Source: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv02402/240755/15/
Timestamp: 2014-10-02 08:31:59
Document Index: 641788548

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 1338', '§ 101', '§ 286', '§ 287', '§ 1498', '§ 2201', '§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 2201', '§ 2201', '§ 101', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§\n284', '§ 285']

MICROSOFT CORPORATIONS' CORRECTED ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Masterobjects, Inc for Masterobjects, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp :: Justia Dockets & Filings Justia.com
MICROSOFT CORPORATIONS' CORRECTED ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Masterobjects, Inc. byMicrosoft Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kalay, Leeron) (Filed on 8/1/2011)
Leeron G. Kalay (SBN 23579), kalay@fr.com
MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S
CORRECTED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS TO MASTEROBJECTS,
INC.’S COMPLAINT
Defendant, Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) answers the allegations set forth in the
Complaint of Plaintiff MasterObjects, Inc. (“MasterObjects”). Except as expressly admitted
below, Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint. To the extent any
heading or non-numbered statement in Plaintiff’s Complaint contains an allegation, Microsoft
denies each and every allegation therein.
Specifically, Microsoft answers as follows:
MICROSOFT’S CORRECTED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Microsoft lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph
1 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
Microsoft is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington, with its
principal place of business in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft denies all the remaining
allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
Microsoft admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent
infringement under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271. Microsoft admits that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Microsoft denies all the remaining
allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
Microsoft admits, for purposes of this action only, that it is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this District and that it does business in this Judicial District. Microsoft denies all
the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
INTRADlSTRlCT ASSIGNMENT
Microsoft admits the allegation of paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
7 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
8 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
9 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
Microsoft admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,752,326 (“the ’326 patent”) is entitled
“System and Method for Utilizing Asynchronous Client Server Communications Objects.”
Microsoft denies that the ’326 patent was duly and legally issued. Microsoft lacks sufficient
information to admit or deny all other allegations of paragraph 16 of the complaint, and, therefore,
Microsoft admits that the Abstract of the ’326 patent appears to include the
language quoted in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Microsoft lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations of paragraph 11 of the Complaint
12 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
16 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
17 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
18 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
19 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
20 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
Microsoft also admits that a copy of the ’326 patent appears to be attached as Exhibit A to the
complaint. Microsoft denies that the ’326 patent was duly and legally issued. Microsoft lacks
sufficient information to admit or deny all other allegations of paragraph 21 of the complaint, and,
22 of the complaint, and, therefore, denies those allegations.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
Microsoft denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in its Prayer
Microsoft denies all allegations not expressly admitted herein.
Microsoft does not infringe and has not infringed (either directly, contributorily or
by inducement) any claim of the ’326 patent.
One or more asserted claims of the ’326 patent are invalid because they fail to
comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including, without limitation, sections
101, 102, 103 and 112.
(Equitable Defenses - Laches)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part by the equitable doctrine of laches.
(Equitable Defenses - Estoppel)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of
estoppel and/or waiver.
SXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based
on statements, representations and admissions made during prosecution of the patent application
resulting in the ’326.
(Statutory Damages Limitations)
Plaintiff’s claim for damages is statutorily limited by 35 U.S.C. § 286 and/or § 287.
Plaintiff’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
(No Injunctive Relief)
Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is barred because there exists an adequate
remedy at law and Plaintiff’s claims otherwise fail to meet the requirements for such relief.
(No Standing)
Plaintiff does not have standing to bring an action for infringement of the ’326
patent under the United States patent laws.
Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred and unenforceable, in whole or
in part, under the doctrine of unclean hands.
(Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents)
Microsoft’s accused methods and/or systems operate and/or are configured in ways
substantially different in principle from the way the invention described in the ’326 patent operates
and/or is programmed, and Plaintiff cannot sustain its burden of proving otherwise.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by its failure to mitigate damages.
MICROSOFT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Microsoft incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-41 by reference as if fully set
forth here and asserts the following counterclaims for declaratory relief against MasterObjects:
Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is a Washington corporation with its principal
place of business located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052.
On information and belief, counterclaim defendant MasterObjects, Inc.
(“MasterObjects”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California with its
principal place of business in Maarssen, Netherlands.
This counterclaim for a declaratory judgment arises under the Federal Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and the Patent Act of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101
et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
This Court also has personal jurisdiction over MasterObjects because, among other
reasons, MasterObjects submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court by bringing its complaint
for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,752,326 (“the ’326 patent”) in this Court.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because,
among other reasons, MasterObjects has brought its complaint for infringement of the ’326 patent
On September 8, 1998, the United States Patent & Trademark Office duly and
legally issued United States Patent No. 5,805,911 (“the ’911 patent”) entitled “Word Prediction
System.” A true and correct copy of the ’911 Patent is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated
Microsoft Corporation is the assignee of the ’911 Patent and has standing to bring
forth these claims against MasterObjects.
9. The ’911 patent claims various methods and for application independent text prediction.
MasterObjects’ Infringing Products and Services
On information and belief, in 2004, MasterObjects introduced a software product
that it calls “QuestFields.”
On information and belief, QuestFields includes functionality which suggests
completions and additional related terms to refine a search query entered by a user.
On information and belief, MasterObjects sells QuestFields to customers so that
customers can modify their webpages to include QuestFields powered search fields which suggest
completions and additional related terms to refine search queries.
On information and belief, MasterObjects sells mobile Questfields to customers so
that customers can modify their webpages to include QuestFields powered search fields which
suggest completions and additional related terms to refine search queries.
On information and belief, MasterObjects sells a particular implementation of
Questfields, called ProductFinder Questfield, to customers permitting customers to search
products in a database. A ProductFinder QuestField allows users to start typing the first
characters of any word in a product name to activate a query. The QuestField Server immediately
goes out to a product database and quickly shows the first matches, while the user is typing. A
ProductFinder QuestField shows product names and any other metadata that is available in a
database. Users can submit the value found, just like a static input field in traditional web
On information and belief, MasterObjects sells mobile ProductFinder Questfields
Questfields, called PeopleFinder QuestField, to customers permitting customers to look up people
in a corporate directory or a people database. The PeopleFinder QuestField comes pre-configured
for content channels that return people data. The PeopleFinder QuestField, can display a
dropdown list displaying information in various ways.
DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT
Microsoft incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-16 above as though fully repeated
An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Microsoft and MasterObjects
as to the non-infringement of the ’326 patent, as evidenced by MasterObjects’ Complaint and
Microsoft’s Answer to that Complaint, set forth above.
Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.,
Microsoft requests the declaration of the Court that Microsoft does not infringe and has not
infringed any claim of the ’326 patent.
Microsoft incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-19 above as though fully repeated
as to the invalidity of the ’326 patent, as evidenced by MasterObjects’ Complaint and Microsoft’s
Answer to that Complaint, set forth above.
Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and
the Patent Act of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq, Microsoft requests the declaration of
the Court that the ’326 patent is invalid.
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’911 PATENT
Microsoft incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-22 above as though fully repeated
Microsoft is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that MasterObjects, in
connection with certain of its products, services, methods and/or systems, including QuestFields,
has infringed and continues to infringe the ’911 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or
selling within the United States systems or methods that embody the inventions claimed in the
’911 patent; and/or by actively inducing others to make or use in the United States the systems
and/or methods claimed in one or more claim of the ’911 patent.
MasterObjects’ activities constitute infringement of one or more claims of the ’911
patent, either directly, indirectly, literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of one
or more subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
As a result of MasterObjects’ infringement of the ’911 patent, Microsoft has been
damaged and will continue to be damaged until MasterObjects is enjoined from further acts of
Microsoft faces real, substantial and irreparable damage and injury of a continuing
nature from MasterObjects’ infringement of the ’911 patent for which Microsoft has no adequate
This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Microsoft is entitled to
recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this action.
WHEREFORE, Microsoft prays for entry of judgment as follows:
(a) That MasterObjects take nothing by its Complaint;
(b) That MasterObjects’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
(c) That the Court enter a declaration that Microsoft does not infringe and has not
infringed, directly or indirectly, the ’326 patent;
(d) That the Court declare that the ’326 patent is invalid;
(e) The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft is the owner of U.S. Patent No
5,805,911, that Microsoft should be entitled to all rights of recovery thereunder, and
that U.S. Patent No. 5,805,911 is valid and enforceable;
(f) The Court enjoin, by preliminary and permanent injunctions, MasterObjects; its
officers, principals, agents, attorneys, servants, employees and all others acting by or
under their direction and authority; and their successors and assigns from making,
using offering to sell, or selling in the United States any infringing products or any
other product substantially equivalent thereto which is also within the scope of any
claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,805,911;
(g) Microsoft be awarded an accounting for and recovery of damages under 35 U.S.C. §
284 adequate to fully compensate it for infringement by MasterObjects of U.S. Patent
No. 5,805,911 and in an amount to be proven at trial;
(h) That this case be declared exceptional and that Microsoft be awarded its costs,
expenses, and reasonable attorney fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
(i) That Microsoft be awarded other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Defendant, Microsoft Corporation demands a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
By: /s/ Leeron G. Kalay
50796121.doc