Lodsys, LLC v. Combay, Inc. et al

Filing 88

Plaintiff Lodsys Original ANSWER to 78 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of Defendant Atari Interactive, Inc., by Lodsys, LLC.(Huck, Christopher)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION LODSYS, 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-272 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF LODSYS, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO DEFENDANT ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS COMES NOW, Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC (“Plaintiff”), and files its Original Answer to the Counterclaims filed by Defendant Atari Interactive, Inc. (“Defendant”), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 56. 2. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 57. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Plaintiff admits that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Defendant’s Counterclaims. The remaining legal or other conclusions in paragraph 58 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 58. 4. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 59. 5. Plaintiff admits that venue for Defendant’s Counterclaims is proper in this District. The remaining legal or other conclusions in paragraph 60 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 60. 6. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 61. 7. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 62. 8. Paragraph 63 contains legal or other conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 63. First Counterclaim 9. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each of its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 56 through 63 of Defendant’s Counterclaims, as if fully set forth herein. 10. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 65. 11. Plaintiff admits that, at a point in time, Apple held a license to the ‘565 Patent and ‘078 Patent. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 66. Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 66. 12. Plaintiff admits that it has asserted claims of infringement against Defendant. The remaining legal or other conclusions in paragraph 67 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 67. Second Counterclaim 13. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each of its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 56 through 67 of Defendant’s Counterclaims, as if fully set forth herein. 14. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 69. 15. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 70. 1 Third Counterclaim 16. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each of its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 56 through 70 of Defendant’s Counterclaims, as if fully set forth herein. 17. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 72. 18. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 73. Fourth Counterclaim 19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each of its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 56 through 73 of Defendant’s Counterclaims, as if fully set forth herein. 20. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 75. 21. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 76. Fifth Counterclaim 22. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference each of its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 56 through 76 of Defendant’s Counterclaims, as if fully set forth herein. 20. Plaintiff admits the allegations in paragraph 78. 21. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 79. DEMAND FOR JURY ON DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on Defendant’s Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff denies that Defendant is entitled to any of the relief requested in Defendant’s Prayer For Relief. PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, in addition to the relief requested in its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows: A. That Defendant take nothing by its Counterclaims; 2 B. That the Court award Plaintiff all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against Defendant’s Counterclaims; and C. Any and all further relief that the Court deems just and proper. Dated: November 9, 2011. Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Christopher M. Huck Michael A. Goldfarb (admitted pro hac vice) Christopher M. Huck (admitted pro hac vice) KELLEY, DONION, GILL, HUCK & GOLDFARB, PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6800 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 452-0260 Fax: (206) 397-3062 Email: goldfarb@kdg-law.com huck@kdg-law.com William E. “Bo” Davis, III Texas State Bar No. 24047416 THE DAVIS FIRM, PC 111 West Tyler Street Longview, Texas 75601 Phone: (903) 230-9090 Fax: (903) 230-9090 Email: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this response was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(V). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email, on this the 9th day of November 2011. By: 4 /s/ Christopher M. Huck Christopher M. Huck

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?