Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1014

ANSWER to 891 Amended Complaint, Citigroup's Answer to Third Amended Complaint by Citigroup Inc..(Fuller, Michael)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 6:09-cv-00446-LED

CITIGROUP INC.’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup”) respectfully submits this Answer to Plaintiff’s
Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement as follows:
I.
1.

PARTIES

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 1.
2.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 2.
3.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 3.
4.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 4.
5.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 5.

6.

Citigroup admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 399 Park Avenue, New York, New York, but otherwise denies Plaintiff’s allegations
in paragraph 6.
7.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 7.
8.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 8.
9.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 9.
10.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 10.
11.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 11.
12.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 12.
13.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 13.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

In response to paragraph 14, Citigroup incorporates by reference its responses to

paragraphs 1-13 as if fully set forth herein.
15.

With respect to Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 15, Citigroup does not contest

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this matter. Citigroup otherwise

2

denies the allegations in paragraph 15 and specifically denies committing, or being liable for, any
act of infringement.
16.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 16 are directed against defendants other

than Citigroup, Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 16 are directed against
Citigroup, Citigroup does not contest personal jurisdiction with respect to this matter but
otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 16.
17.

Citigroup denies the allegations in paragraph 17.
III.

18.

[ALLEGED] PATENT INFRINGEMENT

In response to paragraph 18, Citigroup incorporates by reference its responses to

paragraphs 1-17 as if fully set forth herein.
19.

Citigroup admits only that the ‘906 Patent issued on November 17, 1998 and the

‘985 Patent issued on October 6, 2009. Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in paragraph 19.
20.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 20.
21.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 21.
22.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 22.
23.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 23.
24.

Citigroup denies Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 24.

3

25.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 25.
26.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 26.
27.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 27.
28.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 28.
29.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 29.
30.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 30.
31.

Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 31.
32.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 32 are directed against defendants other

than Citigroup, Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 32 are directed against
Citigroup, Citigroup denies the allegations.
33.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 33 are directed against defendants other

than Citigroup, Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 33 are directed against
Citigroup, Citigroup denies the allegations.

4

34.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 34 are directed against defendants other

than Citigroup, Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 34 are directed against
Citigroup, Citigroup denies the allegations.
35.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 35 are directed against defendants other

than Citigroup, Citigroup lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of those allegations. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 35 are directed against
Citigroup, Citigroup denies the allegations.
IV.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Citigroup denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in
paragraphs A-E of its Prayer for Relief, or to any relief whatsoever from Citigroup. Citigroup
specifically denies committing, or being liable for, any act of infringement.
V.

JURY DEMAND

No response is required to Plaintiff’s jury demand.
CITIGROUP ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
1.

Citigroup has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing any valid claim(s) of the ‘906 Patent or the ‘985 Patent.
2.

The claims of the ‘906 Patent and the ‘985 Patent are invalid, void and/or

unenforceable for failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and/or 112.
3.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of laches,

waiver, and/or estoppel.
4.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of unclean

hands.

5

5.

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

6.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to Plaintiff’s failure to

reasonably mitigate its damages, if any.
7.

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that any of the

allegedly infringing products are directly or indirectly provided to Citigroup from or by an entity
that has an express or implied license to the ‘906 patent or the ‘985 patent.
8.

Plaintiff’s claims against Citigroup are barred, in whole or in part, by licenses to

at least the following: Microsoft, Oracle (Sun), and Apple.
9.

Plaintiff’s claims for damages as against Citigroup are barred, in whole or in part,

by the doctrine of exhaustion.
10.

The asserted patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of inequitable conduct

and/or the doctrine of infectious unenforceability, and all causes of action based on those patents
also must be dismissed under the doctrine of unclean hands. The particularized factual bases
supporting this defense are set forth in the Expert Report submitted by Nicholas Godici on July
20, 2011 in this case, which is incorporated herein by reference. Additional factual bases are set
forth in the Amended Answer filed on behalf of co-defendant YouTube [Docket No. 797] at
Affirmative Defense 13, which is also incorporated herein by reference.
11.

Plaintiff’s claims against Citigroup are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine

of intervening rights.
//

6

Date: October 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ M. Scott Fuller
Edwin R. DeYoung
Texas Bar No. 05673000
Roy W. Hardin
Texas Bar No. 08968300
Roger Brian Cowie
Texas Bar No. 00783886
M. Scott Fuller
Texas Bar No. 24036607
Galyn Gafford
Texas Bar No. 24040938
LOCKE LORD LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
Dallas, Texas 75201-6776
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CITIGROUP INC.

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) this 11th day of October, 2011.

/s/ M. Scott Fuller

7