Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Nokia, Inc..(Smith, Michael)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WIRELESS RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. 1. 2. 3. 4. A9.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., GOOGLE, INC., NOKIA, INC. and 5. RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC. Defendants. ANSWER OF NOKIA INC. TO WIRELESS RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGIES LLC'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT To the extent any response is required to the unnumbered preamble of the Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint"): Denied. Nokia Inc. ("Nokia") hereby responds to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint with the following corresponding paragraphs. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. To the extent any response is required: Denied, because Nokia is without

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-364 (TJW)

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff has alleged an action for patent infringement. PARTIES 2. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments.

3.

Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 4. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 5. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 6. Denied, except that Nokia is a Delaware corporation, and has appointed

National Registered Agents, Inc., 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover, Delaware 19904 as its registered agent in Delaware. 7. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. To the extent any response is required: Denied, except that Plaintiff has

alleged an action arising under certain provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code. 9. As to Nokia: Denied, except that for the purposes of this action only,

Nokia does not contest that venue over this action is proper in this district. As to Defendants other than Nokia: Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 10. As to Nokia: Denied, except that Nokia for purposes of this action only,

Nokia does not contest that jurisdiction lies in this district. As to Defendants other than Nokia: Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments.

2

ANSWER TO COUNT I 11. To the extent any response is required: Nokia restates its responses to the

above paragraphs 1-8 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 12. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff avers Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and complete copy of United States Patent No. 7,392,287 ("the `287 patent"), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Sharing Information Using a Handheld Device," issuing June 24, 2008, and identifying Raymond F. Ratcliff, III as the named inventor of the `287 patent. 13. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 14. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 15. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 16. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. ANSWER TO COUNT II 17. To the extent any response is required: Nokia restates its responses to the

above paragraphs 1-15 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 18. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff avers Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and complete copy of the `287 patent, entitled "Method and

3

Apparatus for Sharing Information Using a Handheld Device," issuing June 24, 2008, and identifying Raymond F. Ratcliff, III and the named inventor of the `287 patent. 19. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 20. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 21. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 22. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. ANSWER TO COUNT III 23. To the extent any response is required: Nokia restates its responses to the

above paragraphs 1-15 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 24. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff avers Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and complete copy of the `287 patent, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Sharing Information Using a Handheld Device," issuing June 24, 2008, and identifying Raymond F. Ratcliff, III as the named inventor of the `287 patent. 25. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 26. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments.

4

27.

Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 28. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. ANSWER TO COUNT IV 29. To the extent any response is required: Nokia restates its responses to the

above paragraphs 1-15 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 30. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff avers Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and complete copy of the `287 patent, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Sharing Information Using a Handheld Device," issuing June 24, 2008, and identifying Raymond F. Ratcliff, III as the named inventor of the `287 patent. 31. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 32. 33. 34. Denied. Denied. Denied. ANSWER TO COUNT V 35. To the extent any response is required: Nokia restates its responses to the

above paragraphs 1-15 of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. 36. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments, except that Plaintiff avers Exhibit A to the Complaint is a true and complete copy of the `287 patent, entitled "Method and

5

Apparatus for Sharing Information Using a Handheld Device," issuing June 24, 2008, and identifying Raymond F. Ratcliff, III as the named inventor of the `287 patent. 37. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 38. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 39. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. 40. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to

form a belief as to the truth of the averments. RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 41. To the extent any response is required to any paragraph of Plaintiff's

Prayer for Relief, including without limitation its unnumbered paragraph and paragraphs it has labeled 1-5: Denied. RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 42. trial: Denied. To the extent that any response is required to Plaintiff's demand for a jury

6

DEFENSES 43. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) and (c), without

assuming any burden that it would not otherwise bear, without reducing or removing Plaintiff's burdens of proof on its affirmative claims against Nokia, reserving its right to assert additional defenses and/or affirmative defenses, and affirmatively solely to the extent deemed necessary by the Court to maintain any or all of the following defenses, Nokia asserts the following defenses and/or affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint: FIRST DEFENSE 44. Nokia does not and has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of

the `287 Patent literally, under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by way of inducement, and/or via any other mechanism of liability. SECOND DEFENSE 45. Each of the claims of the `287 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for

failure to comply with one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, for example, Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. THIRD DEFENSE 46. Plaintiff's claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in

part (i) to the extent that any allegedly infringing products or components thereof are supplied, directly or indirectly, to Nokia by any entity or entities having express or implied licenses to the `287 patent and/or (ii) under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. FOURTH DEFENSE

7

47.

Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part under principles of equity, including

without limitation, laches, prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel, and/or unclean hands. FIFTH DEFENSE 48. Any claim by Plaintiff for damages is limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 or

287. Plaintiff is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 287 from recovering damages prior to the date of the filing of the Complaint. Plaintiff is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with its action. SIXTH DEFENSE 49. patent. SEVENTH DEFENSE 50. patent. EIGHTH DEFENSE 51. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief under any theory, including Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit for alleged infringement of the `287 Plaintiff has failed to provide adequate evidence of ownership of the `287

without limitation, because any alleged injury to Plaintiff is not immediate or irreparable, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and/or public policy concerns weigh against any injunctive relief. NINTH DEFENSE 52. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Nokia respectfully requests a judgment against Plaintiff as follows:

8

A. B.

that Plaintiff take nothing by its Complaint in this action; that the Court enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Nokia, and

that the Complaint in this action be dismissed with prejudice; C. that the Court enter a declaratory judgment that Nokia does not infringe

any claim of the `287 patent; D. that the Court enter a declaratory judgment that the claims of the `287

patent are invalid and/or void; E. that the Court declare this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285

and award Nokia its costs and attorneys' fees; and F. that the Court award Nokia any and all other relief to which it may be

entitled, or which the Court deems just and proper.

November 11, 2010

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael C. Smith Michael C. Smith State Bar No. 18650410 SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS, & SMITH, LLP 113 East Austin Street Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT NOKIA INC.

Of Counsel: Robert F. Perry [e-mail] Allison H. Altersohn

9

[e-mail] KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this the 11th day of November, 2010.

/s/ Michael C. Smith Michael C. Smith

11