Case4:12-cv PJH Document15 Filed10/02/12 Page1 of 7

Transcription

1 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Jill F. Kopeikin (SBN 0) Valerie M. Wagner (SBN ) Landings Drive Mountain View CA 0 FARNEY DANIELS LLP (SBN ) Steven R. Daniels 00 S. Austin Ave., Suite 0 Georgetown, TX - Telephone: -- Facsimile: -- Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant IZ TECHNOLOGY, LLC HIPMUNK, INC. vs. Case No -cv-00-pjh Plaintiff IZ TECHNOLOGY, LLC Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION. Case No. -cv-00-pjh IZ TECHNOLOGY, LLC S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS [Jury Trial Demanded] Defendant and IZ Technology, LLC ( IZ ) responds to the Complaint of Hipmunk, Inc. ( Hipmunk ) and counterclaims as follows: THE PARTIES. Upon information and belief, IZ admits that Hipmunk is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at Clyde Street,

2 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 San Francisco, California, 0. IZ admits that flight search results are presented in a visual timeline on Hipmunk s website and that hotel search results are shown on a map. IZ lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remainder of this paragraph.. IZ lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this paragraph.. IZ lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies each and every allegation in this paragraph.. IZ denies that the patent at issue in the present lawsuit bears no relevance to Hipmunk s technology. IZ lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remainder of this paragraph.. IZ admits that it is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 0 West Marshall Avenue, Suite 0, Longview, Texas 0. IZ further admits that it does not practice the claims of U.S. Patent No.,, ( the Patent) and that the Patent was assigned to IZ on July,. IZ admits that the assignment of the Patent to IZ was recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November,. IZ denies each and every remaining allegation in this paragraph.. IZ admits that its President is an individual named Rakesh Ramde and that Mr. Ramde hold a California law license and lives in the Northern District of California. IZ admits that Mr. Ramde s profile on the website states that he is a Director at Unifi Scientific Advances. IZ admits that Mr. Ramde is a director of aunifi Scientific Advances, and that Unifi Scientific Advances is the sole member of a separate legal entity involved in litigation on a patent unrelated to the patent at issue in this suit. Except as expressly admitted, IZ denies the allegations of paragraph. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT. Admitted. -- Case No -cv-00-pjh

3 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 BACKGROUND. Admitted.. Admitted. 0. Admitted.. Admitted.. IZ admits that it has filed notices of dismissal of various parties who have taken licenses to the Patent and that at the time Hipmunk filed its Complaint, there was still litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. IZ denies the remainder of this paragraph.. Admitted.. IZ admits that on June,, IZ, through its President, Mr. Rakesh Ramde, wrote to Mr. Goldstein, Hipmunk s CEO, concerning infringement of the Patent. IZ admits that a copy of the letter is attached to Hipmunk s Complaint. IZ denies Hipmunk s characterization of the letter and denies the remainder of this paragraph.. IZ denies that any such belief by Hipmunk is reasonable and lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remainder of this paragraph. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent,,). IZ repeats and realleges each and every response set forth above in paragraphs through, and incorporates them by reference herein.. IZ admits that it contends that Hipmunk is infringing the Patent and needs to license the Patent, and that IZ believes the Patent is valid and infringed by Hipmunk. IZ lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remainder of this paragraph.. Denied. -- Case No -cv-00-pjh

4 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0. IZ admits that a justiciable controversy exists between Hipmunk and IZ, but denies that Hipmunk is entitled to a judicial determination and declaration that its products do not infringe any valid claim of the Patent. IZ denies that such a determination and declaration are necessary or appropriate and denies the remaining allegation of this paragraph. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent,,). IZ repeats and realleges each and every response set forth above in paragraphs through, and incorporates them by reference herein.. IZ admits that it contends that Hipmunk is infringing the Patent and needs to license the Patent, and that IZ believes the Patent is valid and infringed by Hipmunk. IZ and lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph, and on that basis, denies the remainder of this paragraph.. Denied.. Denied.. IZ admits that a justiciable controversy exists between Hipmunk and IZ, but denies that Hipmunk is entitled to a judicial determination and declaration the Patent is invalid. IZ denies that such a determination and declaration are necessary or appropriate and denies the remaining allegation of this paragraph. COUNTERCLAIMS Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff IZ Technology, LLC ( IZ ) hereby pleads the following counterclaims against Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant Hipmunk, Inc. ( Hipmunk ). NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, U.S.C. et seq., brought against Hipmunk for violations of those laws.. Plaintiff IZ is a Texas company with its principal place of business at 0 W. Marshall Avenue, Suite 0, Longview, Texas Case No -cv-00-pjh

5 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim Defendant Hipmunk is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Clyde Street, San Francisco, California 0. JURISDICTION. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title of the United States Code, et seq.. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C. and (a).. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hipmunk because, among other things, it has consented to personal jurisdiction by filing its Complaint.. Venue is proper under U.S.C. (b) and (c) and 00(b) because Hipmunk offers the infringing products to customers in the Northern District of California and because Hipmunk is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. IZ Technology, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business at 0 W. Marshall Ave., Suite 0, Longview, TX 0.. On September,, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.,, ( the patent ), entitled Method and System for Synchronization of Simultaneous Displays of Related Data Sources. 0. A true and correct copy of the patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.. IZ is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in and to the patent.. Hipmunk owns and operates a website at ( the Hipmunk website ) and has made and distributes to customers throughout the United States a software application for use on Apple ipads (the Hipmunk app ). -- Case No -cv-00-pjh

6 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0. Hipmunk, through the Hipmunk website and the Hipmunk app, provides ratings, reviews, and address listings for hotels in response to user searches.. The Hipmunk website and the Hipmunk app each display two separate frames of data present on the screen, including a map demonstrating the locations of particular hotels and hotel listings including prices.. Between these two separate frames on the Hipmunk website, there is a visible cause and effect.. Changes to the map view made by zooming in or out or panning cause a change in the list of hotels. The list of hotels changes as a response to a change in the area covered by the map. COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent,,). IZ realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs through.. Hipmunk has been, and continues to be, literally or equivalently infringing the patent at least by making and/or using the Hipmunk website and the Hipmunk app for the purpose of offering for sale and/or selling products and/or services. Hipmunk has had knowledge of and/or been aware of the patent since at least on or about June,, when IZ sent a letter to Hipmunk notifying Hipmunk of its infringement. Upon information and belief, Hipmunk s infringement of the patent since June, has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.. IZ has been damaged by Hipmunk s infringement, and will continue to suffer damages in the future.. IZ is entitled to damages in accordance with U.S.C.,,,, and. -- Case No -cv-00-pjh

7 Case:-cv-00-PJH Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, IZ prays for judgment as follows: A. That Hipmunk has infringed the patent; B. That IZ be awarded damages to be paid by Hipmunk adequate to compensate IZ for Hipmunk s past infringement of the patent and any continuing or future infringement through the date such judgment is entered, including interests, costs, expenses, and enhanced damages for any willful infringement as justified under U.S.C., and an accounting of all infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial; C. A declaration that this case is exceptional under U.S.C., and an award of Plaintiff s reasonable attorneys fees; proper. D. That IZ be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and E. That IZ be awarded such other and further relief as this Court deems just and JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IZ hereby respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. Dated: October, By: /s/ Jill F. Kopeikin GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP Attorneys for Defendant IZ TECHNOLOGY, LLC -- Case No -cv-00-pjh