Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID 60
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant People Media, Inc. (“People Media”) files this Answer, Affirmative
`
`Defenses, and Counterclaim to Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.’s (“B.E.”) Complaint for
`
`Patent
`
`Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”).
`
` People Media denies
`
`the allegations and
`
`characterizations in B.E.’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs.
`
`ANSWER
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND PARTIES
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States.
`
`ANSWER: People Media admits that B.E.’s Complaint for Patent Infringement includes
`
`patent infringement claims that arise under Title 35 of the United States Code, but People
`
`Media denies liability for patent infringement.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`B.E. is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` People Media lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 2 and on that basis denies them.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 1
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID 61
`
`
`
`3.
`
`People Media is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), as this is an action arising under the Patent Act,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`ANSWER: People Media admits that B.E.’s Complaint includes patent infringement
`
`claims that arise under Title 35 of the United States Code. If B.E. has standing to assert U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,628,314 (“’314 Patent”), People Media further admits that this Court would
`
`have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
`
`VENUE
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c),
`
`1391(d), and 1400(b).
`
`ANSWER: People Media admits that venue is proper in this district. People Media denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The ’314 patent is entitled “Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With
`
`Targeted Advertising.” A copy of the ’314 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`ANSWER: People Media admits that Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the ’314 Patent.
`
`People Media further admits that, on its face, the title of the ’314 Patent is “COMPUTER
`
`INTERFACE METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH TARGETED ADVERTISING.”
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The invention of the ’314 patent generally relates to user interfaces for
`
`accessing computer applications and information resources and, in particular, to user
`
`interfaces that provide advertising obtained over a global computer network such as the
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID 62
`
`Internet. The invention of the ’314 patent also relates to user interfaces for maintaining,
`
`organizing and communicating information accessible to a computer network such as the
`
`Internet and, in particular, to user interfaces that provide the user with availability to that
`
`information in a personalized manner.
`
`ANSWER: People Media lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 7 and on that basis denies them.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The application that issued as the ’314 patent was filed on October 30, 2000,
`
`and the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the ’314 patent on
`
`September 30, 2003. The ’314 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/118,351, filed on July 17, 1998.
`
`ANSWER: People Media admits that, on its face, the ’314 Patent lists a filing date of
`
`October 30, 2000, and an issue date of September 30, 2003. People Media further admits that,
`
`on its face, the ’314 Patent lists that it is a “Division of application No. 09/118,351, filed on
`
`Jul. 17, 1998, now Pat. No. 6,141,010.” People Media denies that the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally issued the ’314 Patent after a full and fair
`
`examination. People Media further denies that the ’314 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`People Media lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 8 and on that basis denies them.
`
`COUNT I – U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314
`
`
`
`9.
`
`B.E. realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1–8.
`
`ANSWER: People Media incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 8 above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`10. B.E. owns all right, title, and interest in the ’314 patent, and has owned all
`
`right, title, and interest throughout the period of the infringement complained of herein.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID 63
`
`ANSWER: People Media lacks knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 10 and on that basis denies them.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`People Media has infringed the ’314 patent by using a method of providing
`
`demographically targeted advertising that directly infringes at least Claim 11 of the ’314
`
`patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`People Media admits that B.E. has demanded a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`1–7. People Media denies that B.E. is entitled to any of the relief sought in its
`
`Prayer for Relief or any other relief.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`People Media incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs in their entirety and
`
`asserts the following Affirmative Defenses. By asserting these affirmative defenses, People
`
`Media does not admit that it bears the burden of proof on any issue and does not accept any
`
`burden it would not otherwise bear. People Media reserves the right to amend its Answer to
`
`add additional Affirmative Defenses based on discovery or any other factual investigation in
`
`this case.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement of the Asserted Patent)
`
`People Media does not infringe, and has not infringed under any theory
`
`1.
`
`(including jointly, directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement), any valid claim of
`
`the ’314 Patent.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity of the Asserted Patent)
`
`2.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’314 Patent is are invalid and/or void because they
`
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID 64
`
`are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art or otherwise fail to comply with the
`
`conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35, United States Code § 101 et. seq., including,
`
`without limitation, §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws
`
`pertaining thereto.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,392 (“’392 Patent”) (in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,948,061 (“’061 Patent”)) renders obvious at least claim 11 of the ’314 Patent. A copy
`
`of the ’392 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the ’061 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,058,418 (“’418 Patent”) anticipates and/or renders obvious
`
`at least claim 11 of the ’314 Patent. A copy of the ’418 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`5.
`
`By reason of the prosecution before the USPTO leading to, concurrently with,
`
`
`
`and/or following the issuance of the ’314 Patent, and by reason of statements and admissions
`
`made by or on behalf of the applicants, and because of the language in the specification
`
`and/or limitations in the claims of the ’314 Patent, B.E. is estopped from claiming that People
`
`Media infringes any valid, asserted claim of the ’314 Patent.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief)
`
`6.
`
`B.E. is not entitled to injunctive relief at least because any alleged injury to
`
`
`
`B.E. is not immediate or irreparable, and B.E. has an adequate remedy at law.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Patent Misuse)
`
`7.
`
`By its conduct, including its assertion of infringement of at least the
`
`
`
`’314 Patent, B.E. has engaged in patent misuse by asserting claims it knows or should know
`
`are meritless and a sham.
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID 65
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`8.
`
`The Complaint, and each purported claim asserted, fails to state any claim
`
`
`
`upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Estoppel/Waiver/Implied License/Express License)
`
`9.
`
`B.E.’s claims for relief are barred on the grounds of estoppel, waiver, implied
`
`
`
`license, and/or express license.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Limitations on Damages)
`
`10.
`
`To the extent that B.E. continues to assert that People Media indirectly
`
`
`
`infringes, either by contributory infringement or inducement of infringement, People Media
`
`is not liable to B.E. for the acts alleged to have been performed before People Media knew
`
`that its actions would cause indirect infringement.
`
`11.
`
`B.E.’s damages, if any, are limited pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 286.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Patent Marking)
`
`12.
`
`To the extent that B.E., and predecessors in interest to the ’314 Patent, failed
`
`
`
`to properly mark any of their relevant products as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287 or otherwise
`
`give proper notice that People Media’s actions allegedly infringed the ’314 Patent, People
`
`Media is not liable to B.E. for the acts alleged to have been performed before People Media
`
`received actual notice that it was allegedly infringing the ’314 Patent.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalid Claim)
`
`B.E. is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering any costs associated with
`
`13.
`
`this action.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID 66
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Laches)
`
`14.
`
`B.E.’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of
`
`laches.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Other Equitable Defenses)
`
`15.
`
`B.E.’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
`
`unclean hands, estoppel, acquiescence, and/or other equitable doctrines.
`
`
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Good Faith)
`
`16.
`
`People Media has engaged in all relevant activities in good faith, thereby
`
`precluding B.E., even if it prevails, from recovering its reasonable attorney’s fees and/or
`
`costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIM
`
`
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff People Media, Inc. (“People Media”)
`
`counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`(“B.E.”), as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`People Media is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`8300 Douglas Ave., Dallas, Texas.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendant B.E. is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its
`
`principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.
`
`JURSIDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is a counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, and/or
`
`invalidity arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID 67
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over B.E. By filing its Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement (“Complaint”), B.E. has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this
`
`Court.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 2201.
`
`6.
`
`By its Complaint, B.E. purports to assert a claim against People Media for
`
`infringement of the ’314 Patent.
`
`7.
`
`People Media denies B.E.’s claim of infringement of the ’314 Patent. People
`
`Media contends that the asserted claims of the ’314 Patent are invalid and unenforceable
`
`against it.
`
`8.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists concerning the noninfringement,
`
`invalidity, and/or unenforceability of the ’314 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c).
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’314 Patent)
`
`People Media incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`B.E. claims that it is the sole owner of the ’314 Patent. B.E. claims that it has
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`standing to sue for infringement of the ’314 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`B.E. has asserted that People Media is infringing the ’314 Patent.
`
`People Media denies that it has infringed, either directly, indirectly, jointly,
`
`contributorily, or by inducement, any valid, enforceable claims, if any, of the ’314 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`A judicial declaration of non-infringement is necessary and appropriate to
`
`resolve this controversy.
`
`15.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`
`People Media requests a declaration by the Court that it does not infringe, any valid,
`
`enforceable claims, if any, of the ’314 Patent, either directly, indirectly, jointly, contributorily,
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID 68
`
`or by inducement, so that People Media can ascertain its rights and duties with respect to
`
`designing, developing, marketing, licensing, and selling its products and/or services.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’314 Patent)
`
`People Media incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`An actual controversy exists between People Media and B.E. concerning
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`whether the ’314 Patent is invalid for failing to meet one or more of the requirements for
`
`patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`18.
`
`The claims of the ’314 Patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of
`
`the conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35, United States Code, including §§ 101, 102,
`
`103 and/or 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto.
`
`19.
`
`The ’392 Patent (in view of the ’061 Patent) renders obvious at least claim 11
`
`of the ’314 Patent. A copy of the ’392 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the
`
`’061 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`20.
`
`The ’418 Patent anticipates and/or renders obvious at least claim 11 of
`
`the ’314 Patent. A copy of the ’418 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`21.
`
`A judicial declaration of invalidity is necessary and appropriate to resolve this
`
`controversy.
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`
`People Media requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the ’314 Patent are
`
`invalid for failing to meet one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of the ’314 Patent)
`
`23.
`
`People Media incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID 69
`
`24.
`
`People Media asserts that the claims of the ’314 Patent are unenforceable due
`
`to laches.
`
`25.
`
`A judicial declaration of unenforceability is necessary and appropriate to
`
`resolve this controversy.
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
`
`People Media requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the ’314 Patent are
`
`unenforceable due to laches.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, People Media respectfully requests a judgment against B.E. as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`That B.E. take nothing as the result of the Complaint;
`
`That the Court enter judgment against B.E. and in favor of People Media and
`
`that B.E.’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
`
`C.
`
`That judgment be rendered that B.E. is not entitled to the relief prayed for in
`
`the Complaint for Patent Infringement, or any relief whatsoever;
`
`D.
`
`A declaration that People Media does not infringe, under any theory, any valid
`
`claim of the ’314 Patent that might be enforceable;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`A declaration that each of the claims of the ’314 Patent is invalid;
`
`Preliminarily and permanently enjoining B.E., its officers, directors, servants,
`
`managers, employees, agents, attorneys, successors and assignees, and all persons in active
`
`concert or participation with any of them from directly or indirectly charging People Media
`
`with infringement of the ’314 Patent under any theory;
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`A declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`An award to People Media of its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C § 285;
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID 70
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`An award to People Media for costs of suit;
`
`An award to People Media of any pre-judgment or post-judgment interest to
`
`which it is entitled; and
`
`K.
`
`Grant People Media such additional relief that the Court deems proper and just.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA’S JURY DEMAND
`
`People Media hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID 71
`
`
`Dated: December 31, 2012
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/ Jonathan D. Rose
`Jonathan D. Rose, BPR# 20967
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 252-2308
`jrose@babc.com
`
`OF COUNSEL (motions for admission
`pro hac vice forthcoming):
`
`Steven G. Schortgen
`steve.schortgen@klgates.com
`Jennifer Klein Ayers
`jennifer.ayers@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 939-5500
`
`Sanjay K. Murthy
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`Christopher E. Hanba
`christopher.hanba@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4207
`(312) 372-1121
`
`Attorneys for Defendant People Media, Inc.
`
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 12
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 21 Filed 12/31/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID 72
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on December 31, 2012, the foregoing is being served via the
`Court’s Electronic Filing System, upon the following:
`
`Richard M. Carter
`Adam Calhoun Simpson
`MARTIN TATE MORROW & MARSTON
`International Place, Tower II
`6410 Poplar Ave., Ste. 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119
`
`Craig Robert Kaufman
`Robert Edward Freitas
`Hsiang Hong Lin
`Qudas B. Olaniran
`FRIETAS TSENG & KAUFMAN, LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jonathan D. Rose
`Jonathan D. Rose
`
`
`
`
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIM TO B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PAGE 13