1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC, and 

SITO MOBILE, LTD., 

Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FLOSPORTS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00471-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWER TO FLOSPORTS, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC and SITO Mobile, Ltd. (collectively “Plaintiffs” or 

“SITO”) hereby answer the counterclaims asserted by FloSports, Inc. (“Defendant” or 

“FloSports”) on August 10, 2020 (D.I. 14), in FloSport’s Answer to Original Complaint 

for Patent Infringement and Counterclaims, as follows: 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3), SITO denies all allegations in FloSport’s 

counterclaims except for those specifically admitted below. 

Nature of the Action 

1. Admitted. 

Parties 

2. Admitted. 
2 

3. Admitted. 

4. Admitted. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

5. SITO admits that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of 

these counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), the patent laws of the United 

States set forth at 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202. 

6. SITO admits that personal jurisdiction over SITO Mobile R&D IP, LLC 

and SITO Mobile, Ltd. is proper. 

7. SITO admits that venue is proper in this judicial district. 

COUNT ONE 

Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’673, ’635, ’636, 

’777, ’088, ’637 and ’846 Patents 

8. SITO incorporates by reference its responses to the preceding paragraphs 

of its Answer to Defendant’s counterclaims as if fully set forth here. 

9. Admitted. 

10. Denied. 

11. Denied. 

COUNT TWO 

Declaration of Invalidity of the ’673, ’635, ’636, ’777, ’088, ’637 and ’846 Patents 

12. SITO incorporates by reference its responses to the preceding paragraphs 

of its Answer to Defendant’s counterclaims as if fully set forth here. 

13. Admitted. 

14. Denied. 
3 

15. Denied. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, SITO prays for judgment in its favor and against Defendant as 

follows: 

a. That Defendant take nothing by its counterclaims; 

b. That the Court enter judgment against Defendant and in favor of SITO 

and that the Defendant’s counterclaims be dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice; 

c. That the Court declare that Defendant does infringe and has infringed the 

claims of the ’673, ’635, ’636, ’777, ’088, ’637 and ’846 patents; 

d. That the Court declare that the claims of the ’673, ’635, ’636, ’777, ’088, ’637 

and ’846 patents are valid; 

e. A declaratory judgment that the patents-in-suit are enforceable; 

f. That the Court deem this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 

award SITO its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

g. That the Court grant SITO the relief requested in SITO’s First Complaint 

for Patent Infringement; and 

h. That the Court grant SITO any and all other further relief that the Court 

deems just and proper. 
4 

Dated: August 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Raymond W. Mort, III 

Raymond W. Mort, III 

Texas State Bar No. 00791308 

raymort@austinlaw.com

THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC 

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950 

Of Counsel: 

Ronald M. Daignault (pro hac vice) 

Chandran B. Iyer (pro hac vice) 

Jason S. Charkow (pro hac vice) 

Stephanie R. Mandir (pro hac vice) 

rdaignault@goldbergsegalla.com 

cbiyer@goldbergsegalla.com 

smandir@goldbergsegalla.com 

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 

711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900 

New York, New York 10017 

Telephone: (646) 292-8700 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SITO Mobile R&D