Lodsys, LLC v. Combay, Inc. et al

Filing 111

Rovio Entertainment Ltd.'s ANSWER to Complaint , Amended (D.I. 26), Affirmative Defenses, and, COUNTERCLAIM S against Lodsys Group LLC by Rovio Mobile Ltd.(Barsky, Wayne)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
LODSYS GROUP, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC.; COMBAY,
INC.; ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.;
ICONFACTORY, INC.; ILLUSION LABS
AB; MICHAEL G. KARR D/B/A
SHOVELMATE; QUICKOFFICE, INC.;
ROVIO MOBILE LTD.; RICHARD
SHINDERMAN; SQUARE ENIX LTD.;
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE
INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00272-DF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT ROVIO ENTERTAINMENT LTD.’S ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant Rovio Entertainment Ltd. (“Rovio”),1 by and through its attorneys, answers
Plaintiff Lodsys Group, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”)’s Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
(“Complaint”) and asserts defenses and counterclaims as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.

1

On July 19, 2011, the company changed its name from Rovio Mobile Ltd. to Rovio Entertainment Ltd.

2.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
3.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
4.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
5.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
6.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
7.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
8.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
9.

Rovio is now named Rovio Entertainment Ltd. and not Rovio Mobile Ltd. Rovio

otherwise admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

2

10.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
11.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
12.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13.

Rovio admits that Plaintiff purports to bring an action arising under Title 35 of the

United States Code as a claim for patent infringement, for which subject matter jurisdiction
would be proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). For purposes of this
action only, Rovio admits that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), venue may be found
in the Eastern District of Texas, but further states that venue is proper in other districts pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), and Rovio reserves all rights to move for transfer of venue of
this action, severance, or consolidation with other related actions. Except as so admitted, Rovio
denies the allegations of paragraph 13 to the extent they relate to Rovio. Rovio denies that it has
committed acts of infringement in this District. Rovio denies any express or implied allegation
within paragraph 13 that it has infringed, or is now infringing, directly or indirectly, any patent,
and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to damages, an injunction, and/or any other relief. Rovio is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set

3

forth in this paragraph as they relate to the other defendants and, on that basis, therefore denies
those allegations.
14.

For purposes of this action only, Rovio admits only that this Court has personal

jurisdiction over it. Except as so admitted, Rovio, denies the allegations of paragraph 14 to the
extent they relate to Rovio. Rovio denies any express or implied allegation within paragraph 14
that it has infringed, or is now infringing, directly or indirectly, any patent, and denies that
Plaintiff is entitled to damages, an injunction, and/or any other relief. Rovio is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in
this paragraph as they relate to the other defendants and, on that basis, therefore denies those
allegations.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,620,565 B2
15.

Rovio admits that the Complaint purports to attach a copy of U.S. Patent No.

7,620,565 (the “’565 patent”) as Exhibit A. Rovio further admits that such copy of the ’565
patent, on its face, states that it issued on November 17, 2009 and is entitled “Customer-Based
Product Design Module.” Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint and, on that basis,
denies each and every remaining allegation in that paragraph.
16.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
17.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.

4

18.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
19.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
20.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
21.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
22.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
23.

Rovio denies each and every allegation of paragraph 23. Rovio denies any

express or implied allegation within paragraph 23 that it has infringed, or is now infringing,
directly or indirectly, any patent, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to damages, an injunction,
and/or any other relief.
24.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 24 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.

5

25.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
26.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
27.

Rovio denies each and every allegation of paragraph 27 of the Complaint as they

relate to Rovio. Rovio denies any express or implied allegation within paragraph 27 that it has
infringed, or is now infringing, directly or indirectly, any patent, and denies that Plaintiff is
entitled to damages, an injunction, and/or any other relief. Rovio is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph
as they relate to the other defendants and, on that basis, denies each and every remaining
allegation of paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,222,078 B2
28.

Rovio admits that the Complaint purports to attach a copy of U.S. Patent No.

7,222,078 (the “’078 patent”) as Exhibit B. Rovio further admits that such copy of the ’078
patent, on its face, states that it issued on May 22, 2007 and is entitled “Methods and Systems for
Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network.” Rovio is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
of paragraph 28 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each and every remaining allegation
in that paragraph.

6

29.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
30.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
31.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
32.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 32 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
33.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 33 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
34.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
35.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 35 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
36.

Rovio denies each and every allegation of paragraph 36. Rovio denies any

express or implied allegation within paragraph 36 that it has infringed, or is now infringing,

7

directly or indirectly, any patent, and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to damages, an injunction,
and/or any other relief.
37.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 37 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
38.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 38 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
39.

Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies each
and every allegation in that paragraph.
40.

Rovio denies each and every allegation of paragraph 40 of the Complaint as they

relate to Rovio. Rovio denies any express or implied allegation within paragraph 40 that it has
infringed, or is now infringing, directly or indirectly, any patent, and denies that Plaintiff is
entitled to damages, an injunction, and/or any other relief. Rovio is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph
as they relate to the other defendants and, on that basis, denies each and every remaining
allegation of paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
41.

In response to Plaintiff’s Jury Demand, Rovio also demands a trial by jury on all

issues so triable.
42.

In response to Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, Rovio denies that Plaintiff is entitled

to any relief sought in Paragraphs (a) through (f) of the Prayer for Relief, as they relate to Rovio.
Rovio is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiff’s entitlement

8

to any relief sought of other defendants and, on that basis, denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any
relief sought of other defendants.
43.

Any remaining allegations in the Complaint that are not expressly admitted are

denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Rovio asserts the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint. Assertion of such a
defense is not a concession that Rovio has the burden of proving the matter asserted.
First Affirmative Defense
(License/Exhaustion of Patent Rights and First Sale)
44.

Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) holds a license to the ’565 patent and the ’078 patent. Such

license permits Apple to offer and otherwise make available to Rovio and others products and
services that embody the inventions contained in the ’565 and ’078 patents. Plaintiff’s
infringement claims against Rovio are based on Rovio’s use of products and services that Apple
is authorized to provide under such license and which Plaintiff claims embody the ’565 and ’078
patents. Under the patent law doctrines of exhaustion and first sale, Rovio can use the products
and services Apple provides to it free of claims of infringing the ’078 and ’565 patents.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against Rovio are barred by the license to Apple and the doctrines of
patent exhaustion and first sale.
Second Affirmative Defense
(Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565)
45.

Rovio has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, either

literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the ’565 patent.

9

Third Affirmative Defense
(Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078)
46.

Rovio has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, either

literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the ’078 patent.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
(Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565)
47.

One or more claims of the ’565 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure

to meet one or more of the conditions of patentability and/or patent eligibility specified in Title
35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
(Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078)
48.

One or more claims of the ’078 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure

to meet one or more of the conditions of patentability and/or patent eligibility specified in Title
35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Sixth Affirmative Defense
(Failure to State a Claim)
49.

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Seventh Affirmative Defense
(Limitation on Damages)
50.

Plaintiff’s available remedies are limited or barred by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, 288

and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
Eighth Affirmative Defense
(Implied License, Laches, Estoppel, Waiver)
51.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of

implied license, laches, estoppel, and/or waiver.

10

Ninth Affirmative Defense
(Prosecution Estoppel for U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565)
52.

Plaintiff is estopped from construing the claims of the ’565 in such a manner that

covers Rovio’s activities by reason of, among other things, statements made in the ’565 patent,
amendments, and/or statements made in and to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
during the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’565 patent, prior statements made in
this or any other Court, prior rulings of this or any other Court, and/or Plaintiff’s prior conduct.
Tenth Affirmative Defense
(Prosecution Estoppel for U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078)
53.

Plaintiff is estopped from construing the claims of the ’078 patent in such a

manner that covers Rovio’s activities by reason of, among other things, statements made in the
’078 patent, amendments, and/or statements made in and to the United States Patent and
Trademark Office during the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’078 patent, prior
statements made in this or any other Court, prior rulings of this or any other Court, and/or
Plaintiff’s prior conduct.
Eleventh Affirmative Defense
(Indispensable Parties)
54.

One or more of Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by its failure to

join one or more necessary and/or indispensable parties.
Twelfth Affirmative Defense
(Unclean Hands)
55.

One or more of Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

unclean hands.

11

COUNTERCLAIMS
In addition to its affirmative defenses, Defendant Rovio Entertainment, Ltd. (“Rovio”)
further asserts the following counterclaims against Plaintiff Lodsys Group, LLC (“Lodsys”).
THE PARTIES
56.

Rovio Entertainment Ltd. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the

laws of Finland and has its principal place of business at Keilaranta 17, FIN-02150 Espoo
Finland.
57.

On information and belief, Lodsys Group, LLC is a Texas limited liability

company with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
58.

These Counterclaims arise under federal law, and this Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States,
35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
59.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys at least because it has submitted

to the jurisdiction of this Court.
60.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).

61.

On or about May 22, 2007, U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 (the “’078 patent”) entitled

“Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a
Network” issued to named inventor Daniel H. Abelow.
62.

On or about November 17, 2009, U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 (the “’565 patent”)

entitled “Customer-Based Product Design Module” issued to named inventor Daniel H. Abelow.

12

63.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen

and exists between Rovio and Lodsys. Rovio is entitled to a judicial determination and
declaration that it has not infringed and is not infringing the ’565 patent and the ’078 patent, and
that the ’565 patent and the ’078 patent are invalid and unenforceable.
First Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment that Lodsys’ Claims against Rovio Are Barred by Virtue of
Apple Inc.’s License to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and 7,620,565 and the
Doctrines of Patent Exhaustion and First Sale)
64.

Paragraphs 56-63 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

65.

On or about July 21, 2011, Lodsys filed its Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement asserting that Rovio infringes the ’078 and the ’565 patents.
66.

Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) holds a license to the ’565 patent and the ’078 patent. Such

license permits Apple to offer and otherwise make available to Rovio and others products and
services that embody the inventions contained in the ’565 and ’078 patents. Lodsys’
infringement claims against Rovio are based on Rovio’s use of products and services that Apple
is authorized to provide under such license and which Lodsys claims embody the ’565 and ’078
patents. Under the patent law doctrines of exhaustion and first sale, Rovio can use the products
and services Apple provides to it free of claims of infringing the ’078 and ’565 patents.
Therefore, Lodsys’ claims against Rovio are barred by the license to Apple and the doctrines of
patent exhaustion and first sale.
67.

Notwithstanding Apple’s license, Lodsys has asserted claims of infringement

against Rovio. Lodsys’ claims against Rovio are barred by the license to Apple and the doctrines
of patent exhaustion and first sale.

13

Second Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078)
68.

Paragraphs 56-67 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

69.

On or about July 21, 2011, Lodsys filed its Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement asserting that Rovio infringes the ’078 patent.
70.

Rovio has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, either

literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the ’078 patent.
Third Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565)
71.

Paragraphs 56-70 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

72.

On or about July 21, 2011, Lodsys filed its Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement asserting that Rovio infringes the ’565 patent.
73.

Rovio has not infringed, and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, either

literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the ’565 patent.
Fourth Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078)
74.

Paragraphs 56-73 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

75.

On or about July 21, 2011, Lodsys filed its Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement asserting that Rovio infringes the ’078 patent.
76.

One or more claims of the ’078 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure

to meet one or more of the conditions of patentability and/or patent eligibility specified in Title
35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Fifth Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565)
77.

Paragraphs 56-76 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.

14

78.

On or about July 21, 2011, Lodsys filed its Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement asserting that Rovio infringes the ’565 patent.
79.

One or more claims of the ’565 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable for failure

to meet one or more of the conditions of patentability and/or patent eligibility specified in Title
35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Rovio prays as follows:
A.

That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and that a Judgment

be entered for Rovio;
B.

That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of its Complaint;

C.

For a declaratory judgment that Lodsys’ claims against Rovio with respect to U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,222,078 and 7,620,565 are barred by the license to Apple and the
doctrines of patent exhaustion and first sale;

D.

For a declaratory judgment that:
(i)

Rovio does not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or by
application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and
enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078;

(ii)

U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 is invalid and void;

(iii)

U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 is unenforceable;

(iv)

Plaintiff, its officers, servants, employees, agents, and attorneys,
and all of those in concert or participation with it, are without right
or authority to threaten or maintain suit against Rovio, its present
or prospective customers, agents, servants, or employees, or users
of Rovio’s products, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No.
7,222,078;

15

(v)

(vi)

U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 is invalid and void;

(vii)

U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 is unenforceable; and

(viii)

E.

Rovio does not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or by
application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, any valid and
enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565;

Plaintiff, its officers, servants, employees, agents, and attorneys,
and all of those in concert or participation with it, are without right
or authority to threaten or maintain suit against Rovio, its present
or prospective customers, agents, servants, or employees, or users
of Rovio’s products, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No.
7,620,565;

For an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff, its officers, servants, employees, agents,

and attorneys, and all those in concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the
injunction, from initiating infringement litigation against and from threatening Rovio, its present
or prospective customers, agents, servants, or employees, or users of Rovio’s products, with
infringement litigation or charging any of them either orally or in writing with infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078, or representing to any of them that infringement has occurred,
because of the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of any Rovio products;
F.

For an injunction prohibiting Plaintiff, its officers, servants, employees, agents,

and attorneys, and all those in concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the
injunction, from initiating infringement litigation against and from threatening Rovio, its present
or prospective customers, agents, servants, or employees, or users of Rovio’s products, with
infringement litigation or charging any of them either orally or in writing with infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565, or representing to any of them that infringement has occurred,
because of the manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of any Rovio products;

16

G.

That Rovio be awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 its attorneys’ fees and costs of suit

incurred in this litigation, as Plaintiff’s conduct as set forth above renders this an exceptional
case; and
H.

For other such relief as the Court deems proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Rovio demands a jury trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), on all issues that may be
tried by jury.
Dated: May 4, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Wayne M. Barsky
Wayne M. Barsky (CA Bar No. 116731)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Jason C. Lo (CA Bar No. 219030)
Jennifer J. Rho (CA Bar No. 254312)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Mandy Pezzano (TX Bar No. 24074886)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant Rovio Entertainment Ltd.

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 4, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
was served on all attorneys of record who have consented to electronic service via the Court’s
CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
/s/

Wayne M. Barsky
Wayne M. Barsky