Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID 335
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`7-Eleven, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-02868-S
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S ANSWER TO
`DEFENDANT 7-ELEVEN, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) answers the Counterclaims of Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“7-Eleven”). R2 answers 7-Eleven’s allegations using the same headers and numbers that appear
`
`in the “Counterclaims” section of 7-Eleven’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims
`
`to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (ECF 12). All of 7-Eleven’s allegations not expressly admitted
`
`herein are denied.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`7-Eleven is a Texas corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware,
`
`having headquarters at 3200 Hackberry Road, Irving, Texas 75063.
`
`Answer: R2 admits the allegations of paragraph 1.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief based solely on Paragraph 1 of the Complaint as pled
`
`by R2, R2 is a Texas limited liability company located in Frisco, Texas.
`
`Answer: R2 admits the allegations of paragraph 2.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID 336
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-2 above.
`
`3.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-2 of its
`
`counterclaims. R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-2 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`4.
`
`The counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United
`
`States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., and 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201-02.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven’s counterclaims purport to arise under the patent laws of
`
`the United States. R2 admits that the Court has jurisdiction over 7-Eleven’s counterclaims. Except
`
`as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`R2 has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court at least by commencing
`
`its action for patent infringement in this District, as set forth in its Complaint.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over with respect to 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Based solely on R2 filing of this action, venue is proper in this District pursuant to
`
`at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that venue is proper in this District with respect to 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`COUNT I: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’157 PATENT
`
`7.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-6 above.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID 337
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-6 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-6 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`8.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 (the “’157 Patent).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to whether 7-Eleven infringes the ’157 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’157 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising the steps of”: (1) “receiving, over a
`
`network, a query from a user, the query comprising at least one query token,” (2) “analyzing the
`
`query, using at least one computing device, to identify at least one query keyword,” (3)
`
`“determining, at least the one computing device, a plurality of intents from the at least one
`
`keyword, each of the plurality of intents indicates a type of information regarding the query
`
`keyword that is likely to be desired by a user submitting the query,” (4) “classifying the query,
`
`using the at least one computing device, into at least one of the plurality of intents,” (5)
`
`“identifying, using the at least one computing device, a plurality of data objects available over the
`
`network that match the at least one query keyword,” (6) “assigning, using the at least one
`
`computing device, at least one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality of data
`
`objects,” (7) “ranking, using the at least one computing device, the plurality of data objects,” (8)
`
`“building a result, using the at least one computing device, using the ranked plurality of data
`
`objects, the result comprises a plurality of display entries, at least one display entry customized to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID 338
`
`a respective assigned intent is constructed for each of the ranked plurality of data objects,” and/or
`
`(9) “transmitting the result, over the network, to the user.”
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’157 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’157 patent. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to
`
`such a declaration.
`
`COUNT II: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’329 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–10 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-10 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun
`
`pleading.”1 Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-10 of 7-
`
`Eleven’s counterclaims.
`
`
`1 “As opposed to the ‘short and pla[i]n statement’ requirement contemplated by Rule 8, shotgun
`pleadings contain several counts within a complaint with each count ‘incorporating by reference
`the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the
`first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.’” Copeland v. Axion Mortg.
`Grp. LLC, No. 1:16-cv-159-HSO-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106249, at *10 (S.D. Miss., Aug.
`11, 2016) (citing Griffin v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 4:14-cv-132-DMB-JMV, 2015 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 85627, at *5 (N.D. Miss. July 1, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID 339
`
`12.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 (the “’329 Patent).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
`
`as to whether 7-Eleven infringes the ’329 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’329 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising”: (1) “ranking a plurality of documents
`
`recalled by a search engine for a query,” (2) “wherein the plurality of documents contain certain
`
`documents, each document of said certain documents containing at least one section that is not
`
`used by said search engine for recall and one or more sections that are used by said search engine
`
`for recall,” (3) “wherein ranking a plurality of documents includes ranking said plurality of
`
`documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section of said certain documents not used by
`
`said search engine to recall documents,” “wherein the method is performed by one or more
`
`computing devices.”
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’329 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).”
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’329 patent. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to
`
`such a declaration.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID 340
`
`COUNT III: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’317 PATENT
`
`15.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–14 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-14 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-14 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`16.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 (the “’317 Patent).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to whether 7-Eleven infringes the ’317 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’317 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not make, use, or sell “a computer database system for providing search
`
`results to a user in response to user submissions over a data network, the computer database system
`
`comprising:” (1) “a database configured to store information about events in the computer database
`
`system,” “a query reconstruction server in data communication with the database and operative to
`
`receive a partial query submitted at a remote user client system by a user seeking search results
`
`matching the submitted partial query and, in response to the received partial query, determine a
`
`full query based on (i) the received partial query, and (ii) information stored in the database about
`
`queries previously-submitted by users, wherein the submitted partial query comprises an
`
`abbreviated or incomplete search query which is not fully representative of an entire search query
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID 341
`
`desired by the user and the full query is better representative of the entire search query desired by
`
`the user.”
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’317 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’317 patent. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to
`
`such a declaration.
`
`COUNT IV: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’097 PATENT
`
`19.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–18 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-18 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-14 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`20.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 (the “’097 Patent).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to whether 7-Eleven infringes the ’097 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 20.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID 342
`
`21.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’097 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method, implemented on at least one computing device each
`
`of which has at least one processor, storage, and a communication platform connected to a network
`
`for providing a search result, the method comprising”: (1) “receiving a search request from a user,”
`
`(2) “determining a plurality of content items based on the search request,” (3) “selecting one or
`
`more content items from the plurality of content items,” (4) “generating a framed structure having
`
`at least one sub-component,” (5) “determining a correspondence between the one or more content
`
`items and the at least one sub-component,” (6) “arranging each of the one or more content items
`
`with respect to a corresponding sub-component,” (7) “generating a search result based on the one
`
`or more content items and the framed structure,” and/or (8)“providing the search result.”
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’097 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’097 patent. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to
`
`such a declaration.
`
`COUNT V: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’272 PATENT
`
`23.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–22 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-22 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID 343
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-22 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`24.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,176,272 (the “’272 Patent).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
`
`as to whether 7-Eleven infringes the ’272 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’272 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising”: (1) “receiving structural data associated
`
`with a web page, the web page including a widget, the widget including a plurality of widget
`
`elements, wherein the structural data includes a size of a browser window used to display the web
`
`page,” (2) “accessing a constraint regarding a pre-determined number of the widget elements to
`
`display within the widget,” (3) “triggering during a display of the browser window and the plurality
`
`of widget elements a reduction in a size of the widget and a reduction in a plurality of sizes of the
`
`widget elements to display within the widget when the size of the browser window reduces,” (4)
`
`“removing one or more of the widget elements from being displayed within the widget after
`
`reducing the sizes of the widget elements, wherein said removing the one or more of the widget
`
`elements is performed until the constraint is achieved,” (5) “increasing a size of remaining one of
`
`the widget elements of the reduced size to fit within the widget of the reduced size upon achieving
`
`the constraint,” and/or (6) “sending data for displaying the widget.”
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID 344
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’272 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not
`
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’272 patent. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to
`
`such a declaration.
`
`COUNT VI: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’157 PATENT
`
`27.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-26 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-26 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-26 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`28.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ’157 Patent.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to the validity of the claims of the ’157 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’157 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by,
`
`inter alia, WIPO Patent Application No. WO2006111316A1, U.S. Patent No. 7,779,009, U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 20107/0050393.
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 29.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID 345
`
`30.
`
`The ’791 Patent also fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’157 Patent is
`
`therefore invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept.
`
`Answer: There is not a patent referred to as “the ’791 Patent” at issue in this case. R2
`
`accordingly lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the ’791
`
`Patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus denies the same. R2 denies that the ’157
`
`Patent is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept and that it is invalid.
`
`31.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court claims of the ’157 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with one or more of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
`
`thereto.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the
`
`’157 Patent are invalid. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to such a declaration.
`
`COUNT VII: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’329 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-31 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-31 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-31 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`33.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ’329 Patent.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID 346
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
`
`as to the validity of the claims of the ’329 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’329 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by,
`
`inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,285,999, 6,295,559, 7,509,344, 6,012,053, 6,526,440, WO Patent
`
`Publication No. 1997/049048, U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2007/0214131, 2005/0091580,
`
`2008/0071773.
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`The ’791 Patent also fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’329 Patent is
`
`therefore invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept.
`
`Answer: There is not a patent referred to as “the ’791 Patent” at issue in this case. R2
`
`accordingly lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the ’791
`
`Patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus denies the same. R2 denies that the ’329
`
`Patent is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept and that it is invalid.
`
`36.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court claims of the ’329 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with one or more of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
`
`thereto.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the
`
`’329 Patent are invalid. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to such a declaration.
`
`COUNT VIII: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’317 PATENT
`
`37.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-36 above.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID 347
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-36 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-36 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`38.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ’317 Patent.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to the validity of the claims of the ’317 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’317 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by,
`
`inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,775,407, 8,630,923, 6,564,213.
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`The ’791 Patent also fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’317 Patent is
`
`therefore invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept.
`
`Answer: There is not a patent referred to as “the ’791 Patent” at issue in this case. R2
`
`accordingly lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the ’791
`
`Patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus denies the same. R2 denies that the ’317
`
`Patent is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept and that it is invalid.
`
`41.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court claims of the ’317 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with one or more of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID 348
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
`
`thereto.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of
`
`the ’317 Patent are invalid. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to such a declaration.
`
`COUNT IX: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’097 PATENT
`
`42.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-41 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-41 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-41 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`43.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ’097 Patent.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the
`
`parties as to the validity of the claims of the ’097 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the
`
`allegations of paragraph 43.
`
`44.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’097 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by,
`
`inter alia, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,822,720, 5,924,090, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0059708.
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 44.
`
`45.
`
`The ’791 Patent also fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’097 Patent is
`
`therefore invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept.
`
`Answer: There is not a patent referred to as “the ’791 Patent” at issue in this case. R2
`
`accordingly lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the ’791
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID 349
`
`Patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus denies the same. R2 denies that the ’097
`
`Patent is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept and that it is invalid.
`
`46.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court claims of the ’097 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with one or more of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
`
`thereto.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the
`
`’097 Patent are invalid. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to such a declaration.
`
`COUNT X: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’272 PATENT
`
`47.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-46 above.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven purports to incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-46 of
`
`its counterclaims. R2 asserts that such incorporation constitutes impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
`
`Nevertheless, R2 incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-46 of 7-Eleven’s
`
`counterclaims.
`
`48.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ’272 Patent.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
`
`as to the validity of the claims of the ’272 patent. Except as admitted, R2 denies the allegations of
`
`paragraph 48.
`
`49.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’272 Patent are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by,
`
`inter alia, U.S. Patent No. 6,424,980, U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2006/0069808, 2007/0214431.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID 350
`
`Answer: R2 denies the allegations of paragraph 49.
`
`50.
`
`The ’791 Patent also fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’272 Patent is
`
`therefore invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept.
`
`Answer: There is not a patent referred to as “the ’791 Patent” at issue in this case. R2
`
`accordingly lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether the ’791
`
`Patent fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus denies the same. R2 denies that the ’272
`
`Patent is directed to an abstract idea without claiming any inventive concept and that it is invalid.
`
`51.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court claims of the ’272 Patent are invalid for failure to
`
`comply with one or more of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without
`
`limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
`
`thereto.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the
`
`’097 Patent are invalid. R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to such a declaration.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, 7-Eleven asks this Court to enter judgment in 7-Eleven’s favor and
`
`against R2 by granting the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`A declaration that the ’157 Patent is invalid;
`
`A declaration that the ’329 Patent is invalid;
`
`A declaration that the ’317 Patent is invalid;
`
`A declaration that the ’097 Patent is invalid;
`
`A declaration that the ‘272 Patent is invalid;
`
`A declaration that 7-Eleven does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID 351
`
`of the ’157 Patent that may be enforceable;
`
`G.
`
`A declaration that 7-Eleven does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim
`
`of the ’329 Patent that may be enforceable;
`
`H.
`
`A declaration that 7-Eleven does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim
`
`of the ’317 Patent that may be enforceable;
`
`I.
`
`A declaration that 7-Eleven does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim
`
`of the ’097 Patent that may be enforceable;
`
`J.
`
`A declaration that 7-Eleven does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim
`
`of the ’272 Patent that may be enforceable;
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`O.
`
`P.
`
`Q.
`
`R.
`
`S.
`
`A declaration that the ’157 Patent is unenforceable;
`
`A declaration that the ’329 Patent is unenforceable;
`
`A declaration that the ’317 Patent is unenforceable;
`
`A declaration that the ’097 Patent is unenforceable;
`
`A declaration that the ’272 Patent is unenforceable;
`
`A declaration that R2 take nothing by its Complaint;
`
`Judgement against R2 and in favor of 7-Eleven;
`
`Dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice;
`
`A finding that this action is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award
`
`to 7-Eleven of its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and
`
`T.
`
`Further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Answer: R2 denies that 7-Eleven is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraphs
`
`A - T of 7-Eleven’s Prayer for Relief, or any other relief.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID 352
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`7-Eleven hereby demands trial by jury on all issues.
`
`Answer: R2 admits that 7-Eleven demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`R2’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, R2 prays for the following relief:
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`All relief sought in R2’s Complaint;
`
`That 7-Eleven take nothing by reason of the Counterclaims, and that the
`
`Counterclaims be dismissed with prejudice;
`
`C.
`
`That the Court enter judgment in favor of R2 and against 7-Eleven, with respect to
`
`all causes of action in the Counterclaims;
`
`D.
`
`That the Court award R2 its attorneys’ fees and other costs reasonably incurred in
`
`the defense of the Counterclaims; and
`
`E.
`
`That the Court order such other further relief for R2 as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`R2 demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right before a jury.
`
`Dated: March 10, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`EDWARD R. NELSON III
`STATE BAR NO. 00797142
`BRENT N. BUMGARDNER
`STATE BAR NO. 00795272
`CHRISTOPHER G. GRANAGHAN
`STATE BAR NO. 24078585
`JOHN P. MURPHY
`STATE BAR NO. 24056024
`CARDER W. BROOKS
`STATE BAR NO. 24105536
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 20 Filed 03/10/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID 353
`
`3131 West 7th Stree