Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 55

RESPONSE to 35 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim of IAC/Interactive Corp and IAC Search and Media, Inc. by Polaris IP, LLC. (Cook, Jason)

Download PDF
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 55 Case 2:07-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 55 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION POLARIS IP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., et al.; Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF IAC/INTERACTIVECORP AND IAC SEARCH AND MEDIA, INC. Plaintiff Polaris IP, LLC ("Polaris") replies to the counterclaims of Defendants IAC/InterActiveCorp and IAC Search and Media, Inc. (collectively "IAC") by corresponding paragraph number as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 of IAC's counterclaims purports to incorporate "by reference what is set out in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein." This is improper and incapable of being admitted or denied. Subject to the foregoing, Polaris re-alleges the matters alleged in its Complaint and denies the merits of IAC's denials, defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Also subject to the foregoing, Polaris lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the other matters asserted in this paragraph, and therefore denies them upon information and belief. 2. 3. 4. Admitted. Denied as to merits of counterclaims. Denied. Admitted as to jurisdiction over counterclaims. Denied as to merits of counterclaims. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-371-TJW-CE Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 55 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 4 Count I 5. 6. 7. Polaris re-alleges and incorporates by reference its replies to Paragraphs 1-4 above. Denied. Denied. Count II 8. 9. Polaris re-alleges and incorporates by reference its replies to Paragraphs 1-7 above. Denied. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Polaris IP, LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment denying and dismissing IAC's counterclaims, and that the Court enter judgment in favor of Polaris as requested in Polaris's complaint, as amended or supplemented. Respectfully submitted, POLARIS IP, LLC Dated: November 12, 2007 By: /s/ Jason W. Cook Danny L. Williams LEAD ATTORNEY Texas State Bar No. 21518050 Terry D. Morgan Texas State Bar No. 14452430 J. Mike Amerson Texas State Bar No. 01150025 Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: (713) 934-4060 Facsimile: (713) 934-7011 E-mail: danny@wmalaw.com E-mail: tmorgan@wmalaw.com E-mail: mike@wmalaw.com 2 Case 2:07-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 55 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 3 of 4 David M. Pridham Intellectual Property Navigation Group, LLC Rhode Island State Bar No. 6625 207 C North Washington Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 938-7400 Facsimile: (903) 938-7404 E-mail: david@ipnav.com Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 Email: ema@emafirm.com Email: jsh@emafirm.com John J. Edmonds Texas State Bar No. 00789758 THE EDMONDS LAW FIRM, PC 709 Sabine Street Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (713) 858-3320 Facsimile: (832) 415-2535 Email: johnedmonds@edmondslegal.com Jason W. Cook Texas State Bar No. 24028537 The Law Office of Jason W. Cook 5320 Victor St. Dallas, Texas 75214 Telephone: (214) 504-6813 Facsimile: (469) 327-2777 Email: jcook@cookip.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF POLARIS IP, LLC 3 Case 2:07-cv-00371-TJW-CE Document 55 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served today with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. Dated: November 12, 2007 /s/ Jason W. Cook__________ Jason W. Cook 4

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?