Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 98
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00457
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ANSWER TO
`PLAINTIFF UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.’S
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), as and for its answer to Plaintiff Uniloc USA, Inc. and
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.’s
`
`(collectively, “Uniloc”) Amended Complaint
`
`for Patent
`
`Infringement, states as follows:
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Apple lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 1
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Apple lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 2
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`Apple admits that it is a California corporation having a principal place of
`
`business in Cupertino, California. Apple further admits that it operates retail stores at 2601
`
`Preston Road, Frisco, TX and at 6121 West Park Boulevard, Plano, TX. Apple admits that it
`
`offers products and services, including certain models of iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers, for
`
`
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 99
`
`sale to customers in Texas and in this District. Apple admits that it may be served with process
`
`through its registered agent for service in Texas. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Apple admits that the Amended Complaint purports to state a cause of action for
`
`patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, and that the Court has subject-
`
`matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Apple denies that it has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement, whether in this District or elsewhere.
`
`5.
`
`Apple does not contest that venue is proper in this District for the purposes of the
`
`above-captioned case. Apple denies, however, that venue in this District is convenient or in the
`
`interest of justice under 28 U.S. C. § 1404(a), et al., and reserves its right to move to transfer
`
`venue of this action accordingly. Apple denies that it has committed acts of infringement within
`
`this District or elsewhere. Apple admits that it has transacted business within the State of Texas
`
`and within this District and that it has sold products and services, including certain models of
`
`iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers, to customers in Texas and in this District. Except as
`
`specifically admitted, Apple denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT I
`ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,092,671
`
`6.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-5 of Uniloc’s Amended
`
`Complaint. Apple therefore incorporates by reference its answers to those paragraphs, as set
`
`forth above.
`
`7.
`
`Apple admits that a document appearing on its face to be U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`(“the ‘671 Patent”) was attached to the Amended Complaint. Apple further admits that the ‘671
`
`Patent is entitled “Method and System For Wirelessly Autodialling A Telephone Number From
`
`2
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 100
`
`A Record Stored On A Personal Information Device,” and that the face of the ‘671 Patent states
`
`that it issued on August 15, 2006. Apple lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Apple lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 8
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that it makes, uses, and sells certain models of iPhones, iPads, and
`
`Mac computers.
`
`10.
`
`Apple admits that iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers support certain forms of
`
`wireless communications capabilities. As presently understood, Apple denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that a copy of a document appearing on its face to be U.S. Patent
`
`7,092,671 was served on it with the original Complaint in this action. Apple denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`To the extent that paragraph 19 of the Complaint contains any factual allegations,
`
`Apple denies them. Apple denies that Uniloc has, or can “reserve,” a “right to discover and
`
`3
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 101
`
`pursue” allegations relating to devices or software that are not accused of infringement in the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`Apple alleges the following defenses to the claims set forth in Uniloc’s Amended
`
`Complaint. Apple undertakes the burden of proof only with respect to those defenses where that
`
`burden rests with Apple by law.
`
`First Defense – Invalidity
`
`1.
`
`The claims of the ‘671 Patent are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
`
`103, and/or 112.
`
`Second Defense – Non-Infringement
`
`2.
`
`Apple has not infringed, whether directly or indirectly, through contributory
`
`infringement or inducement, any claim of the ‘671 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Third Defense – Failure to State a Claim
`
`3.
`
`Uniloc’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
`
`Fourth Defense – Prosecution History Estoppel
`
`4.
`
`Uniloc’s claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based
`
`on statements, representations, and admissions made during the prosecution of the patent
`
`application resulting in the patent-in-suit before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`and/or during the prosecution of related patent applications.
`
`4
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 102
`
`RESPONSE TO UNILOC’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Apple denies that Uniloc is entitled to any relief whatsoever under the Amended
`
`Complaint, including the relief requested in paragraphs A through D of Uniloc’s Prayer for
`
`Relief.
`
`
`Date: August 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael Pieja
`Michael T. Pieja (pro hac vice)
`Alan E. Littmann (pro hac vice)
`Emma C. Neff (pro hac vice)
`Doug Winnard (pro hac vice)
`GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI
`BRENNAN & BAUM LLP
`564 W. Randolph St., Suite 400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: (312) 681-6000
`Fax: (312) 881-5191
`mpieja@goldmanismail.com
`alittmann@goldmanismail.com
`eneff@goldmanismail.com
`dwinnard@goldmanismail.com
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 S. Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Tel: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 5 of 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00457-JRG Document 25 Filed 08/11/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 103
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT APPLE
`
`
`
`INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG
`
`S.A.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT was filed electronically
`
`this 11th day of August, 2017, in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Therefore, this
`
`document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service.
`
`Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`
`Dated: August 11, 2017
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael T Pieja
`
`Michael T. Pieja (pro hac vice)
`
`
`6
`
`APPL-1016 / IPR2018-00282
`Apple v. Uniloc / Page 6 of 6
`
`