`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02097-CBS
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`SLING MEDIA INC., and
`SLING MEDIA L.L.C.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SLING TV L.L.C., AND SLING MEDIA L.L.C.’S ANSWER,
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTERCLAIMS, AND JURY DEMAND TO
`PLAINTIFF REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING L.L.C.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Defendants Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. (collectively, “Sling”)1 by and
`
`through their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the Amended Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (the “Amended Complaint,” Dkt. No. 12) of Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`
`Streaming L.L.C. (“Realtime”), on personal knowledge as to their own activities and on
`
`information and belief as to the activities of others. Sling denies each and every
`
`allegation in the Amended Complaint, unless expressly admitted herein.
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Sling TV L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C. answer collectively as “Sling,” and further
`represent that in February of 2017 the entity formerly known as “Sling Media Inc.” was
`converted to Sling Media L.L.C., such that at no point in time upon and since the filing of
`the Original Complaint has “Sling Media Inc.” existed.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Sling lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies all such
`
`allegations.
`
`2.
`
`Sling TV L.L.C. admits that it is a limited liability company organized under the
`
`laws of the State of Colorado. Sling TV L.L.C. admits that it has a principal office at
`
`9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, Colorado 80112. Sling TV L.L.C. admits that it can
`
`be served through its registered agent, R. Stanton Dodge, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd.,
`
`Englewood, Colorado 80112. Sling TV L.L.C. denies any remaining allegations set forth
`
`in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`Sling Media L.L.C. admits that Sling Media L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company with a principal office at 1051 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 500, Foster City,
`
`California 94404. Sling Media L.L.C. admits it can be served through its registered
`
`agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St.
`
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801. As explained by Sling in the above footnote, at no point
`
`upon and since the filing of the Original Complaint has “Sling Media Inc.” existed.
`
`4.
`
`Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent any response is deemed to be required however,
`
`Sling denies the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Sling admits that the Amended Complaint is styled as an action for patent
`
`infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
`
`States Code. Paragraph 5 of Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to
`
`which no response is required. To the extent any response is deemed to be required
`
`however, Sling further admits that the Amended Complaint purports to assert that
`
`subject matter jurisdiction exists over such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
`
`§ 1338(a). Sling denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Sling TV L.L.C.
`
`admits that it directly and/or through intermediaries offers to sell and/or sells products in
`
`the District of Colorado, and to the extent paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint
`
`alleges that Sling TV L.L.C. has a regular and established place of business in the
`
`District of Colorado, Sling TV L.L.C. admits that it has a regular and established place of
`
`business in this District.
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, however, Sling Media L.L.C.
`
`admits that it directly and/or through intermediaries offers to sell and/or sells products in
`
`the District of Colorado. Sling denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, however,
`
`Sling admits that it directly and/or through intermediaries offers to sell and/or sells
`
`products in the District of Colorado.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
`
`9.
`
`Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint sets forth conclusions of law to which no
`
`response is required. Sling TV L.L.C. admits that it is a limited liability corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Colorado. Sling Media L.L.C. admits that its officers are
`
`located in Colorado.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`10.
`
`Sling admits that the Amended Complaint purports to assert U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,867,610 (“the ’610 Patent”) and 8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”), (collectively, “the
`
`Asserted Patents”).
`
`11.
`
`Sling lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies all
`
`such allegations.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT I
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,867,610
`
`12.
`
`Sling repeats and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`13.
`
`Sling admits that a purported copy of United States Patent No. 8,867,610 is
`
`attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, which lists the patent title as “System
`
`and Methods for Video and Audio Data Distribution,” and lists the patent as being
`
`issued on October 21, 2014. Sling lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies all such allegations.
`
`14. Denied.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
`
`15. Denied.
`
`16. Denied.
`
`17. Denied.
`
`18. Denied.
`
`19. Denied.
`
`20. Denied.
`
`21. Denied.
`
`22. Denied.
`
`23. Denied.
`
`24. Denied.
`
`25. Denied.
`
`26. Denied.
`
`27. Denied.
`
`28. Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT II
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,934,535
`
`29.
`
`Sling repeats and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`Sling admits that a purported copy of United States Patent No. 8,934,535 is
`
`attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit B, which lists the patent title as “Systems
`
`and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and Distribution,” and lists the patent as
`
`being issued on January 13, 2015. Sling lacks sufficient information to form a belief as
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies all such allegations.
`
`31. Denied.
`
`32. Denied.
`
`33. Denied.
`
`34. Denied.
`
`35. Denied.
`
`36. Denied.
`
`37. Denied.
`
`38. Denied.
`
`39. Denied.
`
`40. Denied.
`
`41. Denied.
`
`42. Denied.
`
`43. Denied.
`
`44. Denied.
`
`45. Denied.
`
`46. Denied.
`
`47. Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Sling denies the underlying allegations of Realtime’s Prayer for Relief, denies
`
`that Realtime is entitled to any relief whatsoever, and requests that the Court deny all
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
`
`relief to Realtime, enter judgment in favor of Sling, and award Sling its attorneys’ fees
`
`as the prevailing party in the action.
`
`[REALTIME’S] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Sling is not required to provide a response to Realtime’s request for a trial by
`
`jury.
`
`GENERAL DENIALS
`
`Sling denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted
`
`above.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Sling’s Affirmative Defenses are listed below. Sling reserves the right to amend
`
`this Answer to add additional Affirmative Defenses, including allegations of inequitable
`
`conduct, and/or any other defenses currently unknown to Sling, as they become known
`
`throughout the course of discovery in this action. Assertion of a defense is not a
`
`concession that Sling has the burden of proving the matter asserted.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`Realtime has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted because Sling
`
`has not performed and is not performing any act in violation of any right validly
`
`belonging to Realtime. Realtime has failed to state a claim on which relief can be
`
`granted regarding, but without limitation to, willful infringement and pre-suit indirect
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`Sling has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, jointly or in a divided manner, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, or otherwise, a valid and enforceable claim of the ʼ610 Patent or the ʼ535
`
`Patent.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity)
`
`The claims of the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent are invalid and/or
`
`unenforceable for failing to meet one or more of the requisite statutory and decisional
`
`requirements and/or conditions for patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or 116, the non-statutory doctrine of double patenting, and the rules,
`
`regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. For example, to the extent that Realtime
`
`alleges that H.264 infringes claims of the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent, those claims
`
`are invalid over prior art video compression standards such as H.262 (MPEG-2 Part 2)
`
`and H.263.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`Realtime’s right to seek damages and other remedies from Sling is limited by 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 285, 286, 287, and/or 288, and may additionally be limited by 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1498.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Injunctive Relief Unavailable)
`
`Realtime is not entitled to injunctive relief at least because any injury to Realtime
`
`is not immediate or irreparable, and Realtime has an adequate remedy at law for its
`
`allegations.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Laches, Prosecution Laches, Waiver, Estoppel, Unclean Hands)
`
`Realtime’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, under principles of
`
`equity including, but not limited to, laches, prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel, and/or
`
`unclean hands.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Vicarious Liability)
`
`Sling is not vicariously liable to Realtime for any conduct of their affiliates, related
`
`entities, or subsidiaries.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`To the extent that Realtime alleges infringement under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, Realtime’s alleged cause of action is barred, including, without limitation,
`
`by way of example, under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, claim vitiation,
`
`and/or recapture. By virtue of statements made, amendments made, and/or positions
`
`taken during the prosecution of the applications for the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent,
`
`and any application to which these patents claim priority, and in view of any statements
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
`
`made, amendments made and/or positions that Realtime has taken or will take before
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during, for example, reexamination or inter partes
`
`review, Realtime is estopped from asserting that the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent
`
`cover or include any of the accused products or services of Sling.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`(Lack of Knowledge)
`
`
`
`To the extent that Realtime asserts that Sling indirectly infringes, either by
`
`contributory infringement or inducement of infringement, Sling is not liable for the acts
`
`taking place before Sling knew that its actions would allegedly cause infringement. Any
`
`and all products or actions accused of infringement have substantial uses that do not
`
`infringe and do not induce or contribute to the alleged infringement of the claims of the
`
`ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Control)
`
`Realtime’s claims for relief are barred because Realtime’s injuries, if any, were
`
`not caused by Sling, and Sling is not liable for the acts of others over whom they have
`
`no control.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(License, Exhaustion, Single Recovery, Intervening Rights)
`
`Realtime’s claims for relief are barred by the doctrines of express or implied
`
`license, patent exhaustion, the single recovery rule, and/or intervening rights.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Willful Infringement)
`
`Realtime has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations in its Amended
`
`Complaint to support an allegation of willful infringement. There are not sufficient well
`
`pleaded facts in the Amended Complaint to give rise to a plausible inference that Sling
`
`acted—or will in the future act—recklessly despite an objectively high risk of
`
`infringement. A solitary request for treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in the Prayer
`
`for Relief is insufficient to give rise to a plausible claim of willful infringement.
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Pre-Suit Indirect Infringement)
`
`Realtime has failed to set forth sufficient factual allegations in its Amended
`
`Complaint to support an allegation of pre-suit indirect infringement. Realtime has not
`
`provided any factual basis for such a claim, and instead solely alleges knowledge of the
`
`patents at least as of the time of filing of the Original Complaint. The Amended
`
`Complaint solely alleges post-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Sling reserves all affirmative defenses available under Rule 8(c) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States, and all other defenses, at
`
`law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and
`
`further investigation of the case.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
`
`SLING COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff Sling, on personal knowledge as to its own acts, and on
`
`information and belief as to all others, based on its own investigation, alleges
`
`Counterclaims against Realtime as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Sling TV L.L.C. is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
`
`the State of Colorado, and can be served through its registered agent, R. Stanton
`
`Dodge, 9601 S. Meridian Blvd., Englewood, Colorado 80112.
`
`2.
`
`Sling Media L.L.C. is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal
`
`office at 1051 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 500, Foster City CA 94404. Sling Media L.L.C.
`
`can be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust Company,
`
`Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St. Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief based solely on Paragraph 1 of the Amended
`
`Complaint, Realtime is a New York limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of New York. Realtime purports to have places of business
`
`at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701 and 66 Palmer Avenue, Suite 27,
`
`Bronxville, NY 10708.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Realtime’s registered agent is Richard G.
`
`Tashjian, 729 Seventh Ave., 14th Floor, NY, New York 10019.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338,
`
`2201, and/or 2202.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
`
`6.
`
`These counterclaims arise under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act,
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq., and the Patent Act of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et
`
`seq. An actual controversy exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act because
`
`Realtime’s Amended Complaint alleges that Sling infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,867,610
`
`(“the ’610 Patent”) and 8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”), which Sling denies.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Realtime because it filed the
`
`Amended Complaint in this Court.
`
`8.
`
`For purposes of these counterclaims, venue is appropriate in this judicial
`
`District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and/or 1400(b), at least based on Realtime’s filing of
`
`this action in this District.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ610 PATENT
`
`9.
`
`Sling restates and incorporates by reference the entirety of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`10. Realtime claims that it is the owner of the ’610 Patent. Realtime has
`
`accused Sling of infringing allegedly valid claims of the ’610 Patent in its Amended
`
`Complaint, filed against Sling on October 10, 2017.
`
`11.
`
`Sling denies that it directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement,
`
`jointly, or in a divided manner, infringes any valid claim of the ʼ610 Patent, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`12.
`
`Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists
`
`between Realtime and Sling as to whether the ʼ610 Patent is infringed.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 19
`
`13.
`
`Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,
`
`Sling seeks, and is entitled to, a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claim
`
`of the ʼ610 Patent, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, jointly, or in a
`
`divided manner, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ʼ610 PATENT
`
`14.
`
`Sling restates and incorporates by reference the entirety of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`15.
`
`A judicial declaration that the ’610 Patent is invalid because it fails to
`
`satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code is
`
`necessary and appropriate at this time so that Sling can ascertain its rights and duties
`
`with respect to the ’610 Patent. Sling has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et
`
`seq., and Title 35 of the United States Code, Sling therefore requests a judicial
`
`declaration that one or more claims of the ’610 Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable
`
`at least because they fail to satisfy one or more conditions for patentability specified in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116, the non-statutory doctrine of double
`
`patenting, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. For example, to the
`
`extent that Realtime alleges that H.264 infringes claims of the ʼ610 Patent, those claims
`
`are invalid over prior art video compression standards such as H.262 (MPEG-2 Part 2)
`
`and H.263.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 19
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ535 PATENT
`
`17.
`
`Sling restates and incorporates by reference the entirety of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18. Realtime claims that it is the owner of the ’535 Patent. Realtime has
`
`accused Sling of infringing allegedly valid claims of the ’535 Patent in its Amended
`
`Complaint, filed against Sling on October 10, 2017.
`
`19.
`
`Sling denies that it directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement,
`
`jointly, or in a divided manner, infringes any valid claim of the ʼ535 Patent, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`20.
`
`Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists
`
`between Realtime and Sling as to whether the ʼ535 Patent is infringed.
`
`21.
`
`Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,
`
`Sling seeks, and is entitled to, a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any claim
`
`of the ʼ535 Patent, directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, jointly, or in a
`
`divided manner, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ʼ535 PATENT
`
`22.
`
`Sling restates and incorporates by reference the entirety of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`A judicial declaration that the ’535 Patent is invalid because it fails to
`
`satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code is
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 19
`
`necessary and appropriate at this time so that Sling can ascertain its rights and duties
`
`with respect to the ’535 Patent. Sling has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et
`
`seq., and Title 35 of the United States Code, Sling therefore requests a judicial
`
`declaration that one or more claims of the ’535 Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable
`
`at least because they fail to satisfy one or more conditions for patentability specified in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116, the non-statutory doctrine of double
`
`patenting, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. For example, to the
`
`extent that Realtime alleges that H.264 infringes claims of the ʼ535 Patent, those claims
`
`are invalid over prior art video compression standards such as H.262 (MPEG-2 Part 2)
`
`and H.263.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Sling respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and
`
`against Realtime, and grant the following relief:
`
`a. A complete denial of Realtime’s requests for damages, costs, attorney fees,
`
`injunction, and any other form of relief;
`
`b. Dismissal with prejudice of all claims in Realtime’s Amended Complaint against
`
`Sling;
`
`c. A permanent injunction restraining Realtime and its respective officers, partners,
`
`employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and any other persons
`
`acting on its behalf or in concert with it, from charging, suing or threatening, orally
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 19
`
`or in writing, that the ʼ610 Patent or the ʼ535 Patent have been infringed by Sling
`
`under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 or 281;
`
`d. A declaration that Sling has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or
`
`induced others to infringe, willfully, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`any valid claim of the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent;
`
`e. A declaration that all claims of the ʼ610 Patent and the ʼ535 Patent are invalid;
`
`f. A declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`awarding to Sling its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including but
`
`not limited to attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees;
`
`g. An award to Sling of its costs and disbursements in defending in this action
`
`brought by Realtime; and
`
`h. An award to Sling of any and all further relief as this Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Sling hereby demands a trial
`
`by jury on all issues so triable raised by Realtime’s Amended Complaint or by Sling’s
`
`Answer and Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 19
`
`Dated: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Adam R. Shartzer
`Adam R. Shartzer
`DC Bar No. 994420
`shartzer@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`901 15th St. N.W., 7th Fl.
`Washington, DC 20005-3500
`PH: 202-783-5070
`FX: 202-783-2331
`
`Attorney for Defendants Sling TV
`L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 25 Filed 10/24/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that on the October 24, 2017 the foregoing document
`
`was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system in
`
`compliance with D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(d).
`
`Dated: October 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Adam R. Shartzer
`Adam R. Shartzer
`DC Bar No. 994420
`shartzer@fr.com
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`901 15th St. N.W., 7th Fl.
`Washington, DC 20005-3500
`PH: 202-783-5070
`FX: 202-783-2331
`
`Attorney for Defendants Sling TV
`L.L.C. and Sling Media L.L.C.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`