IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

SAVANNAH LICENSING LLC, 

Plaintiff and CounterDefendant, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. 

BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL 

SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Defendant and 

Counterclaimant. 

NO. 3:22-cv-01180-B 

Patent Case 

Jury Trial Demanded 

DEFENDANT BROADRIDGE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.’S ANSWER AND 

COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT 

Defendant Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”) hereby responds to 

Plaintiff Savannah Licensing, LLC (“Savannah Licensing”)’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), and 

admitting only so much as is specifically admitted herein, states and avers as follows: 

THE PARTIES 

1. Broadridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 and therefore, deny the same. 

2. Broadridge admits that it is a New Jersey corporation with an established place of 

business at 5 Dakota Drive, Suite 300, Lake Success, NY 11042. Except as so admitted, the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied. 

JURISDICTION 

3. Broadridge admits Savannah Licensing purports to state a cause of action for patent 

infringement arising under the patent law of the United States. Except as so admitted, the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 are denied. 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 96
-2- 

4. Broadridge admits Savannah Licensing purports to state a cause of action for patent 

infringement arising under the patent law of the United States. Except as so admitted, the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 are denied. 

5. Broadridge admits it has a place of business at 404 S. Royal Lane, Coppell, TX 

75019. Except as so admitted, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 are denied. 

VENUE

6. Broadridge admits it has a place of business in the Northern District of Texas. 

Except as so admitted, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 are denied. 

PATENT-IN-SUIT 

7. Broadridge states that U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 (“the ’777 Patent”) speaks for 

itself and no additional response is necessary to Paragraph 7. Except as so admitted, the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 7 are denied. 

THE ’777 PATENT 

8. Broadridge states the ’777 Patent speaks for itself and no additional response is 

necessary to Paragraph 8. Except as so admitted, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 are 

denied. 

9. Denied. 

COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’777 PATENT 

10. Broadridge repeats and incorporates its responses contained in the prior 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

11. Denied. 

12. Denied. 

13. Denied. 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 97
-3- 

14. Denied. 

15. Denied. 

JURY DEMAND 

16. Broadridge denies that Savannah Licensing is entitled to any trial on the issues 

alleged in the Complaint. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

17. Broadridge denies that Savannah Licensing is entitled to any relief from Broadridge 

and denies all the allegations contained in Paragraphs A-E of the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

18. Broadridge asserts the following defenses without altering the applicable burdens 

of proof. Broadridge reserves the right to amend its currently pled defenses and/or assert additional 

defenses as they become apparent through discovery. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

19. Broadridge has not infringed, and does not infringe, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’777 patent, whether directly, 

indirectly, individually, jointly, contributorily, and/or by inducement. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

20. The claims of the ’777 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable at least because they 

fail to meet one or more of the requirements or conditions for patentability under Title 35 of the 

United States Code, including without limitation, §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

21. Savannah Licensing’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted because the ’777 patent does not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 98
-4- 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

22. To the extent Savannah Licensing asserts that Broadridge indirectly infringes, 

either by contributory infringement or inducement of infringement, Plaintiff has failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

23. Savannah Licensing’s claims for relief are statutorily limited in whole or part by 

Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. § 286 and/or 35 U.S.C. 

§ 287. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

24. Savannah Licensing’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by an express or implied 

license, and/or the equitable doctrines of acquiescence, estoppel, laches, patent misuse, unclean 

hands, and/or the doctrine of patent exhaustion. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

25. To the extent that Savannah Licensing asserts that Broadridge indirectly infringes, 

either by contributory infringement or inducement of infringement, Broadridge is not liable to 

Plaintiffs for the acts alleged to have been performed before Broadridge knew that its actions 

would cause indirect infringement. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

26. At least a portion of Savannah Licensing’s claim for damages from Broadridge for 

alleged infringement is barred from recovery in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498. 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 99
-5- 

COUNTERCLAIMS 

Counterclaimant Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), by and through its 

attorneys, brings these counterclaims against Counter-defendant Savannah Licensing LLC 

(“Savannah Licensing”). Savannah Licensing has asserted Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,777 

(“the ’777 Patent”), which recites: 

1. A method to use feedback in a system implemented by a computing device, 

comprising: 

[a] receiving, by the computing device, a frustration event package comprising a 

user frustration event indicator and an associated event indicator that indicates a 

level and a type of user frustration associated with a user frustration event, 

wherein the user frustration event is associated with a device event that includes 

an active operation of a device at a time when the user frustration event occurred; 

[b] determining, by the computing device, feedback based at least in part on the 

user frustration event indicator and the associated event indicator; and 

[c] implementing, by the computing device, a network action based on the 

determined feedback. 

 The computing device referenced in Claim 1 is simply a generic computing device with no 

specialized components or functions. Figure 7 is a block diagram illustrating an example 

computing device arranged as taught by the ’777 Patent: 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 100
-6- 

There is no aspect of the computing device taught by the ’777 patent that is not 

conventional or generic. Publications predating the priority date of the ’777 patent similarly 

describe all physical components of this generic computing device. See EX. A 

(https://www.technologyuk.net/computing/computer-hardware/architecture.shtml). 

Broadridge alleges as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Broadridge is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Lake 

Success, New York. 

2. Savannah Licensing alleges it is a Texas corporation with its principal place of 

business in Austin, Texas. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the entire action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Broadridge’s counterclaims arise under an Act of Congress 

relating to patents, namely, 35 U.S.C. § 271. 

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Savannah Licensing because Savannah 

Licensing brought the instant action in this judicial district, thereby submitting itself to the Court’s 

jurisdiction. 

5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400, because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district. 

COUNT 1: DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT 

6. Based on the Savannah Licensing’s filing of this suit and Broadridge’s First and 

Fourth Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 

Broadridge has infringed either directly or indirectly (through contributory infringement or 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 101
-7- 

inducement of infringement) the ’777 patent. 

7. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

Broadridge requests a declaration by the Court that it does not infringe any claim of the ’777 patent, 

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement. 

COUNT 2: DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING INVALIDITY 

8. Based on Savannah Licensing’s filing of this suit and Broadridge’s Second and 

Third Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists as to the validity of the claims of 

the ’777 patent. 

9. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

Broadridge requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the ’777 patent are invalid. 

COUNT 3: DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING UNENFORCABILITY 

10. Based on Savannah Licensing’s filing of this suit and Broadridge’s Sixth, Seventh, 

and Eighth Defenses, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists as to the enforceability of 

the ’777 patent. 

11. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

Broadridge requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the ’777 patent are unenforceable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

12. Broadridge respectfully requests a judgment against Savannah Licensing as 

follows: 

A. A declaration that Broadridge does not infringe the ’777 patent; 

B. A declaration that the ’777 patent is invalid; 

C. A declaration that the ’777 patent is unenforceable; 

D. That Savannah Licensing take nothing by their Complaint; 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 102
-8- 

E. That the Court enter judgment against Savannah Licensing and in favor of 

Broadridge and that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 

F. That the Court award Broadridge costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this 

action; and 

G. Further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

Broadridge hereby demands trial by jury on all issues. 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 103
-9- 

Dated: September 7, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay

Eric H. Findlay 

TX Bar No. 00789886 

R. Brian Craft 

TX Bar No. 04972020 

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 

102 N. College Ave., Ste. 900 

Tyler, TX 75702 

(903) 534-1100 

(903) 534-1100 Fax 

efindlay@findlaycraft.com 

bcraft@findlaycraft.com 

Clement Seth Roberts 

(California State Bar No. 209203) 

(pro hac vice application pending) 

Isaac Sawlih Behnawa 

(California State Bar No. 342441) 

(pro hac vice application pending) 

ORRICK HERRINGTON & 

SUTCLIFFE LLP 

405 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 

Telephone: (415) 773-5700 

Email: croberts@orrick.com 

Email: ibehnawa@orrick.com 

Bas de Blank 

(California State Bar No. 191487) 

(pro hac vice application pending) 

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94205 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Email:basdeblank@orrick.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Broadridge Financial Solutions, 

Inc. 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 104
-10- 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 7, 2022 the within document was filed with the Clerk of 

the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record in 

this case. 

/s/Eric H. Findlay 

Eric H. Findlay 

Case 3:22-cv-01180-B Document 21 Filed 09/07/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 105