ofstock videos; c. d. Prior art video rental on a subscription basis with no due Prior art audio rental stores and services and related
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Blockbuster is in the process of identifying and locating prior art

that illustrates and contributes to the invalidity of the patents asserted by Netflix.

dates and no late fees, as well as related methods, systems, and publications; methods, systems, and publications, including audio rental on a subscription
6

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 8 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

basis and the use of an ordered list ­ in other words, a "queue" ­ of items desired for subscription rental; e. Prior art e-commerce businesses and related methods, systems, and publications, including prior art related to the digital display, selection, and ordering of items over the Internet; f. Prior art patents on the foregoing and on other material subjects, including, for example, U.S. Patent No. 5,699,526 (the '526 patent), assigned to NCR Corporation, entitled "Ordering and Downloading Resources from Computerized Repositories," and issued on December 16, 1997, which disclosed, among other things, online search and retrieval based on item attributes in digital form and permitting a customer to establish an "interest list" of desired items; and g. Blockbuster's own prior art U.S. Patent No. 5,459,306, entitled "Method and System for Delivering On Demand, Individually Targeted Promotions," and issued on October 17, 1995. This prior art patent disclosed, among other things, computer-implemented automatic selection of movies for potential rental to individual customers. 22. As is detailed below, Netflix obtained the '450 and '381 patents without disclosing to the Patent Office prior art that Netflix knew about and that was material to Netflix's patent applications. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, by failing to disclose such prior art, Netflix violated its duty of "candor and good faith" to the Patent Office (as explained further below) and that, as a result, the '450 and '381 patents are not only invalid but also unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. HISTORY OF NETFLIX'S PATENTS 23. Netflix applied for the '450 patent on April 28, 2000. The application for the '450 patent was designated by Serial No. 09/561,041 and was filed in the names of W. Reed Hastings, Marc B. Randolph, and Neil Duncan Hunt
7
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 9 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

(collectively, the "Named Inventors"). 24. One of the Named Inventors, Reed Hastings, is the Chief Executive Officer and President of Netflix, another, Marc Randolph, is former CEO and President of Netflix or its predecessor entity, and the third, Neil Duncan Hunt, is Netflix's Chief Product Officer. 25. The '450 patent was issued on June 24, 2003. The patent purports to broadly cover stated methods for rental of any "items" as alleged above. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the '450 patent is blatantly over-broad, anticipated, obvious, and otherwise invalid, as well as unenforceable, as is described in detail below. 26. Blockbuster began publicly operating its online video rental service ("Blockbuster Online") in August 2004. Although Netflix was well aware of Blockbuster Online from that time forward, and was aware that Blockbuster was investing millions of dollars developing and promoting Blockbuster Online, Netflix did not assert the '450 patent against Blockbuster at that time or for the next eighteen months. Throughout that time and up through the date on which it filed this lawsuit, Netflix provided no notice or warning to Blockbuster that Netflix believed Blockbuster was infringing the '450 patent. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix also failed to assert any infringement claims during this time against any other companies then operating online DVD rental business, such as Wal-Mart. 27. Unbeknownst to Blockbuster and to the public at large, Netflix had applied for the '381 patent on May 14, 2003, some five weeks before the '450 patent was issued. Netflix filed the application for the '381 patent, Serial No. 10/438,727, in the names of the Named Inventors, as a purported and sham "continuation" of the application for the '450 patent. 28. Information about the second application was not available to
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Blockbuster or the public at large until April 4, 2006. It was on that date that the
8

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 10 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

'381 patent was issued and this very lawsuit was filed. 29. alleged below. 30. The following timeline illustrates key events described above: Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the '381 patent, like the '450 patent, is invalid and unenforceable for the reasons

Time Line: Applications for and Issuance of the '450 and '381 Patents

#
9
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 11 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

NETFLIX'S DUTY OF CANDOR TO THE PATENT OFFICE 31. Netflix's officers, employees, attorneys, assignors, and agents

involved for applying for and obtaining the '450 and '381 patents (collectively, "Netflix's Applicants and Representatives") owed a legal and ethical "duty of candor and good faith" to the Patent Office under the decisional law of the United States and the regulations and procedures of the Patent Office, including 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a). 32. This "duty of candor and good faith" extended to all "[i]ndividuals associated with the filing and prosecution of" the patent applications that resulted in the '450 and 381 patents," 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a), including, as to each application: "(1) Each inventor named in the application; (2) Each attorney or agent who prepare[d] or prosecute[d] the application; [and] (3) Every other person who [was] substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who [was] associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there [was] an obligation to assign the application." 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c). 33. Netflix's Applicants and Representatives who were under a duty of candor and good faith to the Patent Office in applying for and obtaining the '450 and 381 patents included the Named Inventors, the patent attorneys acting on behalf of the Named Inventors and Netflix in applying for and prosecuting the applications (the "Patent Attorneys"). 34. The duty of candor and good faith owed by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives' included a continuing obligation, at all times during the
10
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 12 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

pendency of either of the applications for the '450 and '381 patents, to disclose to the Patent Office all prior art known to be material to a pending application. 35. Netflix's Applicants and Representatives submitted a declaration and power of attorney (the "Declaration") to the Patent Office in support of both the application for the '450 patent and the application for the '381 patent. The Declaration states that it was signed by Named Inventor W. Reed Hastings on September 28, 2000, by Neil Duncan Hunt on September 29, 2000, and by Marc B. Randolph on October 3, 2000. 36. In the Declaration, each of the Named Inventors expressly "acknowledge[d] the duty to disclose information which is known to me to be material to patentability in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56." 37. Each Named Inventor also stated in the Declaration: "I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued thereon." NETFLIX'S VIOLATIONS OF THE DUTY OF CANDOR 38. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives violated their legal and ethical duties of candor and good faith in applying for, prosecuting applications for, and obtaining the '450 and '381 patents, by engaging in inequitable and deceptive conduct as alleged below.
11
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 13 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

39.

Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Netflix obtained the '450 and '381 patents by means of a scheme in which some or all of Netflix's Applicants and Representatives manipulated and distorted the patent process by inequitable conduct including: a. Obtaining an absurdly broad and invalid patent (the '450 patent) without proper and meaningful examination by concealing and failing to disclose any prior art before the '450 patent was issued, in violation of the duty of candor that was owed by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives and that the Named Inventors had acknowledged under penalty of perjury; b. Failing to disclose any prior art in applying for and obtaining the '450 patent, despite being aware of multiple items of prior art, as alleged below, and despite their acknowledged and well-established duty to disclose all known material prior art to the Patent Office; c. Prior to the issuance of the '450 patent, filing a "continuation" patent application to pursue claims narrower than ­ and therefore possibly more defensible in litigation than ­ the blatantly overbroad claims of the '450 patent, although still broader than permitted under the patent laws; d. During the pendency of the continuation application (which resulted in the '381 patent), flooding the Patent Office with such a large volume of prior art or possible prior art (more than 100 references) that the examiners would be overwhelmed and overtaxed in their attempt to examine the application; e. Under cover of its belatedly large submissions, still withholding certain known and material prior art throughout the pendency of the application for the '381 patent, as alleged below; f. Withholding information about the continuation
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

application from the public and from competitors until issuance of the '381
12

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 14 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

patent; g. Foregoing assertion or enforcement of the '450 patent pending issuance of the '381 patent despite actual knowledge of competitive online DVD rental businesses, including Blockbuster Online; h. Deceptively lulling and enticing competitors, including Blockbuster, into entering into and remaining in the online DVD rental market after they reviewed the '450 patent and reasonably concluded that Netflix lacked any valid and enforceable patent rights that would prevent their entry into the market; i. Benefiting from the promotion of the online DVD rental market by Blockbuster and other competitors and their creation of an expanded group of customers interested in or accustomed to renting DVDs online; and j. '450 patents. 40. In January 2005, Netflix CEO and Named Inventor Reed Hastings met with Blockbuster's then-Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Edward Stead. Hastings praised Blockbuster's competitive position in the online rental business and asked Stead when he had figured out that Netflix's '450 patent was a "joke." 41. It was only after having wrongfully obtained issuance of the '450 patent that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives began submitting prior art to the Patent Office in connection with the application for the '381 patent. Ultimately, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives submitted more than 100 references to prior art or possible prior art in connection with the '381 patent application. Netflix's Applicants and Representatives disclosed none of these references in obtaining the '450 patent, even though at least 100 of them predated
13
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

On the very day that the '381 patent was issued, suing

Blockbuster, without warning, for alleged infringement of both the '381 and

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 15 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

that patent and therefore could have been submitted in connection with it. 42. Even after having submitted more than 100 prior art references to the Patent Office, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives withheld and failed to disclose other material prior art that they knew about, as alleged below. 43. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in engaging in all their conduct alleged herein, the Applicants and Representatives were acting on behalf of Netflix and that Netflix directed, controlled, and ratified their conduct. PRIOR ART CONCEALED BY NETFLIX 44. In addition to failing to disclose any of more than 100 prior art references described above during the pendency of the '450 patent application, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives knew about other prior art but failed to disclose it to the Patent Office in connection with either of the two patent applications. Such prior art included some or all of the following: a. Certain prior art United States patents purportedly owned by NCR Corporation (the "NCR Patents"), which Netflix knew about while both the application for the '450 patent and the application for the '381 patent were pending, but which Netflix never submitted to the Patent Office; b. Certain prior art video rental stores and related methods, systems, and publications, including long-standing and widely-known practices in the video rental industry, such as the use of waiting or reservation lists for out-of-stock videos; c. Certain prior art subscription methods, systems, and publications, including cable and satellite television services and pay television services such as HBO and Showtime, as well as TiVo and other video and film subscription services; and d. Certain prior art e-commerce businesses and related
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

methods, systems, and publications, including prior art related to the digital
14

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 16 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

display, selection, and ordering of items over Internet. 45. The NCR Patents include, without limitation: a. The '526 patent, entitled "Ordering and Downloading

Resources from Computerized Repositories," which names as inventor David M. Siefert, issued December 16, 1997, on an application filed August 21, 1996; b. U.S. Patent No. 5,951,643 (the '643 patent), entitled "Mechanism for Dependably Organizing and Managing Information for Web Synchronization and Tracking Among Multiple Browsers," which names as inventors James A. Shelton, Michael I. Ingrassia, Jr., and Thomas M. Roland, issued September 14, 1999, on an application filed October 6, 1997; c. U.S. Patent No. 5,991,791 (the '791 patent), entitled "Security Aspects of Computer Resource Repositories," which names as inventor David M. Siefert, issued November 23, 1999, on an application filed January 10, 1997; d. U.S. Patent No. 6,026,403 (the '403 patent), entitled "Computer System for Management of Resources," which names as inventor David M. Siefert, issued February 15, 2000, on an application filed March 24, 1994; e. U.S. Patent No. 6,169,997 (the '997 patent), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Forming Subject (Context) Map and Presenting Internet Data According to the Subject Map," which names as inventors Karen A. Papierniak, James E. Thaisz, Luo-Jen Chiang, and Paresh B. Shah, issued January 2, 2001, on an application filed April 29, 1998; f. U.S. Patent No. 6,253,203 (the '203 patent), entitled "Privacy-Enhanced Database," which names as inventors Kenneth W. O'Flaherty, Richard G. Stellwagen, Jr., Todd A. Walter, Reid M. Watts, David A Ramsey, Adriaan W. Veldhuisen and Renda K. Ozden, issued
15
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 17 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

June 26, 2001, on an application filed October 2, 1998; g. U.S. Patent No. 6,480,855 (the '855 patent), entitled "Managing a Resource on a Network Where Each Resource Has an Associated Profile with an Image," which names as inventor David M. Siefert, issued November 12, 2002, on an application filed August 22, 2000; h. U.S. Patent No. 6,502,096 (the '096 patent), entitled "Computerized Asset Management System," which names as inventor David M. Siefert, issued December 31, 2002, on an application filed August 22, 2000; and i. U.S. Patent No. 6,714,931 (the '931 patent), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Forming User Sessions and Presenting Internet Data According to the User Sessions," which names as inventors Karen A. Papierniak, James E. Thaisz, Luo-Jen Chiang, Anjali M. Diwekar, issued March 30, 2004, on an application filed April 29, 1998. 46. The '526 patent is prior art to both the '450 and '381 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the subject matter disclosed in each of the NCR Patents is prior art to both the '450 and '381 patents under, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (e). 47. Netflix's own admissions in a case pending in this Court, Netflix, Inc. v. NCR Corporation, Case No. C 06 1892 ("Netflix v. NCR") show that Netflix was well aware of the NCR Patents during the pendency and prosecution of the applications for both the '450 and '381 patents. Netflix filed Netflix v. NCR, on March 10, 2006, seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the same NCR Patents listed above. That complaint shows that, since on or about January 17, 2003, Named Inventor Reed Hastings, who is also the Chief Executive Officer and President of Netflix, has been aware, not only that the prior art NCR Patents exist, but also that NCR claims that they cover the very same online rental service
16
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 18 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

claimed in Netflix's patents. 48. Netflix's allegations in Netflix v. NCR include each of the a. "On January 7, 2003, Bruce A. Langos, Vice President of following admissions showing its knowledge of the NCR Patents: Business Operations and Intellectual Property Management at NCR, wrote to Reed Hastings, the Chief Executive Officer of Netflix claiming notice [sic] `that various Netflix.com offerings infringe at least the following patents owned by NCR Corporation.'" (Netflix v. NCR Compl., ¶ 22.) b. Mr. Langos's letter "identified ten separate patents that NCR claimed were infringed, and enclosed several exemplary claim charts, each of which accused Netflix of infringing the claims described therein." (Id.) These ten patents evidently included the nine NCR Patents listed above, which are identified in the paragraphs immediately preceding the abovequoted paragraph of Netflix's complaint in Netflix v. NCR. (Id. ¶ 22; see id. ¶¶ 12-21.) c. d. NCR "even threatened to sue for an injunction should "On August 1, 2005, Mr. Langos once again wrote to Netflix not license NCR's technology . . . ." (Id. ¶ 22.) Mr. Hastings of Netflix concerning `[Netflix's] infringements of NCR patents . . . '" and, on this occasion, Mr. Langos "enclosed updated claim charts that again accused Netflix of infringing the claims described therein, and threatened that should Netflix refuse to license the technology NCR was `prepared to pursue other options.'" (Id. ¶ 23.) e. "NCR continued to press its allegations of infringement" thereafter. (Id. ¶ 24.) NCR's counsel met with Netflix's counsel on November 28, 2005, "during which meeting NCR's counsel once again asserted that Netflix infringed the NCR patents, and that NCR was prepared to file suit against Netflix to enforce its patents." (Id.)
17
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 19 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

f.

"[O]n January 11, 2006, counsel for NCR sent via email

to San Francisco revised charts purporting to show that Netflix was currently infringing the claims described therein." (Id.) 49. Netflix's own complaint in Netflix v. NCR shows that the letter bringing the prior art NCR Patents to Netflix's attention was addressed to Netflix CEO and Named Inventor Reed Hastings more than six months before the '450 patent issued. Although NCR expressly described its prior art patents as encompassing the same online video rental service that Netflix was attempting to patent, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives failed to disclose any of the NCR Patents to the Patent Office. 50. On March 10, 2006, prior to the issuance of the '381 patent, Netflix had even filed suit against NCR over the NCR Patents, alleging that, "[b]y virtue of NCR's actions, Netflix has a reasonable apprehension that NCR intends to sue it for infringing the NCR patents" (id. ¶ 25) and that "[a]n actual and judiciable controversy exists between Netflix and NCR concerning whether Netflix infringes any valid claim of the NCR patents." (Id. ¶ 27.) 51. Despite all of these alleged communications and notices from NCR about the NCR Patents, the ongoing controversy alleged by Netflix over the NCR Patents, and Netflix's expressed apprehension that it would be sued for infringement of those patents, Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives failed to disclose any of the NCR Patents to the Patent Office at any time up through and including the date of issuance of the '381 patent on April 4, 2006. 52. Regardless of whether the claims of the NCR Patents do in fact cover online DVD rental services like those operated by Netflix and Blockbuster, and regardless of whether those claims are legally valid, NCR's assertion of its patents against Netflix's online rental service provided Netflix with ample notice that the patents were material prior art and should be disclosed to the Patent Office for its consideration in deciding whether Netflix's then-pending applications for
18
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 20 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

patents on that service met the statutory requirements of novelty and nonobviousness. Instead, even after Netflix had sued NCR over the issue of whether the NCR Patents cover the same rental service Netflix was engaged in patenting, Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives failed to submit the NCR Patents to the Patent Office. 53. The NCR patents are replete with disclosures of features that are the same as or similar to features Netflix has claimed in the '450 and '381 patents. To provide only a few examples: a. The '450 and '381 patents are directed to a computerimplemented method and system for renting items ­ or sometimes, more specifically, movies ­ to customers. Similarly, NCR's '526, '403, '791, '855, and '096 patents disclose a computer-implemented method for distributing items including movies and video tapes to customers. (E.g., '526 patent, col. 2:55-57, 5:10-15 & Fig. 1B.) All nine NCR Patents disclose computerimplemented methods and systems for online management and provision of resources. b. Ninety-five claims of the '450 patent include "receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent . . . ." ('450 patent, Claims 1-95.) NCR's '526, '403, '791, '855, and '096 patents disclose use of item selection criteria ­ for example, a "display [that] prompts the user to request a search based on three criteria (or less)." (E.g., '526 patent, col. 10:57-58 & Figs. 9-11.) c. All fifty-one claims of the '381 patent include "providing electronic digital information that causes one or more attributes of movies to be displayed . . . ." The NCR patents disclose just such a process. Electronic digital information is provided that allows resources (including movies) to be selected. This causes display of "an associated PROFILE, which contains descriptive information about the RESOURCE." (E.g., '526 patent,
19
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 21 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

col. 4:42-43.) d. All claims of the '381 patent, and several claims of the '450 patent, include an "item rental queue" or "movie rental queue" containing items desired by a customer. ('381 patent, Claims 1-51; '450 patent, Claims 7, 22, 42, 57, 72, 87.) In the claims of the '381 patent, the queue is "establish[ed] in electronic digital form, from electronic digital information received over the Internet . . . ." ('381 patent, Claims 1, 14, 24, 34, 44.) NCR's '526, '791, '403, '855, and '096 patents all disclose a process of establishing in electronic digital form, from electronic digital information received over a computer network, a list associated with a customer that indicates his or her interests in searching for resources. (E.g., '526 patent, col. 18:48-49.) e. All independent claims of the '381 patent provide for electronically updating a movie rental queue in response to electronic digital information received from a customer over the Internet. ('381 patent, Claims 1, 14, 24, 34, 44.) This ability to update the list is what apparently makes it a so-called "dynamic queue" as touted by Netflix. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 7.) Numerous claims of the '381 patent specifically recite updating the queue by adding or deleting items. ('381 patent, Claims 3, 4, 16, 17, 26, 27, 36, 37, 46, 47.) Similarly, NCR's '526, '799, '403, '855, and '096 patents all disclose updating a customer's interest list via a computer network, including the ability to "add or delete interests in your current listing." (E.g., '526 patent, col. 18:49-51.) f. Claims of both the '450 and '381 patents include the step of delivering items to a customer by mail or via a "delivery agent." ('450 patent, Claims 12, 13, 27, 28, 34, 35, 62, 64, 77, 78; '381 patent, Claims 7, 20, 30, 40, 48.) NCR's '526, '791, '403, '855, and '096 patents disclose delivery of items electronically selected by a customer via an organization's
20
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 22 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

"internal mail service," or a "public, common carrier . . . ." (E.g., '526 patent, col. 15:23-27.) 54. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NCR Patents and all of the other prior art that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives knew about and failed to disclose to the Patent Office, as described above, was material to both the '450 and '381 patents. 55. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the deceptive and inequitable conduct of Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives as alleged herein occurred at locations including, without limitation, Netflix's principal place of business in Los Gatos, California, and the offices of Netflix's patent attorneys in San Jose, California, as well as being reflected in, and implemented through, documents transmitted to the Patent Office in Alexandria, Virginia. 56. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the deceptive and inequitable conduct of Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives as alleged herein occurred at times including the entire period from April 28, 2000 through June 24, 2003, during which the application for the '450 patent was pending, and the entire period from May 14, 2003 through April 4, 2006, during which the application for the '381 patent was pending. NETFLIX'S DECEPTIVE INTENT 57. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives knew of the materiality of the prior art that they failed to disclose to the Patent Office as alleges above. 58. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in engaging in the deceptive and inequitable conduct alleged above, including their failures to disclose material prior art, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives intended to deceive the Patent Office. 59. The conduct demonstrating such deceptive intent has included,
21
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 23 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

without limitation, the acts and omissions by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives as alleged above and as illustrated by the following time line:

Time Line: Illustrative Circumstances of Netflix's Deceptive Intent

22

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 24 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

BLOCKBUSTER'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO NETFLIX'S COMPLAINT FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Invalidity) 60. above. 61. Either or both of the '450 and '381 patents are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 thereof. 62. The reasons for the invalidity of the patents include that they claim subject matter that was and is unpatentable because it had already been conceived of by others, was already publicly known, and was otherwise within one or more of the categories of prior art established by 35 U.S.C. § 102. 63. 35 U.S.C. § 103. 64. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that either or both of the '450 and '381 patents fail to set forth what the inventors regarded as the best mode for practicing the claimed inventions, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and fail to fulfill the written description requirement of §112. 65. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, depending on the constructions of the claims of the '450 and '381 patents as ultimately determined in this litigation, some or all of those claims may also fail to fulfill the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. # # # #
23
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 through 59

The reasons for the invalidity of the patents also include that

they claim subject matter that was and is unpatentable because it was obvious under

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 25 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unenforceability) 66. 67. Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 through 59 Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that above and of Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims below. the '450 and '381 patents are unenforceable because of inequitable conduct in obtaining the patents. Blockbuster's grounds for this defense include, without limitation, the failure of Netflix's Applicants and Representatives to disclose material prior art as alleged above. 68. A reasonable examiner would have been substantially likely to consider the prior art that Netflix knew about but failed to disclose important in deciding whether to allow the applications for the '450 and '381 patents (including amendments to those applications) to issue as patents. 69. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in failing to disclose material prior art, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives knew of the prior art and knew of its materiality to either or both of the applications for the '450 patent and the '381 patent. 70. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in failing to disclose material prior art, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives intended to deceive the Patent Office. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Patent Misuse) 71. 72. Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 through 59 Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that above and of Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims below. Netflix has misused each of the '450 and '381 patents and, as a result, is barred from asserting either of them against Blockbuster. #
24
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 26 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 73. 74. Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 through 59 Netflix has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed its assertion above and of Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims below. of the '450 patent against Blockbuster, causing material prejudice to Blockbuster. Such prejudice has included Blockbuster's expenditure of millions of dollars on its Blockbuster Online system. 75. As a result of its delay in asserting the '450 patent, Netflix is barred from asserting some or all of its claims against Blockbuster and from obtaining any of the relief that it has requested. 76. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix unreasonably and inexcusably delayed its filing and prosecution of a patent application for the subject matter claimed in the '381 patent, as part of the deceptive and manipulative scheme alleged above and that Netflix's unreasonable and unexplained delay constituted an egregious misuse of the patent system. 77. Netflix's delay in filing and prosecuting a patent application for the subject matter claimed in the '381 patent has caused material prejudice to Blockbuster including Blockbuster's expenditure of millions of dollars on its Blockbuster Online system without notice of Netflix's claims to such subject matter or an opportunity to contest such claims. As a result of this delay, Netflix is barred from asserting some or all of its claims against Blockbuster and from obtaining any of the relief that it has requested. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 78. below.
25
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 through 59

and 74 through 77 above and of Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 27 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

79.

Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Netflix is estopped by its conduct alleged herein from asserting some or all of its claims against Blockbuster and from obtaining any of the relief that it has requested. Such conduct includes Netflix's deceptive and manipulative scheme alleged above and the statement by Netflix's CEO to Blockbuster's Executive Vice President as alleged above. 80. By its conduct alleged herein, Netflix led Blockbuster to reasonably infer that Netflix did not intend to enforce the '450 patent or any related patent against Blockbuster. Blockbuster reasonably relied on Netflix's conduct in, without limitation, expending millions of dollars on its Blockbuster Online system without notice of Netflix's claims to such subject matter or an opportunity to contest such claims. As a result, Blockbuster would be materially prejudiced by enforcement of Netflix's patents against it. COUNTERCLAIMS Blockbuster, for its counterclaims against Netflix, alleges and avers as follows: JURISDICTION 81. Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims assert monopolization and attempted monopolization by Netflix in violation of federal antitrust laws, including Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. Blockbuster seeks injunctive, monetary, and equitable relief under Sections 15 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 25-26. 82. Blockbuster brings its Third and Fourth Counterclaims under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, seeking declaratory judgments under the patent laws of the United States, United States Code Title 35, that Blockbuster has not violated and is not violating patent rights of Netflix and that the '450 and '381 patents asserted by Netflix are invalid and unenforceable. #
26
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 28 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

83.

This Court has jurisdiction over the Counterclaims under 28 VENUE

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337(a) and 15 U.S.C. § 26. 84. This Judicial District is a proper venue for adjudication of the

counterclaims under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Netflix transacts business, is found, and has agents in this District and because a substantial portion of the affected trade and commerce described below has been carried out in this District. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 85. This is an Intellectual Property Action subject to district-wide THE PARTIES 86. Blockbuster is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Blockbuster is duly registered and authorized to conduct business in the State of California. Blockbuster owns and operates an online DVD rental service known as "Blockbuster Online," which is accessible from Blockbuster's website, www.blockbuster.com. Blockbuster Online rents DVDs on a subscription basis to customers throughout the United States. 87. Netflix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Los Gatos, California. Netflix owns and operates a DVD rental business through its website, www.netflix.com, renting DVDs on a subscription basis to customers throughout the United States. INTERSTATE COMMERCE 88. alleged below. # #
27
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

assignment under Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).

Netflix has substantially affected interstate commerce by

illegally monopolizing, and attempting to monopolize, the relevant market, as

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 29 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

89.

Throughout the period from at least April 28, 2000, through the a. Netflix rented and distributed substantial numbers of

present (the "relevant time period"): DVDs in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of commerce across state lines and throughout the United States; b. c. Netflix distributed rental DVDs and received returns of Netflix solicited and entered into DVD rental contracts, rental DVDs across state lines and through the United States mails; obtained DVD rental orders, received payments for DVD rentals, and promoted its online DVD rental service over the Internet, across state lines, and using interstate telephone lines; and d. Netflix employed the Internet, interstate telephone lines, and the United States mails in furtherance of its monopolization and attempt to monopolize the relevant market, as alleged below. RELEVANT MARKET 90. The relevant product market with respect to Blockbuster's First and Second Counterclaims is the market for online DVD rentals and related subscription services. The relevant geographical market is the United States and its territories as a whole. 91. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, throughout the relevant time period up to and including the present, Netflix has had market power in the relevant product and geographical markets. 92. 93. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Following Blockbuster Online's entry into the relevant product Netflix's share of the relevant product and geographical markets exceeds 65%. and geographical markets, Netflix lowered its online DVD rental prices. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's price reduction was in response to Blockbuster Online's own prices, which were lower
28
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 30 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

than Netflix's prices. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, should Netflix succeed in inducing Blockbuster Online to exit the relevant market, Netflix would again be without significant competition in that market. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (Monopolization in Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) 94. above. 95. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix has engaged in monopolization in the relevant market during the relevant time period, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's acts of unlawful monopolization have included procuring either or both of the '450 and '381 patents by knowing and willful fraud and baselessly asserting them in bad faith in sham litigation against Blockbuster. 96. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the knowing and willful fraud by Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives in procuring the '450 and '381 patents has included all of their deceitful conduct alleged above, including: a. The Named Inventors' representations to the Patent Office in applying for the '450 and '381 patents that the Named Inventors were aware of their duty to disclose known material prior art, implicitly also representing that they had complied with or would comply with this duty; b. The intentional and fraudulent concealment from the Patent Office by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives that, despite their well-established and acknowledged duty of candor and good faith, they had no intention of disclosing, and had not disclosed, all known material prior art; c. The intentional and fraudulent concealment from the
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Blockbuster repeats all allegations of paragraphs 16 though 93

Patent Office by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives of known, material
29

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 31 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

prior art, as alleged above; and d. Their intentional and fraudulent concealment from the Patent Office of the deceptive scheme in which they were engaged in applying for and obtaining the '450 and '381 patents, as alleged above. 97. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix and its Applicants and Representatives, in applying for the '450 patent and at all times thereafter through the issuance of the '381 patent, intentionally, fraudulently and materially deceived the Patent Office in knowing violation of their legal and ethical duties of candor and good faith to the Patent Office as alleged above. 98. For example, despite the Named Inventors' express acknowledgment of their obligation to disclose material prior art, they disclosed no prior art whatsoever to the Patent Office during the pendency of the application for the '450 patent. 99. Having obtained issuance of the '450 patent, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives thereafter began submitting prior art to the Patent Office in connection with the application for the '381 patent and ultimately submitted a total of more than 100 references. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives submitted this plethora of prior art or purported prior art for the purpose and with the intention of confusing, distracting, misleading, and overtaxing the Patent Office personnel charged with examining the application for the '381 patent. 100. Throughout the pendency of the application for the '381 patent, even after having submitted more than 100 prior art references to the Patent Office, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives from the Office withheld other material prior art that they knew about, as alleged above. 101. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in making and submitting the declarations and representations referred to above, and
30
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 32 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

in concealing and failing to disclose the material prior art and other material facts referred to above, Netflix's Applicants and Representatives intended to deceive the Patent Office and intended, by such fraud and deception, to obtain a patent to which they were not otherwise entitled. In the alternative, Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's Applicants and Representatives intentionally disregarded their obligations to the Patent Office with a state of mind so reckless with respect to the consequences of their conduct that it was the legal equivalent of expressly fraudulent intent. 102. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, in issuing the '450 and '381 patents, the Patent Office justifiably relied on the foregoing misrepresentations, concealment, and omissions of material prior art and other material facts by Netflix's Applicants and Representatives and that the Office would not otherwise have issued those patents. 103. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix knows of the fraudulent origin, invalidity, and unenforceability of the '450 and '381 patents and that, in asserting the patents against Blockbuster ­ as well as in any other past, present or future attempts to enforce the patents ­ Netflix has been, is, and will be acting with full knowledge of the patents' fraudulent origin, invalidity, and unenforceability. 104. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix's infringement lawsuit against Blockbuster is a sham and is both objectively and subjectively baseless for reasons including the suit's lack of any reasonable merit, and Netflix's lack of any probable cause for bringing it, in view of, without limitation, the clear invalidity and unenforceability of the patents as alleged above, all of which is known to Netflix. 105. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix, in filing this lawsuit, in prosecuting this lawsuit up to the present date, and in any and all prosecution of this lawsuit hereafter, has acted, is acting, and will be
31
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; COUNTERCLAIMS; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 43

Filed 09/11/2006

Page 33 of 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP

acting in bad faith, as a mere sham, and without belief in the merits of its claims. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix, has been, is, and, in any and all prosecution of this lawsuit hereafter, will be using this lawsuit to conceal an attempt to directly interfere with Blockbuster's business relationships and business, to monopolize the relevant market, and to conceal by deceit Netflix's maintenance of that monopoly. 106. As examples of Netflix's bad faith, Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at the time of filing this lawsuit, Netflix knew, and now knows: a. That the blatantly over-broad '450 patent was and is invalid because its claims were anticipated by ­ and obvious in view of ­ prior art that Netflix had failed to disclose to the Patent Office during the pendency of the application for the '450 patent; b. The '450 patent was and is unenforceable because Netflix's Applicants and Representatives had withheld known, material prior art from the Patent Office in prosecuting the application that resulted in the '450 patent; and c. patent as a "joke." 107. Netflix has market power in the relevant market as alleged above. 108. Blockbuster is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Netflix has used and is using its '450 and '381 patents and its sham infringement litigation against Blockbuster to restrain competition by, without limitation, attemptin