`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY L.L.C.,
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:12-CV-02830-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) hereby responds to the numbered paragraphs of
`
`plaintiff B.E. Technology L.L.C.’s (‘B.E.”) Complaint as follows. To the extent any allegation
`
`contained in this Answer is not specifically admitted, it is hereby denied:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Admitted that B.E. has filed a civil action alleging patent infringement; otherwise
`
`denied.
`
`2.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph; therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Admitted that B.E. has filed a civil action alleging patent infringement and that
`
`this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338; otherwise
`
`denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID 182
`
`
`5.
`
`Admitted that venue is proper but Google maintains that the appropriate venue is
`
`VENUE
`
`the Northern District of California.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`Google admits U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the ’314 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“Computer Interface Method And Apparatus with Targeted Advertising” and that what purports
`
`to be a copy of the ’314 Patent was attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph; therefore denied.
`
`8.
`
`Google admits that on the face of what purports to be the ‘314 Patent attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit A, it states that Application No. 09/699,705 was filed on October 30,
`
`2000 and that this Application is a division of Application No. 09/118,351, filed on July 17, 1998;
`
`otherwise denied.
`
`9.
`
`Google admits U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (“the ’290 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“Computer Interface Method and Apparatus with Targeted Advertising” and what purports to be a
`
`copy of the ’290 Patent was attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph; therefore denied.
`
`11.
`
`Google admits that on the face of what purports to be the ’290 Patent attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit B, it states that Application No. 09/744,033 was filed on July 16, 1999
`
`and that this Application is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 09/118,351, filed on July 17,
`
`1998; otherwise denied.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314
`
`12.
`
`Google incorporates by reference the responses above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID 183
`
`
`13.
`
`Admitted that the ’314 Patent on its face identifies B.E. Technology, LLC as the
`
`assignee; otherwise denied.
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,290
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Google incorporates by reference the responses above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Admitted that the ’290 Patent on its face identifies B.E. Technology, LLC as the
`
`assignee; otherwise denied.
`
`17.
`
`Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff’s demand for a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury does not state any
`
`allegation, and Google is not required to respond. To the extent that any allegations are included
`
`in the demand, Google denies these allegations.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`These paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by Plaintiff to which no
`
`response is required. Google denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested relief and
`
`denies any allegations.
`
`
`
`DEFENSES
`
`In addition to the defenses set forth herein, Google expressly reserves the right to allege
`
`and assert any defenses or affirmative defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the patent laws of the United States, and any other defense, at law or in equity, that
`
`may now exist or in the future become known or available based upon discovery and further
`
`investigation in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID 184
`
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`1.
`
`Google does not and has not infringed and is not liable for infringement of any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, directly or indirectly, willfully or otherwise.
`
`2.
`
`Google does not and has not infringed and is not liable for infringement of any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, directly or indirectly, willfully or otherwise
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`3.
`
`B.E. is not entitled to injunctive relief because Google has not infringed and is not
`
`infringing any valid claim of the asserted patents, and any purported injury to B.E. is not
`
`immediate or irreparable. To the extent B. E. proves that it would be entitled to any relief, it
`
`would have an adequate remedy at law. Moreover, the public interest and balance of hardships
`
`disfavor an injunction under the circumstances of this case.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`4.
`
`To the extent B.E. purports to accuse any Google product, B.E.’s claims for
`
`contributory infringement are barred in whole or in part under 35 U.S.C § 271(c) in view of the
`
`substantial non-infringing uses of such allegedly infringing product.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`5.
`
`B.E’s Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, acquiescence, equitable
`
`estoppel, implied license, and/or the doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`6.
`
`B.E.’s Complaint is barred by laches.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID 185
`
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`7.
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 are invalid for failure to satisfy one or
`
`more of the conditions of patentability, including without limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 because the alleged invention thereof lacks utility; is taught by,
`
`suggested by, and/or, obvious in view of, the prior art; and/or is not adequately supported by the
`
`written description of the patented invention.
`
`8.
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 are invalid for failure to satisfy one or
`
`more of the conditions of patentability, including without limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112 because the alleged invention thereof lacks utility; is taught by,
`
`suggested by, and/or, obvious in view of, the prior art; and/or is not adequately supported by the
`
`written description of the patented invention
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for damages, if any, against Google for alleged infringement of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`
`10.
`
`B.E.’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
`
`Google.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Google requests a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID 186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of counsel:
`
`A. John P. Mancini
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1675 Broadway
`New York, NY 10019-5820
`(212) 506-2500
`jmancini@mayerbrown.com
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal, pro hac pending
`Ann Marie Duffy, pro hac pending
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 263-3000
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`aduffy@mayerbrown.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`60306156.1
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -