Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 188

ANSWER to 114 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Eolas Technologies Incorporated.(McKool, Mike)

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Doc. 188

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff, vs. Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Argosy Publishing, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp., Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-00446-LED

JURY TRIAL

EOLAS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT THE GO DADDY GROUP INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated ("Eolas" or "Plaintiff") hereby replies to the counterclaims set forth in The Go Daddy Group Inc.'s ("Go Daddy") Answer and Counterclaims as follows: COUNTERCLAIMS The Parties 69. On information and belief, based solely on paragraph 11 of Go Daddy's

Answer and Counterclaims as pleaded by Go Daddy, Go Daddy is an Arizona corporation and has a principal place of business in Arizona. 1
Austin 55179v1

Dockets.Justia.com

70.

Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 70 of Go Daddy's Answer and

Counterclaims. Jurisdiction 71. Eolas admits that Go Daddy's counterclaims arise under the Patent Laws of the

United Sates, Title 35, United States Code. Eolas admits that the jurisdiction of this Court is proper over these counterclaims. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in

paragraph 71 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims. 72. Eolas admits that venue is proper in this District, and in the Tyler Division.

Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 72 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims. Count I Declaratory Relief Regarding Non-Infringement 73. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Go Daddy regarding the infringement of the `906 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 73 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims. 74. Paragraph 74 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a

statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 75. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Go Daddy regarding the infringement of the `985 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims.

2
Austin 55179v1

76.

Paragraph 76 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a

statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. Count II Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity 77. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Go Daddy regarding the validity of the `906 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 77 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims. 78. Paragraph 78 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a

statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. 79. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Go Daddy regarding the validity of the `985 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 79 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims. 80. Paragraph 80 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a

statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. Count III Declaratory Relief Regarding Uneforceability 81. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Go Daddy regarding the enforceability of the `906 patent and the `985 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 81 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims.

3
Austin 55179v1

82.

Paragraph 82 of Go Daddy's Answer and Counterclaims does not contain a

statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. To the extent any response is warranted, Eolas responds as follows: denied. GO DADDY'S REQUESTED RELIEF Eolas denies that Go Daddy is entitled to the relief requested in paragraphs A-K of its Answer and Counterclaims or any other relief on its Counterclaims. GO DADDY'S JURY DEMAND Go Daddy's jury demand does not contain a statement which warrants an affirmance or denial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated, prays for the following relief against Defendant The Go Daddy Group, Inc.: A. B. that all relief requested by Eolas in its Complaint be granted; that all relief requested by Go Daddy in its Answer and Counterclaims to

Plaintiff's Complaint be denied and that Go Daddy take nothing by way of its Counterclaims; C. that Go Daddy be ordered to pay the costs of this action (including all

disbursements) and attorney fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law; and D. such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As affirmative defenses, Eolas alleges as follows:

4
Austin 55179v1

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Go Daddy has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with respect to each cause of action set forth in its Answer and Counterclaims. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Go Daddy has failed to state facts and/or a legal basis sufficient to permit recovery of its attorneys' fees and/or expenses for defending this suit. OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Eolas hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon any other defense that may become available in this case and hereby reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert any such defense. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Eolas demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right before a jury.

5
Austin 55179v1

DATED: January 11, 2010.

Respectfully submitted, MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Mike McKool Mike McKool Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 13732100 [e-mail] Douglas Cawley Texas State Bar No. 04035500 [e-mail] Luke McLeroy Texas State Bar No. 24041455 [e-mail] MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone] Sam F. Baxter Texas State Bar No. 01938000 [e-mail] McKool Smith, P.C. 104 E. Houston St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box O Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone] Kevin L. Burgess Texas State Bar No. 24006927 [e-mail] Steven J. Pollinger Texas State Bar No. 24011919 [e-mail] Josh W. Budwin Texas State Bar No. 24050347 [e-mail] MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: [phone] Telecopier: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6

Austin 55179v1

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 services on this the 11TH day of January, 2010. Local Rule CV5(a)(3)(A).

/s/ Josh Budwin Josh Budwin

7
Austin 55179v1