PAGE 1 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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 AMENDED 

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”) Amended Answer 

and Counterclaims to Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 121). 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 22
PAGE 2 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

COUNTERCLAIMS 

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 

118. 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”) and for a declaration that MI’s claims are barred by the covenant not to sue contained in 

the 2005 Intel-Sanmina Agreement (“ISA”). 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel asserts 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. MI further admits that Intel asserts a 

counterclaim for a declaration that MI’s claims are barred by the covenant not to sue contained in 

the 2005 Intel-Sanmina Agreement, but denies that Intel is entitled to such a declaration. 

119. 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. 

120. 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. 

121. This is an action for declaratory judgment 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. This Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Count XI pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because it is related to the other claims 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 22
PAGE 3 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

in this action within the original jurisdiction of this Court and forms part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. 

ANSWER: MI admits that Intel asserts a claim for declaratory judgement 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 declaration. MI further admits 

that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims. 

122. 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. 

123. 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. Intel asserts 

that MI’s claims are barred by the covenant not to sue provision of the 2005 ISA. 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 Intel asserts that MI’s claims are barred by the covenant not 

to sue provision of the 2005 ISA, but denies that MI’s claims are barred. MI further admits that 

an actual controversy exists between the parties concerning the infringement, validity, and 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 22
PAGE 4 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

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 

124. 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, 

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). 

125. 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. 

126. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 22
PAGE 5 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

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. 

127. 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 

128. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 127 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 127 of 

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

through Paragraph 128 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

129. 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 22
PAGE 6 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

130. 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. 

131. 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 

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.

132. 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 

133. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 132 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 132 of 

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

through Paragraph 133 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

134. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 22
PAGE 7 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

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 

’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).

135. 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.

136. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 22
PAGE 8 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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.

137. 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. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT IV – INVALIDITY OF THE ’636 PATENT 

138. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 137 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 137 of 

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

through Paragraph 138 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

139. 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.

140. 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 22
PAGE 9 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

141. 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 

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.

142. 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 

143. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 142 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 142 of 

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

through Paragraph 143 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

144. 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, 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 22
PAGE 10 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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 ’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).

145. 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 

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.

146. 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.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 10 of 22
PAGE 11 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

147. 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 

148. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 147 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 147 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. 

149. 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.

150. 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. 

151. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 11 of 22
PAGE 12 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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 ’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.

152. 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 

153. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 152 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 152 of 

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

through Paragraph 153 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

154. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 12 of 22
PAGE 13 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

’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).

155. 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 

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.

156. 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.

157. 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 13 of 22
PAGE 14 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT VIII – INVALIDITY OF THE ’206 PATENT 

158. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 157 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 157 of 

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

through Paragraph 158 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

159. 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.

160. 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. 

161. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 14 of 22
PAGE 15 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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.

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

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT IX – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’254 PATENT 

163. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 162 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 162 of 

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

through Paragraph 163 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

164. 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).

165. 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 15 of 22
PAGE 16 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

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.

166. 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.

167. 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 

168. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 118 through 167 

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

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 167 of 

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

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 16 of 22
PAGE 17 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

through Paragraph 168 to assert any allegations, fact, or averment, by implication or otherwise, 

MI denies it. 

169. 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. 

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.

170. 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. 

171. 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.

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

invalid. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 17 of 22
PAGE 18 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

COUNT XI – MI’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY A COVENANT NOT TO SUE 

173. Intel repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 97 through 115 

of its Answer and paragraphs 118 through 172 of its Counterclaims, above, as if set forth fully 

herein. 

ANSWER: MI incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 118 through 172 of 

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

through Paragraph 173 to assert any other allegations, facts, or averments, by implication or 

otherwise, MI denies them. 

174. The ISA is a valid and enforceable contract. 

ANSWER: MI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations of Paragraph 174, and therefore denies them. 

175. Intel has performed all its obligations under the ISA. 

ANSWER: MI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations of Paragraph 175, and therefore denies them. 

176. MI explicitly agreed to be bound by the ISA and, in so agreeing, became bound 

by the ISA’s covenant not to sue provision. 

ANSWER: MI admits that it agreed to be bound by the ISA, and that it is bound by the 

ISA’s covenant not to sue provision to the extent that this provision is valid, enforceable, and 

remains in effect. 

177. The ISA’s covenant not to sue provision bars claims arising from CSI Patent 

Rights. 

ANSWER: MI admits that the ISA’s covenant not to sue provision bars assertion of a 

CSI Patent Claim against Intel under certain specified terms and conditions. MI denies the 

remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 177. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 18 of 22
PAGE 19 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

178. The patents-in-suit are CSI Patent Rights. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

179. The ISA’s covenant not to sue provision is still in effect. 

ANSWER: MI lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations of Paragraph 179, and therefore denies them. 

180. MI filed this patent infringement action in violation of the covenant not to sue 

provision of the ISA. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

181. A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between MI and Intel with 

respect to whether MI’s lawsuit is barred by the ISA’s covenant not to sue provision. 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 whether MI’s lawsuit is barred by the ISA’s covenant not to sue provision. 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.

182. Intel is entitled to a declaratory judgment that MI is barred from asserting the 

patents-in-suit against Intel because of the ISA’s covenant not to sue provision and an order 

dismissing MI’s claims. 

ANSWER: Denied. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 19 of 22
PAGE 20 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

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: 

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 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 20 of 22
PAGE 21 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS OF INTEL 

CORPORATION

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 21, 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 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 21 of 22
PAGE 22 – MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO AMENDED 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 21th day of September, 2015. 

/s/ Jonathan Baker 

Jonathan Baker (appearing pro hac vice) 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Memory Integrity, LLC 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-SI Document 132 Filed 09/21/15 Page 22 of 22