Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 40

Reply to Counterclaim by Counter Defendants Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc.. (Scheller, John)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN NOKIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. NOKIA CORPORATION and NOKIA INC., Counterclaim-Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-CV-249 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOKIA CORPORATION'S AND NOKIA INC.'S ANSWER TO APPLE INC.'S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERLCLAIMS Counterclaim-Defendants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, "Nokia") hereby respond to Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple Inc.'s ("Apple") First Amended Counterclaims as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1 1. Denied.

For convenience and clarity, Nokia's Answer utilizes the same headings as set forth in Apple's First Amended Counterclaims. In doing so, Nokia does not admit any of the allegations contained in the headings.

1

2.

Denied, except that Apple's Counterclaims purport to accuse Nokia of

infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,647 ("the `647 Patent"), 5,612,719 ("the `719 Patent"), 7,710,290 ("the `290 Patent"), 7,380,116 ("the `116 Patent"), 7,054,981 ("the `981 Patent"), 5,379,430 ("the `430 Patent"), and 7,760,559 ("the `559 Patent") (collectively "the Asserted Apple Patents"). Nokia denies that it has infringed any of the Asserted Apple Patents. PARTIES 3. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. 4. Denied, except that Apple sells products including personal computers (e.g.,

MacBook®s, Mac® Pro, iMac®s), portable digital music players (iPods®s), mobile communications devices (iPhone®s), the iPadTM, software, peripherals, networking solutions, digital content through the iTunes® Store. 5. Denied, except that Nokia Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Finland,

has its principal place of business in Finland, and that Nokia Inc. is a wholly owned United States subsidiary of Nokia Corporation incorporated in Delaware. 6. iPhone®. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. 8. 9. Denied, except that this Court has jurisdiction over Apple's Counterclaims. Denied, except that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Nokia. Denied, except that venue is proper in this District and that Apple has moved to Denied, except that Nokia sells "smartphones" that compete with Apple's

transfer this case to Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

2

BACKGROUND 10. 11. Denied. Denied, except that Nokia was an early participant in the development and sale of

mobile phones and that many "smartphones" can send and receive emails, surf the Internet, play videos and music, take and send pictures, and run software applications. 12. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Apple sells devices such as the iPod®, iPod Touch®, iPhone®, and iPadTM. 13. 14. Denied, except that Apple introduced the iPhone® in 2007. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Apple introduced the iPhone® 4 on June 24, 2010. 15. Denied, except that the quote set out in Paragraph 15 appeared in the Guardian on

September 2, 2009. 16. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Nokia's market share in the fourth quarter of 2008 was 40.8%. 17. 18. Denied. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Nokia launched the N97 in June 2009 and that Nokia has sold millions of N97s since that time. 19. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Nokia launched the N900 in October 2009.

3

20.

Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that Nokia plans to launch the N8 smartphone in the future. 21. 22. Denied. Denied, except that Nokia has filed complaints against Apple in the District of

Delaware, the International Trade Commissions, and here in the Western District of Wisconsin. THE ASSERTED APPLE PATENTS 23. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. USER INTERFACE PATENTS 24. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `647 Patent as Exhibit A, that the face of the `647 Patent states that it is entitled "System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer-Generated Data," and that it issued on August 31, 1999. 25. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. 26. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `719 Patent as Exhibit B, that the face of the `719 Patent states that it is entitled "Gesture Sensitive Buttons for Graphical User Interfaces," and that it issued on March 18, 1997. 27. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments.

4

LOCATION-BASED SOFTWARE PATENT 28. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `290 Patent as Exhibit C, that the face of the `290 Patent states that it is entitled "System and Method Situational Location Relevant Invocable Speed Reference," and that it issued on May 4, 2010. 29. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. DEVICE INTERFACE PATENTS 30. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `116 Patent as Exhibit D, that the face of the `116 Patent states that it is entitled "System for Real-Time Adaptation To Changes In Display Configuration," and that it issued on May 27, 2008. 31. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. 32. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `981 Patent as Exhibit E, that the face of the `981 Patent states that it is entitled "Methods and Apparatus for Providing Automatic High Speed Data Connection in Portable Device," and that it issued on May 30, 2006. 33. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments.

5

OPERATING SYSTEM PATENT 34. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `430 Patent as Exhibit F, that the face of the `430 Patent states that it is entitled "ObjectOriented System Locator System," and that it issued on January 3, 1995. 35. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT PATENT 36. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments except that the Counterclaims purport to attach a copy of the `559 Patent as Exhibit G, that the face of the `559 Patent states that it is entitled "Integrated Circuit with Separate Supply Voltage For Memory That Is Different From Logic Circuit Supply Voltage," and that it issued on July 20, 2010. 37. Denied, because Nokia is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the averments. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `647 Patent 38. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 37 as if set forth fully herein. 39. 40. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit.

6

41. 42.

Denied. Denied. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `719 Patent

43.

Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 42 as if set forth fully herein. 44. 45. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 46. 47. Denied. Denied. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `290 Patent 48. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 47 as if set forth fully herein. 49. 50. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 51. 52. Denied. Denied.

7

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `116 Patent 53. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 52 as if set forth fully herein. 54. 55. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 56. 57. Denied. Denied. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `981 Patent 58. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 57 as if set forth fully herein. 59. 60. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 61. 62. Denied. Denied. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `430 Patent 63. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 62 as if set forth fully herein. 64. Denied.

8

65.

Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 66. 67. Denied. Denied. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Infringement of the `559 Patent 68. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 67 as if set forth fully herein. 69. 70. Denied. Denied, except that Apple identified various specific patents to Nokia prior to

commencement of this lawsuit. 71. 72. Denied. Denied. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `083 Patent 73. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 72 as if set forth fully herein. 74. 75. Denied. Denied. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `083 Patent 76. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 75 as if set forth fully herein.

9

77. 78.

Denied. Denied. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `894 Patent

79.

Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 78 as if set forth fully herein. 80. 81. Denied. Denied. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `894 Patent 82. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 81 as if set forth fully herein. 83. 84. Denied. Denied. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `345 Patent 85. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 84 as if set forth fully herein. 86. 87. Denied. Denied.

10

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `345 Patent 88. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 87 as if set forth fully herein. 89. 90. Denied. Denied. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `431 Patent 91. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 90 as if set forth fully herein. 92. 93. Denied. Denied. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `431 Patent 94. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 93 as if set forth fully herein. 95. 96. Denied. Denied. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the `696 Patent 97. Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 96 as if set forth fully herein. 98. Denied.

11

99.

Denied. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the `696 Patent)

100.

Nokia restates and incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in

Paragraphs 1 through 99 as if set forth fully herein. 101. 102. Denied. Denied. PRAYER FOR RELIEF To the extent any response is required to any paragraph of Apple's Prayer for Relief, including without limitation the paragraphs it has labeled (a) through (j): Denied. To the extent Nokia has not addressed above any allegations of the Complaint: Denied.

NOKIA'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO APPLE'S COUNTERCLAIMS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b) and (c), without assuming any burden that it would not otherwise bear, without reducing or removing Apple's burdens of proof on its Counterclaims against Nokia, reserving its right to assert additional defenses, and affirmatively solely to the extent deemed necessary by the Court to maintain any or all of the following defenses, Nokia asserts the following defenses to Apple's Counterclaims:

First Defense (Failure To State A Claim) Apple's Counterclaims failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Second Defense (Noninfringement) Apple is not entitled to any relief against Nokia because Nokia has not directly or indirectly infringed any valid claim of the Apple Asserted Patents.

12

Third Defense (Invalidity) One or more of the claims of the Apple Asserted Patents are invalid 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, §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Fourth Defense (Unenforceability) One or more of the Apple Asserted Patents are unenforceable because of estoppel, laches, waiver, unclean hands, and/or other applicable equitable doctrines. Fifth Defense (Limitation of Damages) Apple's right to seek damages is barred, including without limitation by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. Sixth Defense (License and Patent Exhaustion) Apple's claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part (i) to the extent that any allegedly infringing products or components thereof are supplied, directly or indirectly, to Nokia by any entity or entities having express or implied licenses to the Apple Asserted Patents, (ii) to the extent that Nokia is licensed to one or more of the patents-in-suit and/or (iii) under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Seventh Defense (US Government Products) To the extent that certain products accused of infringing the patents-in-suit are used by and/or manufactured for the United States Government, Apple's claims against Nokia with respect to such products may not be pursued in this Court and are subject to other limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498.

13

Eighth Defense (No Enhanced Damages) Apple is not entitled to enhanced damages or attorney fees because the alleged infringement was not willful. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Nokia reserves any and all rights to amend its answer, to amend its currently pled defenses, and/or add additional defenses as they become apparent.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Nokia prays for judgment and seeks relief against Apple from the Court: (a) (b) infringed; (c) finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that Nokia be entering judgment in favor Nokia and against Apple; finding the Apple Asserted Patents to be unenforceable, invalid, and/or not

awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, (d) and such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, August 30, 2010.

s/John C. Scheller Charles A. Laff, IBN 1558153 John C. Scheller, WBN 1031247 / IBN 6230199 Christopher C. Davis, WBN 1064764 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

14

Patrick J. Flinn (pro hac vice) John D. Haynes (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD, LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Michael J. Newton (pro hac vice) Chase Tower, Suite 3601 2200 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Nokia Corporation and Counterclaim-Defendant Nokia Inc.

15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 30, 2010, I caused true and correct copies of Nokia Corporation's and Nokia Inc.'s Answer to Apple Inc.'s First Amended Counterclaims to be served on all counsel of record by the ECF Notification System. /s/ John C. Scheller John C. Scheller

16