Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 294

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER to 285 Amended Complaint,,, COUNTERCLAIM against Eolas Technologies Incorporated by Rent-A-Center, Inc..(Yee, Jeffrey)

IN TIIE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION
Eolas Technologies Incorporated,

Plaintiff,
v.
Adobe Systems Inc.o Amazon.com, Inc. Apple Inc., Blockbuster Inc., CDW Cor?, Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc.o Frito-Layr Inc., The Go Daddy Groupr Inc., Google fnc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depotr Inc., Perot Systems Cot?, Playboy Enterprises Internationa[ fnc., Rent-A-Center, fnc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Texas Instmments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC, Defendants

s s s s
$

s s
$

s s s s s s s
$ $

$

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

s
$

DEFENDANT RENT.A.CENTER, INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANS\ilER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEI\DED COMPLAINT
Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. ("RAC") hereby submits its First Amended Answer to

Eolas Technologies Incorporated's ("Eolas"
("Complaint," Dkt. 285):

or "Plaintiff') First Amended Complaint

ANSWER

I.

PARTIES

l.

RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations contained in Paragraph

I of the Complaint

and, therefore, denies them.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page I

2.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph2 and,, therefore, denies them.

3.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies them.

4.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 4 and, therefore, denies them.

5.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 5 and, therefore, denies them.

6.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies them.

7.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page2

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 7 and, therefore, denies them.

8.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 8 and, therefore, denies them.

9.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph I

I

and, therefore, denies them.

10.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph l0 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph I I

I

and, therefore, denies them.

l.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph I I of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

t{AC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph I

I

and, therefore, denies them.

12.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks
sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 12 and,therefore, denies them.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page 3

13.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph l3 and, therefore, denies them.

14.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph l4 and, therefore, denies them.

15.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 15 and, therefore, denies them.

16.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

RAC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph l6 and, therefore, denies them.

17.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 17 and, therefore, denies them.

18. 19.

RAC admits to the allegations contained in Paragraph l8 of the Complaint.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

RAC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page 4

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph

l9

and, therefore, denies them.

20.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph20 and, therefore, denies them.

21.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2l of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph2l and, therefore, denies them.

22.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

RAC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph22 and, therefore, denies them.

23.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

RAC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph23 and, therefore, denies them.

II. 24.
set forth here.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

RAC incorporates its responses contained in Paragraphs l-23 as though fully

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEN DED COMPLAINT

Page 5

25.

RAC admits that the Complaint includes claims of patent infringement that

arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. $
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

l0l et seq. RAC admits that this

26.

RAC admits that it is subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction. Except

as

expressly admitted herein, RAC lacks suffrcient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph26 and, therefore, denies them.

27.

RAC admits that venue is proper with respect to RAC. Except as expressly

admitted herein, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph2T

and, therefore, denies them.

III. 28.
set forth here.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

RAC incorporates its responses contained in Paragraphs l-27 as though fully

29.

From the face of the United States Patents Nos. 5,838,906 ("the '906 Patent) and

7,599,985 ("the '985 Patent"), the

title and date of

issuance appears

to be as alleged in

Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. Except as stated herein, RAC lacks suffìcient knowledge or

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 and,
therefore, denies them.

30. 31.

RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 and, therefore, denies them.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph

3

I of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph32 and, therefore, denies them.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO

Pageó

32.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 33 and, therefore, denies them.

33.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 34 and, therefore, denies them.

34.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 35 and, therefore, denies them.

35.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 36 and, therefore, denies them.

36.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph3T and, therefore, denies them.

37.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PageT

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 38 and, therefore, denies them.

38.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph

4l

and, therefore, denies them.

39.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 41 and, therefore, denies them.

40.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to

RAC.

Moreover, RAC lacks

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph

4l

and, therefore, denies them.

41.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph

4l of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies them.

42.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 43 and, therefore, denies them.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page 8

43.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 44 and, therefore, denies them.

44.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 45 and, therefore, denies them.

45.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 46 and, therefore, denies them.

46.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 47 and, therefore, denies them.

47.

RAC denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 47, including but not limited
and/or

to the allegations that it has directly and/or indirectly infringed (by inducement

contributory infringement), or is continuing to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the '906
Patent and/or the '985 Patent.

48.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page 9

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 49 and, therefore, denies them.

49.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 50 and, therefore, denies them.

50.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph

5l

and, therefore, denies them.

51.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5l of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 52 and, therefore, denies them.

52.

RAC is not required to answer to the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of

the Complaint because the allegations are not directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in Paragraph 53 and, therefore, denies them.

53.

RAC denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint to the

extent that the allegations are directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge

or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph
directed at Defendants other than RAC, and therefore, denies them.

53

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page

l0

54.

RAC denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint to the

extent that the allegations are directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge

or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph 54
directed at Defendants other than RAC, and therefore, denies them.

55.

RAC denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint to the

extent that the allegations are directed to FIAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge

or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph
directed at Defendants other than RAC, and therefore, denies them.

55

56.

RAC denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint to the

extent that the allegations are directed to RAC. Moreover, RAC lacks sufficient knowledge

or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph
directed at Defendants other than RAC, and therefore, denies them.

56

PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

57.
RAC.

RAC denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of its requests for relief against

DEFENSES

58.

RAC's Defenses are set forth below. RAC undertakes the burden of proof only

as to those defenses as required by law regardless of how such defenses are denominated
herein. RAC reserves the right to amend its Answer to add additional Defenses.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page I

I

FIRST DEFENSE

59.

RAC has not and does not directly or indirectly (by inducement, contributory

infringement, or otherwise) inûinge any of the claims of the '906 Patent or the'985 Patent either

literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. SECOND DEFENSE

60.

The '906 Patent and the '985 Patent are invalid or void for failing to satisff the

conditions of patentability as set forth in 35 U.S.C $$ 100,

l0l,

102, I 03 and/or I I 2.

THIRD DEFENSE

6t.

Plaintiff is estopped from construing any valid claim of the'906 Patent or the

'985 Patent to be infringed literally or by the Doctrine of Equivalents by any act of RAC due to the disclosures of prior art or to the admissions or statements made to the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office during prosecution of the patents in suit or because of the disclosure or
language of the specification or claims thereof.

FOI.JRTH DEFENSE

62.

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages to the extent that Plaintiff, or

any predecessors in interest to the '906 or the '985 Patent, or licensees thereof, failed to
properly mark any of their relevant products as required by 35 U.S.C. $287 or otherwise give
proper notice that RAC's actions actually infringed the '906 or the '985 Patent. RAC is not liable

to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have been performed before RAC received notice that it was allegedly infringing the '906 and/or the '985 Patent.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER, INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page12

FIFTH DEFENSE

63.
herein.

RAC incorporates its responses as set forth above as though fully set forth

64.

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that RAC indirectly infringes, either by

contributory infringement or inducement, RAC is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have
been performed before RAC knew that its actions would cause the indirect infringement.

SD(TH DEFENSE

65.

Plaintiffs claims against RAC are improper to the extent that any allegedly

infringing products are directly or indirectly provided to F(AC or by RAC to an entity having
an express or implied license to the '906 and/or the '985 Patent.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

66. On information

and belief, Plaintiffs patent rights with respect to any

allegedly infringing products are exhausted by virtue of an express or implied license to the

'906 and/or the '985 Patent to one or more third parties.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

67.

Plaintiff is not entitled to any injunctive relief as demanded because any injury

to Plaintiff is neither immediate or irreparable, and Plaintiff has adequate remedies at law.

I\INTH DEIMNSE

68.

The '985 Patent is invalid and/or unenforceable under the doctrine of

prosecution laches.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMEN DED COMPLAINT

Page 13

TENTH DEFENSE

69.

On information and belief, and subject to further amendments as RAC obtains

more information during discovery, the '906 Patent and the '985 Patent are unenforceable as a
result of inequitable conduct.

70.

On information and belief, as recited in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Miuosoft

Corp.,399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Michael D. Doyle (Doyle), one of the inventors of the'906
Patent, knew of a browser named Viola ("Viola Browser") yet failed to disclose any information regarding that reference to the United States Patent and Trademark Offrce (PTO).

71.

On information and belief, on August 31,1994, Doyle asserted in apress release

that researchers at the University of California had o'created software for embedding interactive program objects within hypermedia documents." That same day, V/ei contacted Doyle via e-mail

in response to the press release. Wei alleged that his demonstration of Viola (version DX34) to
Sun Microsystems engineers

in May 1993 exhibited a way to

embed interactive objects and

transport them over the web. Wei directed Doyle in his August 31,1994 e-mail to a document he

had prepared about Viola (the "Viola paper"), which was available on the Intemet at least by

August 13,1994. Doyle downloaded and read the Viola paper. In a later email exchange, Doyle
attempted to obtain Wei's concession that he was not the first to invent the method for embedding

interactive program objects within hypermedia documents. Additionally, Doyle asserted in the email exchange that'Wei's invention was different from Doyle's invention.

72.

The Federal Circuit has held that o'Wei's May 7,1993 demonstration to two Sun

Microsystems employees without confidentiality agreements was a public use under [35 U.S.C.

$102(b)]." Eolas Technologies,399 F.3d 1325, 1335. Moreover, the Federal Circuit held that
reasonable

a

jury could find at least claims I and 6 of the '906 patent obvious in light of the Viola

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page

l4

Browser; and a district court could find that Doyle had committed inequitable conduct by failing to disclose the Viola Browser to the PTO. Id. at 1335-36.

73.

On information and belief, on October 17, 1994, the University of California filed

the'906 patent application. In 1998, before issuance of the'906 patent, Doyle performed more
research on Viola and made a folder labeled "Viola

stuff." This folder included

press releases

of

two "beta" versions of Viola from February and March of 1994.

74.

Mr. Doyle and the attorneys prosecuting the application for the '906 Patent owed

a

duty of candor to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") in connection with the
prosecution of the'906 Patent. Mr. Doyle and/or the attorneys prosecuting the application for the

'906 Patent violated their duty of candor by, on information and belief, intentionally failing to
disclose the Viola browser to the PTO during the prosecution of the '906 Patent. The Viola browser would have been material to the prosecution of the '906 Patent. Therefore, the '906
Patent is unenforceable.

75.

This violation of the duty of candor carries through to each of the applications

claiming priority to the application for the '906 Patent, including the '985 Patent. The '906 Patent
and the '985 Patent share the same specifications. On July 20, 2004, the PTO rejected the claims

pending in the application that issued as the '985 Patent under the doctrine of statutory doublepatenting and obviousness-type double patenting. The owner of the '985 Patent cancelled one pending claim and filed a terminal disclaimer for the remaining claims in order to overcome the double-patenting rejections.

It was not argued that the pending claims were patentably distinct

from the claims of the '906 Patent. Therefore, the '985 Patent is unenforceable.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page

l5

ELEVENTH DEF'ENSE

76.

To the extent that Plaintiffs claims are based on acts performed by the Microsoft

Explorer browser or a user's use thereof, there can be no direct, and, therefore, no indirect
infringement due to Microsoft's purported license to the'906 Patent and/or the '985 Patent.

T\ilELFTH DEFENSE

77.
hands.

Plaintiff s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of laches and/or unclean

COI]NTERCLAIMS

78.
herein.

RAC incorporates its responses as set forth above as though fully set forth

79.

RAC has not directly or indirectly infringed, contributed to or induced

infringement of any valid or enforceable claim of the'906 Patent or the '985 Patent, and has not
otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. ç271.

80.
and

The '906 Patent and the '985 Patent, and every claim thereot are invalid for
103

failing to meet the conditions for patentability as set forth in 35 U.S.C. $$100, 101, 102,

ll2.

81.

An actual controversy exists between RAC and Plaintiff concerning the alleged

infringement and validity
Complaint herein.

of the '906 Patent and the '985 Patent by virtue of Plaintiffls

82. 83.

RAC is entitled to judgment from this Court that no claim of either the '906

Patent or the '985 Patent has been infringed by RAC, and that all claims are invalid.

This is an exceptional case entitling RAC to an award of its attorney's fees

incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. $285.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO

Page 16

84.

RAC continues to investigate this matter and reserves the right to amend its

Answer and/or Counterclaims to assert any additional defenses or counterclaims that come to
light upon further investigation and discovery. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE RAC prays that:

85. 86.
'985 Patent;

the Court dismiss the Complaint against RAC with prejudice; the Court declare that RAC has not and does not infringe the '906 Patent or the

87. 88.
against RAC;

the Court declare that the '906 Patent and the '985 Patent are invalid;

the Court declare that Eolas is not entitled to any remedy or relief whatsoever

89. 90.

the Court award RAC its costs, together with reasonable attorneys fees and all
case under 35 U.S.C. $285; and

of its expenses for this suit because this is an exceptional

the Court award RAC such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper

at law or in equity.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO

PagelT

Dated: June 3,2009.

Respectfully submitted,

/.s/.Ieffrev F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (admittedpro hac vice)

[e-mail] Jeffrey F. Yee (admiuedpro hac více) [e-mail] GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, California 90404 Telephone: (3 I 0) 586-7700 Facsimile: (3 10) 586-7800
Christopher M. Joe chris j oe@bj cipl aw. com Brian Carpenter brian.carpenterb@bj ciplaw. com Eric W. Buether eric.buethere@bj ciplaw. com Buether Joe & Calpentern LLP 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone : [phone] Facsimile: (21 4) 63 5 -1842

ATTOR}IEYS FOR DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTE& INC.

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO

Page 18

CTRÎTFICATE OFSERVICE
The r¡ndersigned 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 CN{/ECF
system per Local Rule CV-5(aX3) this 3rd day of June 2010. Any other counsel of record

will

be served by facsimile transmission and/or electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-S(d).

/.c/.Ielfrev F Yee Jeffrey F. Yee

DEFENDANT RENT-A-CENTER,INC.'S FIRST AMENDED ANSIilER TO PLATNTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Page 19