`
`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
`
`