The Procter & Gamble Company v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Doc.

29
Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 7

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP

Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)
2 claudestern@quinnemanuel.com
Evette D. Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515)
3 evettepennypacker@quinnemanuel.com
Michael D. Powell (Bar No. 202850)
4 mikepowell@quinnemanuel.com
Randy Garteiser (Bar No. 231821)
5 randygarteiser@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
6 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
7 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

8 Attorneys for Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

13 THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, CASE NO. C 07-04413 PJH

14 Plaintiff, KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC.'S ANSWER

AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE
15 vs. PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
16 KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., INFRINGEMENT

17 Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 7

1 Defendant and counterclaimant Kraft Foods Global, Inc. (“Kraft”), by their undersigned

2 attorneys, answer the original Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint") of plaintiff and

3 counterclaim defendant The Proctor & Gamble Company (“P&G”), as follows:

4 I. ANSWER
5 THE PARTIES
6 1. Kraft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

7 or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.

8 2. Kraft admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

9 JURISDICTION
10 3. Kraft admits that P&G purports to invoke subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

11 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Kraft admits that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court

12 with respect to the claims asserted in the Complaint. Kraft denies that it has committed any acts of

13 infringement within this district or otherwise. Kraft is without knowledge or information

14 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 of

15 the Complaint and therefore denies them.

16 VENUE
17 4. Kraft denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within this district or

18 otherwise. Kraft admits that it operates a manufacturing facility in San Leandro, California, that
19 makes the 39-ounce plastic containers used for its Maxwell House brand coffee. Kraft further

20 admits that its Maxwell House brand coffee is sold within this district and that venue is proper in

21 this district. Kraft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

22 falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.

23 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
24 5. Kraft denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within this district or

25 otherwise. Kraft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

26 falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.

27

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-2-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 3 of 7

1 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,169,418

2 6. Kraft admits that U.S. Patent 7,169,418 (the "'418 Patent"), entitled "Packaging

3 system to provide fresh packed coffee," issued on January 30, 2007. Kraft further admits that

4 David Dalton, James Smith, James Bono, Sameer Mungur, Douglas Zeik, Aisha Barry and

5 Jennifer Ruth Floyd appear as named inventors on the face of the '418 Patent. Kraft is without

6 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining

7 allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.

8 7. Kraft denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within this district or

9 otherwise. Kraft admits that it is manufacturing, using, selling, and/or offering to sell 39-ounce

10 plastic containers of Maxwell House brand coffee. Kraft is without knowledge or information

11 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 7 of

12 the Complaint and therefore denies them.

13 8. Kraft denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

14 9. Kraft denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

16 10. Kraft denies that P&G is entitled to the relief it seeks or any relief at all from Kraft.

17 JURY DEMAND
18 11. Kraft admits that P&G demands a jury trial. Except as expressly admitted, Kraft
19 denies the remaining allegations in P&G's demand for a jury trial.

20

21 II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

22 For its Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, Kraft alleges as follows:

23 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

24 STAY OF ACTION
25 12. P&G’s complaint, and all proceedings in furtherance thereof, before this Court are

26 improper and should be stayed pending completion of any pending reexamination of the ‘418

27 patent.

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-3-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 4 of 7

1 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '418 PATENT
3 13. Kraft has not infringed, and currently does not infringe, the '418 Patent directly,

4 indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, under the doctrine of equivalents, or in any other

5 manner.

6 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

7 INVALIDITY OF THE '418 PATENT
8 14. The claims of the '418 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of
9 the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including

10 without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.

11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12 EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OF THE '418 PATENT
13 15. The relief sought by P&G as to the '418 Patent is barred, in whole or in part, under

14 the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16 PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL OF THE '418 PATENT
17 16. Kraft is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relief sought by P&G

18 as to the '418 Patent is barred under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 DEDICATION OF THE '418 PATENT
21 17. Kraft is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the relief sought by P&G

22 is barred because all embodiments not literally claimed in the '418 Patent were dedicated to the

23 public.

24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR THE '418 PATENT
26 18. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

27

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-4-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 5 of 7

1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2 MARKING OF THE '418 PATENT
3 19. P&G’s pre-lawsuit claims for damages as to the '418 Patent are barred, in whole or

4 in part, for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

5 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6 LACHES OF THE '418 PATENT
7 20. P&G’s pre-lawsuit claims for damages as to the '418 Patent are barred, in
8 whole or in part, under the doctrine of laches.

10 III. COUNTERCLAIMS
11 Kraft alleges as follows:

12 1. By asserting this counterclaim Kraft does not concede, and expressly disputes, the

13 propriety of this action going forward in light of the pending reexamination of the ‘418 patent.

14 2. Kraft counterclaims against P&G pursuant to the patent laws of the United States in

15 Title 35 of the United States Code, with a specific remedy sought based upon the laws authorizing

16 actions for declaratory judgment in the courts of the United States in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

17 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13.

18 THE PARTIES
19 3. Kraft is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Northfield,

20 Illinois.

21 4. Upon information and belief, P&G is an Ohio corporation with its principal place

22 of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.

23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24 5. This Court has jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

25 1338(a), 2201(a), and 2202.

26 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the P&G by virtue, inter alia, of P&G’s

27 having elected to file its Complaints in this Court.

28 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.

51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-5-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 6 of 7

1 COUNTERCLAIM - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

2 8. By virtue of the allegations of P&G’s Complaint in this action and Kraft's Answer

3 thereto, an actual controversy exists between Kraft and P&G as to whether the '418 patent is

4 invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed.

5 FIRST COUNT
6 DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '418 PATENT
7 9. Kraft restates and incorporate by reference each of the allegations of paragraphs 1

8 through 7 of Section III of this Answer and Counterclaims.

10 10. P&G claims to be the owner by assignment of all legal rights and interest in the

11 '418 patent.

12 11. P&G alleges infringement of the '418 patent by Kraft.

13 12. Kraft is not infringing and has not infringed any valid claim of the '418 patent, and

14 P&G is entitled to no relief for any claim in the Complaint.

15 SECOND COUNT
16 DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF '418 PATENT
17 13. Kraft restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations of paragraphs 1

18 through 7 of Section III of this Answer and Counterclaims.

19 14. P&G claims to be the owner by assignment of all legal rights and interest in the

20 '418 patent.

21 15. P&G, by its Complaint, contends that the '418 patent is valid and infringed by Kraft

22 and the customers using Kraft’s products or services.

23 16. Each and every claim of the '418 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more

24 of the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including

25 without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

26 JURY DEMAND
27 17. Kraft hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-6-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
 Case 3:07-cv-04413-PJH Document 29 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 7 of 7

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Kraft prays that this Court:

3 a. Enter judgment against P&G and in favor of Kraft on each of the claims set forth in

4 the Complaint filed by P&G;

5 b. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;

6 c. Find and declare that the '418 patent is not infringed by Kraft;

7 d. Find and declare that each of the claims of the '418 patent are invalid and/or

8 unenforceable;

9 e. Find that this is an exceptional case and award Kraft its attorneys’ fees pursuant to

10 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise; and

11 g. Grant Kraft such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.

12

13 DATED: September 17, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

14 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER &

HEDGES, LLP
15

16
By /s/Claude M. Stern
17 Claude M. Stern
Evette D. PennyPacker
18 Michael D. Powell
Randy Garteiser
19 Attorneys for Kraft Foods Global, Inc.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
51282/2223125.1 Case No. C 07-04413 PJH
-7-
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY'S
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT