PAGE 1 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

John Mansfield, OSB No. 055390 

MansfieldLaw 

121 SW Morrison Ave., Suite 400 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: 971.271.8615 

john@mansfieldlaw.net 

Jonathan Baker (appearing pro hac vice) 

FARNEY DANIELS PC 

411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (424) 278-5200 

jbaker@farneydaniels.com 

[Additional Counsel listed on signature page] 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTEL CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-00262-SI

MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S 

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS 

OF INTEL CORPORATION 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, hereby 

files this Answer to Defendant Intel Corporation’s (“Intel” or “Defendant”) Answer and 

Counterclaims to Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 107). 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 20
PAGE 2 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

COUNTERCLAIMS 

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 

99. These are counterclaims for declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of 

one or more claims of the ’121, ’636, ’409, ’206, and ’254 patents (collectively, the “patents-insuit”). 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel states counterclaims for declarations of noninfringement and invalidity of one or more claims of the ’121, ’636, ’409, ’206, and ’254 patents, 

but denies that Intel is entitled to such declarations. 

100. The counterclaim plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel”) is a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Santa 

Clara, California. 

ANSWER: Admitted, upon information and belief. 

101. The counterclaim defendant Memory Integrity LLC (“MI”) alleges in its Second 

Amended Complaint that it is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws 

of the State of Delaware. 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

102. This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement arising under the 

patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338(a), in combination with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel asserts a claim for declaratory judgement of noninfringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, but denies that Intel is entitled to such a 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 20
PAGE 3 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

declaration. MI further admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these 

counterclaims. 

103. Personal jurisdiction and venue in this District are proper under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1391(b) and 1400(b). 

ANSWER: MI admits that, for the present action, personal jurisdiction and venue in this 

District are proper. 

104. MI has sued Intel claiming that it is the owner of the patents-in-suit and accusing 

Intel of infringing the patents-in-suit. Intel denies that it infringes any of the patents-in-suit, that 

the patents-in-suit are valid, and that the patents-in-suit are enforceable against Intel. An actual 

controversy exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act between the parties concerning the 

infringement, validity, and enforceability of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit and that 

controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it has sued Intel for infringement of the patents-in-suit and 

that it is the owner of the patents-in-suit. MI further admits that Intel denies infringing any of the 

patents-in-suit, that the patents-in-suit are valid, and that the patents-in-suit are enforceable 

against Intel. MI further admits that an actual controversy exists between the parties concerning 

the infringement, validity, and enforceability of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit and that 

the controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court. 

COUNT I – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’121 PATENT 

105. MI claims that it is the assignee of the ’121 patent and that it is the owner of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the ’121 patent. MI has expressly charged Intel with 

infringement of the ’121 patent by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Intel on 

November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on March 17, 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 20
PAGE 4 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 

105). 

ANSWER: MI admits that it is the assignee of and the owner of all rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’121 patent. MI further admits it has charged Intel with infringement of the 

’121 patent by filing a Complaint on November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint on 

March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 105). 

106. Intel has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or by 

inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’121 patent. In 

light of MI’s Complaint for Patent Infringement, First Amended Complaint for Patent 

Infringement, and Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, there exists an actual 

controversy between MI and Intel regarding this patent. 

ANSWER: MI admits that there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel 

regarding Intel’s infringement of the ’121 patent. MI denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph. 

107. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’121 patent. Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a 

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may 

ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the infringement of the ’121 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 4 of 20
PAGE 5 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

108. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, the ’121 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to, infringement 

of the ’121 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of the ’121 

patent. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT II – INVALIDITY OF THE ’121 PATENT 

109. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 108 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 108 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 109 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

110. Intel contends that the claims of the ’121 patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel contends that the claims of the ’121 patent are invalid 

for failure to comply with the conditions for patentability, but MI denies that the claims are 

invalid. 

111. Intel is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MI contends that the 

’121 patent is valid and enforceable. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it contends the ’121 patent is valid and enforceable. 

112. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the validity of the ’121 patent. Intel desires a judicial determination and 

declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 5 of 20
PAGE 6 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the validity of the ’121 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

113. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’121 patent are 

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT III – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’636 PATENT 

114. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 113 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 113 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 114 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

115. MI claims that it is the assignee of the ’636 patent and that it is the owner of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the ’636 patent. MI has expressly charged Intel with 

infringement of the ’636 patent by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Intel on 

November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on March 17, 

2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 

105). 

ANSWER: MI admits that it is the assignee of and the owner of all rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’636 patent. MI further admits it has charged Intel with infringement of the 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 6 of 20
PAGE 7 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

’636 patent by filing a Complaint on November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint on 

March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 105).

116. Intel has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or by 

inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’636 patent. In 

light of MI’s Complaint for Patent Infringement, First Amended Complaint for Patent 

Infringement, and Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, there exists an actual 

controversy between MI and Intel regarding this patent. 

ANSWER: MI admits that there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel 

regarding Intel’s infringement of the ’636 patent. MI denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph.

117. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’636 patent. Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a 

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may 

ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the infringement of the ’636 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

118. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, the ’636 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to, infringement 

of the ’636 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of the ’636 

patent. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 7 of 20
PAGE 8 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT IV – INVALIDITY OF THE ’636 PATENT 

119. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 1180 

[sic] of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 118 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 119 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

120. Intel contends that the claims of the ’636 patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel contends that the claims of the ’636 patent are invalid 

for failure to comply with the conditions for patentability, but MI denies that the claims are 

invalid.

121. Intel is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MI contends that the 

’636 patent is valid and enforceable. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it contends the ’636 patent is valid and enforceable. 

122. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the validity of the ’636 patent. Intel desires a judicial determination and 

declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and 

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the validity of the ’636 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 8 of 20
PAGE 9 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

123. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’636 patent are 

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT V – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’409 PATENT 

124. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 123 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 123 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 124 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

125. MI claims that it is the assignee of the ’409 patent and that it is the owner of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the ’409 patent. MI has expressly charged Intel with 

infringement of the ’409 patent by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Intel on 

November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on March 17, 

2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 

105). 

ANSWER: MI admits that it is the assignee of and the owner of all rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’409 patent. MI further admits it has charged Intel with infringement of the 

’409 patent by filing a Complaint on November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint on 

March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61), and a Second Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 105).

126. Intel has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or by 

inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’409 patent. In 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 9 of 20
PAGE 10 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

light of MI’s Complaint for Patent Infringement, First Amended Complaint for Patent 

Infringement, and Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, there exists an actual 

controversy between MI and Intel regarding this patent. 

ANSWER: MI admits that there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel 

regarding Intel’s infringement of the ’409 patent. MI denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph.

127. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’409 patent. Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a 

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may 

ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the infringement of the ’409 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

128. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, the ’409 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to, infringement 

of the ’409 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of the ’409 

patent. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT VI – INVALIDITY OF THE ’409 PATENT 

129. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 128 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 10 of 20
PAGE 11 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 128 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 129 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

130. Intel contends that the claims of the ’409 patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel contends that the claims of the ’409 patent are invalid 

for failure to comply with the conditions for patentability, but MI denies that the claims are 

invalid.

131. Intel is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MI contends that the 

’409 patent is valid and enforceable. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it contends the ’409 patent is valid and enforceable. 

132. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the validity of the ’409 patent. Intel desires a judicial determination and 

declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and 

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the validity of the ’409 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 11 of 20
PAGE 12 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

133. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’409 patent are 

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT VII – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’206 PATENT 

134. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 133 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 133 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 134 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

135. MI claims that it is the assignee of the ’206 patent and that it is the owner of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the ’206 patent. MI has expressly charged Intel with 

infringement of the ’206 patent by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Intel on 

November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on March 17, 

2015 (D.I. 61) , and a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on July 27, 2015 

(D.I. 105). 

ANSWER: MI admits that it is the assignee of and the owner of all rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’206 patent. MI further admits it has charged Intel with infringement of the 

’206 patent by filing a Complaint on November 1, 2013 (D.I. 1), a First Amended Complaint on 

March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61) , and a Second Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 105).

136. Intel has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or by 

inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’206 patent. In 

light of MI’s Complaint for Patent Infringement, First Amended Complaint for Patent 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 12 of 20
PAGE 13 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

Infringement, and Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, there exists an actual 

controversy between MI and Intel regarding this patent. 

ANSWER: MI admits that there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel 

regarding Intel’s infringement of the ’206 patent. MI denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph.

137. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’206 patent. Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a 

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may 

ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the infringement of the ’206 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

138. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, the ’206 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to, infringement 

of the ’206 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of the ’206 

patent. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT VIII – INVALIDITY OF THE ’206 PATENT 

139. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 138 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 138 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 13 of 20
PAGE 14 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

through Paragraph 139 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

140. Intel contends that the claims of the ’206 patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel contends that the claims of the ’206 patent are invalid 

for failure to comply with the conditions for patentability, but MI denies that the claims are 

invalid.

141. Intel is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MI contends that the 

’206 patent is valid and enforceable. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it contends the ’206 patent is valid and enforceable. 

142. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the validity of the ’206 patent. Intel desires a judicial determination and 

declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and 

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the validity of the ’206 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

143. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’206 patent are 

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 14 of 20
PAGE 15 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

COUNT IX – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’254 PATENT 

144. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 143 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 143 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 144 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

145. MI claims that it is the assignee of the ’254 patent and that it is the owner of all 

rights, title, and interest in and to the ’254 patent. MI has expressly charged Intel with 

infringement of the ’254 patent by filing a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on 

March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61) and a Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on July 27, 

2015 (D.I. 105). 

ANSWER: MI admits that it is the assignee of and the owner of all rights, title, and 

interest in and to the ’254 patent. MI further admits it has charged Intel with infringement of the 

’254 patent by filing a First Amended Complaint on March 17, 2015 (D.I. 61) and a Second 

Amended Complaint on July 27, 2015 (D.I. 105).

146. Intel has not been and is not now infringing, either directly, contributorily, or by 

inducement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’254 patent. In 

light of MI’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Second Amended Complaint 

for Patent Infringement, there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel regarding this 

patent. 

ANSWER: MI admits that there exists an actual controversy between MI and Intel 

regarding Intel’s infringement of the ’254 patent. MI denies the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 15 of 20
PAGE 16 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

147. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’254 patent. Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a 

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may 

ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the infringement of the ’254 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

148. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that: (a) it has not infringed, and is not 

infringing, the ’254 patent, (b) it has not contributed to, and is not contributing to, infringement 

of the ’254 patent, and (c) it has not induced, and is not inducing, infringement of the ’254 

patent. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT X – INVALIDITY OF THE ’254 PATENT 

149. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 99 through 148 

of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 99 through 148 of 

Defendant’s Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein. To the extent that Defendant intends 

through Paragraph 149 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

150. Intel contends that the claims of the ’254 patent are invalid for failure to comply 

with the conditions for patentability, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 

112. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 16 of 20
PAGE 17 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel contends that the claims of the ’254 patent are invalid 

for failure to comply with the conditions for patentability, but MI denies that the claims are 

invalid.

151. Intel is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MI contends that the 

’254 patent is valid and enforceable. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it contends the ’254 patent is valid and enforceable. 

152. Accordingly, a valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI 

and Intel with respect to the validity of the ’254 patent. Intel desires a judicial determination and 

declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and 

declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

ANSWER: MI admits that a controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel 

with respect to the validity of the ’254 patent. MI further admits that Intel desires a judicial 

determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein and that 

such a determination is necessary and appropriate at this time.

153. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’254 patent are 

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

By way of further answer, as affirmative defenses to Defendant’s Counterclaims, without 

assuming any burden that it would not otherwise have, and while expressly reserving the right to 

assert any other legal or equitable defenses to which it is entitled, MI states as follows: 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 17 of 20
PAGE 18 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendant’s Counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

MI expressly reserves the right to assert any other legal or equitable defenses to which it 

is entitled. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

MI demands a trial by jury as to all issues so triable. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE, in addition to the relief requested in its Complaint, MI respectfully prays 

that the Court: 

A. dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims in their entirety with prejudice, with Intel 

taking nothing thereby; 

B. deny all of Defendant’s Counterclaims and all relief sought against MI; 

C. award MI its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against Defendant’s 

Counterclaims; and 

D. award MI any and all further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 18 of 20
PAGE 19 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: August 31, 2015 /s/ Jonathan Baker 

Jonathan Baker (appearing pro hac vice) 

Michael Saunders (appearing pro hac vice) 

Gurtej Singh (appearing pro hac vice) 

FARNEY DANIELS PC 

411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350 

San Mateo, California 94402 

Telephone: (424) 278-5200 

jbaker@farneydaniels.com 

msaunders@farneydaniels.com 

tsingh@farneydaniels.com 

Bryan Atkinson (appearing pro hac vice) 

FARNEY DANIELS PC 

800 S. Austin Avenue, Suite 200 

Georgetown, Texas 78626 

Telephone: (512) 582-2828 

batkinson@farneydaniels.com 

John Mansfield, OSB No. 055390 

MANSFIELD LAW

121 SW Morrison Ave., Suite 400 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Telephone: (971) 271-8615 

john@mansfieldlaw.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Memory Integrity, LLC

 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 19 of 20
PAGE 20 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all interested 

parties. 

DATED this 31th day of August, 2015. 

/s/ Jonathan Baker 

Jonathan Baker (appearing pro hac vice) 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Memory Integrity, LLC 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 112 Filed 08/31/15 Page 20 of 20