Page 1 PageID #: 59
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC., and UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
LAMINAR RESEARCH, LLC
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-468
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT LAMINAR RESEARCH, LLC’s ANSWER
Defendant Laminar Research, LLC files this Answer to Uniloc USA, Inc.’s and
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.’s (“Uniloc”) Complaint for Patent Infringement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
Digital Rights Management (“DRM”) technology has been available for
decades to control access to copyrighted materials. The video game industry has used
DRM since the mid 1980’s in an effort to control illegal copying and distribution of video
games. Early examples of DRM in the video game space include: physical protection
appearing on floppy disks, compact discs, and game cartridges, as well as registering
games online via a server. By the early 2000s, the timeframe from which the Asserted
Patent emerged, the DRM space was well developed..
The Asserted Patent was originally assigned to Martin Edelman, during a
time when he was employed at Creative Systems Software, Inc. Creative Software’s
website from the early 2000s indicates that Creative was offering a very specific DRM
technology it branded the “Smartcard Software Protector,” which was “a software
Page 2 PageID #: 60
licensing and management system that prevents unauthorized software use.” Creative
Software described this commercial offering with reference to Figure 5 of the Asserted
Patent. On information and belief, no one associated with Uniloc had any involvement in
the development of Creative Software’s commercial system or with the Asserted Patent.
Instead, Uniloc, on information and belief, acquired the Asserted Patent in 2012 and
promptly thereafter initiated the instant lawsuit..
Now, Uniloc, untethered from any historic record of innovation related to
its acquired patent, broadly suggests that the Asserted Patent relates to the ability of an
application on a portable device to “require communication with a server to perform a
license check to prevent unauthorized use of said application.” Complaint at ¶ 12. Such
technology was widely known well before the Asserted Patent. For example and without
limitation, at least as early as June 1999, Intertrust developed just such a system, and
disclosed the same in U.S. Patent No. 5,910,987 (“‘987 Patent”). The Intertrust system,
as described in the ‘987 Patent, provided users the ability to access protected content or
applications on multiple electronic devices via use of a portable storage medium that
contained the user’s license data. The licensing data would be transmitted to a remote
server that would verify the license data and allow or deny access to the protected content
based on the results of the verification process. In another similar example from 1998,
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,790,664, a licensing system allows access to protected
software only after receiving an updated authorization code from a password
administrator server. The password administrator compares previous registration data
with current registration data to verify authorized use of the software. If the password
administrator determines that the client is authorized to use the software, it sends an
Page 3 PageID #: 61
updated authorization code. Alternatively, the password administrator sends a code
disabling the software if it determines that the client is not authorized to use the software.
Such server-based DRM systems, which Uniloc suggests is the subject matter of the
Asserted Patent it acquired, were well known before the Asserted Patent.
THE PARTIES.
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same..
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same..
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same..
Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
.
In connection with Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that Uniloc’s Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement under the
patent laws of the United States, particularly 35 U.S.C. § 271. Laminar Research further
admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over meritorious actions for patent
infringement generally under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Laminar Research denies,
however, Uniloc’s Complaint sets forth a valid or meritorious claim, and denies any
patent infringement..
In connection with Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that it has done business in this District and does not contest that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over it. Laminar Research denies, however, that it committed any
Page 4 PageID #: 62
acts of patent infringement in this District. Laminar Research denies that this District is
the most appropriate or convenient forum for adjudication of the claims alleged in this
action..
In connection with Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that it has done business in this District and does not contest that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over it. Laminar Research denies, however, that it committed any
acts of patent infringement in this District or anywhere else.
COUNT 1
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,857,067).
Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied.
.
Laminar Research admits that the Asserted Patent is titled “SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC
DATA.” Laminar Research is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and
therefore denies the same..
Laminar Research is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same..
Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is denied.
.
Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is denied.
.
Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is denied.
JURY DEMAND
Laminar Research admits that Uniloc demands a trial by jury for all issues so
triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Page 5 PageID #: 63
Laminar Research denies that Uniloc is entitled to any relief in connection with
the allegations of Uniloc’s Complaint, including, without limitation, the allegations of
paragraph (a) through (e) of Uniloc’s Prayer for Relief and demand for judgment.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense:
(Non-Infringement)
Laminar Research has not infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘067 patent.
Second Affirmative Defense
(Invalidity)
One or more claims of the ‘067 patent is invalid for failing to satisfy the
conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code including, but
not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
Third Affirmative Defense
(Lack of Standing)
Uniloc lacks standing to assert the ‘067 patent.
DATED: October 15, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
ERISEIP, P.A.
By: /s/ Megan J. Redmond
Megan J. Redmond (pro hac vice)
Eric A. Buresh (pro hac vice)
Caroline A. Bader (pro hac vice)
ERISE IP, P.A. College Blvd., Suite 300
Overland Park, Kansas 66211
(913) 777-5600
(913) 777-5601 – fax
megan.redmond@eriseip.com
Melissa R. Smith
Page 6 PageID #: 64
GILLAM & SMITH, LLP South Washington Avenue
Marshall, Texas 75670
(903) 934-8450
(903) 934-9257 – fax
Melissa@gillamsmith.com
Attorneys for Defendant Laminar Research,
LLC
Page 7 PageID #: 65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record have been served with
a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system this 15th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Megan J. Redmond
Megan J. Redmond
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 59
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC., and UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
LAMINAR RESEARCH, LLC
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-468
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT LAMINAR RESEARCH, LLC’s ANSWER
Defendant Laminar Research, LLC files this Answer to Uniloc USA, Inc.’s and
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.’s (“Uniloc”) Complaint for Patent Infringement.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.
Digital Rights Management (“DRM”) technology has been available for
decades to control access to copyrighted materials. The video game industry has used
DRM since the mid 1980’s in an effort to control illegal copying and distribution of video
games. Early examples of DRM in the video game space include: physical protection
appearing on floppy disks, compact discs, and game cartridges, as well as registering
games online via a server. By the early 2000s, the timeframe from which the Asserted
Patent emerged, the DRM space was well developed.
2.
The Asserted Patent was originally assigned to Martin Edelman, during a
time when he was employed at Creative Systems Software, Inc. Creative Software’s
website from the early 2000s indicates that Creative was offering a very specific DRM
technology it branded the “Smartcard Software Protector,” which was “a software
1
PDF Page 3
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 60
licensing and management system that prevents unauthorized software use.” Creative
Software described this commercial offering with reference to Figure 5 of the Asserted
Patent. On information and belief, no one associated with Uniloc had any involvement in
the development of Creative Software’s commercial system or with the Asserted Patent.
Instead, Uniloc, on information and belief, acquired the Asserted Patent in 2012 and
promptly thereafter initiated the instant lawsuit.
3.
Now, Uniloc, untethered from any historic record of innovation related to
its acquired patent, broadly suggests that the Asserted Patent relates to the ability of an
application on a portable device to “require communication with a server to perform a
license check to prevent unauthorized use of said application.” Complaint at ¶ 12. Such
technology was widely known well before the Asserted Patent. For example and without
limitation, at least as early as June 1999, Intertrust developed just such a system, and
disclosed the same in U.S. Patent No. 5,910,987 (“‘987 Patent”). The Intertrust system,
as described in the ‘987 Patent, provided users the ability to access protected content or
applications on multiple electronic devices via use of a portable storage medium that
contained the user’s license data. The licensing data would be transmitted to a remote
server that would verify the license data and allow or deny access to the protected content
based on the results of the verification process. In another similar example from 1998,
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 5,790,664, a licensing system allows access to protected
software only after receiving an updated authorization code from a password
administrator server. The password administrator compares previous registration data
with current registration data to verify authorized use of the software. If the password
administrator determines that the client is authorized to use the software, it sends an
2
PDF Page 4
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 61
updated authorization code. Alternatively, the password administrator sends a code
disabling the software if it determines that the client is not authorized to use the software.
Such server-based DRM systems, which Uniloc suggests is the subject matter of the
Asserted Patent it acquired, were well known before the Asserted Patent.
THE PARTIES
4.
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
5.
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
6.
Laminar Research lacks information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
7.
Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
In connection with Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that Uniloc’s Complaint purports to be an action for patent infringement under the
patent laws of the United States, particularly 35 U.S.C. § 271. Laminar Research further
admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over meritorious actions for patent
infringement generally under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Laminar Research denies,
however, Uniloc’s Complaint sets forth a valid or meritorious claim, and denies any
patent infringement.
9.
In connection with Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that it has done business in this District and does not contest that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over it. Laminar Research denies, however, that it committed any
3
PDF Page 5
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 62
acts of patent infringement in this District. Laminar Research denies that this District is
the most appropriate or convenient forum for adjudication of the claims alleged in this
action.
10.
In connection with Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Laminar Research
admits that it has done business in this District and does not contest that this Court has
personal jurisdiction over it. Laminar Research denies, however, that it committed any
acts of patent infringement in this District or anywhere else.
COUNT 1
(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,857,067)
11.
Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied.
12.
Laminar Research admits that the Asserted Patent is titled “SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR PREVENTING UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC
DATA.” Laminar Research is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and
therefore denies the same.
13.
Laminar Research is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same.
14.
Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is denied.
15.
Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is denied.
16.
Paragraph 13 of the Complaint is denied.
JURY DEMAND
Laminar Research admits that Uniloc demands a trial by jury for all issues so
triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4
PDF Page 6
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 63
Laminar Research denies that Uniloc is entitled to any relief in connection with
the allegations of Uniloc’s Complaint, including, without limitation, the allegations of
paragraph (a) through (e) of Uniloc’s Prayer for Relief and demand for judgment.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense:
(Non-Infringement)
Laminar Research has not infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, the ‘067 patent.
Second Affirmative Defense
(Invalidity)
One or more claims of the ‘067 patent is invalid for failing to satisfy the
conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code including, but
not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
Third Affirmative Defense
(Lack of Standing)
Uniloc lacks standing to assert the ‘067 patent.
DATED: October 15, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
ERISEIP, P.A.
By: /s/ Megan J. Redmond
Megan J. Redmond (pro hac vice)
Eric A. Buresh (pro hac vice)
Caroline A. Bader (pro hac vice)
ERISE IP, P.A.
6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
Overland Park, Kansas 66211
(913) 777-5600
(913) 777-5601 – fax
megan.redmond@eriseip.com
Melissa R. Smith
5
PDF Page 7
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 64
GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
303 South Washington Avenue
Marshall, Texas 75670
(903) 934-8450
(903) 934-9257 – fax
Melissa@gillamsmith.com
Attorneys for Defendant Laminar Research,
LLC
6
PDF Page 8
Case 6:12-cv-00468-LED Document 14
Filed 10/15/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 65
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record have been served with
a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system this 15th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Megan J. Redmond
Megan J. Redmond
7
Back to 
