Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Careerbuilder, LLC et al

Filing 118

RESPONSE to 38 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim Reply to Counterclaims of Morris Communications Company, LLC by Beneficial Innovations, Inc.. (Adams, Julien)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. CAREERBUILDER, LLC., a Delaware corporation; CNET NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., a Delaware corporation; DIGG, INC., a Delaware corporation; EBAUM'S WORLD, INC., a New York corporation; GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation; JABEZ NETWORKS, INC., a Tennessee corporation; MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York corporation; YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation; and YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, INC.'S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations, Inc. ("Beneficial Innovations") hereby answers the counterclaims of Defendant and Counterclaimant Morris Communications Company, LLC ("Morris"). All of the allegations of Morris's Counterclaims not specifically admitted are hereby denied. CASE NO. 2:09-CV-175-TJW Jury Trial Demanded 1 Parties 1. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of Morris's Counterclaims. 2. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits it is a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Nevada. Jurisdiction 3. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations of subject matter jurisdiction contained in Paragraph 3 of Morris's Counterclaims. Counterclaim Count I Declaration of Non-Infringement of the `943 Patent 4. Paragraph 4 of Morris' Counterclaims re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-3 of Morris's Counterclaims. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 3 above. Except as expressly admitted, Beneficial Innovations denies each of the allegations in paragraph 4 of Morris's Counterclaims. 5. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that an actual controversy exists between Morris and Beneficial Innovations as to whether any of Morris's products, services, or activities infringe any valid claim of the `943 patent. 6. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that Morris requests a declaration from the Court that Morris does not infringe any claim of the `943 patent, either directly or indirectly, but Beneficial Innovations denies that Morris is entitled to any such declaration. Counterclaim Count II Declaration of Invalidity of the `943 Patent 7. Paragraph 7 of Morris's Counterclaims re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-3 of Morris's Counterclaims. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 6 above. Except as 2 expressly admitted, Beneficial Innovations denies each of the allegations in paragraph 7 of Morris's Counterclaims. 8. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that there exists an actual controversy between Beneficial Innovations and Morris as to the validity of the `943 patent. 9. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that Morris requests a declaration from the Court that the claims of the `943 patent are invalid because they fail to meet the conditions and requirements of patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq., including 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, but Beneficial Innovations denies that Morris is entitled to any such declaration. Jury Demand 10. issues. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations demands trial by jury of all Prayer Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations denies that Morris is entitled to the relief it seeks or any relief for the allegations made in its Answer and Counterclaims. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations requests that judgment be entered in its favor on all issues and it be awarded the appropriate damages, exceptional damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. Dated: April 13, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Julien A. Adams S. Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03783900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 Capshaw DeRieux, LLP Energy Centre 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220 3 Of Counsel: Gregory S. Dovel CA State Bar No. 135387 Julien Adams CA State Bar No. 156135 Dovel & Luner, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: 310-656-7066 Facsimile: 310-657-7069 email: greg@dovellaw.com email: julien@dovellaw.com P. O. Box 3999 (75606-3999) Longview, Texas 75601-5157 Email: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 Email: cbunt@cox-internet.com Robert M Parker State Bar No. 15498000 Email: rmparker@cox-internet.com Parker & Bunt, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: 903/531-3535 Facsimile: 903/533-9687 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, LLC 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 13th day of April 2010, 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. /s/ Julien A. Adams Julien A. Adams 5

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?