throbber
Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11276
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendant Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”) as set forth below. To the extent not specifically admitted, Akamai
`
`denies the allegations in the Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`1.
`
`Akamai currently lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Akamai admits that it is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
`
`of Delaware and that it has a principal place of business in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`Akamai admits that the Complaint purports to bring an action for patent
`
`infringement, but denies that it has committed any acts of infringement, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271 or otherwise. The remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint contain
`
`conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to be
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, Akamai uses the headings used in Uniloc’s Complaint. In so doing,
`Akamai does not admit any of the allegations contained in those headings. In addition, Akamai’s
`responses to Uniloc’s allegations correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 16
`
`required, Akamai admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`COUNT I
`
`4.
`
`Akamai re-asserts and incorporates herein its responses to paragraphs 1-3 above,
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`
`5.
`
`Akamai admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578 (“the ’578 patent”) recites on its
`
`face that its title is “METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR
`
`MANAGEMENT OF CONFIGURABLE APPLICATION PROGRAMS ON A NETWORK”
`
`and that it recites an issue date of November 27, 2001. Akamai admits that Exhibit A of the
`
`Complaint purports to be an uncertified copy of the ’578 patent. Akamai denies that the ’578
`
`patent is a valid or properly issued patent. Akamai currently lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 5, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`6.
`
`Akamai admits that it operates a Content Delivery Network (“CDN”). Akamai
`
`admits that it operated the Luna Control Center and that the image in paragraph 6 of the
`
`Complaint purports to be a screenshot of the Luna Control Center. Akamai denies the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Akamai admits that if a user did not enter the appropriate log-in credentials for
`
`Akamai’s Luna Control Center, the user would not be given access to the Luna Control Center.
`
`Akamai admits that the image in paragraph 7 of the Complaint purports to be a screenshot of the
`
`Luna Control Center. Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 3 of 16
`
`8.
`
`Akamai admits that Akamai’s Luna Control Center included Luna Resolve.
`
`Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Akamai admits that Akamai’s website previously stated that “Luna Control
`
`Center has flexible mechanisms to secure, control and protect access to different web content and
`
`applications.” Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Akamai admits that users of Akamai’s Luna Control Center had to log in to gain
`
`access to the Akamai Control Center. Akamai admits that the images in paragraphs 6 and 7 of
`
`the Complaint purport to be screenshots of the Luna Control Center. To the extent paragraph 10
`
`of the Complaint contains additional allegations, Akamai denies them.
`
`11.
`
`Akamai admits that Akamai’s website previously stated that a user “can arrange
`
`and customize widgets to layout a dashboard with the most relevant information in a consumable
`
`and comprehensive way.” Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Akamai admits that Akamai’s website previously stated that “[u]pon entry to
`
`Luna Control Center, users may customize their home page to reference the most relevant CDN
`
`management information quickly.” Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Akamai admits that the image in paragraph 13 of the Complaint purports to be a
`
`screenshot of an Akamai webpage from an unspecified time. Akamai denies the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`Akamai admits that the Luna Control Center could be accessed by entering
`
`http://control.akamai.com into a web browser. Akamai admits that it operated servers that hosted
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 4 of 16
`
`the Luna Control Center software. Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Akamai admits that the Luna Control Center included features that could be used
`
`to set usernames and passwords, set access and management privileges to different user profiles
`
`and manage access rights and privileges based on users’ roles. Akamai denies the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`Akamai admits that the Luna Control Center included features that could be used
`
`to set usernames and passwords, set access and management privileges to different user profiles
`
`and manage access rights and privileges based on users’ roles. Akamai denies that the image in
`
`paragraph 16 of the Complaint appears at the URL: https://developer.akamai.com. Akamai
`
`denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai admits that it has had knowledge of the existence of the ’578 patent since
`
`at least the date of service of a complaint alleging patent infringement of the ’578 patent against
`
`Akamai in the Eastern District of Texas on May 16, 2017, which the plaintiff in that case
`
`voluntarily dismissed. Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 5 of 16
`
`COUNT II
`
`23.
`
`Akamai re-asserts and incorporates herein its responses to paragraphs 1-22 above,
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`Akamai admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293 (“the ’293 patent”) recites on its
`
`face that its title is “METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR
`
`DISTRIBUTION OF APPLICATION PROGRAMS TO A TARGET STATION ON A
`
`NETWORK” and that it recites an issue date of June 27, 2006. Akamai admits that Exhibit B of
`
`the Complaint purports to be an uncertified copy of the ’293 patent. Akamai denies that the ’293
`
`patent is a valid or properly issued patent. Akamai lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`confirm or deny the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`25.
`
`Akamai admits that it operated servers that hosted the Luna Control Center
`
`software. Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Akamai admits that Akamai uses servers in a content delivery network, including
`
`Akamai’s edge servers, to facilitate content delivery to end users on behalf of Akamai’s
`
`customers. To the extent paragraph 26 of the Complaint contains additional allegations, Akamai
`
`denies them.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai admits that it has had knowledge of the existence of the ’293 patent since
`
`at least the date of service of a complaint alleging patent infringement of the ’293 patent against
`
`Akamai in the Eastern District of Texas on May 16, 2017, which the plaintiff in that case
`
`voluntarily dismissed. Akamai denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 28 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 6 of 16
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`Akamai denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`RESPONSE TO UNILOC’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`31.
`
`Akamai denies that it is liable for any relief requested in Uniloc’s Prayer for
`
`Relief, including that requested in subparagraphs (A) through (E). Akamai has not infringed and
`
`is not infringing, either directly, by inducement, or contributorily, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the patents-in-suit. Uniloc is not
`
`entitled to recover statutory damages, compensatory damages, accounting, injunctive relief,
`
`costs, fees, interest, or any other type of recovery from Akamai. Uniloc’s prayer for relief
`
`should, therefore, be denied in its entirety and with prejudice.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`No response is required to Uniloc’s jury demand.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`32.
`
`In addition to the affirmative defenses described below, Akamai specifically
`
`reserves all rights to allege additional affirmative defenses that become known through the
`
`course of discovery. By alleging the affirmative defenses set forth below, Akamai does not
`
`concede that it bears the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion on these issues, whether in
`
`whole or in part.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Non-infringement)
`
`33.
`
`Akamai has not infringed and is not infringing, directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement, any valid or enforceable claim of the ’578 patent or the ’293 patent (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 7 of 16
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`34.
`
`The asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy one or
`
`more of the requirements for patentability and/or patent eligibility under Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code, including without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel / Prosecution Disclaimer)
`
`35.
`
`Prosecution history estoppel and/or prosecution disclaimer preclude any finding
`
`of infringement. On information and belief, in its efforts to secure allowance, the applicants for
`
`the Asserted Patents made admissions regarding what was known in the prior art, and/or
`
`narrowed the scope of their claims, thereby precluding a finding that Akamai practices any valid
`
`claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Estoppel and Waiver)
`
`36.
`
`Uniloc’s claims for relief are barred on the grounds of estoppel and waiver.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages / Failure to Mark)
`
`37.
`
`To the extent that Uniloc seeks damages otherwise accruing prior to six years
`
`before it filed its Complaint, such damages are barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286. The relief sought by
`
`Uniloc based on Akamai’s alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents is further limited by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287 to the extent that the owner(s) of the Asserted Patents, and/or their licensees, failed
`
`to mark allegedly practicing products. Uniloc’s claims of infringement and/or claims for relief
`
`against Akamai are barred or limited in whole or in part under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or
`
`288.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 8 of 16
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`38.
`
`Uniloc has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted because Akamai
`
`has not performed any act and is not performing any act in violation of any rights validly
`
`belonging to Uniloc.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unclean Hands)
`
`39.
`
`Uniloc is not entitled to relief by reason of its coming to this Court with unclean
`
`hands.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc’s business model assumes that it will not
`
`succeed on the vast majority of its patent claims and instead relies on volume and serial litigation
`
`to monetize dubious patents through litigation-driven settlements. Simply by increasing the
`
`volume of asserted claims across numerous litigations, Uniloc assumes that it will increase the
`
`likelihood that at least one claim of one patent will survive and serve as the basis for an
`
`oversized settlement. Indeed, this is the fifth patent complaint that Uniloc has filed against
`
`Akamai alone in just over two years.  
`
`41.
`
`Further, on information and belief, despite Uniloc and its predecessors filing over
`
`50 cases against many defendants (including Akamai) alleging infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents, no defendant has ever been found to infringe either of these patents in any litigation.  
`
`42.
`
`Uniloc’s litigation misconduct harms Akamai and the public by undermining the
`
`integrity of the patent system and the courts, and makes Uniloc’s serial assertion of patents
`
`(including the Asserted Patents in this case) against Akamai inequitable. The Asserted Patents
`
`are unenforceable against Akamai because of Uniloc’s abuses of the patent system and unclean
`
`hands.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 9 of 16
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (Laches)
`
`43.
`
`Uniloc’s claims of infringement and/or claims for relief against Akamai are
`
`barred or limited in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (No Injunctive Relief)
`
`44.
`
`Uniloc is not entitled to injunctive relief.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (No Exceptional Case)
`
`45.
`
`Uniloc has no basis to allege that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of
`
`attorneys’ fees to Uniloc under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (No Recovery of Costs)
`
`46.
`
`Uniloc is not entitled to costs and its costs are limited under 35 U.S.C. § 288.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (Lack of Standing)
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc fails to hold all exclusionary rights to the
`
`Asserted Patents, and thus lacks standing to bring the infringement claims alleged in the
`
`Complaint.
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
` (All Other Defenses Reserved)
`
`48.
`
`Akamai reserves all affirmative defenses under 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,
`
`that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further investigation in
`
`this case.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 10 of 16
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`For its counterclaims against Uniloc, Counterclaim Plaintiff Akamai alleges as follows.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`These are counterclaims for declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of
`
`one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578 (the “’578 patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,069,293 (the “’293 patent”), (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the state of Delaware and having its principal place of business at
`
`150 Broadway, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142. Akamai does business in this District.
`
`3.
`
`According to the Complaint, Counterclaim Defendant Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`(“Uniloc”) is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc is owned (directly or indirectly) by Fortress
`
`Investment Group LLC.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc is in the business of litigating and attempting to
`
`monetize patents.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc does not make, sell, or offer for sale any
`
`products.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc does not employ any engineers that develop
`
`products.
`
`8.
`
`According to the Complaint, Uniloc claims to be the owner by assignment of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Uniloc purchased the Asserted Patents and had no role
`
`in the development of the alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 11 of 16
`
`10.
`
`Uniloc has sued Akamai, alleging that each of the Asserted Patents is valid,
`
`enforceable, and infringed by Akamai. Akamai denies Uniloc’s allegations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`11.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of
`
`the Asserted Patents arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and
`
`the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. An actual case and controversy exists
`
`under the Declaratory Judgment Act because Uniloc has sued Akamai alleging that each of the
`
`Asserted Patents is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Akamai, and Akamai denies Uniloc’s
`
`allegations. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a), in combination with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.
`
`12.
`
`Personal jurisdiction and venue in this District over Uniloc are proper under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1367, 1391, and 1400 because Uniloc sued Akamai in this Court.
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578)
`
`13.
`
`Akamai restates and incorporates by reference the denials, admissions,
`
`allegations, and Affirmative Defenses contained in its Answer and Counterclaims above as if
`
`fully set forth herein. Akamai further restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 12 of its Counterclaims.
`
`14.
`
`Uniloc claims that it is the owner by assignment of the ’578 patent. Uniloc has
`
`expressly charged Akamai with infringement of the ’578 patent by filing the Complaint in this
`
`action.
`
`15.
`
`Akamai has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or
`
`by inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’578 patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 12 of 16
`
`16.
`
`In light of the Complaint against Akamai, there exists an actual controversy
`
`between Uniloc and Akamai regarding the ’578 patent. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable
`
`controversy has arisen and exists between Uniloc and Akamai with respect to the alleged
`
`infringement of the ’578 patent. Akamai desires a judicial determination and declaration of the
`
`respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is
`
`necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and
`
`duties.
`
`17.
`
`Akamai is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is
`
`not infringing, the ’578 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to,
`
`infringement of the ’578 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of
`
`the ’578 patent.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578)
`
`18.
`
`Akamai repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`of its Counterclaims, above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19.
`
`Akamai contends that the claims of the ’578 patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112.
`
`20.
`
`Akamai is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Uniloc contends
`
`that the ’578 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`21.
`
`Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Uniloc and Akamai with respect to the validity and enforceability of the ’578 patent. Akamai
`
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 13 of 16
`
`herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the
`
`parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`22.
`
`Akamai is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’578 patent are
`
`invalid.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293)
`
`23.
`
`Akamai repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`of its Counterclaims, above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`Uniloc claims that it is the owner by assignment of the ’293 patent. Uniloc has
`
`expressly charged Akamai with infringement of the ’293 patent by filing the Complaint in this
`
`action.
`
`25.
`
`Akamai has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or
`
`by inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’293 patent.
`
`26.
`
`In light of the Complaint against Akamai, there exists an actual controversy
`
`between Uniloc and Akamai regarding the ’293 patent. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable
`
`controversy has arisen and exists between Uniloc and Akamai with respect to the alleged
`
`infringement of the ’293 patent. Akamai desires a judicial determination and declaration of the
`
`respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is
`
`necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and
`
`duties.
`
`27.
`
`Akamai is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is
`
`not infringing, the ’293 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to,
`
`infringement of the ’293 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of
`
`the ’293 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 14 of 16
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293)
`
`28.
`
`Akamai repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`of its Counterclaims, above, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Akamai contends that the claims of the ’293 patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112.
`
`30.
`
`Akamai is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Uniloc contends
`
`that the ’293 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`31.
`
`Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`
`Uniloc and Akamai with respect to the validity and enforceability of the ’293 patent. Akamai
`
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`
`herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the
`
`parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties.
`
`32.
`
`Akamai is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’293 patent are
`
`invalid.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Akamai respectfully
`
`demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.
`
`AKAMAI’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Akamai respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
`
`A. Dismissing Uniloc’s complaint against Akamai with prejudice;
`
`B. Finding that Uniloc is not entitled to damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, expenses, or interest
`
`for the alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents;
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 15 of 16
`
`C. Granting judgment in favor of Akamai;
`
`D. Declaring that the claims of the Asserted Patents are not infringed by Akamai;
`
`E. Declaring that the claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid and/or patent ineligible;
`
`F. Granting Akamai’s attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred defending against Uniloc’s
`
`Complaint; and
`
`G. Awarding Akamai such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`Date: August 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Michael J. Summersgill
`
`Michael J. Summersgill (BBO #632816)
`Dana O. Burwell (BBO #682413)
`Rachel S. Bier (BBO #703223)
`WILMERHALE LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Fax: (617) 526-5000
`michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com
`dana.burwell@wilmerhale.com
`rachel.bier@wilmerhale.com
`
`Arthur W. Coviello (BBO #670152)
`WILMERHALE LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 858-6069
`Fax: (650) 858-6100
`arthur.coviello@wilmerhale.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11276-RGS Document 17 Filed 08/28/19 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Michael J. Summersgill, hereby certify that a true copy of this document was served
`upon counsel of record for the plaintiffs through the Court’s electronic court filing (ECF) system,
`this 28th day of August 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Summersgill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

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