IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.
Filing
22
Defendant Google Inc.'s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims ANSWER to Complaint, COUNTERCLAIM against IP Innovation LLC, Technology Licensing Corporation by Google, Inc..(Beck, David)
IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.
Doc. 22
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
$
IP INNOVATION L,L.C. AND
$ $ $
TECHNOLOGY LICENSING
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs"
v.
$
$ $ $
$
CASE NO. 2:07CV-503-LED
ruRY TRIAL REQUESTED
GOOGLE, [NC.,
Defendant.
$
$ $
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S ANS\ilER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant Google Inc. ("Google"), hereby answers the Complaint
of IP Innovation
L.L.C. and Technology Licensing Corporation (collectively, "Plaintiffs") as follows:
ANSWER
1.
Google admits that the Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement
arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, but denies
that Plaintiffs are entitled to any
relief. No answer is required to the remaining allegations
contained in paragraph 1, which merely consist of conclusions of law.
2. 3.
Google is without knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph2, and on that basis denies those allegations. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of paragraph 3, and on that basis denies those allegations.
tt67 .00003/357712.1
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 2 of 8
4.
Google admits that United States Patent No. 5,276,785 ("the '785 patent"),
entitled o'Moving Viewpoint with Respect to a Target
in a Three-Dimensional
'Workspace,"
issued on January 4, 1994, admits that United States Patent No. 5,675,819 ("the '819 patent"),
entitled "Document Information Retrieval Using Global Word Co-Occurrence Pattems," issued
on October
l,
1997, admits that copies of the '785 and '819 patents purport to be attached to the
Complaint as Exhibits
A and B, respectively,
and states that
it is without
knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 4,
and on that basis denies those allegations.
5. 6.
that
Google admits the allegations of paragraph 5.
Google admits that
it
transacts business in this judicial
district. Google
denies
it
has committed any acts of infringement in this judicial district, or in any other district.
Google denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 6.
7. 8.
No answer is required to the allegations contained in paragraph 7, which merely
consist of conclusions of law.
Google admits that copies of claim charts asserting infringement on the '785 and
'819 patents purport to be attached as Exhibits C and D, respectively, to the Complaint, and
Google denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8.
9. 10.
Google denies the allegations of paragraph 9.
Google admits that
it
received correspondence from Plaintiffs on
or
after
September 27,2007 in which Plaintiffs offered to discuss with Google a potential license of the
'785 and'819 patents. No answer is required to the allegation of whether Google received
notice of infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $ 287 because such an allegation merely consists conclusions of law; to the extent such an answer is required, Google denies the allegation.
a
n67 .00003t35'77 tz.t
of
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 3 of 8
1
1.
Google denies the allegations of paragraph 1 1.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Google denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested on pages 3-4 of the
Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs lack standing to sue for infringement of the '785
and '819 patents.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Google has not infringed, induced infringement or contributed to infringement of the '785 or'819 patents.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The '785 and '819 patents are invalid under one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. $$ 101,
I02,103,
Il2
et seq.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint is barred in whole or in part under principles of equity, including laches,
prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel and/or unclean hands.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs' claims for relief and prayer for damages are
limited by 35 U.S.C. $$ 236 and/or 287, ard Plaintiffs are barred by 35 U.S.C. $ 288 from
recovering costs associated with their action.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorneys'
fees against Google pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $ 285.
-3tt67 .00003/357712.r
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 4 of 8
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to Plaintiffs is not
immediate or irreparable and Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES RESERVED
Google reserves all defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
patent laws of the United States, and any other defenses at law or in equity that may exist now or that may be available in the future.
COT]NTERCLAIMS
Without waiver of any of its rights, including the right to seek dismissal and/or transfer of this action, Google, by way of Counterclaims against Plaintiffs, alleges:
1.
This is an action in counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that Google does not
infringe the U.S. Patent Nos. 5,276,785 ("the '785 patent") and 5,675,819 ("the '819 patent")
and that the '785 and '819 patents are invalid.
THE PARTIES
2. 3.
Google is a Delaware corporation having its corporate headquarters and principal
place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043'
Upon information and belief, IP Innovation L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability
company with a place of business af 707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 600, Northbrook, Illinois
60062.
4.
Upon information and belief, Technology Licensing Corporation is a Nevada
corporation having a principal place of business at 1000 E. V/illiam Street, Suite 204, Carson City, Nevada, 89701.
-4l167 .00003/357712.1
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 5 of 8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
$$
101
These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 112 et seq. and under the declaratory judgment act,28 U.S.C. $$ 2201 and
, 102,103,
2202.
6. 7.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to
28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1391(b) and (c)
because Plaintiffs are subject to personaljurisdiction in thisjudicial district.
COUNT
I.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
8. 9. 10. 11.
patents.
Google incorporates the allegations contained
in paragraphs l-7 of the
Counterclaims as if fully set forth here.
Plaintiffs have claimed that they own the '785 and '819 patents, and that Google
infringes those patents.
An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties with respect to the
alleged infringement of the '785 and '819 patents.
Google does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the'785 and'819
12.
Google is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe and has not
infringed any claims of the '785 and'819 patents.
COUNT
II. DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT OF II\IVALIDITY
13.
Google incorporates the allegations contained
in
paragraphs
l-I2 of
the
Counterclaims as if fullv set forth here.
-5r167 .000031357712.1
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 6 of 8
14. 15.
$ l0l et seq.
An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties with respect to the
validity of the '785 and'819 patents.
The '785 and '819 patents are invalid under one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C.
16.
invalid.
Google is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the '785 and '819 patents are
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Google respectfully requests that this Court
enter judgment:
A.
di smis sing
P
In favor of Google denying Plaintiffs all relief
laintiffs' Complaint with
prej udice
;
requested
in this action
and
B.
Google;
Declaring the '785 and '819 patents are not and have not been infringed by
C. D. E.
Declaring the '785 and '819 patents invalid;
Declaring that this is an exceptional case justiffing award
of attorneys'
fees
against Plaintiffs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $ 285; and Ordering such further relief to Google as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Google demands
a
jwy trial on all claims so triable.
-6tr67 .00003/357712.1
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 7 of 8
Dated: March
19,2008
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ David J. Beck David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 dbeck@brsfirm.com Becr, Rpopen & Spcnesr, L.L.P. One Houston Center I22l McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, TX'. 77010 (713) 9st-3700 (7t3) 9st-3720 (Fax)
Ln¿,o ArroRNnv FoR DEFENDANT
Axu CouNrnR-Cr,aru Pr.alxrrnr Goocln INc.
OF COUNSEL:
Michael E. Richardson Texas Bar No. 24002838 mrichardson@brs fi rm. com BecK, RepopN & Spcnnsr, L.L.P. One Houston Center l22l McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 9s1-3700 (713) 9s1-3720 (Fax)
Mark G. Matuschak (admittedpro hac vice) Richard A. Goldenberg (admittedpro hac vice) Wu.rr,reR CurLBnPlcreRINc Hele AND DoRR LLP
60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) s26-6000 (617) 526-5000 (Fax)
John H. Hintz (admittedpro hac vice) Victor F. Souto (admittedpro hac vice) Ross E. Firsenbaum (admittedpro hac vice) Wlr-rueR Curlpn PlcreRNc Hel¡ eNp Donn LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
(212)230-8800 (ztz)230-8888 (Fax)
-7
t167 .00003/357712.t
-
Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED
Document 22
Filed 03/19/2008
Page 8 of 8
Elizabeth I. Rogers (admittedpro hac vice) V/rr.veR Cuu.¡R PIc
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?