Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 13

Defendant Richard Robinson's ANSWER to Complaint byGoogle Inc., Richard Robinson. (Bal, Colleen) (Filed on 9/4/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

COLLEEN BAL, State Bar No. 167637
CHARLES TAIT GRAVES, State Bar No. 197923
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, California 94105-1126
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
Google Inc. and Richard Robinson

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

BE IN, INC., a New York Corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOOGLE INC., a California corporation;
)
RICHARD ROBINSON, an individual, and Does )
1 through 3 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK
DEFENDANT RICHARD
ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant Richard Robinson, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby answers
the First Amended Complaint of Be In, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) as follows.
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
2.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
3.

Mr. Robinson admits that Defendant Google Inc. provides Internet-related

products and services including its search engine. Mr. Robinson admits that Defendant Google
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

1

Inc. released a social media platform, Google +. Mr. Robinson denies the remainder of the

2

allegations of Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint.

3

4.

Mr. Robinson admits that he met representatives from Plaintiff in London in May

4

2011. Mr. Robinson admits that Plaintiff entered into an agreement regarding use or disclosure

5

of confidential information with Google before the meeting. Mr. Robinson admits that Plaintiff

6

provided a live demonstration of its CamUp product at the meeting and that Plaintiff later sent

7

him a document relating to CamUp by email. Mr. Robinson does not recall that Plaintiff

8

proposed a “Watch with your friends” button to be embedded within all YouTube pages,

9

allowing users to initiate a CamUp session directly from YouTube, and denies the allegations on

10

that basis. Mr. Robinson does not recall whether he asked that further information be sent to him

11

following the meeting, and denies the allegations on that basis.

12

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint.

13

5.

Mr. Robinson denies the

Mr. Robinson admits that he did not indicate that “Google was independently

14

developing a product or feature that was identical to CamUp.” Mr. Robinson admits that he did

15

not indicate that “Google had independently determined to embed a “Watch with your friends”

16

button for any of its products or services on YouTube pages.”

17

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint.

18

6.

Mr. Robinson denies the

Mr. Robinson admits that he did not respond to follow-up correspondences from

19

Be In. Mr. Robinson denies that there were “several” follow-up correspondences from Be In.

20

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the second

21

sentence of Paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that

22

basis.

23

7. Mr. Robinson admits that Defendant Google Inc. released Google+, which includes a

24

feature called Hangouts, in or around June 2011. Mr. Robinson does not recall that Plaintiff

25

proposed a “Watch with your friends” button at the May 2011 meeting in London and denies the

26

allegations on that basis.

27

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the

28

allegations on that basis.
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the

-2-

1

8.

Mr. Robinson admits that Plaintiff is asserting the four causes of action described

2

in Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint.

3

wrongdoing alleged against him.

4

9.

Mr. Robinson denies all allegations of

Mr. Robinson denies that he engaged in the wrongdoing alleged against him and

5

therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint to the extent

6

they relate to him.

7

10.

Mr. Robinson denies that he engaged in the wrongdoing alleged against him and

8

therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint to the extent

9

they relate to him.

10

PARTIES

11
12

11.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.

13

12.

Mr. Robinson admits that Defendant Google Inc.’s principle place of business is

14

Mountain View, California, and that Defendant Google Inc. has products including Google+ and

15

Hangouts. Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the

16

remainder of Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that

17

basis.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

13.

Mr. Robinson admits that he is a resident of the United Kingdom. Mr. Robinson

denies that his job title is “Google UK’s Head of Business Markets.”
14.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
15.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
16.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.

26
27
28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-3-

1
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

3

Paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant Google Inc., and

4

denies the allegations on that basis.

5

18.

Mr. Robinson denies that he has engaged in wrongdoing or caused Plaintiff

6

$75,000 in damages. Mr. Robinson otherwise lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the

7

remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint. Mr. Robinson does not

8

contest that the Court has jurisdiction with respect to this matter.

9

19.

Mr. Robinson admits that Google’s principle place of business is Mountain View

10

California. Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the

11

allegations of Paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant

12

Google Inc., and denies the allegations on that basis. Mr. Robinson does not contest venue with

13

respect to this matter.

14
15

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
20.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

16

Paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant Google Inc., and

17

denies the allegations on that basis.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

FACTS
21.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
22.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
23.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
24.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.

27
28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-4-

1

25.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

2

Paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant Google Inc., and

3

denies the allegations on that basis.

4
5
6

26.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
27.

Mr. Robinson admits that on May 12, 2011, he met with Joseph D’Anna and Nik

7

Miskov of Plaintiff in London, and that Plaintiff discussed its CamUp product and expressed

8

interest in a business collaboration with Google. Mr. Robinson admits that Plaintiff entered into

9

a confidentiality agreement with Google in advance of the meeting. Mr. Robinson denies the

10
11

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint.
28.

Because Plaintiff has not yet identified its alleged trade secrets, Mr. Robinson

12

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 28

13

of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis. Mr. Robinson admits

14

that Plaintiff identified YouTube as an area where it desired a partnership. Mr. Robinson does

15

not recall whether Mr. D’Anna was the speaker or used the phrase “most logical,” and denies the

16

allegations on that basis.

17

29.

Mr. Robinson does not recall that Plaintiff presented an idea regarding a “Watch

18

with your friends” button and denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 on that basis. Mr. Robinson

19

admits that Plaintiff discussed business plans and monetization during the meeting. Because

20

Plaintiff has not yet identified its alleged trade secrets, Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information

21

to admit or deny the allegations of the final sentence of Paragraph 29 of the First Amended

22

Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.

23

30.

Mr. Robinson denies that he was “extremely enthusiastic about the CamUp

24

product.” Mr. Robinson admits that Plaintiff mentioned documents and the education sector

25

during the meeting. Mr. Robinson admits that he told Plaintiff he would mention Plaintiff to

26

others at Google, but denies that he stated that “he would put Be In in touch with individuals

27

from YouTube to explore further possibility of using the technology on its platform.” Mr.

28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-5-

1

Robinson denies the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the First Amended

2

Complaint.

3

31.

4
5
6
7

Mr. Robinson admits that Mr. Miskov sent follow-up correspondence to Mr.

Robinson, to which Mr. Robinson did not respond.
32.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint and denies the allegations on that basis.
33.

Mr. Robinson admits that in or around June 2011, Defendant Google Inc.

8

launched Google+ and Hangouts. Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny

9

the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the

10
11
12
13

allegations on that basis.
34.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

Paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis.
35.

Mr. Robinson does not recall that Plaintiff proposed a “Watch with your friends”

14

button during the May 2011 meeting in London and denies the allegations of Paragraph 35 on

15

that basis. Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the

16

allegations of Paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint, including the graphic displayed

17

beneath it, and denies the allegations on that basis.

18

36.

Mr. Robinson does not recall that Plaintiff proposed a “Watch with your friends”

19

button during the May 2011 meeting in London and denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 on

20

that basis. Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the remainder of the

21

allegations of Paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint, including the graphic displayed

22

above it, and denies the allegations on that basis.

23

37.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

24

Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint, including the graphic displayed above it, and

25

denies the allegations on that basis.

26

38.

Mr. Robinson lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

27

Paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint, which are directed at Defendant Google Inc.,

28

including the graphics displayed beneath it, and denies the allegations on that basis.
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-6-

1
2
3
4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS
39.

Mr. Robinson incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 38

of the First Amended Complaint.
40.

Because Plaintiff has not yet identified its alleged trade secrets, Mr. Robinson

5

lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the First

6

Amended Complaint, and denies the allegations on that basis. Mr. Robinson does not recall that

7

Plaintiff proposed a “Watch with your friends” button during the May 2011 meeting in London

8

and denies the allegations of Paragraph 40 on that basis.

9

41.

10

Complaint.

11

42.

12

Complaint.

13
14
15

Mr. Robinson denies the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the First Amended

Mr. Robinson denies the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the First Amended

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CIVIL CONSPIRACY
43.

Mr. Robinson incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 42

of the First Amended Complaint.

16

44.

17

Complaint.

18

45.

19

Complaint.

20

46.

21

Complaint.

22
23
24
25

Mr. Robinson denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the First Amended

Mr. Robinson denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the First Amended

Mr. Robinson denies the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the First Amended

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
47.

Mr. Robinson incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 46

of the First Amended Complaint.
48.

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

26

answer is required to Paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint.

27

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-7-

To the extent this

1

49.

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

2

answer is required to Paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint.

3

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

4

50.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

5

answer is required to Paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint.

6

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

7

51.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

8

answer is required to Paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint.

9

To the extent this

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITION: TRADE DRESS

11

INFRINGEMENT

12
13
14

52.

Mr. Robinson incorporates by reference his answers to Paragraphs 1 through 51

of the First Amended Complaint.
53.

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

15

answer is required to Paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint.

16

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

17

54.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

18

answer is required to Paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint.

19

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

20

55.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

21

answer is required to Paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint.

22

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

23

56.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

24

answer is required to Paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint.

25

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

26

57.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

27

answer is required to Paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint.

28

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-8-

To the extent this

1

58.

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

2

answer is required to Paragraph 58 of the First Amended Complaint.

3

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

4

59.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

5

answer is required to Paragraph 59 of the First Amended Complaint.

6

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

7

60.

To the extent this

Because Mr. Robinson is not named as a defendant for this cause of action, no

8

answer is required to Paragraph 60 of the First Amended Complaint.

9

paragraph relates to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Robinson denies the allegations.

10
11

To the extent this

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Mr. Robinson denies the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the First

12

Amended Complaint, or to any relief whatsoever.

13

Any and all remaining allegations not

specifically admitted herein are denied.
DEFENSES

14
15

Mr. Robinson sets forth the following affirmative and other defenses. By setting forth

16

these defenses, Mr. Robinson does not assume the burden of proof or persuasion as to any matter

17

for which that burden rests with Plaintiff.

18
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Absence of a Claim)

20
21
22

The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

(Estoppel and Consent)

24
25
26

The First Amended Complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein, is
barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of estoppel and consent, implied or actual.

27
28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-9-

1

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Unclean Hands)

3
4

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean
hands.

5

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6

(Ready Ascertainability)

7

Each of Plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets was or is readily ascertainable.

8

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(Failure to Mitigate)

10
11

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, because to the extent it suffered
damages, Plaintiff failed to mitigate such damages.

12

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Waiver)

14

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of waiver.

15

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Laches)

17

Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of laches.

18

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

19

Mr. Robinson has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to

20

whether he may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Mr. Robinson reserves

21

herein the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery indicates they

22

would be appropriate.

23

STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PURSUE SECTION 3426.4 REMEDIES

24

Mr. Robinson alleges that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith within the meaning of California

25

Civil Code section 3426.4 because, among other things, it subjectively and objectively knows

26

that it initiated and maintained its trade secret claim without a basis to do so. Mr. Robinson will

27

pursue discovery regarding bad faith and seek all fees and costs permitted under the statute.

28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-10-

1
2
3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Robinson denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief
requested in its Prayer for Relief, and prays for judgment as follows:

4

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its First Amended Complaint;

5

2. That judgment be entered in favor of Mr. Robinson and against Plaintiff and that

6

Plaintiff’s action against Mr. Robinson be dismissed in its entirety;

7

3. For costs incurred herein;

8

4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred herein;

9

5. For a finding of bad faith under the California Civil Code section 3426.4; and

10

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

11

Dated: September 4, 2012

12
13
14

Attorneys for Defendants
Google Inc. and Richard Robinson

15
16
17
18
19

/s/ Colleen Bal
Colleen Bal
Charles Tait Graves
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Richard Robinson demands a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable.
Dated: September 4, 2012

20
21

/s/ Colleen Bal
Colleen Bal
Charles Tait Graves
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Attorneys for Defendants
Google Inc. and Richard Robinson

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R. ROBINSON’S ANSWER TO FAC
CASE NO.: 5:12-cv-03373-LHK

-11-