Data Scape Limited v. Dropbox, Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2019-cv-00316

ANSWER to [1] Complaint with Jury Demand by Dropbox, Inc.(Ravel, J.)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION Data Scape Limited Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-00316-ADA Dropbox, Inc. Defendant. DROPBOX, INC,'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DATA SCAPE'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT; DROPBOX, INC.'S JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Defendant Dropbox, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Dropbox") answers Plaintiff Data Scape Limited's ("Plaintiff" or "Data Scape") Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint") as follows. THE PARTIES1 1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth in the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them. 2. Defendant admits that Dropbox is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 333 Brannan Street, San Francisco, CA. Dropbox also admits that it may be 1 For ease of reference, Dropbox utilizes the headings used in Data Scape's Complaint. In so doing, Dropbox does not admit any of the allegations contained in those headings. In addition, Dropbox's responses to Data Scape's allegations correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint. 1 served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, located at 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Defendant admits that the Complaint purports to state causes of action under the patent laws of the United States. Based on its investigation to date, Defendant admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Paragraph 4 states conclusions of law for which no answer is required. Defendant admits that it transacts business and has a place of business in this jurisdiction. Defendant denies that Dropbox has committed any acts of infringement. 5. Paragraph 5 states conclusions of law for which no answer is required. Defendant admits that it is registered to do business in Texas. Defendant also admits that it maintains an office in Austin, Texas where it employs sales and user operations teams. Defendant denies that Dropbox has committed any acts of infringement. COUNT I (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,277,675 ("'675 PATENT")) 6. Defendant admits the face of the '675 patent attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint indicates the issue date and title of the '675 patent as alleged. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 6, and therefore denies them. 7. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. Defendant admits that it makes, sells, offers for sale, uses for internal purposes, provides customer support for, or tests Dropbox services, including Dropbox Business. Defendant denies that Dropbox has committed any acts of infringement. -2- 1 9. Defendant denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. 10. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint includes the image excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint include the image and text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint includes the image and text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12. 13. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint includes the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14. 15. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15. 16. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16. -3- 1 17. Defendant admits that it has knowledge of the '675 patent since the filing of the Complaint in this action. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17, including that it has committed any acts of infringement. 18. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant admits that it explains to customers the benefits of using its services. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 21. 22. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 23. COUNT II (INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,027,751 ("'751 PATENT")) 24. Defendant admits the face of the '751 patent attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint indicates the issue date and title of the '751 patent as alleged. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24, and therefore denies them. 25. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 25. 26. Defendant admits that it makes, sells, offers for sale, uses for internal purposes, provides customer support for, or tests Dropbox services, including Dropbox Business. Defendant denies that Dropbox has committed any acts of infringement. 27. Defendant denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. -4- 1 28. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint includes the image excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29. 29. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint include the image and text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29. 30. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint includes the image and text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant admits that the URL cited in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint includes the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31. 32. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32. 33. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33. 34. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint include the text excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34. -5- 1 35. Defendant admits that the URLs cited in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint include the text and image excerpted in that paragraph. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35. 36. Defendant admits that it has knowledge of the '751 patent since the filing of the Complaint in this action. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36, including that it has committed any acts of infringement. 37. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 37. 38. Defendant admits that it explains to customers the benefits of using its services. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 38. 39. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 39. 40. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 40. 41. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 41. 42. Defendant denies all the allegations in Paragraph 42. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies subparagraphs a – f of Plaintiff's Prayer For Relief; Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from Defendant. Defendant denies all allegations of Data Scape's Complaint not specifically admitted above. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. -6- 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES By alleging the Defenses set forth below, Dropbox does not agree or concede that it bears the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion on any of these issues, whether in whole or in part. For its Defenses to Dropbox's Complaint, Dropbox alleges as follows: First Affirmative Defense (Non-Infringement) 1. Defendant does not make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States, and has not made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States, any products or methods that infringe any valid claim of the '675 or '751 patents, either directly, indirectly, contributorily, through the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise, and has not induced others to infringe, or otherwise indirectly infringed, any valid claim of the '675 or '751 patents. Second Affirmative Defense (Invalidity) 2. One or more claims of the asserted patents are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including 5 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. Third Affirmative Defense (Failure to Provide Notice Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287) 3. Defendant was not given any pre-suit actual notice of the '67 or '751 patents, nor any infringement assertions based thereon. On information and belief, to the extent Data Scape, its predecessors, or licensees of the '675 or '751 patents have failed to comply with the marking requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 287, Data Scape's damages are barred, in whole or in part. -7- 1 Fourth Affirmative Defense (Waiver, Estoppel, Acquiescence, Unclean Hands, and Implied License) 4. On information and belief, Data Scape's claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, unclean hands, and/or implied license. Fifth Affirmative Defense (Prosecution History Estoppel) 5. Data Scape is estopped, based on statements, representations, and admissions made during prosecution of the patent applications that led to the '675 or '751 patents, from asserting that the claims of the patents-in-suit are infringed by Defendant or Defendant's products or services, either directly, indirectly, contributorily, through the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise. Sixth Affirmative Defense (No Immediate or Irreparable Injury) 6. On information and belief, Data Scape is not entitled to equitable relief with respect to the '675 or '751 patents under any theory because Data Scape has not and will not suffer irreparable harm, Data Scape does not practice the patents, Data Scape is not without adequate remedy at law, the balance of the hardships do not favor entry of an injunction, and/or public policy concerns weigh against any equitable relief. Seventh Affirmative Defense (Time Limitation) 7. On information and belief, Data Scape's claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, under 35 U.S.C. § 286. -8- 1 Eighth Affirmative Defense (No Costs) 8. On information and belief, Data Scape is barred from recovering costs associated with this action with respect to the '675 or '751 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 288. Ninth Affirmative Defense (Failure to Conduct Pre-Suit Investigation) 9. Data Scape's claims for relief are barred, and its causes of action against Defendant are subject to dismissal because, Data Scape failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of Defendant's products and/or methods of providing services prior to filing suit. Reservation of Defenses Defendant reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation. Dated: July 30, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ J. Stephen Ravel J. Stephen Ravel State Bar No. 16584975 Sven Stricker State Bar No. 24110418 KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 303 Colorado St., Ste. 2000 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 495-6400 Fax: (512) 495-6401 Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com Email: sven.stricker@kellyhart.com -9- 1 Gregory H. Lantier (Pro Hac Vice) DC Bar No. 492043 Virginia State Bar No. 65657 New York State Bar No. 4823217 WILMER HALE LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC 20006 Tel: (202) 663-6327 Email: gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com Monica Grewal (Pro Hac Vice) Massachusetts State Bar No. 659449 Connecticut State Bar No. 414009 WILMER HALE LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Tel: (617) Email: monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com Yvonne Lee (Pro Hac Vice) Massachusetts State Bar No. 687623 WILMER HALE LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Tel: (617) 526-6692 Email: yvonne.lee@wilmerhale.com Alexis Pfeiffer (Pro Hac Vice) California State Bar No. 312007 WILMER HALE LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Tel: (650) 858-6052 Email: alexis.pfeiffer@wilmerhale.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT DROPBOX, INC. -10- 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 30, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/ J. Stephen Ravel J. Stephen Ravel -11-