Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 5770
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`YODLEE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`14-1445-LPS-CJB
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`YODLEE, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAID TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Yodlee, Inc. (“Yodlee”) answers the Counterclaims of Defendant Plaid
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Plaid”) as follows. The paragraphs are numbered to correspond to the
`
`numbered paragraphs of Plaid’s Counterclaims against Yodlee. Except as expressly admitted
`
`below, Yodlee denies the allegations and characterizations in Plaid’s Counterclaims.
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`120.
`
`Yodlee admits that, on information and belief, Plaid is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 564
`
`Market Street, San Francisco, California 94104. Yodlee is without sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 120 of Plaid’s
`
`Counterclaims and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`121.
`
`Yodlee admits that Yodlee is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 3600 Bridge Parkway, Suite 200,
`
`Redwood City, California 94065. Yodlee further admits that it owns and operates a business that,
`
`among other things, offers to software developers application programming interfaces that gather
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 5771
`
`and/or process personal financial data. Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 121
`
`not specifically admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`122.
`
`Yodlee admits that Plaid’s counterclaims 1 through 21 purport to seek a declaratory
`
`judgment that the patents-in-suit are not infringed, invalid and unenforceable under the Patent Laws
`
`of the United States, Title 35, United States Code § 101, et seq., and the Federal Declaratory
`
`Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. Yodlee admits that it has sued Plaid for infringement
`
`of United States Patent No. 6,199,077 (the “’077 patent”), United States Patent No. 6,317,783 (the
`
`“’783 patent”), United States Patent No. 6,510,451 (the “’451 patent”), United States Patent No.
`
`7,263,548 (the “’548 patent”), United States Patent No. 7,424,520 (the “’520 patent”), United States
`
`Patent No. 7,752,535 (the “’535 patent”), and United States Patent No. 8,266,515 (the “’515
`
`patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. Yodlee denies that Plaid
`
`is entitled to any relief pursuant to its Counterclaims because each of the Asserted Patents is
`
`infringed by Plaid and is valid and enforceable. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 121 contain
`
`legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, said
`
`allegations are denied.
`
`123.
`
`Yodlee admits that Plaid’s 22nd counterclaim purports to assert a violation of
`
`section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. Yodlee denies that Plaid is entitled to any
`
`relief pursuant to its Counterclaims. Yodlee denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 123.
`
`124.
`
`Yodlee admits that Plaid’s 23rd and 24th counterclaims purport to assert violations
`
`of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 and “the common law.” Yodlee denies that Plaid is entitled
`
`to any relief pursuant to its Counterclaims. Yodlee further admits that Yodlee is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 5772
`
`3600 Bridge Parkway, Suite 200, Redwood City, California 94065. Yodlee further admits that, on
`
`information and belief, Plaid is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, with a principal place of business at 564 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94104.
`
`Yodlee denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 124.
`
`125.
`
`Yodlee admits that Plaid’s 25th counterclaim purports to assert a violation of
`
`“common law unfair competition law” and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Yodlee denies
`
`that Plaid is entitled to any relief pursuant to its Counterclaims. Yodlee denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 125.
`
`126.
`
`Yodlee admits that this Court now has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaid’s 1st
`
`through 21st, 22nd, and 25th1 Counterclaims. Yodlee denies that subject matter jurisdiction exists
`
`over Plaid’s state law based Counterclaims, including the 23rd and 24th Counterclaim, and
`
`respectfully requests that Court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction regarding those
`
`claims. Yodlee admits that venue is proper in this Court. Yodlee further admits that Yodlee has
`
`filed an action for infringement of the Asserted Patents in this Court. Yodlee denies that Plaid is
`
`entitled to any relief pursuant to its Counterclaims. Yodlee denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 126.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’077 Patent)
`
`127.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 127 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`
`1 Yodlee denies that subject matter jurisdiction exists over the 25th Counterclaim to the extent
`Plaid bases its claim on common law, rather than Lanham Act based, allegations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 5773
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`128.
`
`Denied.
`
`129.
`
`Denied.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’077 Patent)
`
`130.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 130 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`131.
`
`Denied.
`
`132.
`
`Denied.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’783 Patent)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5774
`
`133.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 133 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`134.
`
`Denied.
`
`135.
`
`Denied.
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’783 Patent)
`
`136.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 136 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`137.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 5775
`
`138.
`
`Denied.
`
`FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’451 Patent)
`
`139.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 139 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`140.
`
`Denied.
`
`141.
`
`Denied.
`
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’451 Patent)
`
`142.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 142 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 5776
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`143.
`
`Denied.
`
`144.
`
`Denied.
`
`SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’548 Patent)
`
`145.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 145 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`146.
`
`Denied.
`
`147.
`
`Denied.
`
`EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’548 Patent)
`
`148.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 148 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 5777
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`149.
`
`Denied.
`
`150.
`
`Denied.
`
`NINTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’520 Patent)
`
`151.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 151 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`152.
`
`Denied.
`
`153.
`
`Denied.
`
`TENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’520 Patent)
`
`154.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 154 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 5778
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`155.
`
`Denied.
`
`156.
`
`Denied.
`
`ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’535 Patent)
`
`157.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 157 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`158.
`
`Denied.
`
`159.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 5779
`
`TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’535 Patent)
`
`160.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 160 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`161.
`
`Denied.
`
`162.
`
`Denied.
`
`THIRTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’515 Patent)
`
`163.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 163 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 5780
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`164.
`
`Denied.
`
`165.
`
`Denied.
`
`FOURTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’515 Patent)
`
`166.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 166 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1). Plaid’s allegation in this Paragraph does not identify which of its 39
`
`Affirmative Defenses it asserts are related to this Counterclaim and Yodlee denies that any of the
`
`39 Affirmative Defenses provide support for this Counterclaim or provide a basis for relieving Plaid
`
`from liability for Yodlee’s claims for patent infringement as alleged in Yodlee’s Original Complaint
`
`(D.I. 1).
`
`167.
`
`Denied.
`
`168.
`
`Denied.
`
`FIFTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’077 Patent)
`
`169.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 169 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 5781
`
`170.
`
`Denied.
`
`171.
`
`Denied.
`
`SIXTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’783 Patent)
`
`172.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 172 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`173.
`
`Denied.
`
`174.
`
`Denied.
`
`SEVENTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’451 Patent)
`
`175.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 175 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`176.
`
`Denied.
`
`177.
`
`Denied.
`
`EIGHTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’548 Patent)
`
`178.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 178 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 5782
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`179.
`
`Denied.
`
`180.
`
`Denied.
`
`NINETEENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’520 Patent)
`
`181.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 181 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`182.
`
`Denied.
`
`183.
`
`Denied.
`
`TWENTIETH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’535 Patent)
`
`184.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 184 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`185.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 5783
`
`186.
`
`Denied.
`
`TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Related to the ’515 Patent)
`
`187.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 187 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`188.
`
`Denied.
`
`189.
`
`Denied.
`
`TWENTY-SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Walker Process Monopolization)
`
`190.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 190 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`191.
`
`Denied.
`
`192.
`
`Denied.
`
`193.
`
`Denied.
`
`194.
`
`Denied.
`
`Interstate Commerce
`
`195.
`
`Yodlee admits that it has licensed its data aggregation software to financial service
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 5784
`
`providers since at least January 2001 to the present. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 195
`
`contain legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, said
`
`allegations are denied.
`
`Relevant Markets
`
`196.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 196 contain legal conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, said allegations are denied.
`
`197.
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 197 contain legal conclusions to which no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is required, said allegations are denied.
`
`198.
`
`Denied.
`
`199.
`
`Denied.
`
`200.
`
`Denied.
`
`201.
`
`Denied.
`
`Monopoly Power
`
`202.
`
`Yodlee admits that, in paragraph 8 of its Original Complaint, it alleges that it is the
`
`“leading provider of account aggregation services . . . with over 16 million paid users and reaches
`
`more than 100 million end users through its network of financial institutions.” Yodlee denies that
`
`it has monopoly power in the online account verification market. Yodlee otherwise denies all
`
`allegations of Paragraph 202 not specifically admitted.
`
`203.
`
`Denied.
`
`204.
`
`Denied.
`
`205.
`
`Yodlee admits that Intuit publicly announced on March 15, 2016 that it has
`
`“decided to discontinue the Financial Data APIs” and that “[t]o allow current production developers
`
`to migrate, the API will be maintained until November 15, 2016.” Yodlee denies that it has
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 5785
`
`monopoly power in the U.S. account aggregation market, denies that Yodlee has obtained any
`
`patents through fraud, intentional or otherwise, and denies that it has enforced patents other than
`
`through its lawful right to enforce patents that are infringed, valid, and enforceable. Yodlee
`
`otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 205 not specifically admitted.
`
`Exclusionary Conduct
`
`206.
`
`Admitted.
`
`207.
`
`Denied.
`
`208.
`
`Yodlee admits that it sued CashEdge and Plaid for infringement of certain patents.
`
`Yodlee denies that it obtained any patents through fraud, and denies that it has used its patents in
`
`any manner other than its lawful right to enforce patents that are infringed, valid, and enforceable.
`
`Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 208 not specifically admitted.
`
`209.
`
`Denied.
`
`210.
`
`Denied.
`
`211.
`
`Yodlee admits that, on July 20, 2000, it filed petitions to make special in the
`
`prosecution of U.S. Patent Appl. Nos. 09/208,740 and 09/323,598 and stated that “We have made
`
`a search of the prior art and have found none that directly bears on the claims of the above-described
`
`case[s].” Yodlee further admits that, on October 26, 2000, a Renewed Petition to Make Special
`
`was submitted in the prosecution of the ’740 Application—to which the ’077 Patent claims
`
`priority—where International Publication # WO 00/25227, was disclosed to the PTO. Yodlee
`
`denies that any of the websites, products, and patents applications listed in the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 211 are material prior art, and denies that any of those websites, products, and patent
`
`applications were known to be prior art by the inventors named in the application, any attorney or
`
`agent who prepared or prosecuted the application, and any individuals substantively involved in the
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 5786
`
`preparation or prosecution of the patents-in-suit during the prosecution of those patents. Yodlee
`
`otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 211 not specifically admitted.
`
`212.
`
`Denied.
`
`213.
`
`Denied.
`
`214.
`
`Denied.
`
`215.
`
`Yodlee admits that, prior to working for Yodlee, Suman Kumar Inala and
`
`Ramakrishna Satyavolu worked for Microsoft Corporation. Yodlee further admits that Sreeranga
`
`Rajan worked for Fujitsu at or around the time he did work for Yodlee. Yodlee otherwise denies
`
`all allegations of Paragraph 215 not specifically admitted.
`
`216.
`
`Denied.
`
`217.
`
`Denied.
`
`218.
`
`Yodlee admits that it sued CashEdge for infringement of the ’077, ’783, and ’451
`
`patents on April 15, 2005. Yodlee admits that it moved for summary judgment of infringement.
`
`Yodlee admits that on August 1, 2007, the Court found that there was a genuine issue of material
`
`fact precluding summary judgment of infringement for Yodlee that needed to be resolved at trial,
`
`which was scheduled to begin on November 19, 2007. Yodlee admits that CashEdge moved for
`
`summary judgment of invalidity on the ’077 and ’783 patents based on MaxMiles prior art. Yodlee
`
`admits that a hearing on CashEdge’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was set for
`
`September of 2007.
`
`
`
` but denies that this settlement indicates “that Yodlee recognized the strength
`
`of MaxMiles” as alleged in Paragraph 218. To the contrary, this settlement in fact confirms the
`
`strength of Yodlee’s patents and confirms that CashEdge did not believe it would prevail in its
`
`motion for summary judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 5787
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the patents-in-suit on December 1, 2014. Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph
`
` Yodlee further admits that Yodlee sued Plaid for infringement
`
`218 not specifically admitted.
`
`219.
`
`Yodlee admits that Ramakrishna Satyavolu is a named inventor on the patents-in-
`
`suit and was involved in technical aspects related to the CashEdge litigation. Yodlee otherwise
`
`denies all allegations of Paragraph 219 not specifically admitted.
`
`220.
`
`Denied.
`
`221.
`
`Yodlee admits that its complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction
`
`preventing Plaid and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees,
`
`successors, assigns, and customers, and those in active concert or participation with any of them,
`
`from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States or importing into the United
`
`States any software or services that infringe any claim of the ’077, ’783, ’451, ’548, ’520, ’535, and
`
`’515 patents, or contributing to or inducing the same by others.
`
`
`
`
`
` Yodlee otherwise denies all
`
`allegations of Paragraph 221 not specifically admitted.
`
`222.
`
`Denied.
`
`223.
`
`Denied.
`
`224.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 5788
`
`225.
`
`Denied.
`
`226.
`
`Denied.
`
`227.
`
`Denied.
`
`228.
`
`Denied.
`
`229.
`
`Denied.
`
`230.
`
`Yodlee admits that some of its marketing materials reference the number of patents
`
`owned by Yodlee. Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 230 not specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`231.
`
`Denied.
`
`232.
`
`Yodlee admits that Intuit publicly announced on March 15, 2016 that it has
`
`“decided to discontinue the Financial Data APIs” and “[t]o allow current production developers to
`
`migrate, the API will be maintained until November 15, 2016.” Yodlee otherwise denies all
`
`allegations of Paragraph 232 not specifically admitted.
`
`233.
`
`Denied.
`
`234.
`
`Denied.
`
`235.
`
`Denied.
`
`236.
`
`Denied.
`
`TWENTY-THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Unfair Competition I – California State Law)
`
`237.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 237 of Plaid’s Counterclaims incorporates by
`
`reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of Plaid’s Answer and Counterclaims. Yodlee
`
`incorporates by references its responses as recited in the corresponding paragraphs of Yodlee’s
`
`Answer to Plaid’s Counterclaims, as well as the allegations of Yodlee’s Original Complaint for
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 213 Filed 06/30/16 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 5789
`
`Patent Infringement (D.I. 1).
`
`238.
`
`Denied.
`
`239.
`
`Denied.
`
`240.
`
`Denied.
`
`241.
`
`
`
`
`
` Yodlee denies that it falsely and deceptively represented that
`
`Plaid will be excluded from using Intuit
`
` For instance, Yodlee admits that
`
`Intuit publicly announced on March 15, 2016 that it has “decided to discontinue the Financial Data
`
`APIs” and “[t]o allow current production developers to migrate, the API will be maintained until
`
`November 15, 2016.” Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 241 not specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`242.
`
`Yodlee admits that its marketing documentation states that “Audited and
`
`supervised by a host of financial customers plus the OCC, FFIEC, and other governing and
`
`compliance bodies, financial institutions can rely on the security of Yodlee’s platform and
`
`practices.” Yodlee otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 242 not specifically admitted.
`
`243.
`
`Denied.
`
`244.
`
`Denied.
`
`245.
`
`Denied.
`
`246.
`
`Denied.
`
`TWENTY-FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Unfair Competition II – Common Law)
`
`247.
`
`Yodlee admits that Paragraph 247 of