Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 52

ANSWER to 48 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim by Personalized User Model LLP.(Tigan, Jeremy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P., Plaint iff, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 09-525 (JJF)

PLAINTIFF PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaint iff and Counterclaim-Defendant Personalized User Model, LLP ("P.U.M."), in answer to the Counterclaims of Defendant Google, Inc. ("Google"), filed with this Court on May 10, 2010, states: Parties 1. Counterclaims. 2. partnership. P.U.M. denies P.U.M. is a "corporation" and states it is a limited liability P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Google's

P.U.M. otherwise admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Google's

Counterclaims. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. Counterclaims. 4. P.U.M. denies that the interests and convenience of the parties, the public, P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of Google's

and the courts would be better served by transferring this case to the Northern District of California. P.U.M. otherwise admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Google's

Counterclaims.

COUNT I: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '040 Patent 5. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of Google's Counterclaims,

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 4 above, and does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 6. Counterclaims. 7. Counterclaims. 8. Counterclaims. COUNT II: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '031 Patent 9. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Google's Counterclaims, P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of Google's

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 8 above, and does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 10. Counterclaims. 11. Counterclaims. 12. Counterclaims. P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of Google's

2

COUNT III: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '276 Patent 13. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of Google's Counterclaims,

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 12 above, and does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 14. Counterclaims. 15. Counterclaims. 16. Counterclaims. COUNT IV: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and/or Unenforceability of the '040 Patent 17. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of Google's Counterclaims, P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of Google's P.U.M. admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of Google's

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 16 above, and does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 18. Counterclaims. COUNT V: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and/or Unenforceability of the '031 Patent 19. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of Google's Counterclaims, P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of Google's

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 18 above, and

3

does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 20. Counterclaims. COUNT VI: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and/or Unenforceability of the '276 Patent 21. As to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of Google's Counterclaims, P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of Google's

P.U.M. incorporates by reference each of its responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 above, and does not respond to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 15 of Google's Answer, incorporated by reference in the Counterclaims, as no response is required. 22. Counterclaims. Exceptional Case 23. Counterclaims. Prayer WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant P.U.M. respectfully requests that the relief Google requests be denied and that P.U.M. be granted the following relief with respect to Google's Counterclaims: 1. That judgment be entered in favor of P.U.M. on each of Google's P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of Google's P.U.M. denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of Google's

Counterclaims, and that Google take nothing by reason of its Counterclaims; 2. That P.U.M. be awarded its attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred in

defense of Google's Counterclaims; and 3. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

4

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881) Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 [phone] [e-mail] jt [e-mail] Attorneys for Personalized User Model, L.L.P.

OF COUNSEL: Marc S. Friedman SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1089 [phone] Jimmy M. Shin Jennifer D. Bennett SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP 1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125 [phone] June 3, 2010
3559405

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 3, 2010, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing to all registered participants. Addit io nally, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were caused to be served on June 3, 2010 upon the following individuals in the manner indicated: BY E-MAIL & HAND-DELIVERY Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 N. Market St., 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 [e-mail] [e-mail] BY E-MAIL Brian C. Cannon QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP [e-mail] Charles K. Verhoeven QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP [e-mail] David A. Perlson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP [e-mail] Antonio R. Sistos QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP [e-mail] Eugene Novik QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP [e-mail]

/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
______________________________________ Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
3559405