01 Communique Laboratory Inc V.ONE

The TRoll Is a WIN NER? GLAD.. "V"

[onevictory]

 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.: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

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.: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Email: [e-mail]

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.: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Email: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff 01

Communique Laboratory, Inc.

Charles Bennett Molster , III

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

1700 K St. NW

Washington, DC 20006

Tel.: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

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.: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Case 1:10-cv-01007-CMH -TRJ Document 24 Filed 10/15/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 210