1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00249-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER, 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS 

TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. (“Defendant” or “KDP”) files this First Amended Answer, 

Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiff Symbology Innovations LLC’s (“Plaintiff” 

or “Symbology”) Complaint filed on May 30, 2023 (Dkt. No. 1) (“Complaint”). KDP denies the 

allegations and characterizations in Plaintiff’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in the 

following paragraphs. 

PARTIES 

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

of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. KDP admits it is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ exchange under ticker 

symbol “KDP.” KDP admits that its headquarters is located at the Star complex at 6425 Hall of 

Fame Lane, Frisco, Texas 75034 with mailing address P.O. Box 1911, Frisco, Texas 75034, and 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 734
2 

that it may be served through its registered agent at CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 

900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. KDP admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent 

infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. KDP admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Plaintiff has alleged infringement of a patent, but KDP 

denies it has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief. KDP denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 

5. KDP does not contest whether personal jurisdiction over it properly lies in this 

District in this action, or that it conducts business in the State of Texas. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. 

6. KDP admits that it conducts business in the State of Texas. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

7. KDP admits that it maintains a physical business location in the State of Texas and 

within this district and that it conducts business in the State of Texas. KDP denies it has committed 

and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District and, on that 

basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 735
3 

8. KDP does not contest that venue may be proper in this District in this action. KDP 

denies it has committed or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this 

District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

9. KDP admits that purported copies of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,992,773 (the “’773 Patent), 

8,424,752 (the “’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 (“the ’369 Patent”), and 8,936,190 (the “’190 Patent”) 

(collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A through D. KDP 

denies it has committed or is committing acts of infringement such that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief from KDP. KDP denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

10. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

12. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

13. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 736
4 

14. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 

15. KDP admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself and includes eighteen claims 

including three independent claims and fifteen dependent claims. KDP denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

16. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

17. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

18. KDP admits that the ’752 Patent speaks for itself and includes twenty-eight claims 

including three independent claims and twenty-five dependent claims. KDP denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 

19. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 

20. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 

21. KDP admits that the ’369 Patent speaks for itself and includes twenty-eight claims 

including three independent claims and twenty-five dependent claims. KDP denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’369 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

22. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. 

23. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 737
5 

24. KDP admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself. KDP denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention and, on that basis, 

denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

25. KDP admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself. KDP denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention and, on that basis, 

denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

26. KDP admits that the Patents-in-Suit speak for themselves. KDP denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

27. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

28. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

29. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

30. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

31. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

32. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

33. KDP admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself. KDP denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention and, on that basis, 

denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 738
6 

34. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

35. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. 

36. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 

37. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 

38. KDP admits that the ’752 Patent speaks for itself. KDP denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’752 Patent constitutes an invention and, on that basis, 

denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 

39. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 

40. KDP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies any remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 

41. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 

42. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

43. KDP admits that the ’369 Patent speaks for itself. KDP denies any characterizations 

inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’369 Patent constitutes an invention and, on that basis, 

denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 739
7 

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES 

44. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 

COUNT ONE 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,992,773) 

 43. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–44 above.1

 44. KDP admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent infringement 

under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. KDP denies it has committed and/or 

is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, 

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 

45. KDP denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the 

State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the 

Complaint. 

46. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 

47. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 

48. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 

49. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 

50. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 

51. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 

52. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 

1

 The paragraph numbering in Plaintiff’s Complaint restarts at 43. For consistency, this 

numbering is reflected in KDP’s First Amended Answer. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 740
8 

53. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 

54. KDP admits that a purported copy of the ’773 Patent is attached to the Complaint 

as Exhibit A and it is titled “System and method for presenting information about an object on a 

portable electronic device.” 

55. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 

56. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 

57. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 

58. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 

59. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. 

COUNT TWO 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,424,752) 

60. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–59 above. 

61. KDP admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent 

infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 

62. KDP denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the 

State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the 

Complaint. 

63. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 

64. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 

65. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 

66. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 741
9 

67. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 

68. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

69. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 

70. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 

71. KDP admits that a purported copy of the ’752 Patent is attached to the Complaint 

as Exhibit B and it is titled “System and method for presenting information about an object on a 

portable electronic device.” 

72. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 

73. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint. 

74. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 

75. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 

76. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 

COUNT THREE 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,651,369) 

77. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–76 above. 

78. KDP admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent 

infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 

79. KDP denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the 

State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the 

Complaint. 

80. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 742
10 

81. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 

82. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 

83. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Complaint. 

84. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint. 

85. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. 

86. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 

87. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 

88. KDP admits that a purported copy of the ’369 Patent is attached to the Complaint 

as Exhibit C and it is titled “System and method for presenting information about an object on a 

portable electronic device.” 

89. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 

90. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Complaint. 

91. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 

92. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Complaint. 

93. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 

COUNT FOUR 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,936,190) 

94. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–93 above. 

95. KDP admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for patent 

infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 743
11 

96. KDP denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the 

State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 96 of the 

Complaint. 

97. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint. 

98. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Complaint. 

99. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Complaint. 

100. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Complaint. 

101. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Complaint. 

102. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Complaint. 

103. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 103 of the Complaint. 

104. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 104 of the Complaint. 

105. KDP admits that a purported copy of the ’190 Patent is attached to the Complaint 

as Exhibit D and it is titled “System and method for presenting information about an object on a 

portable electronic device.” 

106. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Complaint. 

107. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Complaint. 

108. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph108 of the Complaint. 

109. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Complaint. 

110. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 110 of the Complaint. 

[ALLEGED] WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 

111. KDP denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the 

State of Texas or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 111 of the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 744
12 

112. KDP admits that there were communications with Symbology. KDP denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within the State of Texas or in this District 

and, on that basis, denies the allegations of Paragraph 112 of the Complaint. 

113. KDP denies the allegations in Paragraph 113 of the Complaint. 

[PLAINTIFF’S] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

114. KDP is not required to provide a response to Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. 

[PLAINTIFF’S] PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

115. KDP denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from KDP and denies all the 

allegations contained in Paragraphs (a)-(d) of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 745
13 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

KDP’s Affirmative Defenses are listed below. KDP reserves the right to amend its answer 

to add additional Affirmative Defenses consistent with the facts discovered in this action. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

KDP has not infringed and does not infringe, under any theory of infringement (including 

directly (whether individually or jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)), 

any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid for failure to comply with one or more 

of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 

101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff and any predecessors in interest to any of the Patents-in-Suit 

failed to properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, 

or otherwise give proper notice that KDP’s actions allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit, KDP is 

not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have been performed before it received actual notice 

that it was allegedly infringing the Patents-in-Suit. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that KDP indirectly infringes, either by contributory 

infringement or inducement of infringement, KDP is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to 

have been performed before KDP knew that its actions would cause indirect infringement. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 746
14 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are not entitled to a scope sufficient to encompass any 

system employed or process practiced by KDP. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, among 

other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that KDP makes, uses, or sells each 

claimed element of any asserted claim, or that KDP directs or controls another entity to make, use, 

or sell any element that is not made, used, or sold by KDP. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for indirect infringement (whether 

by inducement or contributorily), Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the 

Patents-in-Suit do not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, among 

other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that any method employed by KDP: (1) 

captures a digital image; (2) detects symbology associated with an object within the digital image; 

(3) decodes the symbology to obtain a decode string; (4) sends the decode string to a remote server 

for processing; (5) receives information about the object from the remote server wherein the 

information is based on the decode string of the object; and/or (6) displays the information on a 

display device associated with the portable electronic device. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 747
15 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for willful infringement, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 748
16 

KDP’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

 For its counterclaims against Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC 

(“Symbology”), Counterclaim Plaintiff Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. (“KDP”) alleges as follows: 

1. Counterclaim Plaintiff KDP is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 

of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 6425 Hall of Fame Lance, 

Frisco, Texas 75034. 

2. Upon information and belief based solely on Paragraph 2 of the Complaint as pled 

by Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant Symbology is a limited liability company organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Texas and maintains its principal place of business at 1 East 

Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. 

JURISDICTION 

3. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–2 above. 

4. These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, 

United States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201–02. 

5. Symbology has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court at least by 

commencing its action for patent infringement in this District, as set forth in its Complaint. 

6. Based solely on Symbology’s filing of this action, venue is proper, though not 

necessarily convenient, in this District pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. 

COUNT I 

DECLARATION REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT AS TO THE PATENTS-INSUIT 

7. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–6 above. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 749
17 

8. Based on Symbology’s filing of this action and at least KDP’s First Affirmative 

Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether KDP 

infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,992,773 (the “’773 Patent”), 8,424,752 (the “’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 

(the “’369 Patent”), or 8,936,190 (the “’190 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). 

9. KDP does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the Patents-in-Suit because, among other 

things, it does not “use” or “test” any method or system that: (i) captures a digital image, (ii) detects 

symbology associated with an object within the digital image, (iii) decodes the symbology to 

obtain a decode string, (iv) sends the decode string to a remote server for processing, (v) receives 

information about the digital image from the remote server wherein the information is based on 

the decode string, and/or (vi) displays the information on a display device associated with the 

electronic device. 

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

requests a declaration by the Court that KDP has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of 

the Patents-in-Suit under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly) or 

indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)). 

COUNT II 

DECLARATION REGARDING INVALIDITY AS TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

11. KDP incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–10 above. 

12. Based on Symbology’s filing of this action and at least KDP’s Second Affirmative 

Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity of 

the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. 

13. The asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are anticipated and/or rendered obvious 

by, inter alia, BarPoint.com; Neomedia’s Neo Reader; Microsoft’s Smart Tags; Android’s Shop 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 750
18 

Savvy; Red Laser; ScanBuy; U.S. Serial No. 60/118,051; U.S. Serial No. 60/187,646; U.S. Serial 

No. 60/185,546; U.S. Patent Application 2008/0004978; U.S. Patent No. 6,430,554; and/or U.S. 

Patent No. 6,651,053. 

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

requests a declaration by the Court that claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to 

comply with one or more of the requirements of United States Code, Title 35, including without 

limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining 

thereto. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, KDP asks this Court to enter judgment in KDP’s favor and against 

Symbology by granting the following relief: 

a) a declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; 

b) a declaration that KDP does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim of the 

Patents-in-Suit that may be enforceable; 

c) a declaration that Symbology take nothing by its Complaint; 

d) judgment against Symbology and in favor of KDP; 

e) dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice; 

f) a finding that this action is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award 

to KDP of its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and 

g) further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

KDP hereby demands trial by jury on all issues.

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 751
19 

Dated: July 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Neil J. McNabnay 

Neil J. McNabnay 

Texas Bar No. 24002583 

Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Texas Bar No. 24082704 

Rodeen Talebi 

Texas Bar No. 24103958 

Sarika Patel 

Texas Bar No. 24073520 

mcnabnay@fr.com 

rbonilla@fr.com 

talebi@fr.com 

patel@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 747-5070 (Telephone) 

(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 752
20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF 

filing system on July 17, 2023, which automatically sends email notifications to all counsel of 

record and which will permit viewing and downloading of same from the CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Neil J. McNabnay 

 Neil J. McNabnay 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 12 Filed 07/17/23 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 753