Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Filing 128

Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC's ANSWER to 125 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of Defendant Fair Isaac Corp. by Aloft Media, LLC.(Albritton, Eric)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ORACLE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-304-LED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF ALOFT MEDIA, LLC'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT FAIR ISAAC CORP.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC ("Aloft") responds to each numbered paragraph of the Counterclaims of Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation ("FICO"), as set forth in Defendant Fair Isaac Corp.'s Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 125), as follows: I. 49. 50. PARTIES

Aloft admits the allegations of paragraph 49. Aloft admits the allegations of paragraph 50. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

51. 52.

Aloft admits the allegations of paragraph 51. Aloft admits the allegations of paragraph 52.

1

III.

COUNT ONE

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `898 Patent 53. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists between FICO and Aloft Aloft denies the

with respect to United States Patent No. 7,499,898 ("the `898 Patent"). remaining allegations of paragraph 53. 54.

Aloft admits that FICO purports to contend that a judicial declaration is necessary

and appropriate so that FICO may ascertain its rights regarding the `898 Patent. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 54. 55. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 55. IV. COUNT TWO

Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `898 Patent 56. Aloft restates and incorporates by reference each answer to paragraphs 49-55

above, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted therein. 57. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists between FICO and Aloft

with respect to the `898 Patent. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 57. 58. Aloft admits that FICO purports to contend that a judicial declaration is necessary

and appropriate so that FICO may ascertain its rights as to whether the claims of the `898 Patent are valid. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 58. 59. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 59. V. COUNT THREE

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `910 Patent 60. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists between FICO and Aloft Aloft denies the

with respect to United States Patent No. 7,593,910 ("the `910 Patent"). remaining allegations of paragraph 60. 2

61.

Aloft admits that FICO purports to contend that a judicial declaration is necessary

and appropriate so that FICO may ascertain its rights regarding the `910 Patent. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 61. 62. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 62. VI. COUNT FOUR

Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `910 Patent 63. Aloft restates and incorporates by reference each answer to paragraphs 49-62

above, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted therein. 64. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists between FICO and Aloft

with respect to the `910 Patent. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 64. 65. Aloft admits that FICO purports to contend that a judicial declaration is necessary

and appropriate so that FICO may ascertain its rights as to whether the claims of the `910 Patent are valid. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 65. 66. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 66. VII. COUNT FIVE

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of the `898 and `910 Patents 67. Aloft restates and incorporates by reference each answer to paragraphs 49-66

above, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted therein. 68. Aloft admits that an actual case or controversy exists between FICO and Aloft

with respect to the `898 and `910 Patents. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 68. 69. Aloft admits that FICO purports to contend that a judicial declaration is necessary

and appropriate so that FICO may ascertain its rights as to whether the claims of the `898 and `910 Patents are enforceable. Aloft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 69. 3

70. 71.

Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 70. Aloft admits that Michael W. Kusnic is a named inventor on the `898 Patent and

the `910 Patent. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 71, and therefore denies them. 72. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 72, and therefore denies them. 73. Aloft admits that a book entitled "Meeting of the Minds," authored by Vincent P. Aloft lacks knowledge or information

Barabba, refers to a "Dialogue Decision Process."

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 73, and therefore denies them. 74. Aloft admits that page 84 of Vincent Barabba's book "Meeting of the Minds"

contains the quote, "Dan Owen made significant contributions to the section on pages 84 through 88." Aloft also admits that Daniel L. Owen is a named inventor on the `898 and `910 Patents. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 74, and therefore denies them. 75. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 75, and therefore denies them. 76. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 76, and therefore denies them. 77. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 77, and therefore denies them. 78. Aloft admits that the file history for the `898 Patent purports to indicate that the

Examiner performed a search using the phrase "tornado diagram." Aloft lacks knowledge or

4

information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 78, and therefore denies them. 79. Aloft admits that a book entitled "Meeting of the Minds," authored by Vincent P. Aloft lacks knowledge or information

Barabba, refers to a "Dialogue Decision Process."

sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 79, and therefore denies them. 80. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 80, and therefore denies them. 81. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 81, and therefore denies them. 82. Aloft admits that the file history for the `910 Patent purports to indicate that the

Examiner performed a search that included, among other phrases, the phrases "tornado diagram" and "decision hierarchy display." Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 82, and therefore denies them. 83. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 83, and therefore denies them. 84. Aloft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of

the allegations in paragraph 84, and therefore denies them. 85. 86. 87. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 85. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 86. Aloft denies the allegations of paragraph 87. VIII. FICO'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Aloft denies that FICO is entitled to any relief, and specifically denies all the allegations and prayers for relief contained in paragraphs a-i of FICO's Prayer for Relief. 5

IX.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Aloft, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Aloft respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment denying and dismissing FICO's counterclaims, and that the Court enter judgment in favor of Aloft as requested in Aloft's Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 117), as amended or supplemented. Respectfully submitted,

___________________________ Eric M. Albritton Texas Bar No. 00790215 [e-mail] Adam A. Biggs Texas Bar No. 24051753 [e-mail] Debra Coleman Texas Bar No. 24059595 [e-mail] Matthew C. Harris Texas Bar No. 24059904 [e-mail] ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Thomas John Ward, Jr. Texas Bar No. 00794818 [e-mail] WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 6

Danny L. Williams Texas Bar No. 21518050 [e-mail] J. Mike Amerson Texas Bar No. 01150025 [e-mail] Jaison C. John Texas State Bar No. 24002351 [e-mail] Christopher N. Cravey Texas Bar No. 24034398 [e-mail] Matthew R. Rodgers Texas Bar No. 24041802 [e-mail] Michael A. Benefield Indiana Bar No. 24560-49 [e-mail] David Morehan Texas Bar No. 24065790 [e-mail] WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Aloft Media, 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 are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). 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 and/or fax, on this the 30th day of August 2010.

______________________________ Eric M. Albritton

7