Textscape, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 19

Google Inc. ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, First COUNTERCLAIM against Textscape, LLC byGoogle, Inc.. (Ezgar, Geoffrey) (Filed on 1/19/2010)

Download PDF
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 TIMOTHY T. SCOTT (SBN 126971) tscott@kslaw.com GEOFFREY M. EZGAR (SBN 184243) gezgar@kslaw.com LEO SPOONER III (SBN 241541) lspooner@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 590-0700 Facsimile: (650) 590-1900 SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER sweingaertner@kslaw.com ROBERT F. PERRY rperry@kslaw.com CHRISTOPHER C. CARNAVAL ccarnaval@kslaw.com MARK H. FRANCIS mfrancis@kslaw.com KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION TEXTSCAPE LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. Case No. 5:09-cv-04552-JF Honorable: Judge Jeremy Fogel GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT; AND ASSERTION OF COUNTERCLAIMS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4. 3. 1. GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT; AND ASSERTION OF COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") answers the Complaint of Textscape LLC ("Textscape") as follows: The Parties Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them. 2. Google admits that Google Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Google admits that it may be served with process through its registered agent Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company in Sacramento, California. Google denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 2. Jurisdiction and Venue Google admits that this action invokes the United States patent laws, and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent law claims. Google admits that personal jurisdiction and venue is proper in the Northern District of California. Google denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 3. Claim for Patent Infringement Google admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,713,740 ("the `740 patent") is entitled "System and method for converting written text into a graphical image for improved comprehension by the learning disabled" and bears an issuance date of February 3, 1998. 24 Google further admits that what purports to be a copy of the `740 patent was attached to 25 Textscape's Complaint as Exhibit A. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to 26 form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations of paragraph 4, and therefore denies 27 28 them. 2 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 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 5. Google admits that certain versions of the Google Chrome Browser ("Chrome") provide a "Find in page" feature that may enable a user to search and locate text on a webpage. Google denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 5. 6. Google denies the allegations of paragraph 6. Affirmative Defenses First Defense 1. Google does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, contributorily, or by inducement) any claim of the `740 patent. Second Defense 2. The claims of the `740 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the requirements of Sections 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code. Third Defense 3. The claims of the `740 patent are unenforceable, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, waiver and/or estoppel, including prosecution history estoppel. Fourth Defense 4. The claims of the `740 patent are unenforceable due to unclean hands. Fifth Defense 5. Any and all products or actions accused of infringement have substantial uses that do not infringe and do not induce or contribute to the alleged infringement of the asserted claims of the `740 patent. 3 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 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 3. 1. 9. 8. 7. 6. Sixth Defense The owner of the `740 patent has dedicated to the public all methods, apparatus, and products disclosed in the `740 patent, but not literally claimed therein, and is estopped from claiming infringement by any such public domain methods, apparatus, or products. Seventh Defense Textscape's claim for damages, if any, against Google for alleged infringement of the `740 patent are limited by 35 U.S.C. 286, 287 and 288. Eighth Defense This case is exceptional against Textscape under 35 U.S.C. 285. Ninth Defense To the extent that the alleged invention has been used or manufactured by or for the United States, the claims for relief are barred by 28 U.S.C. 1498. COUNTERCLAIMS The Parties Google Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. 2. On information and belief, Textscape LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 290 Glenn Avenue, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648. Jurisdiction and Venue Subject to Google's affirmative defenses and denials, Google alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these Counterclaims under, without limitation, 4 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 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 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1367, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this district. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over plaintiff. Factual Background 5. In its Complaint, Textscape asserts that Google has infringed U.S. Patent 5,713,740 ("the `740 patent"). 6. 7. `740 patent. COUNT ONE Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,713,740 8. Google restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1-7 of Google does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the `740 patent. Consequently, there is an actual case or controversy between the parties over the its Counterclaims. 9. An actual case or controversy exists between Google and Textscape as to whether the `740 patent is infringed by Google. 10. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its rights regarding the `740 patent. 11. Google has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the `740 patent. 12. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 because Textscape filed its Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. 5 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13. COUNT TWO Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,713,740 Google restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 112 of its Counterclaims. 14. An actual case or controversy exists between Google and Textscape as to whether the `740 patent is invalid. 15. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain 9 its rights as to whether the `740 patent is invalid. 10 16. The claims of the `740 patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. 100 11 et seq., 101, 102, 103, and 112. 12 17. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 because Textscape filed its 13 Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in this Counterclaim. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, Google prays for judgment as follows: a. b. c. A judgment dismissing Textscape's Complaint against Google with prejudice; A judgment in favor of Google on all of its Counterclaims; A declaration that Google has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claims of the `740 patent; d. e. A declaration that the `740 patent is invalid; A declaration that Textscape's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable estoppel, and/or waiver. f. A declaration that the `740 patent is unenforceable due to unclean hands. 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 g. A declaration that this case is exceptional and an award to Google of its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees; h. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Jury Demand Textscape's demand that all issues be determined by a jury trial does not state any allegation, and Google is not required to respond. To the extent that any allegations are included in the demand, Google denies these allegations. DATED: January 19, 2010 KING & SPALDING LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey Ezgar __ Geoffrey Ezgar (SBN 184243) Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 7 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552 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 DATED: January 19, 2010 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Google Inc. respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action. KING & SPALDING LLP __ By: /s/ Geoffrey Ezgar Geoffrey Ezgar (SBN 184243) Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. 8 GOOGLE INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 09-04552

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?