Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Filing 55

Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC's ANSWER to 53 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of Scottrade, Inc. (Second Amended Complaint) by Aloft Media, LLC.(Rodgers, Matthew)

Aloft Media, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

Doc. 55

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 § § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED § § § §

PLAINTIFF ALOFT MEDIA, LLC'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT SCOTTRADE, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Aloft Media, LLC ("Aloft") responds to each of the numbered paragraphs of the counterclaims of Scottrade, Inc. ("Scottrade"), as set forth in its answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement as follows: COUNTERCLAIMS 49. Aloft admits that Scottrade purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through

48 of its answer and affirmative defenses but denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. PARTIES 50. 51. Admitted. Admitted. Jurisdiction and Venue 52. 53. Aloft admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, otherwise denied. Admitted.

Dockets.Justia.com

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Admitted. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Aloft admits that a controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment

jurisdiction but denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. Count One ­ Declaratory Relief Regarding Non-Infringement of `898 Patent 61. Aloft admits that Scottrade re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs of its

counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 62. 63. 64. 65. Denied. Denied. Denied. Aloft admits that an actual controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment

jurisdiction but denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 66. Aloft admits that Scottrade seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement but

denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. Count Two ­ Declaratory Relief Regarding Non-Infringement of `910 Patent 67. Aloft admits that Scottrade re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs of its

counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein.

2

68. 69. 70. 71.

Denied. Denied. Denied. Aloft admits that an actual controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment

jurisdiction but denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 72. Aloft admits that Scottrade seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement but

denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. Count Three ­ Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of `898 Patent 73. Aloft admits that Scottrade re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs of its

counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 74. 75. 76. Denied. Denied. Aloft admits that an actual controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment

jurisdiction but denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 77. Aloft admits that Scottrade seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity but denies that

Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. To the extent that Scottrade's reference to the "unenforceability" of the `898 patent is intended to raise a counterclaim based upon inequitable conduct, Scottrade's claim is not pled with the specificity required by F.R.C.P. 9 and should be dismissed. Count Four ­ Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of `910 Patent

3

78.

Aloft admits that Scottrade re-alleges the allegations of the previous paragraphs of its

counterclaims, but Aloft denies the allegations in those paragraphs unless specifically admitted herein. 79. 80. 81. Denied. Denied. Aloft admits that an actual controversy exists for purposes of declaratory judgment

jurisdiction but denies that Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. 82. Aloft admits that Scottrade seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity but denies that

Scottrade's counterclaims have any merit whatsoever. To the extent that Scottrade's reference to the "unenforceability" of the `910 patent is intended to raise a counterclaim based upon inequitable conduct, Scottrade's claim is not pled with the specificity required by F.R.C.P. 9 and should be dismissed. Aloft denies that Scottrade is entitled to any relief, and specifically denies that Scottrade is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraphs A-M of Scottrade's Prayer for Relief. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Aloft Media, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right. Dated: December 30, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Matt Rodgers__________________ Eric M. Albritton Texas Bar No. 00790215 Adam Biggs Texas Bar No. 24051753 Matthew C. Harris Texas Bar No. 24059904
4

ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] T. John Ward, Jr. State Bar No. 00794818 Ward & Smith Law Firm P.O. Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606-1231 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 903-757-2323 [e-mail] Danny L. Williams Texas Bar No. 21518050 Christopher N. Cravey Texas Bar No. 24034398 Matthew R. Rodgers Texas Bar No. 24041802 Michael A. Benefield Indiana Bar No. 24560-49 WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Counsel for 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 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 30th day of December, 2009.

__/s/ Connie Kuykendall________

6