AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC
Filing
38
First Funds, LLC's ANSWER to Amended Complaint of AdvanceMe, Inc., COUNTERCLAIM against AdvanceMe Inc by First Funds, LLC.(McSwane, Douglas)
AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC
Doc. 38
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 1 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ADVANCEME, INC., Plaintiff v. RAPIDPAY LLC, BUSINESS CAPITAL CORPORATION, FIRST FUNDS LLC, MERCHANT MONEY TREE, INC., FIRST FUNDS LLC, and FAST TRANSACT, INC. dba SIMPLE CASH, Defendants DEFENDANT FIRST FUNDS LLC'S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 6:05-CV-424 LED
I.
ANSWER
Defendant First Funds LLC ("First Funds") hereby files this its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). Each of the paragraphs numbered 1-18 below corresponds to those paragraphs numbered 1-18 in the Amended Complaint. First Funds denies all allegations made in the Amended Complaint, whether express or implied, that are not specifically admitted below. 1. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 2 of 12
2.
First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 3. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 4. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 5. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 6. Complaint. 7. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to First Funds admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 8. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 9. The allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint assert legal
conclusions to which no response is necessary.
2
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 3 of 12
10.
First Funds denies that it has, at any time, offered for sale any services that
infringe the patent in this or any other judicial district, and notes that the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint assert legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 11. First Funds admits that, according to the face of U.S. Patent No. 6,941,281 (the
"`281 patent"), it is entitled "Automated Payment" and was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 6, 2005. First Funds is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies such allegations. 12. First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required, First Funds responds that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies them. 13. First Funds asserts and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1
through 12 herein. 14. First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required, First Funds denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint as they pertain to First Funds, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations as they pertain to any other Defendant.
3
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 4 of 12
15.
First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required, First Funds denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint as they pertain to First Funds, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations as they pertain to any other Defendant. 16. First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required, First Funds denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint as they pertain to First Funds, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations as they pertain to any other Defendant. 17. First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions and/or requests for affirmative relief that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required, First Funds denies each and every allegation set forth in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint as they pertain to First Funds, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations as they pertain to any other Defendant. First Funds further denies that AdvanceMe, Inc. is entitled to any affirmative relief requested in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint. 18. First Funds makes no response to the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Amended
Complaint to the extent such allegations constitute legal conclusions and/or requests for affirmative relief that require neither admission nor denial. To the extent a response is required,
4
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 5 of 12
First Funds responds that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18, and therefore denies such allegations. II. 19. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The claims of the `281 patent are invalid for failure to meet the requirements of
the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. (a) Prior to the time the alleged invention of the `281 patent was made by the
patentee, the alleged invention was known or used by others in this country, or was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country; (b) The alleged invention of the `281 patent was patented or described in a
printed publication in this or a foreign country or was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for said patent in the United States; (c) The alleged invention of the `281 patent was described in a patent granted
under a United States patent application filed by another before the alleged invention thereof by the patentee; (d) (e) The patentee did not invent the subject matter claimed in the `281 patent; Before the alleged invention of the `281 patent was made by the patentee,
the alleged invention was made, in this country, by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it; (f) The differences, if any, between the subject matter of the alleged invention
of the `281 patent and the prior art are such that each of the subject matters as a
5
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 6 of 12
whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matters pertain; (g) The `281 patent does not distinctly point out or distinctly claim the subject
matter which the patentee alleges constitutes the invention; (h) The `281 patent does not contain a written description of the alleged
invention, and of the manner and the process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same; and (i) The specification of the `281 patent does not describe corresponding
structure, material or acts for the elements in the claims of the `281 patent which are expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof. 20. First Funds has not infringed, induced infringement or contributed to the
infringement of any valid claim, if any, of the `281 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. III. COUNTERCLAIMS
Without admitting any of the allegations of the Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Permanent Injunction other than those expressly admitted herein, and without prejudice to First Funds' right to plead additional counterclaims as the facts of the matter warrant, First Funds hereby asserts the following counterclaims against Plaintiff. 1. First Funds is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of
Connecticut having its corporate offices at 2 Sound View Drive, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830.
6
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 7 of 12
2.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its principal place of business at 600 TownPark Lane, Suite 500, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. These counterclaims arise under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the
Patent Laws of the United States and, more particularly, under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and Title 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., respectively. Jurisdiction is based on Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 and 2201. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and § 1400(b). 5. Plaintiff alleges that, based upon agreements, it is the owner of all right, title, and
interest in the `281 patent. 6. Plaintiff has asserted claims for patent infringement against First Funds and has
filed this suit against First Funds in this Court for such alleged infringement. 7. There exists an actual justiciable controversy between First Funds and Plaintiff
concerning the validity and alleged infringement of the `281 patent based upon Plaintiff's allegations of patent infringement. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment Invalidity of the `281 Patent) 8. repeated here. 9. The claims of the `281 patent are invalid for failure to meet the requirements of First Funds incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-7 above as though fully
the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112:
7
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 8 of 12
(a)
Prior to the time the alleged invention of the `281 patent was made by the
patentee, the alleged invention was known or used by others in this country, or was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country; (b) The alleged invention of the `281 patent was patented or described in a
printed publication in this or a foreign country or was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for said patent in the United States; (c) The alleged invention of the `281 patent was described in one or more
patents granted under a United States patent application filed by another before the alleged invention thereof by the patentee; (d) (e) The patentee did not invent the subject matter claimed in the `281 patent; Before the alleged invention of the `281 patent was made by the patentee,
the alleged invention was made, in this country, by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it; (f) The differences, if any, between the subject matter of the alleged invention
of the `281 patent and the prior art are such that each of the subject matters as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matters pertain; (g) The `281 patent does not distinctly point out or distinctly claim the
subject matter which the patentee alleges constitutes the invention; (h) The `281 patent does not contain a written description of the alleged
invention, and of the manner and the process of making and using it, in such full,
8
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 9 of 12
clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same; and (i) The specification of the `281 patent does not describe corresponding
structure, material or acts for the elements in the claims of the `281 patent which are expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material or acts in support thereof. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment Non-Infringement of the `281 Patent) 10. repeated here. 11. First Funds has not infringed, induced infringement or contributed to the First Funds incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-9 above as though fully
infringement of any valid claim, if any, of the `281 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. IV. 12. EXCEPTIONAL CASE
This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and, as such, First Funds is
entitled to recover from the Plaintiff First Funds' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, First Funds respectfully requests that the Court grant it the following relief: (a) The entry of judgment for First Funds, dismissing Plaintiff's claims for relief in their entirety, with prejudice and costs; (b) a declaration that the claims of the `281 patent are invalid;
9
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 10 of 12
(c)
a declaration that First Funds has not and does not infringe any claim of the `281 patent and that First Funds is not liable for inducing or contributing to the infringement of any claim of the `281 patent;
(d) (e) (f)
a declaration that this case is exceptional; an award of costs and attorney fees to First Funds; and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Douglas R. McSwane, Jr. _____ Willem G. Schuurman Texas State Bar No. 17855200 Adam V. Floyd Texas State Bar No. 00790699 Joseph D. Gray Texas State Bar No. 24045970 VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746 Phone: (512) 542-8400 Fax: (512) 236-3476 - and William B. Dawson Texas State Bar No. 05606300 VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. Trammell Crow Center 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Phone: (214) 220-7700 Fax: (214) 220-7716 - and
10
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 11 of 12
Douglas R. McSwane, Jr. Texas State Bar No. 13861300 POTTER MINTON, P.C. 110 North College 500 Plaza Tower Tyler, Texas 75702 Phone: (903) 597-8311 Fax: (903) 593-0846 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FIRST FUNDS, LLC
11
Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED
Document 38
Filed 04/24/2006
Page 12 of 12
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). Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail this 24th day of April 2006. /s/ Douglas R. McSwane, Jr. _______
12
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?