The TRoll Is a WIN NER? GLAD.. "V" LogMeIn denies that it has infringed the
‘479 Patent and further denies any implication that the ‘479 Patent is valid.
2013 Patent 479 is VALID. What does this mean to LOGM? DOOM...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LOGMEIN, INC. AND DELL, INC.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01007-CMH-TRJ
DEFENDANT LOGMEIN, INC.’S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
Defendant LogMeIn, Inc. (“LogMeIn”) answers the allegations of 01 Communique
Laboratory, Inc.’s (“01”) Complaint as follows:
BACKGROUND
1. LogMeIn admits that 01 has alleged patent infringement in this action. LogMeIn
further admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 (“the ‘479 Patent”) was issued on August 9, 2005,
and assigned to 01 at Reel/Frame number 010934/0133. LogMeIn denies that it has infringed the
‘479 Patent and further denies any implication that the ‘479 Patent is valid.
2. LogMeIn lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. LogMeIn admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. LogMeIn admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. LogMeIn admits that the PTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice in the ‘479
reexamination on July 6, 2010. LogMeIn denies that the PTO’s determination was a “final
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 204
- 2 -
decision” because Citrix has appealed the decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences and the reexamination of the ‘479 Patent is ongoing.
THE PARTIES
6. LogMeIn lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7. LogMeIn admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8. LogMeIn admits that it transacts business in the Eastern District of Virginia on a
substantial and continuous basis, including sales of the specific LogMeIn products to the specific
customers identified in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. LogMeIn expressly denies that it has
committed or is committing “the tortious act of patent infringement” by engaging in such
business activities in this judicial district.
9. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 9 because they are entirely
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn. To the extent an answer is required, LogMeIn lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 10 because they are entirely
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn. To the extent an answer is required, LogMeIn lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. LogMeIn admits that this action arises under the federal patent laws identified in
paragraph 11 of the Complaint and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 205
- 3 -
12. LogMeIn admits that it has “transacted business” and “contracted to supply
services or things” in this judicial district, but denies that it has “caused tortious injury” in this
judicial district. LogMeIn denies that it has committed acts of patent infringement within this
judicial district and that it reasonably should have anticipated being subject to suit in this judicial
district. LogMeIn further denies that has committed acts of patent infringement aimed at or
having effect in this judicial district. No answer is required to the remaining allegations of
paragraph 12 of the Complaint because they merely state conclusions of law. Furthermore, no
response is required to the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint to the extent they are
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn.
13. No response is required to the allegation in paragraph 13 of the Complaint
because it merely states a conclusion of law.
COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANTS
14. LogMeIn incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein.
15. LogMeIn admits the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. LogMeIn denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17. LogMeIn denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 18 because they are entirely
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn. To the extent an answer is required, LogMeIn lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 19 because they are entirely
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn. To the extent an answer is required, LogMeIn lacks
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 206
- 4 -
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
20. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 19 because they are entirely
directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn. To the extent an answer is required, LogMeIn lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. LogMeIn denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint to the extent
they are directed to LogMeIn. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 21 to the
extent they are directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn.
22. LogMeIn denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint to the extent
they are directed to LogMeIn. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 22 to the
extent they are directed to a defendant other than LogMeIn.
DEFENSES
On information and belief, LogMeIn asserts the following defenses to 01’s Complaint:
FIRST DEFENSE
23. 01 is not entitled to any relief against LogMeIn because LogMeIn has not directly
or indirectly infringed any claim of the ‘479 Patent.
SECOND DEFENSE
24. One or more of the claims of the ‘479 Patent are invalid for failing to meet one or
more of the statutory and decisional requirements and/or conditions for patentability under Title
35 of the United States Code §§ 101 et seq., including without limitation §§ 102, 103, and/or
112.
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 207
- 5 -
THIRD DEFENSE
25. 01’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by laches, estoppel, and/or other
equitable doctrines.
RESERVATION OF DEFENSES
26. LogMeIn presently lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to whether it may have additional yet understated defenses. Accordingly, LogMeIn reserves the
right to assert additional defenses in the event that investigation and/or discovery reveal that
additional defenses are appropriate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, LogMeIn requests that the Court enter a judgment in its favor and against
01 as follows:
A. Dismissing the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice;
B. Finding that LogMeIn has not infringed, and is not infringing, the ‘479
patent;
C. Finding that one or more of the claims of the ‘479 patent are invalid, void,
and/or unenforceable against LogMeIn;
D. Awarding LogMeIn its costs (including expert fees), disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 285; and
E. Granting such further relief as this Court deems to be just and proper.
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 208
- 6 -
Dated: October 15, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/S/
Philip R. Seybold (VSB# 73596)
Attorney for Defendant LogMeIn, Inc.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel.: (202) 663-6000
Fax: (202) 663-6363
Email: randy.seybold@wilmerhale.com
OF COUNSEL:
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
Wayne L. Stoner (pro hac vice application pending)
Joel Cavanaugh (pro hac vice application pending)
Attorneys for Defendant LogMeIn, Inc.
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel.: (617) 526-6000
Fax: (202) 526-5000
Email: wayne.stoner@wilmerhale.com
Email: joel.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 209
- 7 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 15, 2010, a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document was served via the Court’s ECF system upon all counsel designated to
receive such notices, as identified below:
A. Neal Seth
Adam Jay Smith
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: (202) 861-1500
Email: nseth@bakerlaw.com
Email: ajsmith@bakerlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff 01
Communique Laboratory, Inc.
Charles Bennett Molster , III
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1700 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel.: (202) 282-5000
Email: cmolster@winston.com
Attorney for Defendant Dell, Inc.
/S/
Philip R. Seybold (VSB# 73596)
Attorney for Defendant LogMeIn, Inc.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel.: (202) 663-6000
Fax: (202) 663-6363
Email: randy.seybold@wilmerhale.com
Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 210