`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CARDSOFT (ASSIGNMENT FOR THE
`BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`FIRST DATA CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-0290
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`FIRST DATA CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`First Data Corporation (“First Data”) responds to the Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”) of Plaintiff CardSoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC as follows:
`
`1.
`
`First Data is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`2.
`
`First Data admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the state of Delaware, but its principal place of business is located at 5565 Glenridge Connector,
`
`N.E., Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, United States of America. First Data denies that it is a
`
`limited liability company.
`
`3.
`
`First Data admits that the Complaint purports to state an action against First Data
`
`for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et
`
`seq., over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but First Data denies that Plaintiff has
`
`a valid claim for patent infringement against First Data under those laws.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 07/01/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 115
`
`6.
`
`First Data admits that the ’945 Patent attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A is
`
`entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications.” First Data is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`First Data is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 8 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 9 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`First Data admits that the ’683 patent attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B is
`
`entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Communications.” First Data is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 12 (incorrectly numbered as Paragraph 10 in the Complaint) of the Complaint and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`13.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 11 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`First Data is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14 (incorrectly numbered as Paragraph 12 in the Complaint)
`
`of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`DLI-6446648v3
`
`2
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 07/01/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 116
`
`15.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 9 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 12 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`First Data denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 (incorrectly numbered as
`
`Paragraph 13 in the Complaint) of the Complaint.
`
`Prayer for Relief: The Prayer for Relief requires no response. To the extent that any
`
`response is required, First Data denies that the Plaintiff should be granted any of the relief it
`
`requests.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`First Data asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s claims for patent
`
`infringement. The assertion of an affirmative defense is not a concession that First Data has the
`
`burden of proving the matter asserted.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`First Data has not infringed and does not infringe the ‘945 Patent or the ‘683 Patent,
`
`either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. First Data has not
`
`contributed to any infringement by others or induced others to infringe any claim of either patent.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`On information and belief, the ’945 Patent and the ’683 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`satisfy the conditions of patentability as specified under one or more sections of Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. First
`
`Data reserves the right to assert any other basis for invalidity or unenforceability, or any other
`
`defense, that discovery may reveal.
`
`DLI-6446648v3
`
`3
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 07/01/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 117
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief and for damages for
`
`infringement of the ’945 Patent and the ’683 Patent are limited by the doctrines of laches, waiver,
`
`equitable estoppel and unclean hands.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for damages for infringement of the ’945 Patent and the ’683 Patent are
`
`limited by 35 U.S.C. § 287 to those damages occurring only after notice of infringement.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief and for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`On information and belief, the ’945 Patent and the ’683 Patent are unenforceable because
`
`Plaintiff failed to disclose the patents in a standards-setting organization.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`On information and belief, the ’945 Patent and the ’683 Patent are unenforceable due to
`
`inequitable conduct.
`
`For all of the above reasons, First Data prays that Plaintiff takes nothing by its Complaint
`
`and that First Data be awarded such other and further relief to which it may be justly entitled.
`
`
`
`DLI-6446648v3
`
`4
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 07/01/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 118
`
`Dated: July 1, 2013
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Robert W. Kantner
`Robert W. Kantner
`Texas State Bar No. 11093900
`E-mail: rwkantner@jonesday.com
`Attorney in Charge
`Matthew Hawkins
`Texas State Bar No. 24066779
`Email: mhawkins@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood Street
`Dallas, Texas 75201-1515
`Phone: (214) 969-3737
`Fax: (214) 969-5100
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`Gillam & Smith
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Phone: 903.934.8450
`Fax: 903.934.9257
`E-mail: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FIRST
`DATA CORPORATION
`
`
`DLI-6446648v3
`
`5
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 07/01/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 119
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who
`
`have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by U.S. mail or
`
`facsimile transmission, on this 1st day of July, 2013.
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert W. Kantner
`Robert W. Kantner
`
`
`
`
`DLI-6446648v3
`
`6
`
`Cardsoft (ABC) EXHIBIT 2003
`First Data v. Cardsoft
`IPR2014-00715
`
`