Wireless Ink Corporation v. Facebook, Inc. et al
ANSWER to Counterclaim. Document filed by Wireless Ink Corporation.(Pitcock, Jeremy)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
WIRELESS INK CORPORATION,
No. 11 Civ. 1751 (PKC)
FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE, INC.;
YOUTUBE, INC.; YOUTUBE, LLC; and
WIRELESS INK CORPORATION’S ANSWER
TO MYSPACE, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF WIRELESS INK
CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Wireless Ink Corporation (“Wireless Ink”), by and through its undersigned
attorneys, hereby responds to MySpace, Inc.‟s (“MySpace”) Counterclaims and asserts its
affirmative defenses thereto as follows:
Jurisdiction and Venue
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘342 Patent)
Wireless Ink incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-7 of MySpace‟s Counterclaims as
though restated herein in their entirety.
Wireless Ink admits that it has alleged that MySpace is infringing one or more claims of U.S.
Patent No. 7,908,342. The claims of the patent are presumed valid and/or enforceable under
35 U.S.C. § 282. MySpace has not pleaded any allegations which give rise to an actual
controversy regarding the validity and/or enforceability of any claim of U.S. Patent No.
7,908,342, and on that basis Wireless Ink denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement)
Wireless Ink incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-10 of MySpace‟s Counterclaims as
though restated herein in their entirety.
Wireless Ink admits that it has alleged that MySpace is infringing one or more claims of the
U.S. Patent No. 7,908,342 and/or actively induces or contributes to others‟ infringement of the
„342 patent. However, MySpace has not pleaded any facts that would support a finding that it
does not infringe the claims of the patent. Wireless Ink denies all other allegations in this
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Federal Procedure 8(c), Wireless Ink asserts the following
MySpace‟s Counterclaims, in whole or in part, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, as no factual allegations have been pleaded in support of the Counterclaims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
MySpace infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,908,342, as alleged in Plaintiff‟s
Complaint. MySpace has alleged no facts which would support a finding of noninfringement of any
claim of the patent.
The claims of the patent are presumed valid by statute and MySpace cannot meet its burden
to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any claim of the patent is invalid, and has alleged no
facts to supports such a claim or affirmative defense.
The claims of the patent are presumed enforceable and MySpace cannot meet its
burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any claim of the patent is unenforceable, and
has alleged no facts to supports such a claim or affirmative defense.
Defendant MySpace‟s Counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
unclean hands. MySpace‟s infringement has been knowing and willful, as alleged in the
Complaint, and MySpace has failed to allege any facts which support its purported counterclaims or
affirmative defenses to Wireless Ink‟s claims of infringement. Thus, any equitable claims or
defenses asserted by MySpace are barred.
As Wireless Ink‟s investigation is ongoing and discovery has not yet been taken, and as
many facts are likely in the possession of Defendant MySpace and other third parties, Wireless Ink
reserves the right to amend its Answer to the Counterclaims, including defenses.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having answered the allegations of MySpace‟s Counterclaims and asserted
its affirmative defenses thereto, Wireless Ink prays for the following relief:
that MySpace‟s Counterclaims be dismissed, with prejudice, with costs and interest taxed
that Wireless Ink be awarded its attorneys‟ fees with interest incurred in defending against
that Wireless Ink be awarded the relief against MySpace prayed for in its Complaint;
that Wireless Ink be granted such other and further relief against MySpace as the Court deems
just and proper.
Dated: May 16, 2011
/s/ Jeremy S. Pitcock
Jeremy S. Pitcock (JP-4954)
THE PITCOCK LAW GROUP
1501 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Wireless Ink Corporation
STEVENS LAW GROUP
David R. Stevens (admitted pro hac vice)
1754 Technology Drive, Suite 226
San Jose, California 95110
BANIE & ISHIMOTO LLP
Jennifer L. Ishimoto (admitted pro hac vice)
600 Chesapeake Drive
Redwood City, CA 94063
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?