Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 44

Plaintiff's ANSWER to 41 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of Google, Inc. by Aloft Media, LLC.(Rodgers, Matthew)

Download PDF
Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc. Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC. Defendant. Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-440-LED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE, INC. Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC ("Aloft") responds to each of the numbered paragraphs of the counterclaims of Google, Inc. ("Google"), as set forth in its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("Answer and Counterclaims"), as follows: THE PARTIES 1. 2. Admitted. Aloft admits that it is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 211 W. Tyler Street, Suite C-1, Longview, Texas 75601. Aloft denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. Aloft admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Otherwise, denied. Admitted. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 5. Admitted. Dockets.Justia.com 6. 7. Denied. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment jurisdiction but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. COUNT ONE Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,194,691 8. Aloft admits that Google purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-7 of its Answer and Counterclaims but denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 9. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment jurisdiction but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 10. Aloft admits that Google contends that a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its rights regarding the `691 patent but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 11. 12. Denied. Denied. COUNT TWO Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,194,691 13. Aloft admits that Google purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-12 of its Answer and Counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 14. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment jurisdiction but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 2 15. Aloft admits that Google contends that a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its rights regarding the `691 patent but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 16. 17. Denied. Denied. COUNT THREE Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,117,443 18. Aloft admits that Google purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-17 of its Answer and Counterclaims but denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 19. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment jurisdiction but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 20. Aloft admits that Google contends that a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its rights regarding the `443 patent but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 21. 22. Denied. Denied. COUNT FOUR Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,117,443 23. Aloft admits that Google purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-22 of its Answer and Counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 3 24. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment jurisdiction but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 25. Aloft admits that Google contends that a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Google may ascertain its rights regarding the `443 patent but denies that Google's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 26. 27. Denied. Denied. Aloft denies that Google is entitled to any relief, and specifically denies that Google is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraphs a-i of Google's Prayer for Relief. WHEREFORE, Aloft respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment denying and dismissing Google's counterclaims, and that the Court enter judgment in favor of Aloft as requested in Aloft's First Amended Complaint. Dated: June 22, 2009 Respectfully submitted, __/s/_Matt Rodgers______________ Eric M. Albritton Texas Bar No. 00790215 Adam A. Biggs Texas Bar No. 24051753 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 ema@emafirm.com aab@emafirm.com 4 Craig Tadlock Texas State Bar No. 00791766 TADLOCK LAW FIRM 311 Touchdown Drive Irving, Texas 75063 Telephone: (214) 663-4900 craig@tadlocklawfirm.com Thomas John Ward, Jr. Texas Bar No. 00794818 WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM P O Box 1231 Longview, TX 75606-1231 Telephone: (903) 757-6400 Facsimile: (903) 757-2323 jw@jwfirm.com Danny L. Williams Texas Bar No. 24041802 Christopher N. Cravey Texas Bar No. 24034398 Matthew R. Rodgers Texas Bar No. 24041802 Michael A. Benefield Indiana State Bar No. 24560-49 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: (713)934-4060 Facsimile: (713) 934-7011 danny@wmalaw.com ccravey@wmalaw.com mrodgers@wmalaw.com mbenefield@wmalaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ALOFT MEDIA, LLC 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 22nd day of June, 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 facsimile and or U.S. Mail on this same date. /s/ Connie Kuykendall________ Connie Kuykendall

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?