IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 25

RESPONSE to 22 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim Plaintiff's Reply To Defendant Google's Counterclaims by IP Innovation LLC, Technology Licensing Corporation. (Hall, Douglas)

IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 25

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION IP INNOVATION L.L.C. AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. Plaintiffs reply to Defendant Google, Inc.'s (Google) counterclaims as follows: COUNTERCLAIMS 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. RESPONSE: Admitted that Google purports to state such a claim. Otherwise, denied. THE PARTIES 2. Google is a Delaware corporation having its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94043. RESPONSE: Admitted. 3. Upon information and belief, IP Innovation L.L.C. is a Texas limited liability company with a place of business at 707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 600, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. RESPONSE: Admitted. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:07cv503LED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S COUNTERCLAIMS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 2 of 6

4. Upon information and belief, Technology Licensing Corporation is a Nevada corporation having a principal place of business at 1000 E. William Street, Suite 204, Carson City, Nevada, 89701. RESPONSE: Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 et seq. and under the declaratory judgment act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. RESPONSE: Admitted. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). RESPONSE: Admitted. 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because Plaintiffs are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. RESPONSE: Admitted that venue is proper. Otherwise, denied. COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT 8. Google incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs l7 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth here. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs incorporate their responses to paragraphs 17 as if they were fully set forth herein. 2

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 3 of 6

9. Plaintiffs have claimed that they own the '785 and '819 patents, and that Google infringes those patents. RESPONSE: Admitted that Plaintiffs own the right, title and interest in and have standing to sue for infringement of the '785 and '819 patents. 10. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties with respect to the alleged infringement of the '785 and '819 patents. RESPONSE: Admitted. 11. Google does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the '785 and '819 patents. RESPONSE: Denied. 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. RESPONSE: Denied. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF II\INVALIDITY 13. Google incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 112 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth here. RESPONSE: Plaintiffs incorporate their responses to paragraphs 112 as if they were fully set forth herein. 3

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 4 of 6

14. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties with respect to the validity of the '785 and '819 patents. RESPONSE: Admitted that Google purports to state a claim regarding the validity of the '785 and '819 patents. Otherwise, denied. 15. The '785 and '819 patents are invalid under one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. RESPONSE: Denied. 16. Google is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the '785 and '819 patents are invalid. RESPONSE: Denied. PLAINTIFFS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO GOOGLE 1. Google's purported counterclaims fail to state a basis upon which relief can be

granted. 2. Plaintiffs reserve their rights to supplement their affirmative defenses as

permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 5 of 6

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, /s/Douglas M. Hall Raymond P. Niro Joseph N. Hosteny Arthur A. Gasey Paul C. Gibbons Douglas M. Hall David J. Mahalek NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (312) 2363137 T. John Ward Ward & Smith 111 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: [phone] Toll Free (866) 3056400 Facsimile: (903) 7572323 ATTORNEYS FOR IP INNOVATION L.L.C. and TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION

5

Case 2:07-cv-00503-LED

Document 25

Filed 04/04/2008

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S COUNTERCLAIMS was filed with the Clerk of the Court on April 4, 2008 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following at their email address on file with the Court. David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 [e-mail] Michael E. Richardson Texas Bar No. 24002838 [e-mail] BECK, REDDEN & SECREST, L.L.P. One Houston Center 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 9513700 (713) 9513720 (Fax)

Mark G. Matuschak Richard A. Goldenberg WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 5266000 (617) 5265000 (Fax)

John H. Hintz Victor F. Souto Ross E. Firsenbaum WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 2308800 (212) 2308888 (Fax)

Elizabeth I. Rogers WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1117 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 8586042

/s/Douglas M. Hall