Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 3353
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No.: 23-120-RGA
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`COUNTERCLAIMS IN HP INC. ACTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor-Plaintiff and
`
`Counterclaim Defendant in Intervention Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) responds to
`
`counterclaims in Intervenor-Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff in Intervention LiTL LLC’s
`
`(“LiTL”) action against HP, Inc. (“HP”):
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Except as specifically admitted herein, Microsoft denies each and every allegation of
`
`LiTL’s Counterclaims. To the extent that any allegations of the Counterclaims refer or rely upon
`
`information not previously supplies to Microsoft, Microsoft is without sufficient information to
`
`admit or deny such allegations, and therefore denies the same. Any factual allegation admitted
`
`below is admitted only as to the specific facts and not as to any purported conclusions,
`
`164719570.2
`
`LiTL Exhibit 2041
`MSFT v. LiTL
`IPR2024-00457
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 3354
`
`
`
`characterizations, implications, or speculations that might follow from the admitted facts. In
`
`responding to the Counterclaims, Microsoft understands Accused Microsoft Products to mean
`
`the products expressly accused of infringement in the counterclaims.
`
`Microsoft reserves the right to amend or supplement its Answer, to take further positions,
`
`and to raise additional defenses based on additional facts or developments that become available
`
`or arise during discovery in this action.
`
`The numbered paragraphs herein correspond to and respond to the numbered paragraphs
`
`set forth in the Counterclaims. The first, non-numbered paragraph of the Counterclaims contains
`
`an introductory paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response
`
`is deemed necessary, Microsoft denies that it has committed patent infringement and further
`
`denies that LiTL is entitled to any relief from Microsoft.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. Microsoft admits that LiTL’s complaint alleges patent infringement under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1, et seq. Microsoft denies all of LiTL’s allegations of infringement and denies that LiTL is
`
`entitled to any relief from Microsoft.
`
`2. Denied.
`
`3. Microsoft admits that LiTL’s Counterclaims seeks monetary damages and injunctive
`
`relief. To the extent this paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 3.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`5. Admitted.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3355
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6. Microsoft admits that LiTL’s Counterclaims allege patent infringement under Title 35
`
`of the United States Code. Microsoft admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents
`
`7. Microsoft admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Microsoft for purposes
`
`of this action. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 7.
`
`8. Admitted.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`LiTL’s Patented Technologies
`
`9. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`10. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`11. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`12. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`13. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`14. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`15. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 3356
`
`
`
`16. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`LiTL’s Asserted Patents
`
`17. Microsoft admits that LiTL asserts eight patents against Microsoft in its
`
`Counterclaims. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17.
`
`18. Microsoft admits that Exhibit A purports to be a copy of the ’688 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’688 patent. Microsoft admits that the ’688
`
`patent is titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations” and that, on its face, it
`
`issued on October 16, 2012. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 18.
`
`19. Microsoft admits that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of the ’844 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’844 patent. Microsoft admits that the ’844
`
`patent is titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations” and that, on its face, it
`
`issued on January 7, 2014. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 19.
`
`20. Microsoft admits that Exhibit C purports to be a copy of the ’229 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’229 patent. Microsoft admits that the ’229
`
`patent is titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations” and that, on its face, it
`
`issued on February 7, 2017. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 20.
`
`21. Microsoft admits that Exhibit D purports to be a copy of the ’154 patent and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’154 patent. Microsoft admits that on its
`
`face, the ’154 patent is titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations” and that,
`
`on its face, it issued on May 14, 2019. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`21.
`
`22. Microsoft admits that Exhibit E purports to be a copy of the ’315 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’315 patent. Microsoft admits that the ’315
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 3357
`
`
`
`patent is titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations” and that, on its face, it
`
`issued on April 7, 2015. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 22.
`
`23. Microsoft admits that Exhibit F purports to be a copy of the ’715 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’715 patent. Microsoft admits the ’715
`
`patent is titled “System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content” and
`
`that, on its face, it issued on January 30, 2018. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 23.
`
`24. Microsoft admits that Exhibit G purports to be a copy of the ’818 patent and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’818 patent. Microsoft admits the ’818
`
`patent is titled “System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content” and
`
`that, on its face, it issued on February 18, 2020. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 24.
`
`25. Microsoft admits that Exhibit H purports to be a copy of the ’888 patent, and that
`
`LiTL purports to be the owner by assignment of the ’888 patent. Microsoft admits the ’888
`
`patent is titled “Method and apparatus for managing digital media content” and that, on its face,
`
`it issued on December 17, 2013. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Knowledge of LiTL’s Asserted Patents and Microsoft’s Alleged
`Infringement
`
`26. Microsoft admits that in May 2021 it was aware that LiTL had asserted certain of
`
`the Asserted Patents against Lenovo.
`
`27. Microsoft admits that a conversation took place between a LiTL executive and an
`
`Assistant General Counsel for Microsoft. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 27.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 3358
`
`
`
`28. Microsoft admits that it received a letter from LiTL on May 10, 2021 that listed the
`
`’154 patent, ’315 patent, ’715 patent, ’818 patent, and ’888 patent. Microsoft denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 28.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Incorporation of LiTL’s Patented Technologies
`Into Microsoft’s Surface Devices
`
`29. To the extent this paragraph contains any factual allegations requiring a response,
`
`Microsoft denies them.
`
`30. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in 2021. Microsoft denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 30.
`
`31. Microsoft admits that it maintains or has maintained certain websites, which speak for
`
`themselves. To the extent this paragraph contains additional factual allegations, Microsoft denies
`
`them.
`
`32. Denied.
`
`33. Microsoft admits that it maintains or has maintained certain websites, which speak for
`
`themselves. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 33.
`
`34. Denied.
`
`35. Microsoft admits that the Accused Microsoft Products are sold and offered for sale on
`
`Microsoft’s website. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Inducement of HP’s Alleged Direct Infringement
`
`36. Microsoft admits that it provides the Windows operating system to HP to be pre-
`
`installed on the Accused HP Products. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis
`
`denies them.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 3359
`
`
`
`37. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since April
`
`2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37.
`
`38. Denied.
`
`39. Microsoft denies that it has made use of LiTL’s patented technologies. Microsoft
`
`denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains
`
`additional factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Alleged Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688)
`
`40. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`41. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since April
`
`2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41.
`
`42. Denied.
`
`43. Denied.
`
`44. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement
`
`45. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes, or induces infringement of, any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`46. Denied.
`
`47. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 3360
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Alleged Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844)
`
`48. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`49. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since April
`
`2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 49.
`
`50. Denied.
`
`51. Denied.
`
`52. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`LiTL’s Alleged Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement
`
`53. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes, or induces infringement of, any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`54. Denied.
`
`55. Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Alleged Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229)
`
`56. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`57. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since April
`
`2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 57.
`
`58. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 3361
`
`
`
`59. Denied.
`
`60. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement
`
`61. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes, or induces infringement of, any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`62. Denied.
`
`63. Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154)
`
`64. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Direct Infringement Involving the Microsoft Accused Products
`
`65. Denied.
`
`66. Denied.
`
`67. Denied.
`
`68. Denied.
`
`69. Denied.
`
`70. Denied.
`
`71. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Microsoft Products
`
`72. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’154 patent in May 2021.
`
`73. Denied.
`
`74. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 3362
`
`
`
`75. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`76. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since April
`
`2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 76.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Contributory Infringement
`
`77. Denied.
`
`78. Denied.
`
`79. Denied.
`
`80. Denied.
`
`81. Denied.
`
`82. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’154 patent in May 2021.
`
`83. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`84. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in May 2021. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 84.
`
`85. Denied.
`
`86. Denied.
`
`87. Denied.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Infringement
`
`88. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`89. Denied.
`
`90. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 3363
`
`
`
`91. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required.
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315)
`
`92. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing paragraphs
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Direct Infringement Involving the Microsoft Accused Products
`
`93. Denied.
`
`94. Denied.
`
`95. Denied.
`
`96. Denied.
`
`97. Denied.
`
`98. Denied.
`
`99. Denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`102. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Microsoft Products
`
`103. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’315 patent in May 2021.
`
`104. Denied.
`
`105. Denied.
`
`106. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 3364
`
`
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`107. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since
`
`April 2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 107.
`
`108. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Contributory Infringement
`
`109. Denied.
`
`110. Denied.
`
`111. Denied.
`
`112. Denied.
`
`113. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’315 patent in May 2021.
`
`114. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`115. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in May 2021. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 115.
`
`116. Denied.
`
`117. Denied.
`
`118. Denied.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Infringement
`
`119. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`120. Denied.
`
`121. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 3365
`
`
`
`122. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`(Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715)
`
`123. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Direct Infringement Involving the Microsoft Accused Products
`
`124. Denied.
`
`125. Denied.
`
`126. Denied.
`
`127. Denied.
`
`128. Denied.
`
`129. Denied.
`
`130. Denied.
`
`131. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Microsoft Products
`
`132. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’715 patent in May 2021.
`
`133. Denied.
`
`134. Denied.
`
`135. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`136. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since
`
`April 2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 136.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 3366
`
`
`
`137. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Contributory Infringement
`
`138. Denied.
`
`139. Denied.
`
`140. Denied.
`
`141. Denied.
`
`142. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’715 patent in May 2021.
`
`143. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`144. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in May 2021. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 144.
`
`145. Denied.
`
`146. Denied.
`
`147. Denied.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Infringement
`
`148. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`149. Denied.
`
`150. Denied.
`
`151. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 3367
`
`
`
`COUNT VII
`
`(Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818)
`
`152. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Direct Infringement Involving the Microsoft Accused Products
`
`153. Denied.
`
`154. Denied.
`
`155. Denied.
`
`156. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Microsoft Products
`
`157. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’818 patent in May 2021.
`
`158. Denied.
`
`159. Denied.
`
`160. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`161. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since
`
`April 2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 161.
`
`162. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Contributory Infringement
`
`163. Denied.
`
`164. Denied.
`
`165. Denied.
`
`166. Denied.
`
`167. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’818 patent in May 2021.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 3368
`
`
`
`168. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`169. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in May 2021. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 169.
`
`170. Denied.
`
`171. Denied.
`
`172. Denied.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Infringement
`
`173. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`174. Denied.
`
`175. Denied.
`
`176. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required.
`
`COUNT VIII
`
`(Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888)
`
`177. Microsoft incorporates by reference its response to each of the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Direct Infringement Involving the Microsoft Accused Products
`
`178. Denied.
`
`179. Denied.
`
`180. Denied.
`
`181. Denied.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 3369
`
`
`
`182. Denied.
`
`183. Denied.
`
`184. Denied.
`
`185. Denied.
`
`186. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Microsoft Products
`
`187. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’888 patent in May 2021.
`
`188. Denied.
`
`189. Denied.
`
`190. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Induced Infringement Involving the Accused HP Products
`
`191. Microsoft admits that it has been aware of LiTL’s Complaint against HP since
`
`April 2023. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 191.
`
`192. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Contributory Infringement
`
`193. Denied.
`
`194. Denied.
`
`195. Denied.
`
`196. Denied.
`
`197. Microsoft admits that it was aware of the ’888 patent in May 2021.
`
`198. Denied.
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Willful Infringement
`
`199. Microsoft admits that it received claim charts from LiTL in May 2021. Microsoft
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 199.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 3370
`
`
`
`200. Denied.
`
`201. Denied.
`
`202. Denied.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Alleged Infringement
`
`203. To the extent this paragraph contains factual allegations, Microsoft denies them.
`
`Microsoft denies that it infringes any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`204. Denied.
`
`205. Denied.
`
`206. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and on that basis denies them. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions, no answer is required.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`207. Microsoft denies that it infringes any valid and enforceable asserted claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, indirectly, and/or by
`
`inducement, and denies that importation, sale, or offer for sale of products has been unlawful.
`
`Microsoft denies that LiTL is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`208. This paragraph sets forth LiTL’s demand for a jury trial to which no response is
`
`required.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`209. Microsoft hereby asserts the following affirmative and other defenses in response
`
`to LiTL’s Counterclaims, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed
`
`affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Microsoft
`
`expressly reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 3371
`
`
`
`Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses at law and equity that
`
`may nor or in the future be available based on discovery or any other factual investigation
`
`concerning this care or any related action.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Noninfringement)
`
`210. Microsoft does not infringe and has not infringed, directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement, any valid and enforceable claims of the Asserted Patents, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`211. One or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy
`
`one or more conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., including but not
`
`limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, the applicable provisions of Title 37 of the Code of Federal
`
`Regulations, and judicially created bases for invalidation, such as double patenting. One or more
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 because one or more
`
`prior art references, including those references listed on the face of the Asserted Patents, either
`
`alone or in combination, disclose one or more claims of the Asserted Patents and/or the
`
`inventions claimed therein would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`view of the prior art, including but not limited to the prior art listed on the face of the Asserted
`
`Patents. Additional prior art that invalidates the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents will be
`
`set forth in Microsoft’s invalidity contentions and any modifications or amendments thereto.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`212. LiTL’s claims are barred in whole or in part by reason of prosecution history
`
`estoppel, claim vitiation, and/or recapture. For example, LiTL is estopped from construing any
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 3372
`
`
`
`valid claim of the Asserted Patents to be infringed or to have been infringed, either literally or by
`
`application of the doctrine of equivalents, by any product made, used, imported, sold, or offered
`
`for sale by Microsoft in view of prior art and/or because of admissions, representations, and/or
`
`statements made to the Patent Office during prosecution of any application leading to the
`
`issuance of the Asserted Patents or any related patent or in any post-issuance proceeding for an
`
`Asserted Patent or any related patent, because of disclosures or language in the specifications of
`
`the Asserted Patents, and/or because of limitations in the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to Mark)
`
`213. To the extent that LiTL, its predecessors, or licensees of the Asserted Patents
`
`failed to properly mark any relevant products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287,
`
`LiTL’s damages are barred, in whole or in part.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Statutory Limitation on Damages)
`
`214. LiTL’s right to seek damages and other remedies from Microsoft is limited by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 286.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(No Injunctive Relief)
`
`215. LiTL’s claims for injunctive relief are barred as a matter of law because any
`
`alleged injury is not immediate or irreparable, LiTL has an adequate remedy at law for any
`
`alleged injury, and/or public policy concerns weigh against injunctive relief in these
`
`circumstances.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-20-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 3373
`
`
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Prosecution Laches)
`
`216. LiTL’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of prosecution history
`
`laches. On information and belief, one or more claims of the Asserted Patents issued only after
`
`unreasonable and inexcusable delay in prosecution by the patent applicant.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(No Costs or Fees)
`
`217. LiTL is precluded from recovering its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or
`
`increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or 285.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(Government Sales)
`
`218. LiTL’s claims for infringement as they relate to any product manufactured by
`
`Microsoft for use by the United States is limited to the rights and remedies set forth in 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1498. LiTL cannot seek damages against Microsoft for any product made for and/or used by
`
`the United States government.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(No Standing)
`
`219. On information and belief, LiTL’s litigation is funded by an undisclosed litigation
`
`funding company or companies. On information and belief, the undisclosed third parties will
`
`exercise undue influence on these proceedings due to their substantial interest in the outcome of
`
`this case. Further, on information and belief, the funding agreement between LiTL and its
`
`funders effectively transfers legal interest in this case to the funders, such that LiTL does not
`
`have standing to bring this action pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-21-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 3374
`
`
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Laches)
`
`220. LiTL’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches, including its request for
`
`injunctive and other equitable relief. On information and belief, LiTL brought its claims against
`
`Microsoft after unreasonable delay.
`
`TWELFTH DEFENSE
`(Equitable Estoppel)
`
`221. LiTL’s claims are barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. By remaining
`
`silent regarding any alleged infringement for multiple years, LiTL led Microsoft to believe that
`
`LiTL did not intend to enforce its patents. Microsoft relied on LiTL’s conduct and is materially
`
`prejudiced by LiTL’s claims.
`
`
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00120-RGA Document 42 Filed 12/27/23 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 3375
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7705
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Christina J. McCullough
`Jassiem Moore
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`(206) 359-8000
`
`Chao (Wendy) Wang
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`(650) 838-4300
`
`Kyle R. Canavera
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego,
`CA 92130-2080
`(858) 720-5700
`
`Chad Campbell
`Elizabeth Baxter
`2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Dated: December 27, 2023
`
`
`164719570.2
`
`
`-23-
`
`