Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S ANSWER TO
`THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) hereby responds to the Original Complaint (Dkt. No.
`
`1) of Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Shodogg (“Plaintiff” or “Touchstream”) with
`
`the following Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Google denies
`
`the allegations and
`
`characterizations in Touchstream’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following
`
`numbered paragraphs, which correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Google admits that Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. Google
`
`admits that it maintains an office located at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701 that is within
`
`the Western District of Texas. Google admits that it may be served with process through its
`
`registered agent CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701. Google admits that it is currently registered to do business in the State of
`
`Texas since at least November 17, 2006. Google denies any remaining allegations of this
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 23
`
`paragraph.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`3.
`
`Google admits that this action invokes the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271, et seq. for the purported infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,356,251 (the “’251
`
`patent”), 8,782,528 (the “’528 patent”), and 8,904,289 (the “’289 patent”) (collectively, “the
`
`Touchstream Patents”). Google admits that Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint appear to be
`
`copies of the Touchstream Patents, but Google lacks sufficient information to verify their
`
`authenticity. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Google admits that this action invokes the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`4.
`
`1, et seq. To the extent Touchstream has standing to bring this suit, Google admits that this Court
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) over patent law claims.
`
`Google denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`6.
`
`Google admits that venue is proper in this District for purposes of this particular
`
`action but not convenient or in the interests of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See generally
`
`Dkt. 26, 27, 50, 51. Google admits that it maintains an office in this District and is registered to do
`
`business in the State of Texas. Google admits that it offers products and services in this District.
`
`Any remaining allegations in this paragraph consist of argument and legal conclusions, to which
`
`no response is required, but to the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations, and
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 23
`
`specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`7.
`
`Google admits that it has an office in this District at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin,
`
`Texas 78701 and is registered to do business in the State of Texas. Any remaining allegations in
`
`this paragraph consist of argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to
`
`the extent a response is required, Google denies the allegations.
`
`8.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 8 purport to describe or quote one or more
`
`documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source of
`
`their full content and context. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`9.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 9 purport to describe or quote one or more
`
`documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source of
`
`their full content and context. Google admits that as of the filing of the Original Complaint, it
`
`owned or leased office space in Austin at 100 Congress Ave., 901 E. Fifth St., and 500 W. Second
`
`St. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`10.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 10 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google admits that as of the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Google employed over 1,100 persons in Austin. Google is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph relating to job postings,
`
`and therefore denies them. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`11.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 23
`
`12.
`
`Google admits that certain Chromecast products are sold in this District including
`
`at one or more of the retailers named in paragraph 12. Google is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`13.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 13 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google states the following: Google uses a tiered network to
`
`deliver content to its users. The core of the network is Google’s data centers which provide
`
`computation and backend storage. The next tier of Google’s network infrastructure is known as
`
`“Edge Points of Presence” (“PoPs”), which connects Google’s network to the rest of the internet.
`
`The last tier of the network is the “Google Global Cache” (“GGC”) servers or “edge nodes.” GGC
`
`servers are off-the-shelf computers hosted in the facilities of a local Internet Service Provider
`
`(“ISP”), at the request of the ISP. If an ISP chooses to host a GGC server and a copy of portions
`
`of certain digital content is temporarily stored or “cached” on the GGC server, content requested
`
`by an end user can be fetched from the GGC within the ISPs network, so the request does not use
`
`long haul capacity to do so. GGC servers, though, are not necessary for the delivery of Google
`
`content. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`14.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 14 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google states the following: Google uses a tiered network to
`
`deliver content to its users. The core of the network is Google’s data centers which provide
`
`computation and backend storage. Google admits that a Google data center is located in
`
`Midlothian, Texas, which is within the Northern District of Texas. Google denies any remaining
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 5 of 23
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`15.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 15 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google states the following: Google uses a tiered network to
`
`deliver content to its users. The core of the network is Google’s data centers which provide
`
`computation and backend storage. The next tier of Google’s network infrastructure, the PoPs,
`
`connects Google’s network to the rest of the internet. Google admits that the webpage in Paragraph
`
`15 purports to identify at least one PoP in or around Dallas and/or Fort Worth, Texas. Google
`
`denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`16.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 16 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google states the following: Google uses a tiered network to
`
`deliver content to its users. The last tier of the network, the GGC servers or edge nodes, are off-
`
`the-shelf computers hosted in the facilities of a local ISP, at the request of the ISP. If an ISP chooses
`
`to host a GGC server and a copy of portions of certain digital content is temporarily stored or
`
`“cached” on the GGC server, content requested by an end user can be fetched from the GGC within
`
`the ISPs network, so the request does not use long haul capacity to do so. GGC servers, though,
`
`are not necessary for the delivery of Google content. Google admits that the webpages in Paragraph
`
`16 purport to identify at least one ISP-hosted GGC server in or around Dallas, Texas and Austin,
`
`Texas. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`17.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 6 of 23
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`19.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`TOUCHSTREAM’S PATENTS
`
`21.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`22.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`Google admits that, on their face, the Touchstream Patents are each titled “Play
`
`Control of Content on a Display Device” and purport to claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 61/477,998, filed on April 21, 2011. Google lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations in this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`24.
`
`Google admits that, on its face, the ’251 patent lists an issue date of January 15,
`
`2013 and David Strober as its inventor. Google denies that the ’251 patent was duly and legally
`
`issued. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`25.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`Google admits that, on its face, the ’528 patent lists an issue date of July 15, 2014
`
`and David Strober as its inventor. Google denies that the ’528 patent was duly and legally issued.
`
`Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 7 of 23
`
`27.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`28.
`
`Google admits that, on its face, the ’289 patent lists an issue date of December 2,
`
`2014 and David Strober as its inventor. Google denies that the ’289 patent was duly and legally
`
`issued. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`29.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`30.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`31.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`32.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`33.
`
`Google denies the allegations in paragraph 33 as they relate to Google, and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Google is without knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`33, and therefore denies them.
`
`34.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`35.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`36.
`
`Google admits that in December 2011, certain Google employees met one or more
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 23
`
`times with representatives of Touchstream. Google denies Touchstream’s characterizations of
`
`those meetings in this paragraph. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`37.
`
`Google admits that Touchstream signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement before any
`
`meetings discussed in paragraph 36 took place. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 37
`
`purport to describe the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Google states that the Non-
`
`Disclosure Agreement is the best source of its full content and context. Google denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`38.
`
`Google admits that certain Google employees met with representatives of
`
`Touchstream over a video conference on Skype on December 22, 2011. Google denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`39.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`40.
`
`Google lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`41.
`
`Google admits that the ’251 patent is cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,841,939,
`
`which is issued to Google, was filed December 18, 2014, and is titled “Methods, systems, and
`
`media for presenting requested content on public display devices.” Google admits that the ’251
`
`patent is cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,916,122, which is issued to Google, was filed on
`
`December 18, 2014, and is titled “Methods, systems, and media for launching a mobile application
`
`using a public display device.” Google admits that the ’251 patent is cited on the face of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,967,320, which is issued to Google, was filed on filed December 18, 2014, and is
`
`titled “Methods, systems, and media for controlling information used to present content on a public
`
`display device.” Google admits that Published Application No. 2012/0272148 is cited on the face
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 23
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,367,144, which is issued to Google, was filed on filed March 13, 2013, and
`
`is titled “Methods, systems, and media for providing a remote control interface for a media
`
`playback device.” Google admits that Published Application No. 2012/0027214 was identified by
`
`Google on December 4, 2017 during prosecution of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`
`2015/0046812, which was filed on August 11, 2014 and is titled “Dynamic resizable media item
`
`player. Google admits that U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0046812 was abandoned by
`
`Google. Google admits that Published Application No. 2012/0272147 and Published Application
`
`No. 2013/0124759 are cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 10,873,616, which is issued to Google,
`
`was filed December 10, 2013, and is titled “Providing content to co-located devices with enhanced
`
`presentation characteristics.” Google admits that Published Application No. 2012/0272147 is cited
`
`on the face of U.S. Patent No. 10,412,143, which is issued to Google, was filed on June 24, 2015,
`
`and is titled “Methods, systems, and media for presenting content based on user preferences of
`
`multiple users in the presence of a media presentation device.” Google admits that the ’528 patent
`
`is cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 10,306,323, which is issued to Google, was filed on
`
`December 7, 2016, and is titled “Fast television channel change initiated from a second screen
`
`device.” Google admits that the ’251 patent is cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,712,776, which
`
`is issued to Google, was filed on March 15, 2013, and is titled “Interfacing a television with a
`
`second device.” Google admits that the ’251 patent and Published Application No. 2012/0272148
`
`are cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,992,307, which is issued to Google, was filed on February
`
`3, 2015, and is titled “Interoperability of discovery and connection protocols between client
`
`devices and first screen devices.” Google admits that Published Application No. 2012/0272148 is
`
`cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,518, which is issued to Google, was filed on March 18,
`
`2019, and is titled “Contextual Remote Control.” Google admits that Published Application No.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 23
`
`2012/0272148 is cited on the face of U.S. Patent No. 10,969,950, which is issued to Google, was
`
`filed on May 19, 2015, and is titled “Dynamic Resizable Media Item Player.” Google admits that
`
`Published Application No. 2012/0272147 was cited in a September 25, 2015 International Search
`
`Report for International Application Publication No. WO 2015/200531, which was filed on June
`
`24, 2015 and is titled “Methods, Systems and Media for Presenting Content Based on User
`
`Preferences of Multiple Users in the Presence of a Media Presentation Device.” Google admits
`
`that Published Application No. 2012/00272148 was identified by Google during prosecution of
`
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2016/0149982, which was filed on May 19, 2015 and is titled
`
`“Dynamic resizable media item player.” Google admits that U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`
`2016/0149982 was abandoned by Google. Google denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`42.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them.
`
`43.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them.
`
`44.
`
`Google admits that as of the filing of the Complaint, Google had not reached out to
`
`Touchstream regarding licensing any of the Touchstream patents. Google admits that as of the
`
`filing of the Complaint, Google had not requested or received a license to any of the Touchstream
`
`patents. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`45.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 45 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 11 of 23
`
`of their full content and context. Google admits that it released a Chromecast device in July 2013.
`
`Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph and specifically denies that it has
`
`committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`46.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 46 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`THE ACCUSED CHROMECAST FUNCTIONALITIES
`
`48.
`
`To the extent the allegations of this paragraph concern Touchstream’s definition of
`
`the terms “accused Chromecast functionalities,” “Chromecast,” and “the Chromecast products,”
`
`they state no facts for Google to admit or deny. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 48
`
`purport to describe or quote one or more documents or webpages, Google states that those
`
`documents or webpages are the best source of their full content and context. Google denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`49.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 49 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents, webpages, or application screens, Google states that those documents or
`
`webpages are the best source of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth
`
`argument and legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph
`
`includes any allegations to which a response is required, Google denies them, and specifically
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 12 of 23
`
`denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`50.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 50 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents, webpages, or application screens, Google states that those documents or
`
`webpages are the best source of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in
`
`this District or any other district.
`
`51.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 51 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents, webpages, or application screens, Google states that those documents or
`
`webpages are the best source of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in
`
`this District or any other district.
`
`52.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 52 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents, webpages, or application screens, Google states that those documents or
`
`webpages are the best source of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in
`
`this District or any other district.
`
`53.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 53 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`54.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 13 of 23
`
`District or any other district.
`
`55.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 55 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth argument and legal conclusions
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a
`
`response is required, Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`56.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 56 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth argument and legal conclusions
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a
`
`response is required, Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`57.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 57 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth argument and legal conclusions
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a
`
`response is required, Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`58.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 58 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 14 of 23
`
`59.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 59 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. Google denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`60.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`61.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 61 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth argument and legal conclusions
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a
`
`response is required, Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`62.
`
`To the extent the allegations in paragraph 62 purport to describe or quote one or
`
`more documents or webpages, Google states that those documents or webpages are the best source
`
`of their full content and context. This paragraph further sets forth argument and legal conclusions
`
`to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a
`
`response is required, Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this District or any other district.
`
`63.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 15 of 23
`
`District or any other district.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’251 PATENT
`
`64.
`
`Google repeats and re-alleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth here, as its response to paragraph 64 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`66.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`67.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement, and
`
`specifically denies that Google’s alleged infringement of the ’251 patent has been, is, or continues
`
`to be willful.
`
`68.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. This paragraph sets forth a 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. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’528 PATENT
`
`69.
`
`Google repeats and re-alleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 73 Filed 06/29/22 Page 16 of 23
`
`forth here, as its response to paragraph 69 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`70.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`71.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District or any other district.
`
`72.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement, and
`
`specifically denies that Google’s alleged infringement of the ’528 patent has been, is, or continues
`
`to be willful.
`
`73.
`
`This paragraph sets forth argument and legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. This paragraph sets forth a 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. To the extent this paragraph includes any allegations to which a response is required,
`
`Google denies them, and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’289 PATENT
`
`74.
`
`Google repeats and re-alleges its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth here, as its response to paragraph 74 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`75.
`
`This paragraph sets f