Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09870801"

See other formats


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 


• ? 


WILLIAM L. ANTHONY (State Bar No. 106908) 
ERIC L. WESENBERG (State Bar No. 139696) 
MARK R. WEINSTEIN (State Bar No. 193043) 
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 
1000 Marsh Road 
MenloPark,CA 94025 
Telephone: (650) 6 1 4-7400 
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 


STEVEN ALEXANDER (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

KRISTIN L. CLEVELAND (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

JAMES E. GERINGER (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

JOHN D. VANDENBERG 

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 

One World Trade Center, Suite 1 600 

121 S.W. Salmon Street 

Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503)226-7391 

Facsimile: (503) 228-9446 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, 
MICROSOFT CORPORATION 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 


[NTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 


MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a 
Washington corporation, 

Defendant. 


MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a 
Washington corporation, 

Counterclaimant, 

v. 

NTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 
:ORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, 

Counter Claim-Defendant. 


CASE NO. C01-1640 SB A 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S 
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO 
INTERTRUST'S THIRD AMENDED 
COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND 


DOCSSVI: 165623.1 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint: Case No. C 01 - 1640 SBA 


1 Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") answers the Third Amended 

2 Complaint of InterTrust Technologies Corporation ("InterTrust") as follows: 

3 1 . Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 

4 cause of action under the patent laws of the United States, 35 United States Code, §§ 271 and 

5 281 . Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft 

6 in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft denies any and all remaining allegations of 

7 paragraph 1 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

8 2. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 

9 cause of action over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 

10 1338(a). 

11 3 . Microsoft admits, for purposes of this action only, that venue is proper in 

12 this judicial district. Microsoft denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of the 

1 3 Third Amended Complaint. 

14 ; 4. On information and belief, Microsoft admits the allegations of paragraph 4 

1 5 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

16 I 5. Microsoft admits the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Third Amended 

17 I Complaint. 

1 8 | 6. Microsoft admits, for purposes of this action only, that it transacts business 

19 J in this judicial district. Microsoft denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 6 of the 

20 | Third Amended Complaint. 

21 | 7. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 6,1 85,683 

22 I Bl ("the '683 Patent") states that it was issued February 6, 2001, is entitled 'Trusted and secure 


23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


techniques, systems and methods for item delivery and execution," and lists "InterTrust 
Technologies Corp." as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the '683 Patent was duly and lawfully 
issued. Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 


Orrick 
errington 

SUTCUFFE LLP 
Silicon Vau.iv 


DOCSSVI: 165623.1 


-1- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint: Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


8. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 6,253,1 93 
Bl ("the '193 Patent") states that it was issued June 26, 2001, is entitled "Systems and methods 
for the secure transaction management and electronic rights protection," and lists "InterTrust 
rechnologies Corporation" as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the '193 Patent was duly and 
[awfully issued. Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 8 of the 
ITiird Amended Complaint. 

9. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 5,940,504 
["the '504 Patent'*) states that it was issued August 17, 1999, and is entitled "Licensing 
nanagement system and method in which datagrams including an address of a licensee and 
ndicative of use of a licensed product are sent from the licensee's site." Microsoft denies that the 
504 Patent was duly and lawfully issued. Microsoft lacks sufficient information to admit or deny 
my and all remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

1 0. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 5,920,861 
"the 4 861 Patent") states that it was issued July 6, 1999, is entitled 'Techniques for defining 
ising and manipulating rights management data structures," and lists "InterTrust Technologies 
?orp." as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the '861 Patent was duly and lawfully issued. 
Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of the Third Amended 
"omplaint. 

1 1. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 
the '900 Patent") states that it was issued April 6, 1999, is entitled "Systems and methods for 
ecure transaction management and electronic rights protection," and lists "InterTrust 
echnologies Corp." as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the *900 Patent was duly and lawfully 
:sued. Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 1 1 of the Third 
jnended Complaint. 

12. Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 5,982,891 
the '891 Patent") states that it was issued November 9, 1999, is entitled "Systems and methods 
>r secure transaction management and electronic rights protection," and lists "InterTrust 

echnologies Corp." as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the '891 Patent was duly and lawfully 

)0cssv1 ;! 65623. 1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SB A 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 


issued. Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 12 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

1 3 . Microsoft admits that on its face the title page of U.S. Patent No. 5,9 1 7,9 1 2 
("the '912 Patent") states that it was issued June 29, 1999, is entitled "System and methods for 
secure transaction management and electronic rights protection," and lists "InterTrust 
Technologies Corp." as the assignee. Microsoft denies that the '912 Patent was duly and lawfully 
issued. Microsoft further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 13 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

14. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-7 of the Third 


10 I Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 


11 


15. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 

12 | cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 

1 3 B infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

1 6. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 1 6 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

17. Microsoft denies any_and all. allegations of paragraph-17 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

1 8. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 1 8 of the Third 
Amended Complaint 

19. Microsoft-denies any and all allegations of paragraph"! 9 of the Third 


14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


Orrick 


Herrington 

& SUTCLJFFE LLP 
Stucoit Valliv 


Amended Complaint. 

20. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 20 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

21 . Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 8 of the 
Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

22. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
cause of action under 35 U.S.G §§ 271 and 281 , Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 

DOCSSV] : 1 65623.1 MICROSOFT CORPORATION * S ANSWER AND 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 22 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

23. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 23 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. _ 

24. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 24 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

25. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 25 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

26. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 26 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. - - 

27. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 27 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

28. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 9 of the 
Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

29. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 
infringes the patents asserted ag ainst Microsoft in the_Third Amended Complaint.. Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 29 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

30. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 30 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

3 1 . —Microsoft-denies any-and-all-allegations of paragraph 3 1 of the Third 
\mended Complaint. 

32. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 32 of the Third 
\mended Complaint. 

33. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 33 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

34. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 34 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

DOCSSVt : 1 65623.1 MICROSOFT CORPORATORS ANSWER AND 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 0 1 - 1 640 SBA 


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 



35. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 10 of 
the Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

36. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 
infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 36 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

37. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 37 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

38. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 38 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

39. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 39 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

40. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 40 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. • 

41. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 41 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

42. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 1 1 of 
the Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

43. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 
infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 43 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

44. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 44 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

45. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 45 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

46. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 46 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

docssv 1 : 1 65623 ;l microsoft corporation ' s answer and 

Counterclaims to fntertrust *s third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


47. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 47 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

48. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 48 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

49. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 12 of 
the Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

50. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
cause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§271 and 281 . Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 
infringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft 
denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 50 of the Third Amended Complaint. 

5 1 . Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 5 1 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

52. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 52 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

53. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 53 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

54. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 54 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

55. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 55 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

56. Microsoft repeats and reasserts its responses to paragraphs 1-6 and 13 of 
he Third Amended Complaint, as if fully restated herein. 

57. Microsoft admits that the Third Amended Complaint purports to state a 
ause of action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Microsoft denies that it has infringed or now 
nfringes the patents asserted against Microsoft in the Third Amended Complaint. Microsoft 
lenies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 57 of the Third Amended Complaint, 

58. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 58 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

docssvl: 165623.1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SB A 


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 

LP 


59. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 59 of the Third 
Amended Complaint. 

60. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 60 of the Third 
\mended Complaint 

6 1 . Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 6 1 of the Third 
\mended Complaint. 

62. Microsoft denies any and all allegations of paragraph 62 of the Third 
\mended Complaint. 

AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 
— Further answering-me-Third Amended Complaint, Microsoft asserts the following 
lefenses. Microsoft reserves the right to amend its answer with additional defenses as further 
nformation is obtained. 

First Defense; Noninfringement of the Asserted Patents 
63.. Microsoft has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced 
he infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,185,683 Bl ("the '683 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,253,193 
il ("the '193 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,940,504 ('the '504 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,920,861 
"the '861 Patent"), U,S. Patent No. 5,892,900 ("the '900 Patent"), US. .Patent No. 5,982,891 
"the '891 Patent"), or U.S. Patent No. 5,917,912 ("the '912 Patent"), and is not liable for 
nfringement thereof. 

64. Any and all Microsoft products or methods that are accused of 
nfringernent have substantial uses that do not infringe and-therefore cannot induce or contribute 
5 the mfringement of the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the '861 Patent, the '900 
•atent, the '891 Patent, or the '912 Patent. 

Second Defense: Invalidity of the Asserted Patents 

65. On information and belief, the * 683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent 
le '861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the '891 Patent, and the '912 Patent are invalid for failing to 
omply with the provisions of the Patent Laws, Title 35 U.S.C., including without limitation one 
r more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 1 12. 

d0cssvi:i65623.i microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 



Third Defense: Unavailability of Relief 

66. On information and belief, Plaintiff has failed to plead and meet the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) and is not entitled to any alleged damages prior to 
providing any actual notice to Microsoft of the *683 Patent, the * 193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the 
'861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the *891 Patent, or the '912 Patent. 

Fourth Defense: Unavailability of Relief 

67. On information and belief, Plaintiff has failed to plead and meet the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 284 for enhanced damages and is not entitled to any damages prior to 
providing any actual notice to Microsoft of the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the 
'861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the '891 Patent, and/or the '912 Patent and any alleged infringement 
thereof. 

Fifth Defense: Unavailability of Relief 

68. On information and belief, Plaintiff has failed to plead and meet the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, and has otherwise failed to show that it is entitled to any 
damages. 

Sixth Defense: Prosecution History Estoppel 

69. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action for patent infringement are barred under 
the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, and Plaintiff is estopped from claiming that the '683 
Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the '861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the '891 Patent, and/or 
the '912 Patent covers or includes any accused Microsoft product or method. 

Seventh Defense: Dedication to the Public 

70. Plaintiff has dedicated to the public all methods, apparatus, and products 
disclosed in the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the '861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the 
'891 Patent, and/or the '912 Patent, but not literally claimed therein, and is estopped from 
claiming infringement by any such public domain methods, apparatus, and products. 

Eighth Defense: Use/Manufacture Bv/For United States Government 

71. To the extent that any accused product has been used or manufactured by 

or for the United States, Plaintiffs claims and demands for relief are barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1498. 

docssvl:l65623.1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
"°" complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


Ninth Defense: License 

72. To the extent that any of Plaintiffs allegations of infringement are 
premised on the alleged use, sale, offer for sale, license or offer of license of products that were 
manufactured by or for a licensee of InterTrust and/or provided by or to Microsoft by or to a 
licensee of InterTrust, such allegations are barred pursuant to license. 

Tenth Defense: Acquiescence 

73. Plaintiff has acquiesced in at least a substantial part of the Microsoft 
:onduct alleged to infringe. 

Eleventh Defense: Laches 

•-.■=34;—-.- Plaintiff s claims-forrelief are barred, in whole or- mparts by the equitable 
doctrine of laches. 

Twelfth Defense: Inequitable Conduct 

75. The '861 Patent claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, 
ncluding those acts and failures to act set forth in Microsoft's Counterclaim for Declaratory 
Judgment of Unenforceability of the '861 Patent, set forth below. 

Thirteenth Defense: Inequitable Conduct 

76. The '900 Patent claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, 
ncluding those acts and failures to act set forth in Microsoft's Counterclaim for Declaratory 
udgment of Unenforceability of the '900 Patent, set forth below. 

Fourteenth Defense: Unenforceability 
z 77. The claims of the '891 Patent, the '912 Patent, the '861 Patent, the '683 
'atent, the '193 Patent and the '900 Patent are unenforceable due to unclean hands, inequitable 
onduct and misuse and illegal extension of the patent right, including those acts and failures to 
ct set forth in Count XI of Microsoft's Counterclaims, set forth below. 
// 
// 
// 
II 

docssvl :165623.l microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 0 1 - 1 640 SB a 


1 

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


COUNTERCLAIMS 

COUNT I - DECLARATORY 
JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT 

78. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 
U.S.C. §§ 1, etseq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this counterclaim under 28 
J.S.C. §§ 1338, 2201, and 2202. 

79. Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") is a Washington corporation with its 
principal place of business in Redmond, Washington. 

80. On information and belief, Plaintiff /Counterclaim Defendant InterTrust 
technologies Corporation ("InterTrust'^ds a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 
business in Santa Clara, California. 

81 . InterTrust purports to be the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,185,683 Bl ("the 
683 Patent"), 6,253,193 Bl ("the '193 Patent"), 5,940,504 ("the '504 Patent"), 5,920,861 ("the 
861 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 ("the '900 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,982,891 ("the 
891 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 5,917,912 ("the '912 Patent"). 

82. InterTrust alleges that Microsoft has infringed the '683 Patent, the ' 1 93 
>atent, the '504 Patent, the '8.61 Patent, the '900 Patent, the '891 Patent, and the '912 Patent. 

83. No Microsoft product has infringed, either directly or indirectly, any claim 
if the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the '861 Patent, the '900 Patent, the '891 
'atent, or the '912 Patent, and Microsoft is not liable for infringement thereof. 

84. A n actual controver s y, within the meaningof28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 
xists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to the 
tifringement or noninfringement of the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '504 Patent, the '861 
'atent, the '900 Patent, the '891 Patent, and/or the '912 Patent. 

COUNT n - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '683 PATENT 

85. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims, as if 
illy restated herein. 

docssv 1:165623.1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


86. The '683 Patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to comply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 1 12. 

87. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

exists_between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 

whether the claims of the '683 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT in - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '193 PATENT 

88. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims as if 
fully restated herein. 

89. -"Ehe-'193 Patent,-and each -claim thereof, is invalidforfailinglacomply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 112. 

90. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, 
exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '193 Patent are -valid or invalid. 

COUNT TV - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '504 PATENT 

9 1 . Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 -5 of its Counterclaims as if 
fully restated herein. 

92. The '504 Patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to comply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 and 112. 

93. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§-2201 and 2202, 
exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '504 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT V - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '861 PATENT 

94. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims as if 
Silly restated herein. 


docssvl:l65623.t microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
"H* complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SB A 


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 


95. The '861 Patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to comply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 1 12. 

96. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 
exists between Microsoft, on the one.hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '861 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT Vl - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '900 PATENT 

97. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs' 1 -5 of its Counterclaims as if 
fully restated herein. 

~ 98. The - 4 900 Patent, and eachclairn-thereot is invalid for failing to comply 

with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 1 12. 

99. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 
exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '900 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT Vn - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE «891 PATENT 

1 00. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 -5 of its Counterclaims as if 
fully restated herein. 

101. The '891 Patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to comply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. 

102. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 
exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '891 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT Vm - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF INVALIDITY OF THE '912 PATENT 

1 03. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims as if 
Silly restated herein. 


DOCSSVI:165623.l 


-12- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SB A 


1 

2 
3 

...A. 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 



104. The '912 Patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to comply 
with the provisions of the Patent Laws, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 1 12. 

105. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

exislsJietKeen.Microsoft, on Jhe oneJiand^and.IhterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 

whether the claims of the '912 Patent are valid or invalid. 

COUNT IX - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE *861 PATENT 

106. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims, as if 
fully restated herein. 

- 107. --Claims i^^of^^l ^ atentapplication CSMOS/SOSTSMX andxlaims 
1-101 of the '861 Patent, were not and are not entitled to the benefit of any application filing date 
prior to February 25, 1997, under 35 U.S.C. § 120 or otherwise. 

108. "Exhibit A" refers to the document attached as Exhibit A to Microsoft's 
counterclaims filed in response to InterTrust's Second Amended Complaint (namely, a reprint of 
an article entitled "DigiBox: A Self-Protecting Container for Information Commerce"). 

1 09. On information and belief, the content of pages 2- 1 4 of Exhibit A was 
presented at a public conference in the United States in July 1 995. 

1 10. "Exhibit B" refers to the document attached as Exhibit B to Microsoft's 
counterclaims filed in response to InterTrust's Second Amended Complaint (namely, a copy of a 
page from an International Application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), 
bearing International Publication Number WO 96/27155).— L - — 

111. On information and belief, International Application WO 96/271 55 has, at 
all times since its filing date, been owned and controlled by InterTrust or its predecessors in 
interest. 

112. International Application WO 96/27155 (hereafter "the WO 96/27155 
(PCT) publication") was published on September 6, 1996. 

113. United States Patent No. 5,910,987 ("the '987 Patent") issued on June 8, 

1999, from a continuation of an application filed on February 13, 1995. 

docssvl :1 65623.1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 14. The Sibert article is prior art to claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application 
(SN 08/805,804). 

115. The Sibert article is prior art to claims 1-101 of the '861 Patent under 35 
U.S.C. §§ 102(b) 

1 16. The WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication is prior art to claims 1-129 of the 
'861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

1 17. The WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication is prior art to claims 1-101 of the 
'861 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a). 

1 1 8. The '987 Patent is prior art to claims 29-1 29 of the '861 Patent application 
(SN 08/805,804). •• • -- • - ' ' 

119. The '987 Patent is prior art to claims 1-101 of the '861 Patent, under 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102(e). 

120. The Sibert article was material to the patentability of claim 1 of the '861 
Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

121. The Sibert article was material to the patentability of claims 2-129 of the 
'861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

122. The WO 96727155 (PCT) publication was material to the patentability of 
claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

123. The WO 96/271 55 (PCT) publication was material to the patentability of 
claims 2-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

124. The '987 Patent was material to the patentability of claims 29-129 of the 
'861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

125. One or more of the '861 Patent applicants knew, while the '861 Patent 
application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, of the July 1995 publication of the Sibert article. 

1 26. On information and belief, one or more of the ' 86 1 Patent applicants knew, 
while the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, of the September 1996 
publication of the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 


DOCSSV 1. 165623.1 


-14- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


127. One or more of the '861 Patent applicants knew, while the '861 Patent 
application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, of the June 8, 1999 issuance of the '987 Patent. 

128. On information and belief, one or more of the attorneys who prosecuted or 
assisted in prosecuting the 4 861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) knew, while that application 
was pending, of the July 1 995 publication of the Sibert article. 

129. One or more of the attorneys who prosecuted or assisted in prosecuting the 
'861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) knew, while that application was pending, of the 
September 1996 publication of the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 

1 30. One or more of the attorneys who prosecuted or assisted in prosecuting the 
'861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) knew, while that application was pending, of the June 8, 
1999 issuance of the '987 Patent. 

131 . The applicants for the *861 Patent did not cite the Sibert article as prior art 
to any of claims 1-129 of the *861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

132. The applicants for the *861 Patent did not cite the WO 96/27155 (PCT) 
publication to the Patent Office as prior art to any of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application 
(SN 08/805,804). 

1 33. The applicants_for the „'861JPat^_did not cite the !987 Patent to the Patent 
Office as prior art to any of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

134. The applicants for the '861 Patent did not cite to the Patent Office as prior 
art to any of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) any reference having 
the same or substantially the -same disclosure as-the Sibert-aFtide.- — - - 

135. The applicants for the '861 Patent did not cite to the Patent Office as prior 
art to any of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) any reference having 
the same or substantially the same disclosure as the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 

136. The applicants for the '861 Patent did not cite to the Patent Office as prior 
art to any of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) any reference having 
Lhe same or substantially the same disclosure as the '987 Patent. 


docssvl : 165623.1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
~* 5 " complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


1 1 37. The Sibert article is not merely cumulative over any reference cited as prior 

2 art during the prosecution of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

3 138. The WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication is not merely cumulative over any 

4 reference cited as prior ait during the prosecution of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

5 139. The '987 Patent is not merely cumulative over any reference cited as prior 

6 art during the prosecution of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

7 140. On information and belief, one or more of the '861 Patent applicants 

8 believed, during pendency of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), that the 

9 Sibert article disclosed an embodiment of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

10 141. InterTrust contends that none of the ' 86 1 Patent applicants believed, during 

1 1 I pendency of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), that the Sibert article 

12 | discloses an embodiment of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804). 

13 142. On information and belief, one or more of the '861 Patent applicants 

14 believed, during pendency of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), that the 

1 5 WO 96/27 1 55 (PCT) publication disclosed an embodiment of claim 1 of the ' 86 1 Patent 

16 application (SN 08/805,804). 

17 143. It is InterTrust's contention that none of the *861 Patent applicants 

1 8 believed, during pendency of claim 1 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), that the 

19 WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication discloses an embodiment of claim 1 of the '861 Patent 

20 application (SN 08/805,804). 

2 1 I 144. On information and belief, one or more of the '861 Patent applicants 
believed, while the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, that the Sibert article 
was material to the patentability of claims 1-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), 
but, with deceptive intent, failed to disclose that reference as prior art to the Patent Office. 

145. On information and belief, one or more of the '861 Patent applicants 
believed, while the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, that the WO 96/27155 
(PCT) publication was material to the patentability of claims 1-129 of the 4 861 Patent application 


22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 


Orrick 


Herrincton 
& sutcliffe llp 

Since* Valliv 


DOCSSV1M65623.1 


-16- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SB A 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

ia 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 


(SN 08/805,804), but, with deceptive intent, failed to disclose that reference as prior art to the 
Patent Office. 

1 46. On information and belief, one or more of the '861 Patent applicants 
believed, .while the '861 Patent_application (SN 08/805,804) was pending, that the '987 Patent 
was material to the patentability of claims 29-129 of the '861 Patent application (SN 08/805,804), 
but, with deceptive intent, failed to disclose that reference as prior art to the Patent Office. 

147. The '861 Patent is unenforceable due to the inequitable conduct of the '861 
Patent applicants before the Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the '861 Patent 
application (SN 08/805,804). 

: - — I48. r An actual controversy, within unmeaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 
whether the claims of the '861 Patent are enforceable. 

COUNT X - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE '900 PATENT 

149. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims, as if 
[ully restated herein. 

1 50. The application and issued claims of the '900 Patent were not and are not 
aititled to the benefit of any application filing date prior to August 30, 1996, under 35 U.S.C. § 
120 or otherwise. 

151. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 3 1 -32 of its Counterclaims, as if 
ully restated-herein. - - 

152. The Sibert article is prior art to the application and issued claims of the 
900 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 103. 

1 53. The Sibert article was material to the patentability of application and issued 
laims of the '900 Patent, including, for example, issued claims 86 and 1 82. 

1 54. One or more of the '900 Patent applicants knew of the July 1 995 
ublication of the Sibert article while the '900 Patent application was pending. 


D0CSSV1:165623.I 


-17- 


Microsoft Corporation's answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 0 1 - ] 640 SBA 


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 


155. On information and belief, one or more of the attorneys who prosecuted or 
assisted in the prosecution of the '900 Patent application knew of the July 1995 publication of the 
Sibert article while the '900 Patent application was pending. 

1 56. The applicants for the '90Q.Patent did not cite the Sibert article to the 
Patent Office as prior art to any claims of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206). 

1 57. The applicants for the '900 Patent did not cite to the Patent Office as prior 
art to any claims of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) any reference having the same or 
substantially the same disclosure as the Sibert article. 

1 58. The Sibert article is not merely cumulative over any reference cited as prior 
art during the prosecution ofthe^QrPatent application (SN 08/706,206)t - - - — - 

1 59. On information and belief, one or more of the '900 Patent applicants 
Relieved, during pendency of claim 1 of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206), that the 
Sibert article disclosed an embodiment of claim 1 of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206). 

160. On information and belief, one or more of the '900 Patent applicants 
relieved, while the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) was pending, that the Sibert article 
vas material to the patentability of various claims of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206), 
>ut, with deceptive intent, failed to disclose that reference as prior art to the Patent Office. 

161 . International Application WO 96/27155 (hereafter "the WO 96/27155 
PCT) publication") was published on September 6, 1996. 

162. The WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication is prior art to the application and 
ssued claims of the '900 Patent. - - - 

163. The WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication was material to the patentability of 
arious application and issued claims of the '900 Patent, including issued claims 86 and 182. 

1 64. On information and belief, one or more of the '900 Patent applicants knew, 
irhile the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) was pending, of the September 1996 
ublication of the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 


: 1 65623. 1 


-18- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 


1 65. One or more of the attorneys who prosecuted or assisted in prosecuting the 
'900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) knew, while that application was pending, of the 
September 1996 publication of the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 

166. .The_applicants.for the '900 Patent did not cite.the WO 96/27155 (PCT) 
publication to the Patent Office as prior art to any claims of '900 Patent application (SN 
08/706,206). 

1 67. The applicants for the '900 Patent did not cite to the Patent Office as prior 
art to any claims of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) any reference having the same or 
substantially the same disclosure as the WO 96/27155 (PCT) publication. 

1 68. The-WO 96/274 55 (PCT): publication is not merely cumulative over any 
reference cited as prior art during the prosecution of the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206). 

1 69. On information and belief, one or more of the '900 Patent applicants 
believed, while the '900 Patent application (SN 08/706,206) was pending, that the WO 96/27155 
(PCT) publication was material to the patentability of various claims of the '900 Patent 
application (SN 08/706,206), but, with deceptive intent, failed to disclose that reference as prior 
art to the Patent Office. 

170. . The !900 Patent is unenforceable due to the inequitable conduct of the '900 
Patent applicants before the Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the '900 Patent 
application (SN 08/706,206). 

171. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

exists between Microsoft, on the one hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 

whether the claims of the '900 Patent are enforceable. 

COUNT XI - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 
OF UNENFORCEABILITY 

172. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-5 and 30-94 of its 
Counterclaims, as if fully restated herein. 

173. The '891 Patent, the '912 Patent, the '683 Patent, the ' 193 Patent, the '861 
Patent, and the '900 Patent are referred to as the Count XI Patents. 

DOCSSVl:16J623.1 MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S ANSWER AND 

Q Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
' complaint, Case No. C 0 1 - 1640 SBA 


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 



174. In prosecuting, marketing, and enforcing the Count XI Patents, InterTrust 
has engaged in a pattern of obfuscation as to the scope of the patents, the prior art to the patents, 
and the alleged "inventions" of the patents. For example, InterTrust has accused non-infringing 
products of infringement, has buried Patent Office Examiners with a collection of more than 400 
references, many of which were not related to the particular claims in issue, and has buried the 
Examiners with hundreds or thousands of pages of redundant, verbose, unclear text, effectively 
prohibiting a real comparison of the alleged "invention" versus the prior art. This pattern of 
intentional conduct constitutes an abuse of the patent system, unclean hands, misuse and illegal 
extension of the patent right, rendering the Count XI patents unenforceable, as well as invalid 
under Section 112r - •"- - • — -.— — 

175. An actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 

exists between Microsoft, on the cine hand, and InterTrust, on the other hand, with respect to 

whether the claims of the '891 Patent, the '912 Patent, the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the *861 

Patent, and the '900 Patent are enforceable. 

COUNT XII - INFRINGEMENT 
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6.049.671 

176. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 2-3 of its Counterclaims, as if 
fully restated herein. 

1 77. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over Microsoft's cause 
of action for patent infringement under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1338, and 
under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 

178. U.S. Patent No. 6,049,671 ("the '671 Patent") issued to Microsoft 
Corporation as the assignee of Benjamin W. Slivka and Jeffrey S. Webber on April 11, 2000. 

179. A true copy of the '671 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to Microsoft's 
counterclaims filed in response to InterTrust's Second Amended Complaint, and is incorporated 
herein by reference. 

180. Microsoft owns all right, title and interest in the '671 Patent. 

181. InterTrust has had actual notice of the '67 1 Patent. 

docssvl :165623. 1 microsoft corporation's answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
" 20 * complaint, Case No. C 01-1640 SBA 


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 



1 82. InterTrust has infringed one or more claims of the '67 1 Patent, in violation 
of at least 35 U.S.G. § 271 (a, b, c). 

1 83. InterTmst's infringement of the '671 Patent has caused and will continue to 
cause Microsoft damage, including irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT XIII - INFRINGEMENT 
OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6.256,668 

1 84. Microsoft repeats and realleges paragraphs 2-3 and 1 00 of its 
Counterclaims, as if fully restated herein. 

1 85. U.S. Patent No. 6,256,668 Bl ("the '668 Patent") issued to Microsoft 
Corporation as the assigneenrfBenjamin W. Slivka-amWeffrey S. Webber-on July-3, 2001 . 

1 86. A true copy of the '668 Patent is attached as Exhibit D to Microsoft's 
counterclaims filed in response to InterTmst's Second Amended Complaint, and is incorporated 
herein by reference. 

1 87. Microsoft owns all right, title and interest in the '668 Patent. • 

1 88. InterTrust has had actual notice of the '668 Patent. 

1 89. InterTrust has infringed one or more claims of the '668 Patent, in violation 
of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a, b, c). 

1 90. InterTmst's infringement of the '668 Patent has caused and will continue to 
cause Microsoft damage, including irreparable harm for which it has no adequate remedy at law. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
WHEREFOREj -Microsoft prays for the following relief: 

A. The Court enter judgment against InterTrust, and dismiss with prejudice, 
any and all claims of the Third Amended Complaint; 

B . The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the '683 Patent; 

C. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the ' 193 Patent; 


D0CSSV1:I65623.1 


-21- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01 - 1 640 SBA 


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 


D. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the '504 Patent; 

E. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of. _or induc^J^^ the '861 Patent; 

F. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the '900 Patent; 

G. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the '891 Patent; 

H. The Court enter judgment declaring that Microsoft has not infringed, 
contributed to infringement of, or induced infringement of the '912 Patent; 

I. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '683 Patent is invalid; 
J. The Court enter judgment declaring that the ' 1 93 Patent is invalid; 
K. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '504 Patent is invalid; 
L. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '861 Patent is invalid; 
M. The Court enter judgment declaring that the *900 Patent is invalid; 
N. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '891 Patent is invalid; 
O. TTie Court enter judgment d_^ the '912 Patent is invalid; 

P. The Court enter judgment declaring that the ' 86 1 Patent is unenforceable 
due to inequitable conduct; 

Q. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '900 Patent is unenforceable 
dueto inequitable conduct; ■— 

R. The Court enter judgment declaring that the '891 Patent, the '912 Patent, 
the '683 Patent, the '193 Patent, the '861 Patent and the '900 Patent is unenforceable due to an 
abuse of the patent system, unclean hands, and misuse and illegal extension of the patent right; 

S . The Court enter judgment that InterTrust has infringed the ' 67 1 Patent; 

T. The Court enter judgment that InterTrust has infringed the '668 Patent; ■ 

U. The Court enter a permanent injunction prohibiting InterTrust, its officers, 

agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them 
docssv1 : 1 65623. 1 microsoft corporation ' s answer and 

Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 0 1 - 1 640 SB A 


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 


from infringing the '671 and '668 Patents; 

V. The Court award damages and attorney fees against InterTrust pursuant to 
the provisions of 35 U.S.C §§ 284 and 285; 

W-. . ^.The£ourt_aw.ard to. Microsoft pre-judgment.intejest.and the costs of this 

action; 

X. The Court award to Microsoft its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and 
Y. The Court grant to Microsoft such other and further relief as may be 
deemed just and appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND 

Pursuant toFed.R: Civ. P. 38(b), Defendant Microsoft Corporation demands a 

trial by jury. 

DATED: November 8, 2001 



WILLIAM L. ANTHONY 
ERIC L. WESENBERG 
MARK R. WEINSTEIN 
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 
1000 Marsh Road 
MenloPark,CA 94025 
Telephone: 650-614-7400 

STEVEN ALEXANDER 
KRISTIN L. CLEVELAND 
JAMES E. GERJNGER 
JOHN D. VANDENBERG 
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 
One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 
121 S. W. Salmon Street 
Portland, OR 97204 
Telephone: (503)226-7391 
Attorneys for Defendant 
Microsoft Corporation 


Of Counsel: 

T. ANDREW CULBERT, Esq. 
One Microsoft Way 
Building 8 

Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Phone: 425-882-8080 


DOCSSV1.I65623.I 


-23- 


Microsoft Corporation's Answer and 
Counterclaims to intertrust's third amended 
complaint, Case No. C 01 -1640 SB A 


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 


DECLARATION OF SERVICE VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL 

I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My place of 
employment and business address is 1000 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. 
- On November 8, 2001, 1 served: 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO 
INTERTRUST'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; JURY DEMAND 


By transmitting a copy of the above-listed document(s) in PDF form via electronic mail Michael 
H. Page at mhp@kvn.com, Christopher P. Isaac at chris.isaac@finnegan.com and James E. 
Geringer at james.geringer@klarquist.com and also by placing true and correct copies of the 
: abWe-clocuments in an envelop^-'a^a^sefftoT" - " ~ 


John W. Keker, Esq. 
Michael H. Page, Esq. 
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 
710 Sansome Street 
San Francisco, California 941 1 1 
Tel. No. 415-391-5400 
Fax No. 415-397-7188 
Email: jwk@kvn.com 
Email: mhp@kvn.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 
CORPORATION 


Christopher P. Isaac, Esq. 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 

1300 1. Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005-3314 

Tel. No. 202-408-4000 

Fax No. 202-408-4400 

Email: chris.isaac@finnegan.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 
CORPORATION 


Stephen E. Taylor, Esq. (Served by U.S. Mail Only) 
TAYLOR & CO. LAW OFFICES 
1050 MarimYillage Parkway, Suite 101 
Alameda, CA 94501 
Tel. No. 510-865-9401 
Fax No. 510-865-9408 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES 
CORPORATION 


John D. Vandenberg, Esq. 

James E. Geringer, Esq. 

KLARQUIST, SPARKMAN, CAMPBELL, 

LEIGH & WHINSTON LLP 

One World Trade Center 

121 S. W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Tel. No: 503-226-7391 

Fax No: 503-228-9446 

Email: john.vandenberg@klarquist.com 

Email: james.geringer@klarquist.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and 
Counterclaimant, MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION 


D0CSSV1:164899.1 


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 


and sealing the envelope, affixing adequate first-class postage and depositing it in the U.S. mail 
at Menlo Park, California. 

Executed on November 8, 2001 at Menlo Park, California. 

I declare..under.penalty of perjury that, the foregoing is true and correct. 


(SIGNATURE) 


(PROMT NAME) 


DOCSSVl:l64899.l 


This Page is Inserted by IFW Indexing and Scanning 
Operations and is not part of the Official Record 


Defective images within this document are accurate representations of the original 
documents submitted by the applicant. 

Defects in the images include but are not limited to the items checked: 


□ IMAGE CUT OFF AT TOP, BOTTOM OR SIDES 

□ FADED TEXT OR DRAWING 

□ BLURRED OR ILLEGIBLE TEXT OR DRAWING ' 

□ SKEWED/SLANTED IMAGES 

□ COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS 

□ GRAY SCALE DOCUMENTS 

□ LINES OR MARKS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 

□ REFERENCE(S) OR EXHIBIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY 

□ OTHER: \ 

IMAGES ARE BEST AVAILABLE COPY. 
As rescanning these documents will not correct the image 
problems checked, please do not report these problems to 
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox. 


BEST AVAILABLE IMAGES 


BLACK BORDERS