Groupon, Inc. v. MobGob, LLC

Filing 47

ANSWER to counterclaim as amended 6/8/2011 by Groupon, Inc. (Davis, Kyle)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GROUPON INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MOBGOB LLC.,
DEFENDANT.

Civil Action No. 10-CV-07456
Hon. William J. Hibbler

GROUPON, INC’S ANSWER TO MOBGOB, LLC’S COUNTERCLAIMS SEEKING
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) hereby answers Defendant MobGob LLC’s (“MobGob”)
counterclaims as follows:
22.
MobGob brings these Counterclaims against Groupon pursuant to Rule 13
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and alleges as follows. All preceding
paragraphs of this Answer are incorporated in full.
ANSWER: Groupon admits that MobGob brings its Counterclaims against
Groupon pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Groupon
incorporates all paragraphs of its Complaint, and denies any allegations of this
paragraph to the contrary.

1

23.
MobGob is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the
State of California and having a place of business at 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles,
CA 90025.
ANSWER: Groupon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to whether MobGob is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the
State of California and having a place of business at 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles,
CA 90025.
24.
Upon information and belief, Groupon is a corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware and having a place of business at 600 West Chicago
Ave., Chicago, IL 60654.
ANSWER: Admitted.
25.
These are claims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and
invalidity with respect to the ‘343 Patent.
ANSWER: Groupon admits that MobGob’s Counterclaims seek a declaration that
MobGob has not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any of the claims of the ‘343
Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents in part (b) of the prayer for
relief. Groupon further admits that MobGob’s Counterclaims seek a declaration that
the ‘343 Patent is invalid in part (c) of the prayer for relief. Groupon denies any and all
remaining allegations in this paragraph.
26.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202 because an actual, justiciable
controversy exists between MobGob and Groupon. In particular, Groupon has filed a
Complaint alleging that MobGob is infringing the ‘343 Patent, and MobGob denies
Groupon’s material allegations.
ANSWER: Admitted.
2

27.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2)
and 1391(c) because, among other things, Groupon has filed a Complaint against
MobGob in this judicial district.
ANSWER: Admitted.
28.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Groupon.

ANSWER: Admitted.
MobGob incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of its Answer
29.
and Counterclaims as if set forth fully herein.
ANSWER: Groupon incorporates by reference its response to each preceding
paragraph of this Answer and each paragraph of its Complaint as if set for fully herein.
30.

Groupon alleges that it is the owner of the ‘343 Patent.

ANSWER: Groupon admits that it is the owner of the ‘343 Patent.
31.
MobGob has not infringed, either directly or indirectly, any of the claims
of the ‘343 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
ANSWER: Denied.
32.
MobGob incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of its Answer
and Counterclaims as if set forth fully herein.
ANSWER: Groupon incorporates by reference its response to each preceding
paragraph of this Answer and each paragraph of its Complaint as if set for fully herein.
33.
The ‘343 Patent is invalid for failing to comply with one or more
provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C.
§§ 101-103 and 112. The claims of the patent-in-suit are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
101 because Plaintiff’s claims relate to the implementation of abstract ideas, attempting
to cover the mental process of aggregating demand for the purchase of a product using
3

the specific method disclosed in the patent-in-suit. The claims of the patent-in-suit are
invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 because the following prior art references anticipate
each asserted claim of the patent-in-suit:
•

U.S. Patent No. 5,063,507

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,710,886

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,793,207

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,826,244

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,835,896

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,845,266

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,000,826

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,078,897

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,085,169

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,119,100

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,356,878

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,381,587

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,484,153

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,553,346

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,704,713

•

U.S. Patent No. 7,133,835

•

U.S. Patent No. 7,472,074

•

U.S. Patent No. 7,664,672

•

U.S. Patent No. 7,693,748

•

U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 11/426,809

To the extent that these references do not anticipate an asserted claim of the patent-insuit, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, a combination of two or more of the references renders
each asserted claim obvious. The claims of the patent-in-suit are also invalid pursuant to
4

35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 as lacking written description and/or enablement support. They are
also invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶2 because, for example, they recite one or more
mental steps.
ANSWER: Denied.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Groupon prays for judgment on MobGob’s Counterclaims as follows:
A.

For dismissal of MobGob’s Counterclaims with prejudice;

B.

For judgment in favor of Groupon in all respects;

C.
For a determination that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Groupon in this action; and
D.

For such other relief as the Court deems just.

Dated: June 21, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
Groupon, Inc.
s/ Kyle Davis
One of its Attorneys

Steven McMahon Zeller
[e-mail]
Kyle A. Davis
[e-mail]
Dykema Gossett PLLC
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]

CHICAGO\3294446.1
ID\KD - 065640/0042

5