Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1338
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1702-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORP., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SPRINT'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation (“SCI”)1, by and through its undersigned
`
`attorneys, hereby responds to Plaintiff CallWave Communication, LLC’s (“CallWave”) Second
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) (D.I. 25) as follows:
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`SCI admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a),
`
`provided that standing and other requirements are met. SCI denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has named the incorrect entity in this action. On July 10, 2013, as part of a
`merger transaction with Softbank Corp., Sprint Nextel Corporation changed its name to
`Sprint Communications, Inc. Sprint Communications, Inc. is now a subsidiary of Sprint
`Corporation. Sprint Communications, Inc. (f/k/a Sprint Nextel Corporation) is primarily
`a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not make, use,
`distribute, offer for sale, license, and/or sell any products or services, either in this
`judicial district or elsewhere in the United States. The proper parties are Sprint Spectrum
`L.P. and Sprint Communications Company L.P.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1702-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORP., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SPRINT'S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Sprint Nextel Corporation (“SCI”)1, by and through its undersigned
`
`attorneys, hereby responds to Plaintiff CallWave Communication, LLC’s (“CallWave”) Second
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) (D.I. 25) as follows:
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`1.
`
`SCI admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a),
`
`provided that standing and other requirements are met. SCI denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 1.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has named the incorrect entity in this action. On July 10, 2013, as part of a
`merger transaction with Softbank Corp., Sprint Nextel Corporation changed its name to
`Sprint Communications, Inc. Sprint Communications, Inc. is now a subsidiary of Sprint
`Corporation. Sprint Communications, Inc. (f/k/a Sprint Nextel Corporation) is primarily
`a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not make, use,
`distribute, offer for sale, license, and/or sell any products or services, either in this
`judicial district or elsewhere in the United States. The proper parties are Sprint Spectrum
`L.P. and Sprint Communications Company L.P.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1339
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`2.
`
`SCI admits that CallWave purports to bring an action for alleged
`
`infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. SCI further
`
`admits that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,771,970 (the “’970 Patent), 7,907,933 (the “’933 Patent),
`
`8,325,901 (the “’901 Patent”), 7,636,428 (the “’428 Patent”), 7,822,188 (the “’188 Patent”) and
`
`8,064,588 (the “’588 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) were attached to the Complaint
`
`as Exhibits A-F. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 to the extent that they are
`
`directed at SCI, including any allegation that SCI has infringed, or is infringing, the patents-in-
`
`suit. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on
`
`that basis denies the same. To the extent that these allegations are directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), no response is required for such allegations
`
`and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`SCI denies the allegations of paragraph 3 to the extent that they are
`
`directed at SCI. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same. To the extent that these allegations are directed
`
`toward claims dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), no response is required for
`
`such allegations and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1340
`
`
`
`5.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`6.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 6, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`Admitted.
`
`9.
`
`SCI denies the allegations of paragraph 9. SCI further states that it is
`
`mainly a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not
`
`manufacture, use, sell, or offer for sale any products or services.
`
`10.
`
` SCI denies the allegations of paragraph 10 to the extent that they are
`
`directed at SCI. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same. To the extent that these allegations are directed
`
`toward claims dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), no response is required for
`
`such allegations and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`11.
`
`SCI denies the allegations of paragraph 11 to the extent that they are
`
`directed at SCI. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same. To the extent that these allegations are directed
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1341
`
`
`
`toward claims dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), no response is required for
`
`such allegations and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`SCI admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a),
`
`provided that standing and other requirements are met. SCI denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`For purposes of this action only, SCI does not contest that it is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in this Court. SCI further states that it is a holding company that holds
`
`stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use, sell, or offer for sale any
`
`products or services. SCI specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`judicial district or elsewhere. To the extent paragraph 13 is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`this paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`14.
`
`SCI does not contest that venue is proper in this district as to SCI for
`
`purposes of this action only. SCI specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement
`
`in this judicial district or elsewhere. To the extent paragraph 14 is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
`
`this paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`15.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent No. 6,771,970 (the “’970 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Location Determination System.” To the extent the allegations recited in this paragraph
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1342
`
`
`
`purport to characterize the contents of a written document, said document speaks for itself. SCI
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent No. 7,907,933 (the “’933 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Call Routing Apparatus.” To the extent the allegations recited in this paragraph purport
`
`to characterize the contents of a written document, said document speaks for itself. SCI denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent 8,325,901 (the “’901 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing Expanded Telecommunications Service.” To the
`
`extent the allegations recited in this paragraph purport to characterize the contents of a written
`
`document, said document speaks for itself. SCI denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent 7,636,428 (the “’428 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Systems and Methods for Call Screening.” To the extent the allegations recited in this
`
`paragraph purport to characterize the contents of a written document, said document speaks for
`
`itself. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
`
`19.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent 7,822,188 (the “’188 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing Expanded Telecommunications Service.” To the
`
`extent the allegations recited in this paragraph purport to characterize the contents of a written
`
`document, said document speaks for itself. SCI denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 19.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1343
`
`
`
`20.
`
`SCI admits that United States Patent 8,064,588 (the “’588 Patent”) is
`
`entitled “Systems and Methods for Call Screening.” To the extent the allegations recited in this
`
`paragraph purport to characterize the contents of a written document, said document speaks for
`
`itself. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 20.
`
`EXEMPLARY ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`21.
`
`Denied.
`
`22.
`
`SCI denies any allegation that it has any customers, denies that it has any
`
`customers who make any purchases of any kind, and further denies it sends bills to any
`
`customers. Sprint Spectrum L.P. does have wireless customers, some of whom have the ability
`
`to charge certain purchases made through the Google Play Store to their Sprint Spectrum
`
`account. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 22. To the extent this paragraph is
`
`not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`23.
`
`SCI denies any allegation that it has any customers, denies that it has any
`
`customers who make any purchases of any kind, and further denies it sends bills to any
`
`customers. Sprint Spectrum L.P. does have wireless customers, some of whom SCI have the
`
`ability to charge certain purchases made through the Google Play Store to their Sprint Spectrum
`
`account. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1344
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Denied.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,771,970
`
`26.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 27, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`28.
`
` SCI admits that the Family Locator application is offered by Sprint
`
`Spectrum to its customers for download in the United States. SCI denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 28. SCI further states that it is mainly a holding company that holds
`
`stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use, sell, or offer for sale any
`
`products or services.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`30.
`
`SCI admits [that it received a letter dated January 4, 2013 from CallWave,
`
`the contents of which speak for themselves. SCI admits that it has had knowledge of the ‘970
`
`and ‘933 Patents since being served with the original complaint but denies that it has ever
`
`infringed said patents. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 30.
`
`31.
`
`Denied.
`
`32.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1345
`
`
`
`33.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`34.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`35.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`36.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,907,933
`
`38.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 39, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`40.
`
` SCI denies in its entirety this paragraph as it relates to SCI. SCI admits
`
`that certain Sprint Spectrum subscribers have the ability to charge certain purchases made
`
`through the Google Play Store to their Sprint Spectrum account. SCI denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 40. SCI further states that it is mainly a holding company that holds
`
`stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use, sell, or offer for sale any
`
`products or services. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1346
`
`
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`41.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`42.
`
`Denied.
`
`43.
`
` SCI denies the allegations of paragraph 43 to the extent that they are
`
`directed at SCI. To the extent this paragraph is not directed at SCI, SCI lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`44.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`45.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`46.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`47.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1347
`
`
`
`48.
`
`No response is required for these allegations directed toward claims
`
`dismissed in the Court’s Dismissal Order (D.I. 66), and on that basis SCI denies the same.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,325,901
`
`50.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`51.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 51, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`52.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`53.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`54.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`55.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1348
`
`
`
`56.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,822,188
`
`57.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 58, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`59.
`
`SCI denies that it makes, uses, offers, to sell, and/or provides in the United
`
`States any product or service, specifically including Complete Collaboration. SCI admits that
`
`Complete Collaboration is offered by Sprint Communications Company L.P. in the United
`
`States. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 59. SCI further states that it is mainly
`
`a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use,
`
`sell, or offer for sale any products or services.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`61.
`
`Denied.
`
`62.
`
`Denied.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,636,428
`
`63.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1349
`
`
`
`64.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 64, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`65.
`
` SCI denies that it makes, uses, offers, to sell, and/or provides in the
`
`United States any product or service, specifically including Complete Collaboration. SCI admits
`
`that Complete Collaboration is offered by Sprint Communications Company L.P. in the United
`
`States. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 65. SCI further states that it is mainly
`
`a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use,
`
`sell, or offer for sale any products or services.
`
`66.
`
`Denied.
`
`67.
`
`Denied.
`
`68.
`
`Denied.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,064,588
`
`69.
`
`SCI repeats and incorporates each of its responses to the allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 68 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`SCI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 70, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`71.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1350
`
`
`
`72.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`73.
`
`This paragraph is not directed at SCI and SCI thus lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this
`
`paragraph, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`74.
`
` SCI denies that it makes, uses, offers, to sell, and/or provides in the
`
`United States any product or service, specifically including Complete Collaboration. SCI admits
`
`that Complete Collaboration is offered by Sprint Communications Company L.P. in the United
`
`States. SCI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 74. SCI further states that it is mainly
`
`a holding company that holds stock in its operating subsidiaries, and does not manufacture, use,
`
`sell, or offer for sale any products or services.
`
`75.
`
`Denied.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`77.
`
`Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`SCI denies any factual assertions contained in CallWave’s prayer for relief, and
`
`further denies that CallWave is entitled to the relief it seeks or any other relief.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1351
`
`
`
`DEFENSES
`
`SCI alleges and asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations of
`
`CallWave’s Complaint, undertaking the burden of proof only as required by law. SCI reserves
`
`the right to amend its Answer, or assert additional defenses, as additional information becomes
`
`available and/or is discovered.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement of the Asserted Patents)
`
`SCI has not infringed and does not infringe, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, any claim of the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 or ‘588 Patents.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`By reason of statements, representations, concessions, admissions, arguments or
`
`amendments, whether explicit or implicit, made by or on behalf of the applicants during the
`
`prosecution of the patent applications that led to the issuance of the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 and
`
`‘588 Patents, CallWave’s claims of patent infringement are barred in whole or in part by the
`
`doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Invalidity of the Asserted Patents)
`
`One or more claims of the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 and ‘588 Patents are invalid for
`
`failure to comply with one or more provisions of the patent laws of the United States, including,
`
`but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and/or 112.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1352
`
`
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Limitations on Damages and Costs)
`
`Upon information and belief, CallWave’s claim for damages is barred, in whole
`
`or in part, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287 and/or 288.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(No Injunctive Relief)
`
`To the extent that CallWave seeks injunctive relief for the alleged infringement of
`
`the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 and ‘588 Patents, the relief it seeks is unavailable because any alleged
`
`injury to CallWave is not irreparable, the balance of hardships and public interest weighs against
`
`the grant of an injunction, and CallWave has an adequate remedy at law.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Misjoinder)
`
`CallWave improperly joined the claims and parties in this action under Rule 20 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 35 U.S.C. § 299 because there are questions of law or
`
`fact that are not common to all the defendants, and the Complaint should be dismissed, or, in the
`
`alternative, the claims against SCI should be severed for trial.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(Equitable Defenses)
`
`Some or all of CallWave’s claims for damages and other relief are barred by the
`
`doctrines of waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, laches and/or other equitable doctrines.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`SCI demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1353
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, SCI requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of SCI and
`
`against CallWave on each of CallWave’s claims and further requests that the Court:
`
`(A) dismiss, with prejudice, CallWave’s claims against SCI and deny all relief
`
`that CallWave seeks in its Complaint;
`
`(B) declare that SCI does not and has not infringed the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 and
`
`‘588 Patents;
`
`invalid;
`
`(C) declare that the claims of the ‘970, ‘933, ‘188, ‘428 and ‘588 Patents are
`
`(D) deem this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award
`
`SCI its costs and attorneys’ fees; and
`
`(E) award SCI such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 1354
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`Eleanor Tennyson (#5812)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`etennyson@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Sprint Nextel Corp. (n/k/a Sprint
`Communications, Inc.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`Mark L. Hogge
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202)408-6400
`
`February 25, 2014
`8017082.6
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 1355
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 25, 2014, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`February 25, 2014 upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Edmond D. Johnson
`James G. McMillan, III
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
`1313 Market Street
`P.O. Box 1709
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
`johnsone@pepperlaw.com
`mcmillanj@pepperlaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Benjamin Snitkoff
`Lauren E. Reznick
`Noah V. Malgeri
`William D. Belanger
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-2736
`snitkoffb@pepperlaw.com
`reznickl@pepperlaw.com
`malgerin@pepperlaw.com
`belangerw@pepperlaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-01702-RGA Document 71 Filed 02/25/14 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 1356
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Paul Saindon
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`psaindon@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
`
`James F. Hurst
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`jhurst@winston.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
`
`Scott R. Samay
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Krishnan Padmanabhan
`Xi Chen
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-4193
`ssamay@winston.com
`plambrianakos@winston.com
`kpadmanabhan@winston.com
`mchen@winston.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2005
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
