throbber
Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 813
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)))))))))
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) hereby files its answer and defenses (“Answer”)
`
`to the Complaint filed on February 29, 2016, by plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound
`
`View”). The paragraphs below correspond to the same-numbered paragraphs in the Complaint.
`
`Facebook denies all allegations in the Complaint whether express or implied, that are not
`
`specifically admitted below. Facebook further denies that Sound View is entitled to the relief
`
`requested in the Complaint, or to any other relief.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Facebook is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies that it committed
`
`any act of infringement. Facebook further denies that it requires a license for any of Sound
`
`View’s patented technologies. Facebook admits that it has not received a license from Sound
`
`View. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 2.
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 814
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`3.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook admits that the Complaint
`
`purports to be an action for patent infringement arising under Title 35 of the United States Code,
`
`but denies the legal sufficiency of Sound View’s claims and allegations and denies that Sound
`
`View has any viable claim as to Facebook or that Facebook has infringed any of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Facebook is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4, and therefore denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Facebook admits that it is a Delaware corporation and has a principal place of
`
`business in California. Facebook admits that it may be served through its registered agent for
`
`service of process. Except as expressly admitted, Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 5.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook admits that the Complaint
`
`purports to be an action for patent infringement arising under Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`Facebook admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), provided that standing and other requirements are met. Except
`
`as expressly admitted, Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook does not dispute, for this
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 815
`
`action only, that venue is authorized in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and
`
`1400(b). Facebook denies that venue in this district is convenient pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(b). By filing this answer, Facebook does not waive any argument that venue is
`
`inconvenient in this District.
`
`8.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook does not dispute that this
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the instant action. Facebook admits that it
`
`is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. Facebook denies any and all allegations
`
`of patent infringement. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 8.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 8
`
`above.
`
`10.
`
`Facebook admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 5,991,845 (“the ‘845 patent”) is
`
`titled “Recoverable Spin Lock System” and states that it issued on November 23, 1999.
`
`Facebook denies that the ‘845 patent was duly and properly issued. Facebook admits that
`
`Exhibit A to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’845 patent.
`
`11.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 11, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Facebook admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,125,371 (“the ‘371 patent”) is
`
`titled “System and Method for Aging Versions of Data in a Main Memory Database” and states
`
`that it issued on September 26, 2000. Facebook denies that the ‘371 patent was duly and
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 816
`
`properly issued. Facebook admits that Exhibit B to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the
`
`’371 patent.
`
`13.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 13, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Facebook admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,732,181 (“the ‘181 patent”) is
`
`titled “Internet-Enabled Service Management and Authorization System and Method” and states
`
`that it issued on May 4, 2004. Facebook denies that the ‘181 patent was duly and properly
`
`issued. Facebook admits that Exhibit C to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’181 patent.
`
`15.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 15, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Facebook admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 7,366,786 (“the ‘786 patent”) is
`
`titled “Internet-Enabled Service Management and Authorization System and Method” and states
`
`that it issued on April 29, 2008. Facebook denies that the ‘786 patent was duly and properly
`
`issued. Facebook admits that Exhibit D to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’786 patent.
`
`17.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 17, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Facebook denies that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 7,412,486 (“the ‘486 patent”) is
`
`titled “Method and Apparatus Providing a Web Based Messaging System.” Facebook admits
`
`that on its face the ‘486 patent states that it issued on August 12, 2008. Facebook denies that the
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 817
`
`‘486 patent was duly and properly issued. Facebook admits that Exhibit E to the Complaint
`
`appears to be a copy of the ’486 patent.
`
`19.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 19, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`By its August 30, 2016 Order granting Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
`
`Patentable Subject Matter Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 48), the Court effectively struck all
`
`of the allegations of Count Six (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,593). Accordingly, no
`
`response is required to paragraphs 20-21.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`See paragraph 20, above.
`
`Facebook admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,135,860 (“the ‘860 patent”) is
`
`titled “Content Interpolating Web Proxy Server” and states that it issued on March 13, 2012.
`
`Facebook denies that the ‘896 patent was duly and properly issued. Facebook admits that
`
`Exhibit G to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the ’860 patent.
`
`23.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 23, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`23.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`24.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated July 15, 2014 in
`
`which Sound View identified the ‘593, ’181 and ‘786 patents. The July 15, 2014 letter speaks
`
`for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 24 to the extent they are
`
`inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 24.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 818
`
`25.
`
`Facebook admits that it has exchanged correspondence with Sound View.
`
`Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated August 10, 2015
`
`in which Sound View identified the ‘845, ‘371 and ‘486 patents. The August 10, 2015 letter
`
`speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`Facebook admits that it received an email from Sound View dated February 4,
`
`2016 in which Sound View identified ‘860 patent. The February 4, 2016 email speaks for itself,
`
`and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 27 to the extent they are inconsistent
`
`with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`Facebook denies any and all allegations of infringement. Facebook denies the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`Facebook denies any and all allegations of infringement including any and all
`
`allegations of willful infringement. Facebook denies the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 30.
`
`COUNT ONE
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘845 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 30
`
`above.
`
`32.
`
`The ‘845 patent speaks for itself. To the extent Sound View’s allegations seek to
`
`define or characterize the scope of the ‘845 patent, Sound View’s allegations state legal
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 819
`
`conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required,
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 33, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 34, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 35, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 36, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 37, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated August 10, 2015.
`
`The August 10, 2015 letter speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 820
`
`paragraph 39 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`Facebook admits that it has used POSIX threads. Facebook denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`Facebook denies that it uses Robust mutexes to protect shared resources.
`
`Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 42.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 43.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 44.
`
`COUNT TWO
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘371 PATENT
`
`45.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 44
`
`above.
`
`46.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 46, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 47, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 48, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`48.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 821
`
`49.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 49, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 50 and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 51.
`
`52.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated August 10, 2015.
`
`The August 10, 2015 letter speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 52 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`Facebook admits that HBase has been used by Facebook in certain aspects of its
`
`platform. Facebook admits that HBase can in certain situations provide high write throughput
`
`and low latency read performance, as well as other features. Facebook denies that beginning
`
`around 2014, Facebook upgraded its HBase database system with a new open source system
`
`called HydraBase. Facebook denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 53 which provide an
`
`incomplete, inaccurate and/or misleading description of functions and/or operations in HBase
`
`and/or HydraBase.
`
`54.
`
`Facebook denies allegations relating to its use of HydraBase. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations in paragraph 54 which provide an incomplete, inaccurate and/or
`
`misleading description of functions and/or operations in HBase and/or HydraBase.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 822
`
`55.
`
`Facebook denies allegations relating to its use of HydraBase. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations in paragraph 55 which provide an incomplete, inaccurate and/or
`
`misleading description of functions and/or operations in HBase and/or HydraBase.
`
`56.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations in paragraph 56 which provide an incomplete,
`
`inaccurate and/or misleading description of functions and/or operations in HBase and/or
`
`HydraBase.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 57.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 58.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 59.
`
`COUNT THREE
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘181 PATENT
`
`60.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 59
`
`above.
`
`61.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 61, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 62, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 63, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`63.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 823
`
`64.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 64.
`
`65.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated July 15, 2014.
`
`The July 15, 2014 letter speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 65 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 65.
`
`66.
`
`Facebook admits that Facebook Pages may be used by businesses, organizations,
`
`and brands share their stories and connect with people. Facebook admits that certain versions of
`
`Pages can include stories, events and apps. Facebook admits that Facebook users can create and
`
`manage a Page. Facebook admits that users with appropriate authorization can publish posts as
`
`the Page. Facebook admits that Page posts can appear in the News Feeds of people who “like”
`
`the Page. Facebook admits that for certain versions of Pages, users with appropriate
`
`authorization can add apps to the Page and check Page Insights for the Page. Facebook admits
`
`there are five different types of roles for people who manage Pages. Facebook admits that only
`
`an “Admin” can change someone’s role. Facebook admits that other Page roles are “Editor,”
`
`“Moderator,” “Advertiser” and “Analyst.” Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 66.
`
`67.
`
`Facebook admits that an authorized user of a Page can publish a post, “like” or
`
`comment as that Page. Facebook admits that in certain circumstances Facebook stores its users’
`
`email addresses, passwords, and names provided by its users. Facebook admits that Facebook
`
`stores the Page roles its users have. Facebook admits that the Facebook Graph API is comprised
`
`of nodes, edges and fields. Facebook admits that the edges are connections between the nodes,
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 824
`
`and the fields contain information about the nodes. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 67.
`
`68.
`
`Facebook admits that in certain circumstances, to access Facebook, a user may
`
`enter his or her email address and password and click “Log In.” Facebook admits that Facebook
`
`then validates the user’s information. Facebook admits that in certain circumstances, in a drop-
`
`down menu on the top right-hand side of the Facebook page, a user may see a list of Pages that
`
`the user is permitted to access. Facebook admits that a user having an Admin, Editor, or
`
`Moderator role can send messages as a Page, and respond to and delete comments and posts on
`
`the Page. Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 69.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 70.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 71.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 72.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 73.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘786 PATENT
`
`74.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 73
`
`above.
`
`75.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 75, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 76, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`76.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 825
`
`77.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 77, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 78.
`
`79.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated July 15, 2014.
`
`The July 15, 2014 letter speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 79 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 79.
`
`80.
`
`Facebook admits that in certain circumstances, to access Facebook, a user may
`
`enter his or her email address and password and click “Log In.” Facebook admits that in certain
`
`circumstances the user’s email address and password, as well as the user’s IP address may be
`
`sent to Facebook’s servers over a TCP/IP connection. Facebook admits that in certain
`
`circumstances, before a user’s information can be sent to the Facebook server, a handshake using
`
`the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol occurs between the client and the server. Facebook
`
`admits that in certain circumstances, during that TLS handshake the server may send a certificate
`
`to the client for authentication. Facebook admits that in certain circumstances after that
`
`certificate is received by the client, the client and server may exchange application data relating
`
`to authentication credentials. Facebook admits that in certain circumstances Facebook may
`
`validate that user’s credentials before allowing the user to log in. Facebook denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 80.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 826
`
`81.
`
`Facebook admits that Facebook user accounts may be disabled for various
`
`reasons. Facebook admits that if a Facebook account has been disabled, the user may see a
`
`disabled message when the user tries to log in. Facebook admits that in order to be allowed to
`
`log in, a Facebook account must not be disabled. Facebook admits that in certain circumstances
`
`Facebook may store information regarding its users’ sessions which may include the IP
`
`addresses, machine cookie or browser information for sessions. Facebook denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 81.
`
`82.
`
`Facebook admits that in certain circumstances a cookie that includes session
`
`information may be provided to a user once the user is allowed to log in. Facebook denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 82.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 83.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 84.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 85.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 86.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 87.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘486 PATENT
`
`88.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 87
`
`above.
`
`89.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 89, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`89.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 827
`
`90.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 90, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 91, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 92, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 93 and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 94 and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in paragraph
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 51.
`
`96.
`
`Facebook admits that it received a letter from Sound View dated August 10, 2014.
`
`The August 10, 2014 letter speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 96 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the letter. Facebook denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 96.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 828
`
`97.
`
`Facebook admits that certain versions of Facebook Chat client are written in
`
`JavaScript and have no plugins. Facebook admits that Facebook Chat can allow Facebook users
`
`near-real-time exchange of messages. Facebook admits that, in certain circumstances, Facebook
`
`has used a method involving an iframe to get text from one user to another. Facebook denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 98.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 99.
`
`100.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 100.
`
`COUNT SIX
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘593 PATENT
`
`101.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 100
`
`above.
`
`102. By its August 30, 2016 Order granting Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss For Lack
`
`Of Patentable Subject Matter Pursuant To 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 48), the Court effectively struck
`
`all of the allegations of Count Six (Infringement of the ‘593 Patent). Accordingly, no response is
`
`required to paragraphs 102 through 113.
`
`103.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`104.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`105.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`106.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`107.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`108.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`109.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`110.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 829
`
`111.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`112.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`113.
`
`See paragraph 102, above.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘860 PATENT
`
`114.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 113
`
`above.
`
`115.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 115, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 115.
`
`116.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 116, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 116.
`
`117.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 117, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 117.
`
`118.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 118, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 118.
`
`119.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is deemed to be required, Facebook denies the allegations set
`
`forth in paragraph 119.
`
`120.
`
`Facebook admits that it received an email from Sound View dated February 4,
`
`2016. The February 4, 2016 email speaks for itself, and Facebook denies the remaining
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 830
`
`allegations of paragraph 120 to the extent they are inconsistent with the contents of the email.
`
`Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 120.
`
`121.
`
`Facebook lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations recited in paragraph 121, and on that basis denies the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 121.
`
`122.
`
`Facebook admits that it has used WURFL (“Wireless Universal Resource File”).
`
`Facebook denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 122.
`
`123.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 123.
`
`124.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 124.
`
`125.
`
`Facebook denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 125.
`
`RESPONSE TO SOUND VIEW’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`126.
`
`Facebook incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if
`
`fully set forth herein. Facebook denies any and all allegations of patent infringement alleged in
`
`the Complaint. Facebook denies all allegations that Sound View is entitled to any relief
`
`requested in sub-paragraphs “a” through “f” of paragraph 126, or any other relief.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Sound View’s demand for a trial by jury does not require a response by Facebook.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), and without altering any applicable
`
`burdens of proof, Facebook asserts the following defenses to the Complaint and reserves its right
`
`to assert additional defenses.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE – NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`Facebook does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 831
`
`SECOND DEFENSE – INVALIDITY
`
`All asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of
`
`patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`and/or 112.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE – EQUITABLE DEFENSES
`
`Sound View’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel, laches, acquiescence,
`
`waiver, unclean hands, and/or other equitable defenses.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE – PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL
`
`Sound View’s claims are barred or limited from recovery, in whole or in part, by the
`
`doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE – IMPROPER VENUE
`
`Facebook reserves its right to assert that venue is not proper in this judicial district under
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) because this district is not a convenient forum.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE – NO WILLFULNESS
`
`Sound View is barred from obtaining a finding of willfulness or receiving enhanced
`
`damages because it has failed to set forth facts alleging reprehensible culpability on the part of
`
`Facebook, which is prerequisite for a finding of willfulness and an award of enhanced damages.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE – LIMITATION ON DAMAGES
`
`Sound View’s claims for costs and/or damages are barred, in whole or in part, by
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287 and/or 288.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 50 Filed 09/13/16 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 832
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`Facebook hereby reserves the right to amend its Answer and reserves all defenses set out
`
`in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and
`
`any other defenses, at law or in equity, which become applicable after the substantial completion
`
`of discovery or otherwise in the course of litigation.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Facebook prays that this Court enter judgment:
`
`A.
`
`In favor of Facebook, and against Sound View, thereby dismissing Sound View’s
`
`Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, with Sound View taking nothing by way of its claims;
`
`B.
`
`That Facebook has not infringed, and is not now infringing any valid claim of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`That all asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable;
`
`That this case stands out from others and as such is

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket