Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 52

Memorandum in Opposition to Oracle's #35 Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike filed by Google Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, #4 Exhibit, #5 Proposed Order)(Zimmer, Donald) (Filed on 11/10/2010) Modified on 11/12/2010 (wsn, COURT STAFF).

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 52 Att. 2

EXHIBIT B

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 1 of 10

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
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 1 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

The Hon. Richard A. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE IMPLICIT NETWORKS INC., CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ Plaint iff, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, ORACLE CORPORATION, SAP AMERICA, INCORPORATED and ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendants. ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Defendant Oracle Corporation ("Oracle"), through its counsel, respectfully responds to the Original Complaint field by Plaintiff, Implicit Networks, Inc. ("Plaintiff") as follows:

I.

THE PARTIES
1. Answering Paragraph 1, Oracle is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore denies them. 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 does not contain any allegations that

are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer.

LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 2 of 10

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

3.

Answering Paragraph 3, Oracle admits that it a Delaware corporation with

its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065. Oracle admits that it is qualified to do business in the state of Washington and has appointed Corporation Service Company, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas, 78701 as its agent for service of process. 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Paragraph 4 does not contain any allegations that

are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer. 5. Answering Paragraph 5, Paragraph 5 does not contain any allegations that

are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer.

JURISDICTION & VENUE
6. Answering Paragraph 6, Oracle admits that the Original Complaint

purports to allege patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Oracle denies that the Original Co mplaint properly states such claims, and specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. Oracle admits that the Original Complaint purports to base federal jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and 28 U.S.C. §§1338(a). Otherwise, this paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Paragraph 7 does not contain any allegations that

are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer. 8. Answering Paragraph 8, Oracle denies any wrongdoing or infringement

and Oracle specifically denies that it has committed acts of direct or indirect infringement within this judicial district or anywhere else. 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Paragraph 9 does not contain any allegations that

are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer. 10. Answering Paragraph 10, Paragraph 10 does not contain any allegations

that are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer.

ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 2 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 3 of 10

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

11.

Answering Paragraph 11, Oracle admits that Plaintiff purports to base

venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b). Oracle denies that this District is the most convenient forum for adjudication of Plaintiff's claims.

II.

COUNT I PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
12. Answering Paragraph 12, Oracle admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,324,685

("the '685 patent") is attached to Plaintiff's Original Co mplaint as Exhibit A and that on its face it is titled, "Applet Server that Provides Applets in Various Forms." Oracle further admits that the face of the '685 patent states that it was issued on November 27, 2001. Oracle denies all other allegation in this paragraph including that the '685 patent was properly issued. 13. Answering Paragraph 13, Oracle admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,976,248

("the '248 patent") is attached to Plaintiff's Original Complaint as Exhibit B and that on its face it is titled, "Application Server Facilitating with Client's Computer for Applets Along with Various Formats." Oracle further admits that the face of the '248 patent states that it was issued on December 13, 2005. Oracle denies all other allegations in this paragraph including that the '248 patent was properly issued. 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Oracle states that Paragraph 14 contains

conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 15. Answering Paragraph 15, Oracle admits that the faces of the '248 and '685

patents only list Edward Balassanian as an inventor. Oracle denies that the '248 and '685 patents have been properly assigned to Plaintiff. Oracle is without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the other allegations of Paragraph 15 and therefore denies them. 16. Answering Paragraph 16, Paragraph 16 does not contain any allegations

that are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer.

ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 3 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 4 of 10

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

17.

Answering Paragraph 17, Oracle admits that it sells an offering called

Oracle Application Server. Oracle denies all other allegation in this paragraph and specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. 18. Answering Paragraph 18, Paragraph 18 does not contain any allegations

that are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer. 19. Answering Paragraph 19, Paragraph 19 does not contain any allegations

that are directed at Oracle, and therefore requires no answer. 20. Answering Paragraph 20, Oracle denies that it has infringed either the

'685 patent or the '248 patent and further denies that Plaintiff has been injured and is entitled to recover damages from Oracle.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21. Paragraph 21 demands a jury trial, and therefore requires no answer.

III.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
22. Wit hout altering the burdens of proof, Oracle asserts the following

affirmative and other defenses. Oracle reserves the right to amend its answer with additional defenses as further information is obtained. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [INVALIDITY] 23. The claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable and/or void for

failure to satisfy one of more of the requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 116, 282. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [NON-INFRINGEMENT] 24. Oracle alleges that it does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or

indirectly, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the '685 or '248 patents.
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 4 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 5 of 10

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 29. 28. filing this action. 27. 26. 25.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE] Pursuant to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, Plaintiff is not entitled to

any damages prior to the time it provided notice. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL] Plaint iff's claims of patent infringement are barred in whole or in part by

the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [28 U.S.C. § 1498] Oracle alleges that Plaintiff's claims of infringement are barred, in whole

or in part, by 28 U.S.C. § 1498. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [LACHES] Plaint iff is barred by the doctrine of laches from seeking any relief prior to

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM] Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's purported claims are barred

because they fail to state claim upon which relief can be granted WHEREFORE, Oracle denies that any of its products, services, or processes infringes any valid claim of the '248 or '685 patents identified in the Original Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment against Oracle whatsoever. Oracle asks that the Original Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that judgment be entered for Oracle, and that Oracle be awarded attorneys' fees incurred in defending against the Original Complaint, together with such other relief the Court deems appropriate.
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 5 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 6 of 10

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

IV.

COUNTERCLAIMS JURISDICTION AND THE PARTIES
30. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Oracle

alleges the following counterclaims against Plaintiff. Oracle repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs to the extent they are applicable, as if fully set forth herein. 31. The following counterclaims for declaratory relief arise under the

Declaratory Judgment Act and the Patent Laws of the United States, more particularly Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq., respectively. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these counterclaims under, without limitation, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, 2201 and 2202. 32. To the extent that this action remains in this district, venue is appropriate

because Plaintiff has consented to the propriety of venue in this Court by filing the present action for patent infringement in this Court, in response to which these counterclaims are asserted. 33. Plaint iff has submitted to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by

bringing the present action. 34. Plaint iff also has filed this action without a good faith basis, making this

an exceptional case. Consequently, Plaintiff is liable for any and all attorneys' fees, expenses and costs incurred by Oracle in connection with this baseless action by Plaintiff. COUNT 1 [NON-INFRINGEMENT- U.S. PATENT NO. 6,324,685] 35. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Oracle and Plaintiff

as to Oracle's non-infringement of the '685 patent, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Oracle's Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 36. Oracle does not infringe any claim of the '685 patent and believes that

Plaintiff's Complaint has been filed without good cause. 37. Oracle requests that this Court enter a judgment that Oracle does not
LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 6 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 7 of 10

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

infringe, and has not infringed any claim of the '685 patent. COUNT 2 [NON-INFRINGEMENT - U.S. PATENT NO. 6,976,248] 38. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Oracle and Plaintiff

as to Oracle's non-infringement of the '248 patent, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Oracle's Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 39. Oracle does not infringe any claim of the '248 patent and believes that

Plaintiff's Original Complaint has been filed without good cause. 40. Oracle requests that this Court enter a judgment that Oracle does not

infringe, and has not infringed any claim of the '248 patent. COUNT 3 [INVALIDITY - U.S. PATENT NO. 6,324,685] 41. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Oracle and Plaintiff

as to the validity o f the '685 patent, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Oracle's Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 42. The claims of the '685 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or

more of the conditions and requirements of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 41, 101, 102, 103, 112, 116 and/or 282. 43. Oracle is entitled to judgment from this Court finding that the '685 patent

is invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 41, 101, 102, 103, 112, 116 and/or 282. COUNT 4 [INVALIDITY - U.S. PATENT NO. 6,976,248] 44. This counterclaim for declaratory relief arises under the Declaratory

Judgment Act and the Patent Laws of the United States, more particularly Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 41 et seq., respectively. This Court has jurisdiction under
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 7 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 8 of 10

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

Tit le 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 2201. 45. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Oracle and Plaintiff

as to the validity o f the '248 patent, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Oracle's Answer to Plaintiff's Original Complaint. 46. The claims of the '248 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or

more of the conditions and requirements of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 41, 101, 102, 103, 112, 116 and/or 282. 47. Oracle is entitled to judgment from this Court finding that the '248 patent

is invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 41, 101, 102, 103, 112, 116 and/or 282. WHEREFORE, Oracle prays for relief as follows: A. infringed and invalid. B. That Plaintiff takes nothing by its Original Complaint and that the Original That the '685 and '248 patents, and every claim thereof, be declared not

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. C. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and/or other

applicable authority, the Court find that Plaintiff's conduct in commencing and pursuing this actions renders this an exceptional case and that Oracle be awarded its attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this action; and D. reasonable. DATED this 10th day of November, 2008. Respect fully submitted, /s/ Rudy A. Englund WSBA #04123 LANE POWELL PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 Main: [phone] [e-mail] m
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 8 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

That Oracle be awarded such other relief as the Court shall deem just and

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 9 of 10

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
ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 9 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

Of Counsel: David A. Nelson (Pro Hac Vice) Jennifer Bauer (Pro Hac Vice) LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 5800 Sears Tower, 233 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Main: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] m; [e-mail] Sean Pak (Pro Hac Vice) LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Main: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Carisa S. Yee (Pro Hac Vice) LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 140 Scott Drive Melo Park, CA 94025-3653 Main: [phone] Fax: [phone] carisa. [e-mail] m; Matthew Michael Sarboraria (Pro Hac Vice) ORACLE CORPORATION 500 Oracle Parkway, 7th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Main: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Oracle Corporation

LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]

Case 2:08-cv-01080-RAJ Document 50

Filed 11/10/08 Page 10 of 10

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 10, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of the filing to counsel of record. /s/ Rudy A. Englund WSBA #04123 Rudy A. Englund

ORACLE CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO IMPLICIT NETWORK'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - 10 CASE NO. C08-01080-RAJ

LANE POWELL PC 420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 [phone]