Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 189

ANSWER to 127 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Eolas Technologies Incorporated.(McKool, Mike)

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Doc. 189

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 OFFICE DEPOT, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated ("Eolas" or "Plaintiff") hereby replies to the counterclaims set forth in Office Depot, Inc.'s ("Office Depot") Answer and Counterclaims as follows: COUNTERCLAIMS The Parties 65. On information and belief, based solely on Office Depot's response to paragraph

16 of Eolas' Complaint, Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 65 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 1
Austin 55468v1

Dockets.Justia.com

66.

Eolas admits the allegations in paragraph 66 of Office Depot's Answer and

Counterclaims. Jurisdiction and Venue 67. Eolas admits that Office Depot'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. Eolas admits that venue is proper in this District, and in the Tyler Division. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 67 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 68. Eolas admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it. Except as so

admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 68 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. Count I Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '906 Patent 69. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Office Depot regarding the infringement of the `906 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 69 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 70. Paragraph 70 of Office Depots'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. 71. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 71 of Office Depot's Answer and

Counterclaims.

2
Austin 55468v1

Count II Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '906 Patent 72. Paragraph 72 of Office Depot'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. 73. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Office Depot regarding the validity of the `906 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 73 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 74. Paragraph 74 of Office Depots'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 denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of Office Depot's Answer and

Counterclaims. Count III Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the '985 Patent 76. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Office Depot regarding the infringement of the `985 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 76 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 77. Paragraph 77 of Office Depots'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. 78. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 78 of Office Depot's Answer and

Counterclaims.

3
Austin 55468v1

Count IV Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the '985 Patent 79. Paragraph 79 of Office Depot'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. 80. Eolas admits that there is an actual and justiciable controversy between Eolas and

Office Depot regarding the validity of the `985 patent. Except as so admitted, Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 80 of Office Depot's Answer and Counterclaims. 81. Paragraph 81 of Office Depots'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. 82. Eolas denies the allegations in paragraph 82 of Office Depot's Answer and

Counterclaims. OFFICE DEPOT'S REQUESTED RELIEF Eolas denies that Office Depot is entitled to the relief requested in paragraphs a-g of its Answer and Counterclaims or any other relief on its Counterclaims. OFFICE DEPOTS' JURY DEMAND Office Depot'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 Office Depot, Inc.: A. that all relief requested by Eolas in its Complaint be granted;

4
Austin 55468v1

B.

that all relief requested by Office Depot in its Answer and Counterclaims to

Plaintiff's Complaint be denied and that Office Depot take nothing by way of its Counterclaims; C. that Office Depot 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: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Office Depot has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with respect to each cause of action set forth its Answer and Counterclaims. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Office Depot 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 55468v1

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 55468v1

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 55468v1