Data Scape Limited v. Box, Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2019-cv-00025

ANSWER to [1] Complaint, with Jury Demand by Box, Inc.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION C.A. No. 6:19-CV-00025 DATA SCAPE LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BOX, INC., Defendant. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Defendant Box, Inc. ("Box") here files its answer and affirmative defenses ("Answer") to the Complaint filed on January 25, 2019 ("Complaint") by Plaintiff Data Scape Limited ("Plaintiff" or "Data Scape"). Each of the paragraphs below corresponds to the same numbered paragraph in the Complaint. Box denies all allegations in the Complaint, whether express or implied, that are not specifically admitted below. Box further denies that Data Scape is entitled to the relief requested in the Complaint, or to any other relief. PARTIES 1. Box lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations recited in paragraph 1, and on that basis denies them. 2. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Box admits that the Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States. Box denies any and all allegations of patent infringement alleged in the Complaint. Box also denies the legal 0 sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims and allegations and denies that Plaintiff has any viable claims as to Box. Box admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1331. 4. Box admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Box for purposes of this action only. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 4. 5. Box admits that venue is authorized in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for purposes of this action only, however Box denies that this forum is the most convenient or appropriate forum for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Box admits that it is registered to do business in Texas. Box admits that it has conducted business in the Western District of Texas, but denies that any of those activities constituted any act of patent infringement. Box admits that it has an office in Austin, Texas. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 5. COUNT I ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,720,929 6. Box admits that Exhibit A purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,720,929 (the "'929 patent"). Box admits that, on its face, the '929 patent is entitled "Communication System and Its Method and Communication Apparatus and Its Method" and that it issued on May 18, 2010. Box lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations recited in paragraph 6, and on that basis denies them. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. 9. Denied. 2 0 10. Denied.1 11. Denied. 12. Denied. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Box admits that it first became aware of the '929 patent after the Complaint was filed. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. COUNT II ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,617,537 24. Box incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as though fully set forth herein. 25. Box admits that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,617,537 (the "'537 patent"). Box admits that, on its face, the '537 patent is entitled "Communication System and Its Method and Communication Apparatus and Its Method" 1 The references to webpages and hyperlinks in paragraph 10 and other paragraphs of the Complaint are not factual allegations by Plaintiffs and therefore do not require responses. 3 0 and that it issued on November 10, 2009. Box lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations recited in paragraph 25, and on that basis denies them. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 35. Box admits that it first became aware of the '537 patent after the Complaint was filed. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 35. 36. Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. COUNT III ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,386,581 42. Box admits that Exhibit C purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,386,581 (the "'581 patent"). Box admits that, on its face, the '581 patent is entitled 4 0 "Communication System and Its Method and Communication Apparatus and Its Method" and that it issued on February 26, 2013. Box lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations recited in paragraph 42, and on that basis denies them. 43. Denied. 44. Denied. 45. Denied. 46. Denied. 47. Denied. 48. Denied. 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Denied. 52. Denied. 53. Box admits that it first became aware of the '581 patent after the Complaint was filed. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 53. 54. Denied. 55. Denied. 56. Denied. 57. Denied. 58. Denied. 59. Denied. 5 0 COUNT IV ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,715,893 60. Box admits that Exhibit D purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 9,715,893 (the "'893 patent"). Box admits that, on its face, the '893 patent is entitled "Recording Apparatus, Server Apparatus, Recording Method, Program and Storage Medium" and that it issued on July 25, 2017. Box lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations recited in paragraph 60, and on that basis denies them. 61. Denied. 62. Denied. 63. Denied. 64. Denied. 65. Denied. 66. Denied. 67. Denied. 68. Denied. 69. Box admits that it first became aware of the '893 patent after the Complaint was filed. Box denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 69. 70. Denied. 71. Denied. 72. Denied. 73. Denied. 74. Denied. 75. Denied. 6 0 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF Box incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set forth herein. Box denies any and all allegations of patent infringement in the Complaint. Box denies all allegations that Data Scape is entitled to any relief requested in paragraphs "a-f" of the Complaint's Prayer for Relief, or any other relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), and without altering any applicable burdens of proof, Box asserts the following defenses to the Complaint and reserves its right to assert additional defenses. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – NON-INFRINGEMENT 1. Box does not infringe and has not infringed any valid claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,720,929, 7,617,537, 8,386,581, and 9,715,893. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INVALIDITY 2. One or more of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,720,929, 7,617,537, 8,386,581, and 9,715,893 are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – LIMITATION ON DAMAGES 3. Data Scape's claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288, and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1498. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 4. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 7 0 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – LICENSE 5. Data Scape's claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by express or implied licenses granted by Data Scape and/or its predecessor-in-interest. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL 6. The relief sought by Data Scape is barred, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel due to amendments and/or statements made during prosecution of the patents-in-suit. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Box prays that this Court enter judgment: A. In favor of Box, and against Data Scape, thereby dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, with Data Scape taking nothing by the way of its claims; B. That Box has not infringed, and is not now infringing any valid claims of the '929 patent under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271; C. That all asserted claims of the '929 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable; D. That Box has not infringed, and is not now infringing any valid claims of the '537 patent under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271; E. That all asserted claims of the '537 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable; F. That Box has not infringed, and is not now infringing any valid claims of the '581 patent under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271; G. That all asserted claims of the '581 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable; H. That Box has not infringed, and is not now infringing any valid claims of the '893 patent under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271; I. That all asserted claims of the '893 patent are invalid and/or unenforceable; 8 0 J. That this case stands out from others and as such is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and ordering Data Scape to pay Box's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action; K. That Data Scape pay all costs incurred by Box in this action; and L. Awarding Box all other relief the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Box respectfully request a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Respectfully submitted, April 22, 2019 /s/ Heidi L. Keefe Heidi L. Keefe (CA SBN 178960) hkeefe@cooley.com Reuben H. Chen (CA SBN 228725) rchen@cooley.com Lowell D. Mead (CA SBN 223989) lmead@cooley.com Lam K. Nguyen (CA SBN 265285) lnguyen@cooley.com Alexandra Leeper (CA SBN 307310) aleeper@cooley.com COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 (650) 843-5000 Deron R. Dacus ddacus@dacusfirm.com The Dacus Firm, P.C. 821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 705-1117 Attorneys for Defendant Box, Inc. 9 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on April 22, 2019, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the Court's CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by email, facsimile transmission, and/or first class mail. /s/ Heidi L. Keefe 10