1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG 

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COUNTER-DEFENDANT VIRTAMOVE CORP.’S ANSWER TO COUNTERPLAINTIFF HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY’S COUNTERCLAIMS

Counter-Defendant VirtaMove, Corp. (“VirtaMove” or “Counter-Defendant”), for its 

Answer to the Counterclaims filed on April 15, 2024 by Counter-Plaintiff Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise Company (“HPE” or “Counter-Plaintiff”), admits and denies as follows. Except as 

hereinafter specifically admitted or otherwise alleged, VirtaMove denies each and every allegation 

in the Counterclaims.

BACKGROUND

1. Admit that on February 9, 2024, VirtaMove filed suit against HPE, alleging 

infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,519,814 (“the ’814 Patent”) and 7,784,058 (“the ’058 Patent”) 

(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) (Dkt. No. 1).

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 168
2

2. Admit that in its Complaint, VirtaMove purports to own all right, title, and interest 

in the Asserted Patents (the ’814 Patent and the ’058 Patent).

3. Deny.

4. Deny.

PARTIES

5. Admit that HPE is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 

1701 E Mossy Oaks Road, Spring, Texas 77389. 

6. Admit that VirtaMove is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Canada with its place of business at 110 Didsbury Road, M083, Ottawa, Ontario K2T 0C2. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions, no 

response is required. VirtaMove admits that the Counterclaims purport to bring an action for a 

declaration that each and every claim of the Asserted Patents is invalid, unenforceable, and not 

infringed pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. VirtaMove 

admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 

Title 28, United States Code §§ 2201 and 2202, and under Title 28, United States Code §§ 1331 

and 1338(a). 

8. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions, no 

response is required. Admit that an actual, substantial, and continuing controversy exists between 

Counter-Plaintiff HPE and Counter-Defendant VirtaMove concerning non-infringement, 

invalidity, and unenforceability of the Asserted Patents. VirtaMove denies the allegation in this 

paragraph that said controversy requires a declaration of HPE’s rights by the Court. VirtaMove 

denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 169
3

9. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions, no 

response is required. For purposes of this action only, VirtaMove admits that this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over VirtaMove. VirtaMove denies the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

10. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions, no 

response is required. To the extent that a response is required, VirtaMove does not contests that it 

is subject to venue in this District for purposes of this litigation only. VirtaMove denies the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMNET OF THE 

’814 PATENT

11. VirtaMove’s responses to paragraphs 1-10 are incorporated by reference. 

12. Admit that this is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 

’814 Patent. 

13. Deny.

14. Admit that in its Complaint, VirtMove accuses HPE of infringing the ’814 Patent. 

VirtaMove denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

15. Admit that there is a case or controversy between the parties concerning alleged 

infringement of the ’814 Patent. Deny any other allegations in this paragraph.

16. Deny.

COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMNET OF THE 

’058 PATENT

17. VirtaMove’s responses to paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated by reference. 

18. Admit that this is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 170
4

’058 Patent. 

19. Deny.

20. Admit that in its Complaint, VirtMove accuses HPE of infringing the ’058 Patent. 

VirtaMove denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

21. Admit that there is a case or controversy between the parties concerning alleged 

infringement of the ’058 Patent. Deny any other allegations in this paragraph.

22. Deny.

COUNT III – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE 

’814 PATENT

23. VirtaMove’s responses to paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated by reference. 

24. Admit that this is an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’814 Patent. 

25. Deny.

26. Admit that in its Complaint, VirtMove accuses HPE of infringing the ’814 Patent. 

VirtaMove denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

27. Admit that there is a case or controversy between the parties concerning alleged 

validity of the ’814 Patent. Deny any other allegations in this paragraph.

28. Deny.

COUNT IV – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE 

’058 PATENT

29. VirtaMove’s responses to paragraphs 1-28 are incorporated by reference. 

30. Admit that this is an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’058 Patent. 

31. Deny.

32. Admit that in its Complaint, VirtMove accuses HPE of infringing the ’058 Patent. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 171
5

VirtaMove denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

33. Admit that there is a case or controversy between the parties concerning alleged 

validity of the ’058 Patent. Deny any other allegations in this paragraph.

34. Deny.

35. To the extent a response is required, VirtaMove denies that HPE is entitled to any 

relief from VirtaMove, much less the relief set forth in HPE’s Relief Requested paragraph, at least 

because the claims of the ’814 and ’058 Patents are valid, enforceable, and infringed, either literally 

or under the doctrine of equivalents, by HPE. VirtaMove denies all of the allegations in 

subparagraphs A-G of HPE’s Relief Requested. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, VirtaMove prays for the following relief with respect to HPE’s 

counterclaims:

A. A judgment in favor of VirtaMove on all counterclaims asserted by HPE;

B. An adjudication that HPE is not entitled to any relief on its counterclaims, 

including, without limitation, any fine or damages; and

C. A dismissal with prejudice of HPE’s counterclaims;

D. A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning 

of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to VirtaMove its reasonable attorneys’ fees 

against HPE; 

E. VirtaMove’s costs of suit against HPE; and

F. Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the 

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 172
6

VirtaMove demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: May 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)

mfenster@raklaw.com

Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)

nrubin@raklaw.com

James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281283)

jmilkey@raklaw.com

Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)

ahayden@raklaw.com

Jacob Buczko (CA SBN 269408)

jbuczko@raklaw.com

James Tsuei (CA SBN 285530)

jtsuei@raklaw.com

Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)

cconkle@raklaw.com

Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)

jma@raklaw.com

Daniel B. Kolko (CA SBN 341680)

dkolko@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Qi (Peter) Tong (TX SBN 24119042)

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Attorneys for Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp.

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 173
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 7, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Court and served on all parties of record via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system.

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 38 Filed 05/07/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 174