Motorola Inc v. Research In Motion Limited et al

Filing 30

Motorola Inc v. Research In Motion Limited et al

Doc. 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

MOTOROLA, INC., Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION Defendants.

Case No. 2:08 CV 69 (TJW) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Judge: Hon. T. John Ward

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Pursuant to Rules 8, 12, and 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, defendants Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation (collectively "RIM") answer the allegations of Motorola Incorporated's ("Motorola") First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (the "Amended Complaint") as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. RIM admits that Motorola has alleged patent infringement in this action. While

RIM does not contest subject matter jurisdiction, RIM believes that no answer is required to the remaining allegations contained in the paragraph, which merely state conclusions of law. However to the extent an answer is required, RIM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. 2. 3. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. RIM admits that Research in Motion Limited, a Canadian company, does not

maintain a resident agent in this district. While RIM does not contest personal jurisdiction, RIM believes that no answer is required to the remaining allegations contained in the paragraph,
US1DOCS 6603585v2

Dockets.Justia.com

which merely state conclusions of law. However to the extent an answer is required, RIM denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint. THE PARTIES 4. Upon information and belief, RIM admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the

Amended Complaint. 5. 6. RIM admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies that Research In Motion Corporation has its principal place of

business at 122 West John Carpenter Parkway, Suite 430, Irving Texas 75039. RIM otherwise admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint. BACKGROUND Asserted Patents 7. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,075,684 (the "`684 patent") is titled

"SELECTIVE CALL MESSAGE MANAGEMENT"; that the `684 patent indicates that it was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on December 24, 1991; that the `684 patent names Michael J. DeLuca as a purported inventor; and that an uncertified copy of the `684 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. 8. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,157,391 (the "`391 patent") is titled

"APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING A PLURALITY OF FUNCTION INDICATORS IN A SELECTIVE CALL RECEIVER"; that the `391 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on October 20, 1992; that the `391 patent names Randi F. Weitzen as a purported inventor; and that an uncertified copy of the `391 patent is attached to the Amended -2US1DOCS 6603585v2

Complaint as Exhibit B. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. 9. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,359,317 (the "`317 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SELECTIVELY STORING A PORTION OF A RECEIVED MESSAGE IN A SELECTIVE CALL RECEIVER"; that the `317 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on October 25, 1994; that the `317 patent names Fernando A. Gomez and Mark T. Stair as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `317 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit C. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint. 10. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,394,140 (the "`140 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PREPROGRAMMED CALL-BACK-NUMBERDETERMINED ALERT"; that the `140 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on February 28, 1995; that the `140 patent names Pho-T'in Wong, Allen J. Weidler, and William J. Burke as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `140 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit D. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 11. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,612,682 (the "`682 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING UTILIZATION OF A PROCESS ADDED TO A PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE"; that the `682 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on March 18, 1997; that the `682 patent names Michael J. Deluca, George W. Smoot, and Douglas R. Kraul as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of

-3US1DOCS 6603585v2

the `682 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit E. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. 12. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,706,211 (the "`211 patent") is titled

"MESSAGE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM"; that the `211 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on January 6, 1998; that the `211 patent names John D. Beletic, Vick T. Cox, and John A. Davis as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `211 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit F. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint. 13. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,764,899 (the "`899 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMMUNICATING AN OPTIMIZED REPLY"; that the `899 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on June 9, 1998; that the `899 patent names Gene Eggleston, Mitch Hansen, and Anthony Rzany as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `899 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit G. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. 14. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,771,353 (the "`353 patent") is titled

"SYSTEM HAVING VIRUTAL SESSION MANAGER USED SESSIONLESS-ORIENTED PROTOCOL TO COMMUNICATE WITH USER DEVICE VIA WIRELESS CHANNEL AND SESSION-ORIENTED PROTOCOL TO COMMUNICATE WITH HOST SERVER"; that the `353 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on June 23, 1998; that the `353 patent names Gene Eggleston and Mitch Hansen as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `353 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit H. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint. -4US1DOCS 6603585v2

15.

RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,958,006 (the "`006 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMMUNICATING SUMMARIZED DATA"; that the `006 patent indicates that it was issued on September 28, 1999 by the USPTO; that the `006 patent names Gene Eggleston, Mitch Hansen, and Anthony Rzany as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `006 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit I. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint. 16. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 5,974,447 (the "`447 patent") is titled

"METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COUPLING A SELECTIVE CALL RECEIVER TO WIDELY DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION SOURCES"; that the `447 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on October 26, 1999; that the `447 patent names Gregory L. Cannon, David P. Kilp, and Nick P. Lagen as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `447 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit J. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint. 17. RIM admits that United States Patent No. 6,101,531 (the "`531 patent") is titled

"SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATING USER-SELECTED CRITERIA FILTER PREPARED AT WIRELESS CLIENT TO COMMUNICATION SERVER FOR FILTERING DATA TRANSFERRED FROM HOST TO SAID WIRELESS CLIENT"; that the `531 patent indicates that it was issued by the USPTO on August 8, 2000; that the `531 patent names Gene Eggleston and Mitch Hansen as purported inventors; and that an uncertified copy of the `531 patent is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit K. RIM denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint.

-5US1DOCS 6603585v2

18.

RIM admits that it has known of the existence of the `684 patent, the `391 patent,

the `317 patent, `140 patent, the `211 patent, the `899 patent, the `353 patent, the `006 patent, the `447 patent, and the `531 patent since January 1, 2008. CLAIM ONE (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,075,684) 19. 20. 21. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM TWO (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,157,391) 22. 23. 24. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM THREE (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,359,317) 25. 26. 27. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM FOUR (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,394,140) 28. 29. 30. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM FIVE (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,682) 31. 32. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint. -6US1DOCS 6603585v2

CLAIM SIX (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,706,211) 33. 34. 35. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM SEVEN (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,899) 36. 37. 38. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM EIGHT (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,771,353) 39. 40. 41. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM NINE (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,958,006) 42. 43. 44. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM TEN (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,974,447) 45. 46. 47. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint. CLAIM ELEVEN (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,101,531) 48. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint. -7US1DOCS 6603585v2

49. 50.

RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint. RIM denies the allegations in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint. MOTOROLA'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Motorola's prayer for relief does not state any factual allegations, and thus no response is required. RIM further denies that Motorola is entitled to any relief. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 51. Motorola is not entitled to any relief against RIM because RIM has not directly or

indirectly infringed the `684 patent, the `391 patent, the `317 patent, `140 patent, the `682 patent, the `211 patent, the `899 patent, the `353 patent, the `006 patent, the `447 patent, or the `531 patent (collectively the "Motorola patents"). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 52. Motorola's claims are barred, in full or in part, because the claims of the Motorola

patents are invalid and/or unenforceable for failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 53. One or more of Motorola's patents are unenforceable against RIM because of

estoppel, laches, waiver, or other applicable equitable doctrines.

-8US1DOCS 6603585v2

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 54. RIM is exempt from liability for infringement in whole or in part to the extent that

any of the alleged inventions described in and allegedly covered by the Motorola patents are used, manufactured, or sold by or for RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 55. Motorola's right to seek damages is limited, including without limitation by 35

U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. Upon information and belief, Motorola has not previously marked its products or otherwise given notice to RIM of one or more of the Motorola patents. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 56. The Motorola patents are unenforceable as a result of patent misuse, including

Motorola's use of the patents as a coercive threat in an effort to extract unfair and unreasonable royalties from RIM for patents essential to various industry standards. As more fully set forth in the complaint captioned Research in Motion Limited, et al v. Motorola, Inc., Civil Action No. 308CV0284-G, filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) , Motorola's refusal to license its standards-essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, as it had promised to do in order to have its patents selected as the basis for an industry standard, constitutes a breach of Motorola's agreement and unlawful monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

-9US1DOCS 6603585v2

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 57. RIM reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case. COUNTERCLAIMS For its counterclaims against Motorola, RIM alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Counterclaim-plaintiff Research In Motion Limited is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of Canada, having a principal place of business at 295 Phillip Street, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3W8 Canada. Counterclaim-plaintiff Research In Motion Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 5000 Riverside Drive, Irving, Texas 75039. 2. Upon information and belief, counterclaim-defendant Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola")

is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and having a principal place of business at 1303 East Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196. At all times relevant to these counterclaims, Motorola conducted business in this District. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201. - 10 US1DOCS 6603585v2

4. 5.

Motorola is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. RIM denies that venue is proper for the claims asserted in Motorola's Amended

Complaint. For the reasons set forth in RIM's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), venue is most proper in the Northern District of Texas, where the parties have significant ongoing operations, where relevant witnesses and documents are located, and where licensing negotiations that resulted in the parties' dispute took place. However, to the extent that the Court determines venue is proper for Motorola's claims, venue is also proper for RIM's counterclaims. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `684 patent) 6. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `684 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `684 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 7. One or more of the claims of the `684 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 8. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `684 patent, and that the `684 patent is invalid and unenforceable.

- 11 US1DOCS 6603585v2

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `391 patent) 9. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `391 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `391 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 10. One or more of the claims of the `391 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 11. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `391 patent, and that the `391 patent is invalid and unenforceable. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `317 patent) 12. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `317 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `317 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 13. One or more of the claims of the `317 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or

- 12 US1DOCS 6603585v2

conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 14. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `317 patent, and that the `317 patent is invalid and unenforceable. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `140 patent) 15. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `140 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `140 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 16. One or more of the claims of the `140 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 17. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `140 patent, and that the `140 patent is invalid and unenforceable. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `682 patent) 18. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `682 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions

- 13 US1DOCS 6603585v2

allegedly covered by the `682 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 19. One or more of the claims of the `682 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 20. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `682 patent, and that the `682 patent is invalid and unenforceable. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `211 patent) 21. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `211 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `211 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 22. One or more of the claims of the `211 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 23. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `211 patent, and that the `211 patent is invalid and unenforceable.

- 14 US1DOCS 6603585v2

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `899 patent) 24. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `899 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `899 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 25. One or more of the claims of the `899 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 26. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `899 patent, and that the `899 patent is invalid and unenforceable. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `353 patent) 27. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `353 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `353 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 28. One or more of the claims of the `353 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or

- 15 US1DOCS 6603585v2

conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 29. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `353 patent, and that the `353 patent is invalid and unenforceable. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `006 patent) 30. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `006 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `006 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 31. One or more of the claims of the `006 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 32. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `006 patent, and that the `006 patent is invalid and unenforceable. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `447 patent) 33. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `447 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions

- 16 US1DOCS 6603585v2

allegedly covered by the `447 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 34. One or more of the claims of the `447 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 35 RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `447 patent, and that the `447 patent is invalid and unenforceable. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Non-infringement, Invalidity, and Unenforceability of the `531 patent) 36. RIM has not directly or indirectly infringed and is not directly or indirectly

infringing the `531 patent, including because, and to the extent that, any of the alleged inventions allegedly covered by the `531 patent is used, sold, or manufactured by RIM, its suppliers, and/or its customers pursuant to a license. 37. One or more of the claims of the `531 patent are invalid and unenforceable for

failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. 38. RIM is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed and is not

infringing the `531 patent, and that the `531 patent is invalid and unenforceable.

- 17 US1DOCS 6603585v2

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, RIM requests the Court to enter a judgment in its favor and against Motorola as follows: a. b. c. Dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice; Declare that RIM has not infringed, and is not infringing the Motorola Declare that one or more of the claims of the Motorola patents are invalid,

patents; void, and/or unenforceable against RIM; d. e. Award RIM its costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys' fees Enter judgment against Motorola for such other and further relief as the

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL RIM demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION By its attorneys _____/s/_____________________________ Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. State Bar No. 07921800 Gillam & Smith LLP 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants and CounterclaimPlaintiffs Research In Motion Ltd. and Research In Motion Corporation

- 18 US1DOCS 6603585v2

Of Counsel: William F. Lee (admitted pro hac vice) Michelle D. Miller (admitted pro hac vice) Dominic E. Massa (admitted pro hac vice) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 [phone] Dated: April 10, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this notice was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 10th day of April, 2008.

/s/ Harry L. Gillam, Jr.

- 19 US1DOCS 6603585v2