Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
ANSWER to 91 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim (Reply to Counterclaims) by Jarg Corporation, Northeastern University.(Stout, Stephen)
Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY and JARG CORPORATION Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:07-CV-486 v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY AND JARG CORPORATION'S REPLY TO GOOGLE, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF On July 6, 2010, Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") filed an Answer [dkt. #91] to Northeastern University and Jarg Corp.'s (collectively "Plaintiffs") First Amended Complaint [dkt. #88]. With its Answer, Google presented again the same counterclaims for declaratory relief it originally asserted on January 11, 2008 in response to Plaintiffs' original Complaint. Plaintiffs' answered those counterclaims on January 31, 2008 [dkt. #22]. To avoid any
confusion as to Plaintiffs' position on these matters, Plaintiffs are again filing the same reply to Google's Counterclaim for Declaratory Relief that was previously filed on January 31, 2008.
Nature of the Action 1. This counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the '593 patent asserted by Plaintiffs in this action. Google seeks judgment under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
ANSWER: Plaintiffs admit that Google's counterclaim purports to seek declaratory judgment under the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, but specifically deny that Google is entitled to any such relief. Parties 2. Google is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. ANSWER: Admitted. 3. On information and belief, Northeastern University is a university organized and existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts and has its principal place of business at 716 Columbus Avenue, Boston, MA 02120. ANSWER: Admitted. 4. On information and belief, Jarg Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business at 330 Bear Hill Rd., Waltham, MA 02451. ANSWER: Admitted. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, the patent laws of the United States set forth at 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. ANSWER: Admitted.
6. Plaintiffs Northeastern and Jarg have consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by commencing their action for patent infringement in this judicial district, as set forth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. ANSWER: Admitted. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b). ANSWER: Admitted. Count I (Declaratory Relief Regarding Non-Infringement) 8. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., Google requests a declaration of the Court that Google has not infringed and does not currently infringe any claim of the '593 patent, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement. ANSWER: Plaintiffs admit that Google has requested declaratory relief, but specifically deny that Google is entitled to such relief because, inter alia, Google has infringed and continues to infringe the '593 patent. Count II (Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity) 9. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., Google requests a declaration of the Court that the '593 patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy conditions for patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
ANSWER: Plaintiffs admit that Google has requested declaratory relief, but specifically deny that Google is entitled to such relief because, inter alia, the '593 patent is valid.
Dated: August 4, 2010
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen C. Stout William B. Dawson (Tx Bar No. 05603600) Karen L. Hirschman (TX Bar No. 09721500) VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, Texas 75201-2975 Tel: (214) 220-7926 Fax: (214) 999-7926 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com David B. Weaver (TX Bar No. 00798576) David P. Blanke (TX Bar No. 02453600) David R. Woodcock, Jr. (TX Bar No. 24028140) Christopher V. Ryan (TX Bar No. 24037412) Michael Valek (TX Bar No.24044028) R. Floyd Walker (TX Bar No. 24044751) Stephen C. Stout (TX Bar No. 24060672) James D. Shead (TX Bar No. 24070609) Zeke DeRose, III (TX Bar No. 24057421) VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746 Tel: (512) 542-8400 Fax: (512) 236-3338 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Otis W Carroll, Jr. (TX Bar No. 03895700) Collin Maloney (TX Bar No. 00794219) IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Email: Fedserv@icklaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY AND JARG CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email and/or fax, on this the 4th day of August, 2010.
/s/ Stephen C. Stout Stephen C. Stout
- 6US 499427v.1
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?