PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 39

Defendant Google Inc.'s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to PA Advisors, LLC's Original Complaint for Patent Infringement ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against PA Advisors, LLC by Google Inc..(Beck, David)

Download PDF
PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 39 Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2-07CY-480-TJW JURY TRIAL REQUESTED GOOGLE INC.; YAHOO! INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; CONTEXTWEB, INC.; SPECIFIC MEDIA, INC.; FAST SEARCH & TRANSFER ASA; FAST SEARCH & TRANSFER, INC.; AGENTARTS, INC.; SEEVAST CORPORATION; PULSE 360, INC.; WPP GROUP USA, INC.; WPP GROUP PLC, AND 2417 REAL MEDIA, INC. Defendants. DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S ANS\ilER. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PA ADVISORS. LLC'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR Defendant and counterclaimant Google Inc. ("Google") by and through the undersigned counsel, answers the Original Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint") of plaintiff and counterdefendant PA ADVISORS, LLC ("Plaintiff'), as follows: :t 1. 2. Parties Google is without krtowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph Google admits I of the Complaint and therefore denies them. it is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, Califomia, 94043. Google admits it has appointed its agent for service as follows: Corporation Service Company Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 2 of 10 d/b/a CSC--Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. Google is without knowledge or information suff,rcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations inparagraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufhcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knöwledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. 1 Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. 12. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. 1,,' Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 3 of 10 13. 14. Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in par4graph 13 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations inparugraph 14 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Jurisdiction and Venue 15. Google admits that the Complaint is an action for alleged patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. $ l, e/ seq., andadmits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over such actions based on 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338. Google denies any allegation of infringement of the patent identified in the Complaint. 16. In response to paragraph 16 of the Complaint and solely for the purpose of this action, Google does not contest venue in this District. However, the interests and convenience of the parties would be better served by ti'ansferring this case to a different district. Google denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 16. 17. Google admits that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District solely for the purpose of this action. Google admits that it has conducted and does conduct business in the Eastern District of Texas. Google dgnies that it has committed any acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, or any other District. Google denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 17 . COUNT I Infrinsement of U.S. Patent No. 6.199.067 18. Google admits that what appears to be a copy of United States Patent No. Google denies any 6,199,067 (the "'067 patent") is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit remaining allegations in paragraph 18. A. Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 4 of 10 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Google admits that page 1 of Exhibit A lists Ilya Geller as the inventor of the '067 19. patent. Google denies any remaining allegations in paragraph Google denies the allegations in paragraph20. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph22 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in pdragrap h 24 of theComplaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph26 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knåwledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations inparagraph2T of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 5 of 10 '" 31. 32. 33. infringement. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint and therefore denies them. Google denies any infringement and denies any actions could constitute willful 34. 35. Google denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any pre-suit damages. Therefore, Google denies the allegations of paragraph3{. Google denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Complaint. To the extent the allegations set forth in parugraph 35 relate to other defendants, Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and on this basis denies those allegations. 36. Google denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint. To the extent the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 relate to other defendants, Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations, and on this basis denies those allegations. Prayer for Relief Google denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought by its Prayer for Relief, set forth on pages lI-I2 of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE úEFENSE: Non:Infrineement of the'067 Patent Google has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the '067 patent. Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 6 of 10 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Invalidity and/or Enforceabilitv of the'067 Patent The claims of the '067 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. $$ l0l, 102,103 andlor 112. .. ;'. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Lack of Standine On information and beliet Plaintiff lacks the standing necessary to assert the claims of the'067 patent against Google. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Unclean Hands On information and belief, the claims of the '067 patent are unenforceable due to Plaintiff s unclean hands. COUNTERCLAIMS Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Google ("Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google") for its Counterclaims against PA ADVISORS, LLC ("Counterclaim-Defendant PA ADVISORS, !LC?'), alleges as follows: ,I 1. PARTIES Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google 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, CA, 94043 2. Counterclaim-Defendant PA ADVISORS, LLP alleges that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. JURISDICTION AND YENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338 : '' Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 7 of 10 4. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1391(b) and by virtue of Counterclaim-Defendant PA ADVISORS, LLP's admissions in the Complaint that venue is proper in this district. COUNT I: Declaratorv Judsment of Non-Infrinsement 5. Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36 of the answer and defenses herein and paragraphs 1 through 4 of these counterclaims as if fully set forth herein. 6. patent. Counterclaim-Defendant PA ADVISORS, LLP claims to be the owner of the '067 7. Counterclaim-Defendant PA ADVISORS, LLP has initiated a civil action against Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google by filing the Complaint in this Court alleging that Counterclaim- Plaintiff Google has infringed one or more claims of the '067 patenl. 8. Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the '067 patent. COUNT JI: Declaratorv Judement of Invalidity and/or Unenforceabilitv 9. Counterclaim-Plaintiff Google incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 36 of the answer and defenses herein and paragraphs 1 through 8 of these counterclaims as if fully set forth herein. 'i , 10. The '067 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions of patentability set forth in Part II of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to,35 U.S.C. $$ 101, 102,103 andlor Il2. EXCEPTIONAL CASE I 1. On information and belief, this is an exceptional case entitling Google to an award of its attorneys' fees incurred in connection with defending and prosecuting this action pursuant Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 8 of 10 to 35 U.S.C. $ 285, as a result of, inter alia, Plaintiffls assertion of the '067 patent against Google with the knowledge that Google does not infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the '067 patentandlor that the '067 patent is invalid andlor unenforceable. RELIEF REOUESTED WHEREFORE, Google respectfully requests the following relief: 1. 2. unenforceable; A judgment in favor of Google denying Plaintiff all relief requested in this action and dismissing Plaintiff s Complaint for patent infringement with prejudice; A judgment declaring that each claim of the '067 patent is invalid andlor 3. A judgment declaring that Google has not infringed and is not infringing any valid and/or enforceable claim of the '067 patent, and that Google has not contributed to or induced and is not contributing to or':iriüucing inftingement of any valid and enforceable claim the '067 of patent; : 4. 5. 6. and proper. A judgment declaring that Google has not willfully infringed and is not willfully infringing any valid andlor enforceable claim of the '067 patent. A judgment declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. $ 285 and awarding Google its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees; and That the Court award Google such other and fuither relief as the Court deems just 'i.:'. I Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 9 of 10 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Google demands atrial by jury on all issues triable. so Dated: December 2I. 2007 j" i Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 dbeck@brsfirm.com BgcK, RpooBtt & Secn¡sr, L.L.P. One Houston Center I22T McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, TX. 77010 (7,r3) 951-3700 (713) 9st-3720 (Fax) Lpno Arronxnv Fon DnrBNo¡.Nr Goocln INc. OF COUNSEL: Michael E. Richardson Texas Bar No. 24002838 mrichardson@brs firm. com BECK, ReooeN & Spcn¡sr, L.L.P. One Houston Center l22l McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) gst-3700 (713) 9sI-3720 (Fax) Charles K. Verhoeven, California Bar No. I70I5l charlesverho even@quinnemanuel. com Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94lll (41s) 87s-6600 (4ts) 87s-6700 (Fax) Case 2:07-cv-00480-TJW Document 39 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 10 of 10 Brian C. Cannon California Bar No. 193071 bri ancannon@quinnemanuel. com Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (6s0) 801-s000 (6s0) 801-5100 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(aX3XA). lsl Michael E. Richardson l0

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?