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

Filing 71

ANSWER to 53 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of The New York Times Company by Beneficial Innovations, Inc..(Adams, Julien)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT 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 THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations, Inc. hereby answers the counterclaims of Defendant and Counterclaimant The New York Times Company ("The New York Times"). All of the allegations of the counterclaims not specifically admitted herein are specifically denied. CASE NO. 2:09-CV-175-TJW Jury Trial Demanded 1 ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations of subject matter jurisdiction contained in paragraph 1 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. 2. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that venue is proper in this District Court. 3. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the The New York Times' Counterclaims. PARTIES 4. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. 5. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. FACTS 6. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that it is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the `943 patent through assignment. 7. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. 8. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations admits that there exists an actual and continuing controversy between Beneficial Innovations and The New York Times. 2 COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. 271 (a)-(c) 9. Paragraph 9 of The New York Times' Counterclaims re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-8 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8 above. Except as expressly admitted, Beneficial Innovations denies each of the allegations in paragraph 9 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. 10. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. 11. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. COUNT II DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INVALIDITY 12. Paragraph 12 of The New York Times' Counterclaims re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-11 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations incorporates by reference its response to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11 above. Except as expressly admitted, Beneficial Innovations denies each of the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Times' Counterclaims. 13. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of The New York Times' Counterclaims. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations denies that The New York Times is entitled to the relief it seeks or any relief for the allegations made in its Answer and 3 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. Demand for Jury Trial 14. issues. Dated: November 25, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Beneficial Innovations demands trial by jury of all 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 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 4 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 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS, LLC 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 25th day of November, 2009, 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 6

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?