Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00447-WQH-LSP

Document 35

Filed 07/28/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Callie A. Bjurstrom, State Bar No. 137816 Michelle A. Herrera, State Bar No. 209842 LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, California 92101-3372 Telephone No.: 619.236.1414 Fax No.: 619.232.8311 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs William M. Parrish (Pro Hac Vice) Michael P. Adams (Pro Hac Vice) H. Carl Myers (Pro Hac Vice) Brian Mangum, State Bar No. 242208 WINSTEAD PC 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone No.: 512.370.2800 Fax No.: 512.370.2850 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs INSWEB CORPORATION and AUTO INTERNET MARKETING, INC. Barton E. Showalter (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) Douglas M. Kubehl (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) David O. Taylor (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201-2980 Telephone No.: 214.953.6500 Fax No.: 214.953.6503 Attorneys for Plaintiff LEADPOINT, INC. Patrick A. Fraioli, Jr., State Bar No. 191824 David Briker, State Bar No. 158896 Rowena Santos, State Bar No. 210185 MOLDO DAVIDSON FRAIOLI SEROR & SESTANOVICH LLP 21st Floor 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone No.: 310.551.3100 Fax No.: 310.551.0238 Attorneys for Plaintiff INTERNET BRANDS, INC.

/// 1
Case No. 08-CV-0447 WQH (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00447-WQH-LSP

Document 35

Filed 07/28/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Plaintiffs, InsWeb Corporation ("InsWeb"), LeadPoint, Inc. ("LeadPoint"), Internet Brands, Inc. ("Internet Brands"), and Auto Internet Marketing, Inc. ("AIM") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") file this Answer to the Counterclaims of Autobytel, Inc. ("Autobytel"), Autobytel I Corporation, formerly known as AVV, Inc. ("AVV"), and Dominion Enterprises ("Dominion Enterprises") (collectively, "Defendants"). The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those presented in Defendants' Counterclaims. Except as expressly admitted below, Plaintiffs deny the allegations and v. AUTOBYTEL, INC., AUTOBYTEL I CORP., f/k/a AVV, INC., DOMINION ENTERPRISES, RETENTION PERFORMANCE MARKETING, INC., AND ONECOMMAND, INC. Defendants. INSWEB CORPORATION, LEADPOINT, INC., INTERNET BRANDS, INC., AND AUTO INTERNET MARKETING, INC. Plaintiffs, Case No. 08-CV-0447 WQH (LSP) PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS AUTOBYTEL, INC., AUTOBYTEL I CORP., F/K/A AVV, INC., AND DOMINION ENTERPRISES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

characterizations in Defendants' Counterclaims. I. DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS Upon information and belief, admitted. 2
Case No. 08-CV-0447 WQH (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00447-WQH-LSP

Document 35

Filed 07/28/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Upon information and belief, admitted. Upon information and belief, admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Plaintiffs admit that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over any counterclaims

and admits that venue is appropriate in this District. 9. Denied. As stated in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Patent

Infringement, Plaintiffs are co-owners of all rights, title, and interest in and each has standing to sue for infringement of the `597 patent. 10. 11. `597 patent. 12. 13. Denied. Plaintiffs admit that an actual and justiciable controversy exists as to the infringement Paragraph 10 contains no allegations. Plaintiffs admit that they have filed suit alleging that Defendants have infringed the

of the `597 Patent, but deny that the allegations of Defendants' counterclaims are proper for declaratory judgment because they merely constitute a cumulative mirror-image of Plaintiffs' affirmative claims for relief. 14. 15. 16. `597 patent. 17. 18. Denied. Plaintiffs admit that an actual and justiciable controversy exists as to the infringement Denied. Paragraph 15 contains no allegations. Plaintiffs admit that they have filed suit alleging that Defendants have infringed the

of the `597 Patent, but deny that the allegations of Defendants' counterclaims are proper for declaratory judgment because they merely constitute a cumulative mirror-image of Plaintiffs' affirmative claims for relief. 3
Case No. 08-CV-0447 WQH (LSP)

Case 3:08-cv-00447-WQH-LSP

Document 35

Filed 07/28/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

19.

Denied.

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Defendants' counterclaims should be dismissed because they are merely cumulative

of Plaintiffs' claims for relief. 2. Defendants' Counterclaims should be dismissed because they fail to state a claim

for which relief may be granted.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants take nothing against Plaintiffs by reason of their counterclaims against Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs be awarded the relief sought in their Second Amended Complaint, that the Court dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims against Plaintiffs in their entirety with prejudice, that Plaintiffs be awarded their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and that the Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.

DATED: July 28, 2008

LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP

By: s/Callie A. Bjurstrom Callie A. Bjurstrom Michelle A. Herrera Attorneys for Plaintiffs
101109009.1

4

Case No. 08-CV-0447 WQH (LSP)