Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/151560742/BU-vs-Amazon-Response
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 01:31:58
Document Index: 118575241

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 286', '§ 1498', '§ 1498', '§ 285', '§ 285', 'art100', 'art3']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCase 1:13-cv-11097-FDS Document 15 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 7UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 1:13-cv-11097-FDS
ANSWER OF AMAZON.COM, INC. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, Trustees of Boston University (“BU”), and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Amazon does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in
Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, ECF No. 1, and therefore denies those allegations. 2. Amazon admits that the document entitled “U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738” (“the ’738
patent”) attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A identifies “Trustees of Boston University” as assignee. Amazon does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2, and therefore denies those allegations. 3. Amazon admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware.
Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Amazon admits that Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to be an action for patent
infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States. Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 5. For the purposes of this lawsuit only, Amazon consents to the personal
jurisdiction of this Court. Amazon admits that it offers for sale and sells products that are received in the District of Massachusetts. Amazon denies that it has infringed the ’738 patent in any way. Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 6. For purposes of this lawsuit only, Amazon consents to venue in the District of
Massachusetts, but denies that this District is the most convenient forum. Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,686,738 7. Amazon admits that the ’738 patent is titled “Highly Insulating Monocrystalline
Gallium Nitride Thin Films.” Amazon admits that the ’738 patent issued on Nov. 11, 1997. Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 8. Amazon admits that the ’738 patent identifies Theodore D. Moustakas as the
named inventor. Amazon admits that the ’738 patent identifies the Trustees of Boston University as assignee. Amazon denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 9. 10. Denied. Amazon does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of
Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations. 11. Denied.
Denied. Denied. Denied. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
To the extent a response is required, Amazon admits that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains a demand for a jury trial. GENERAL DENIAL Except as specifically admitted, Amazon denies each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1–14 of the Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in its Prayer for Relief. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), and without conceding that any of the following necessarily must be pled as an affirmative defense or that Amazon necessarily bears the burden of proof or persuasion for any of the following, Amazon asserts the following additional defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint. FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Noninfringement) 15. Amazon does not infringe and has not infringed (either directly, contributorily, or
by inducement) any claim of the ’783 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Invalidity) 16. One or more asserted claims of the ’783 patent are invalid for failure to comply
with one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, one or more of §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112. 3
Case 1:13-cv-11097-FDS Document 15 Filed 06/14/13 Page 4 of 7
THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Estoppel) 17. By virtue of the proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
during the prosecution of the application or applications that matured into the ’783 patent, BU is estopped from asserting that Amazon has infringed, directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’783 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and BU has otherwise disclaimed subject matter claimed in the ’783 patent. FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Adequate Remedies at Law) 18. BU’s claims for injunctive relief are barred at least because BU has adequate
remedies at law and BU cannot establish the necessary elements to be entitled to injunctive relief. FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Limitation on Damages) 19. Upon information and belief, BU’s claims for damages for purported patent
infringement are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Waiver, Laches, Equitable Estoppel) 20. BU’s claims for relief, in whole or in part, are barred by the doctrines of waiver,
laches, and/or equitable estoppel. SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (28 U.S.C. § 1498) 21. To the extent that the accused instrumentalities have been used or manufactured
by or for the United States, the claims for relief are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
Case 1:13-cv-11097-FDS Document 15 Filed 06/14/13 Page 5 of 7
EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Exhaustion and License) 22. BU’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of patent
exhaustion and express or implied license. NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (Failure to Exhaust Remedies) 23. BU’s claims against Amazon are barred because BU has not yet exhausted its
remedies against the manufacturer of the accused instrumentality, and thus to allow BU to proceed against Amazon under such circumstances would allow BU to seek multiple recoveries for the same injury. FURTHER ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 23. Amazon reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as discovery
proceeds and additional facts become known to Amazon. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. prays for the following relief against Plaintiff Trustees of Boston University: a. Complaint; b. that this Court find that this case is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, that BU be denied any and all relief it has requested and take nothing from its
and that BU be required to pay costs of suit that Amazon has incurred, including attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law; c. that this Court dismiss BU’s claims against Amazon with prejudice; and
Case 1:13-cv-11097-FDS Document 15 Filed 06/14/13 Page 6 of 7
that this Court grant Amazon such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Amazon demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable. Dated: June 14, 2013 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Indranil Mukerji Indranil Mukerji (BBO #644059) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1425 K St. NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-783-5070 Fax: 202-783-2331 mukerji@fr.com Robert Courtney (pro hac vice) Phillip Goter (pro hac vice) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 3200 RBC Plaza 60 South Sixth St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-335-5070 Fax: 612-288-9696 courtney@fr.com goter@fr.com Counsel for Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC.
Case 1:13-cv-11097-FDS Document 15 Filed 06/14/13 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document(s) filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on this June 14, 2013. /s/ Indranil Mukerji Indranil Mukerji
BU Patent Settle RPX LetterDavid Lavitman vs. UberBoundless Mediation LetterAmazon LeaseBU vs. Samsung EmailBU vs. Samsung Distributors ResponseBU vs. SamsungBU vs. AmazonFormlabs Stay OrderReuters v. Regents AppealKeys IndictmentUber Complaint 3-10-2013#SmallBizBoston Survey One PagerMassPrim VC PE Returns 9_12MassPrim VC and PE returns through Sept. 30 2012Amazon Letter to SenateSwartz Dismissal
BU vs. Amazon-Response by Curt Woodward207 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionAmazon's response to a patent infringement lawsuit from Boston University. Uploaded by Xconomy.Amazon's response to a patent infringement lawsuit from Boston University. Uploaded by Xconomy.Interests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedBoiling Point v. Fong Ware - Complaintby slbursteinSmartdrive Systems v. Drivecamby PriorSmartMarlowe Patent Holdings v. Ford Motor Companyby PriorSmartNetgear (10-999-SLR)by YCSTBlogPenovia v. Lexmark Internationalby PatentBlastBetter Mouse Company v. Mad Catz Interactive Et. Al.by PatentBlastPps Data v. Transcentraby PriorSmart100% Speedlab v. Oakleyby PriorSmartAfshari v. John Schaffer Performance Archery Products et. al.by PriorSmartForever Foundations & Frame et. al. v. Optional Products.pdfby PatentBlastTranxition v. Lenovoby PriorSmartDatatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 66by Justia.comCloud Satchel v. Barnes Nobleby PriorSmartExergen v. SDI Diagnosticsby PriorSmart3 IPR 449by dulhuntyRichmond v. Outsourcing In Asiaby PriorSmartTrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001)by Scribd Government DocsAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 344by Justia.comMalibu Boats v. Nautique Boat Company.pdfby PatentBlastCoffman v. Blake - Document No. 5by Justia.comLifeScreen Sciences v. C.R. Bard et. al.by PriorSmartEclipse IP v. Callaway Golf Companyby PriorSmartEfficiency Systems v. International Business Machinesby PriorSmartAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 1022by Justia.com20. Cabrera v. Tiano (Prescription Interrupted From Time of Filing Complaint, Not Summons)by Sarah Jane-Shae O. SemblanteGlobeTec Trust LLCby PriorSmartQuxuz v. Snappagesby PatentBlast11-11681-NMGby barzilay123Similar to BU vs. Amazon-ResponseBoiling Point v. Fong Ware - ComplaintSmartdrive Systems v. DrivecamMarlowe Patent Holdings v. Ford Motor CompanyNetgear (10-999-SLR)Penovia v. Lexmark InternationalBetter Mouse Company v. Mad Catz Interactive Et. Al.Pps Data v. Transcentra100% Speedlab v. OakleyAfshari v. John Schaffer Performance Archery Products et. al.Forever Foundations & Frame et. al. v. Optional Products.pdfTranxition v. LenovoDatatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 66Cloud Satchel v. Barnes NobleExergen v. SDI Diagnostics3 IPR 449Richmond v. Outsourcing In AsiaTrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001)Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 344Malibu Boats v. Nautique Boat Company.pdfCoffman v. Blake - Document No. 5LifeScreen Sciences v. C.R. Bard et. al.Eclipse IP v. Callaway Golf CompanyEfficiency Systems v. International Business MachinesAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 102220. Cabrera v. Tiano (Prescription Interrupted From Time of Filing Complaint, Not Summons)GlobeTec Trust LLCQuxuz v. Snappages11-11681-NMGCoho Licensing LLC v. Glam Media Inc.Millennium v. Apotex (Additional Briefing Ordered)