Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ANSWER to #86 Amended Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC.(Baxter, Samuel)

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Doc. 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al. Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § §

CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269 Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COUNTERCLAIMS, AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC ("Bedrock") files this Reply to Defendant Google Inc.'s ("Google's") First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Jury Demand, served on September 28, 2009 (Dkt. No. 86). All allegations not expressly admitted are denied. Paragraphs 1-21, as well as Google's statement denying that Bedrock is entitled to Bedrock's requested relief, do not require a response. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Bedrock incorporates by reference the allegations in its Complaint for Patent

Infringement in response to each and every of Google's Affirmative Defenses. 2. Defense. 3. Defense. Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Second Affirmative Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's First Affirmative

Dockets.Justia.com

4. Defense. 5. Defense. 6. Defense. 7. Defense. 8. Defense. 9. Defense. 10. Defense. 11. Defense.

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Third Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Fourth Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Fifth Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Sixth Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Seventh Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Eighth Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Ninth Affirmative

Bedrock denies all allegations contained within Google's Tenth Affirmative

RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS 12. Bedrock incorporates by reference the allegations in its Complaint for Patent

Infringement in response to each and every of Google's Counterclaims. 13. 14. 15. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that this Court has jurisdiction as alleged in Paragraph 3 of the

Counterclaims but denies that Google is entitled to any relief requested.

16.

Bedrock admits venue for Google's counterclaims is proper in this district as

alleged in Paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims, but Bedrock denies that Google is entitled to any relief request and also denies that the case should be transferred to the Northern District of California. 17. 18. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that it asserts Google infringes the `120 Patent and an actual case

or controversy exists between the parties. Maybe insert that Bedrock denies Google's allegations of noninfringement and invalidity of the `120 Patent contained in this paragraph. 19. 20. 21. Paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims does not require a response. Bedrock admits the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that Google seeks a judicial declaration of noninfringement as

described in Paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims but denies that Google is entitled to any relief requested. 22. 23. 24. Paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims does not require a response. Bedrock admits the allegation of Paragraph 11 of the Counterclaims. Bedrock admits that Google seeks a judicial declaration of invalidity as described

in Paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims but denies that Google is entitled to any relief requested. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Bedrock incorporates by reference the Prayer for Relief set forth in Bedrock's Complaint for Patent Infringement. Bedrock denies that Google is entitled to any relief. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Bedrock respectfully demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.

DATED: October 16, 2009

Respectfully submitted, McKOOL SMITH, P.C. _/s/ Sam F. Baxter_________ Sam F. Baxter, Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. [e-mail] 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box 0 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Douglas A. Cawley Texas Bar No. 04035500 [e-mail] Theodore Stevenson, III Texas Bar No. 19196650 [e-mail] J. Austin Curry Texas Bar No. 24059636 [e-mail] McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 214-978-4044 Robert M. Parker Texas Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt Texas Bar No. 00787165 PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 903-533-9687 E-mail: [e-mail] E-mail: [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service on this, the 16th day of October, 2009. Local Rule CV53(a)(3)(A). /s/ Austin Curry Austin Curry