Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01175-KLM
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) answers the Complaint for Patent Infringement filed by
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Plaintiff”) on May 15, 2018 (“Complaint”), and sets forth
`
`its Counterclaims as follows. Intel’s incorporation of the titles and headings found in the
`
`Complaint is for the convenience of the parties and Court, and Intel denies any allegations
`
`implicit in the titles and headings of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Intel admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located in Santa Clara, California. Intel also admits that it has facilities or offices located at the
`
`following addresses: 385 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 160, Broomfield, CO 80021; 10700 East
`
`Geddes Avenue 300, Englewood, CO 80112; 4701 Technology Parkway, Fort Collins, CO
`
`140300001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-01175-KLM
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Intel Corporation (“Intel”) answers the Complaint for Patent Infringement filed by
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Plaintiff”) on May 15, 2018 (“Complaint”), and sets forth
`
`its Counterclaims as follows. Intel’s incorporation of the titles and headings found in the
`
`Complaint is for the convenience of the parties and Court, and Intel denies any allegations
`
`implicit in the titles and headings of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Intel admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located in Santa Clara, California. Intel also admits that it has facilities or offices located at the
`
`following addresses: 385 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 160, Broomfield, CO 80021; 10700 East
`
`Geddes Avenue 300, Englewood, CO 80112; 4701 Technology Parkway, Fort Collins, CO
`
`140300001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 20
`
`80528; 1921 Corporate Center Circle, Suite 3B, Longmont, CO 80501; and 3055-A West 74th
`
`Avenue, Westminster, CO 80030. Intel denies that 385 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 160,
`
`Englewood, CO 80021 is a valid address. Intel admits that it offers products and services to
`
`customers and potential customers worldwide, including customers and potential customers
`
`located in the State of Colorado. Intel further admits that The Corporation Trust Company,
`
`located at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, is a registered
`
`agent for Intel in the State of Delaware. The remaining allegations in paragraph 2 contain legal
`
`conclusions to which no response is required.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Intel admits that Plaintiff purports to assert an action for patent infringement
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, but denies that any
`
`grounds exist for Plaintiff’s claims. Intel does not dispute that the Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 4 contain legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Intel denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`patent infringement in the State of Colorado or elsewhere. Intel admits that it has conducted and
`
`continues to conduct business in the State of Colorado. Intel further admits that it offers for sale
`
`and sells products and services worldwide, including in the State of Colorado, but denies that any
`
`such offers for sale or sales infringe any valid and enforceable claims of the asserted patents.
`
`Intel denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 5 contain legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Intel denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 20
`
`patent infringement in the District of Colorado, or elsewhere. Intel admits that it has transacted
`
`business in the District of Colorado. For the limited purpose of this action, Intel does not contest
`
`that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) but reserves its right to contest that venue is
`
`inconvenient under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Intel denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`6.
`
`Intel admits that Plaintiff purports to assert an action for patent infringement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for alleged infringement of three purported United States patents. Intel
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 6, and therefore denies them.
`
`7.
`
`Intel admits that a document labeled U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 (“the ’046
`
`patent”) titled “Bandwidth sensitive data compression and decompression” and bearing an issue
`
`date of June 10, 2008, was attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Intel denies that the
`
`’046 patent was “duly and properly issued” because the ’046 patent claims are invalid under one
`
`or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 7, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`8.
`
`Intel admits that a document labeled U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (“the ’535
`
`patent”) titled “Systems and methods for video and audio data storage and distribution” and
`
`bearing an issue date of January 13, 2015, was attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`Intel denies that the ’535 patent was “duly and properly issued” because the ’535 patent claims
`
`are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Intel lacks knowledge or
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 20
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 8,
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`9.
`
`Intel admits that a document labeled U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 (“the ’477
`
`patent”) titled “Video data compression systems” and bearing an issue date of September 19,
`
`2017, was attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Intel denies that the ’477 patent was
`
`“duly and properly issued” because the ’477 patent claims are invalid under one or more of 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. Intel lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 9, and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,386,046
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Intel incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-9 above.
`
`Intel admits that its products, including the Intel Core i9-8950HK Processor, the
`
`Intel Core i7-8850H Processor, the Intel Core i7-8750H Processor, the Intel Core i5-8500B
`
`Processor, and the Intel Core i3-8300T Processor, are branded to include “Quick Sync Video.”
`
`Intel denies that it has or continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United
`
`States any products that infringe the ’046 patent. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Denied.
`
`Intel admits that the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the
`
`International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) has published Recommendations for H.264,
`
`which incorporates an optional Annex G titled “Scalable video coding.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 20
`
`14.
`
`Intel admits that a white paper titled “Intel® QuickSync Video and FFmpeg*” is
`
`located at the following webpage:
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cloud-
`
`computing-quicksync-video-ffmpeg-white-paper.pdf. Intel further admits the white paper states
`
`that “Intel hardware provides fast decode, encode, and transcode for h264. Many of the benefits
`
`of Intel acceleration are available using the FFmpeg codec h264_qsv.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations from this paragraph.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Intel admits that it has had knowledge of the existence of the ’046 patent since at
`
`least shortly after Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. Intel denies the remaining allegations from
`
`this paragraph.
`
`24.
`
`Intel admits that at least some Intel products are branded with “Quick Sync
`
`Video.” Intel also admits that a white paper titled “Intel® QuickSync Video and FFmpeg*” is
`
`located at the following webpage:
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cloud-
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 20
`
`computing-quicksync-video-ffmpeg-white-paper.pdf. Intel further admits the white paper states
`
`that “Intel hardware provides fast decode, encode, and transcode for h264. Many of the benefits
`
`of Intel acceleration are available using the FFmpeg codec h264_qsv.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations from this paragraph.
`
`25. Denied.
`
`26. Denied.
`
`27. Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,934,535
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Intel incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-27 above.
`
`Intel admits that its products, including the Intel Core i9-8950HK Processor, the
`
`Intel Core i7-8850H Processor, the Intel Core i7-8750H Processor, the Intel Core i5-8500B
`
`Processor, and the Intel Core i3-8300T Processor, are branded to include “Quick Sync Video.”
`
`Intel denies that it has or continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United
`
`States any products that infringe the ’535 patent. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Denied.
`
`Intel admits that the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the
`
`International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) has published Recommendations for H.264,
`
`which incorporates an optional Annex G titled “Scalable video coding.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 20
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Intel admits that it has had knowledge of the existence of the ’535 patent since at
`
`least shortly after Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. Intel denies the remaining allegations from
`
`this paragraph.
`
`42.
`
`Intel admits that a white paper titled “Intel® QuickSync Video and FFmpeg*” is
`
`located at the following webpage:
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cloud-
`
`computing-quicksync-video-ffmpeg-white-paper.pdf. Intel further admits the white paper states
`
`that “Intel hardware provides fast decode, encode, and transcode for h264. Many of the benefits
`
`of Intel acceleration are available using the FFmpeg codec h264_qsv.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations from this paragraph.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,769,477
`
`46.
`
`Intel incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-45 above.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 20
`
`47.
`
`Intel admits that its products, including the Intel Core i9-8950HK Processor, the
`
`Intel Core i7-8850H Processor, the Intel Core i7-8750H Processor, the Intel Core i5-8500B
`
`Processor, and the Intel Core i3-8300T Processor, are branded to include “Quick Sync Video.”
`
`Intel denies that it has or continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import into the United
`
`States any products that infringe the ’477 patent. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`Intel admits that the Telecommunication Standardization Sector of the
`
`International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) has published Recommendations for H.264,
`
`which incorporates an optional Annex G titled “Scalable video coding.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 20
`
`59.
`
`Intel admits that it has had knowledge of the existence of the ’477 patent since at
`
`least shortly after Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed. Intel denies the remaining allegations from
`
`this paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`Intel admits that a white paper titled “Intel® QuickSync Video and FFmpeg*” is
`
`located at the following webpage:
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cloud-
`
`computing-quicksync-video-ffmpeg-white-paper.pdf. Intel further admits the white paper states
`
`that “Intel hardware provides fast decode, encode, and transcode for h264. Many of the benefits
`
`of Intel acceleration are available using the FFmpeg codec h264_qsv.” Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations from this paragraph.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`64.
`
`Intel denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief in this action as requested or
`
`otherwise, and respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Plaintiff on all claims
`
`in the Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`To the extent the Complaint includes any allegations not addressed above, Intel
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`66.
`
`Intel admits that Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 20
`
`DEFENSES
`
`67.
`
`Intel asserts the following defenses, without assuming the burden of proof when
`
`such burden would otherwise be on Plaintiff. Intel reserves the right to amend its Answer and
`
`Defenses as additional information becomes available.
`
`First Defense (Failure to State a Claim)
`
`68.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Second Defense (Non-Infringement)
`
`69.
`
`Intel has not infringed and is not infringing, directly or indirectly, including no
`
`induced infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid or
`
`enforceable claim of the ’046 patent, the ’535 patent, or the ’477 patent.
`
`Third Defense (Invalidity)
`
`70.
`
`One or more of the claims of each of the ’046 patent, the ’535 patent, or the ’477
`
`patent is invalid for failing to comply with the requirements for patentability under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`Fourth Defense (Government Use)
`
`71.
`
`To the extent any products or acts accused of infringing the ’046 patent, the ’535
`
`patent, or the ’477 patent have been used or manufactured by or for the United States
`
`Government, Plaintiff’s claims against Intel with respect to such products or acts may not be
`
`pursued here and are subject to limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`Fifth Defense (Lack of Notice and/or Marking)
`
`72.
`
`The relief sought by Plaintiff is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 20
`
`Sixth Defense (Waiver, Laches, or Estoppel)
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver,
`
`laches, or estoppel, including prosecution history estoppel.
`
`Seventh Defense (No Indirect Infringement Liability Prior to Knowledge)
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that
`
`Plaintiff asserts that Intel indirectly infringes based on alleged acts that occurred before Intel
`
`knew that its actions were alleged to cause indirect infringement.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Intel asserts the following counterclaims against Plaintiff:
`
`PARTIES
`
`75.
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Intel Corporation is a corporation organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 2200
`
`Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC has alleged
`
`that it is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas,
`
`with a place of business located at 1828 E.S.E. Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`77.
`
`These are counterclaims arising under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201, 2202 et seq., and the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for a judicial declaration that the
`
`’046 patent, the ’535 patent, and the ’477 patent are invalid and not infringed.
`
`78.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 20
`
`79.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff because Plaintiff has already
`
`submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by initiating the instant lawsuit.
`
`80.
`
`Venue over these counterclaims in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`81.
`
`In its Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged that Intel has directly or indirectly
`
`infringed, and continues to infringe, the ’046 patent, the ’535 patent, and the ’477 patent. Intel
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`82.
`
`As a result of Plaintiff’s actions and statements, including filing the Complaint, an
`
`actual and justiciable controversy has arisen between the parties regarding the validity and
`
`alleged infringement of the ’046 patent, the ’535 patent, and the ’477 patent.
`
`83.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to allow Intel to
`
`ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the ’046 patent, the ’535 patent, and the ’477 patent.
`
`COUNT I
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,386,046
`
`84.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-83 above.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff has filed an infringement action in this Court to enforce the ’046 patent
`
`against Intel. Intel denies that it has infringed or is infringing any valid or enforceable claim of
`
`the ’046 patent. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the
`
`alleged infringement of the ’046 patent.
`
`86.
`
`Intel seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination against
`
`Plaintiff that Intel has not directly or indirectly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`140300001
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 20
`
`equivalents, and has not induced infringement of, any valid or enforceable claim of the ’046
`
`patent.
`
`COUNT II
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT 7,386,046
`
`87.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-86 above.
`
`88.
`
`One or more of the claims of the ’046 patent is invalid for failing to comply with
`
`the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not
`
`limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. An actual and justiciable controversy exists
`
`between the parties regarding the validity of the ’046 patent.
`
`89.
`
`For example, one or more claims of the ’046 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Specifically, the claims of the ’046 patent are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of selecting a compression scheme based on throughput and lack an inventive concept that
`
`could transform those claims into a patentable invention.
`
`90.
`
`One or more claims of the ’046 patent is also invalid as anticipated or obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 in view of prior art printed publications, published patent
`
`applications and issued patents, and systems in use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public
`
`before the effective filing date of the asserted claims.
`
`91.
`
`In addition, one or more claims of the ’046 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 because the specification fails to provide a written description of the invention in such full,
`
`clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
`
`claimed invention. One or more claims of the ’046 patent is also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`140300001
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 20
`
`for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`92.
`
`Intel therefore seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination that
`
`each claim of the ’046 patent that Plaintiff asserts against Intel is invalid for failing to comply
`
`with one or more of the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`COUNT III
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 8,934,535
`
`93.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-92 above.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff has filed an infringement action in this Court to enforce the ’535 patent
`
`against Intel. Intel denies that it has infringed or is infringing any valid or enforceable claim of
`
`the ’535 patent. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the
`
`alleged infringement of the ’535 patent.
`
`95.
`
`Intel seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination against
`
`Plaintiff that Intel has directly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any
`
`valid or enforceable claim of the ’535 patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT 8,934,535
`
`96.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-95 above.
`
`97.
`
`One or more of the claims of the ’535 patent is invalid for failing to comply with
`
`the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 20
`
`limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. An actual and justiciable controversy exists
`
`between the parties regarding the validity of the ’535 patent.
`
`98.
`
`For example, one or more claims of the ’535 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Specifically, the claims of the ’535 patent are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of selecting a compression scheme based on a characteristic of the data requiring
`
`compression and lack an inventive concept that could transform those claims into a patentable
`
`invention.
`
`99.
`
`One or more claims of the ’535 patent is also invalid as anticipated or obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 in view of prior art printed publications, published patent
`
`applications and issued patents, and systems in use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public
`
`before the effective filing date of the asserted claims.
`
`100.
`
`In addition, one or more claims of the ’535 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 because the specification fails to provide a written description of the invention in such full,
`
`clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
`
`claimed invention. One or more claims of the ’535 patent is also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`101.
`
`Intel seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination that each
`
`claim of the ’535 patent that Plaintiff asserts against Intel is invalid for failing to comply with
`
`one or more of the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 20
`
`COUNT V
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 9,769,477
`
`102.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-101 above.
`
`103. Plaintiff has filed an infringement action in this Court to enforce the ’477 patent
`
`against Intel. Intel denies that it has infringed or is infringing any valid or enforceable claim of
`
`the ’477 patent. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties regarding the
`
`alleged infringement of the ’477 patent.
`
`104.
`
`Intel seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination against
`
`Plaintiff that Intel has directly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any
`
`valid or enforceable claim of the ’477 patent.
`
`COUNT VI
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT 9,769,477
`
`105.
`
`Intel realleges and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 75-104 above.
`
`106. One or more of the claims of the ’477 patent is invalid for failing to comply with
`
`the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not
`
`limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. An actual and justiciable controversy exists
`
`between the parties regarding the validity of the ’477 patent.
`
`107. For example, one or more claims of the ’477 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Specifically, the claims of the ’477 patent are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of selecting a compression scheme based on a characteristic of the data requiring
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 20
`
`compression and lack an inventive concept that could transform those claims into a patentable
`
`invention.
`
`108. One or more claims of the ’477 patent is also invalid as anticipated or obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 in view of prior art printed publications, published patent
`
`applications and issued patents, and systems in use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public
`
`before the effective filing date of the asserted claims.
`
`109.
`
`In addition, one or more claims of the ’477 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 because the specification fails to provide a written description of the invention in such full,
`
`clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
`
`claimed invention. One or more claims of the ’477 patent is also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`110.
`
`Intel seeks and is entitled to a judicial declaration and determination that each
`
`claim of the ’477 patent that Plaintiff asserts against Intel is invalid for failing to comply with
`
`one or more of the requirements for patentability under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Intel Corporation respectfully requests that the Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`A dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s Complaint against Intel;
`
`A denial of any and all relief sought by Plaintiff;
`
`Judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Intel in all respects;
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 20
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Judgment declaring that the asserted claims of the ʼ046 patent, the ʼ535 patent,
`
`and the ʼ477 patent are invalid;
`
`Judgment declaring that Intel has not infringed (directly, indirectly, literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) any claim of the ʼ046 patent, the ʼ535
`
`patent, or the ʼ477 patent;
`
`f.
`
`A determination that Plaintiff’s conduct in this case is exceptional under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285, and that Intel is entitled to an award of both its attorneys’ fees and
`
`its reasonable costs incurred in connection with this action; and
`
`g.
`
`Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`demands a trial by jury of all issues triable to a jury.
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 20
`
`Dated: July 3, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`By: /s/ Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`KMerrill@perkinscoie.com
`1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400
`Denver, CO 80202-5255
`Telephone: 303.291.2300
`Facsimile: 303.291.2400
`
`David J. Burman
`DBurman@perkinscoie.com
`Ryan J. McBrayer
`RMcBrayer@perkinscoie.com
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Telephone: 206.359.8000
`Facsimile: 206.359.9000
`
`Thomas N. Millikan
`TMillikan@perkinscoie.com
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`Telephone: 858.720.5700
`Facsimile: 858.720.5799
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01175-RBJ Document 21 Filed 07/03/18 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 20
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 3, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-
`
`mail addresses:
`
`Brian D. Ledahl
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`mafenster@raklaw.com
`
`Philip X. Wang
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`
`Eric B. Fenster
`eric@fensterlaw.net
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 3, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`140300001
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`/s/ Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
