Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS and GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, INC. Defendants. ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, INC. Defendant Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. ("Genesys") submits the following Answer and Counterclaims in response to the First Amended Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial of Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"): THE PARTIES 1. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 07-090-SLR

to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Admits. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Genesys admits that the Complaint purports to allege an action for patent

infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code, and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Otherwise, this allegation contains conclusions of law to which no answer is required.

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 2 of 22

5.

Genesys does not contest personal jurisdiction for purposes of this action,

but denies that any infringing acts have occurred in this judicial district or elsewhere. 6. Genesys does not contest venue for purposes of this action, but denies that

any infringing acts have occurred in this judicial district or elsewhere. FACTS 7. Genesys admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,421,439 ("the `439

Patent"), entitled "System and Method for User Affiliation in a Telephone Network," is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Genesys admits that the `439 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 16, 2002 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/275,689, filed March 24, 1999, and names Stephen M. Liffick as the inventor, but denies that the `439 Patent was duly and legally issued. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that "Microsoft is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to United States Patent No. 6,421,439" and on that basis denies such allegations and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. Genesys admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,289 ("the `289

Patent"), entitled "System and Method for Computerized Status Monitor and use in a Telephone Network," is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Genesys admits that the `289 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 6, 2002 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/291,693 filed April 13, 1999, and names Stephen M. Liffick as the inventor, but denies that the `289 Patent was duly and legally issued. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that "Microsoft is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to United

2

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 3 of 22

States Patent No. 6,430,289" and on that basis denies such allegations and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Genesys admits that a copy of United States Patent No. 6,263,064 ("the

`064 Patent") entitled "Centralized Communication Control Center for Visually and Audibly Updating Communication Options Associated With Communication Services of a Unified Messaging System and Methods Therefor," is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. Genesys admits that the `064 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 17, 2001 from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/239,585, filed January 29, 1999, and names Stephen C. O'Neal and John Jiang as the inventors, but denies that the `064 Patent was duly and legally issued. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that "Microsoft is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to United States Patent 6,263,064 B1" and on that basis denies such allegations and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 9. 10. Genesys admits that a copy of United States Patent No. 6,728,357 ("the

`357 Patent") entitled "Centralized Communication Control Center and Methods Therefor" is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Genesys admits that the `357 Patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 27, 2004, and names Stephen C. O'Neal and John Jiang as the inventors, but denies that the `357 Patent was duly and legally issued. Genesys is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that "Microsoft is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to United States Patent 6,728,357" and on that basis denies such allegations and all remaining allegations in Paragraph 10.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 4 of 22

COUNT I: ABS'S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,421,439 11. above. 12. Paragraph 12 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore Genesys incorporates by reference each of its answers to Paragraphs 1-10

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 12 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 13. Paragraph 13 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 13 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 14. Paragraph 14 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 14 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 15. Paragraph 15 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 15 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied.. 16. Paragraph 16 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 16 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied.. COUNT II: ABS'S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,430,289 17. above. Genesys incorporates by reference each of its answers to Paragraphs 1-16

4

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 5 of 22

18.

Paragraph 18 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 18 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 19. Paragraph 19 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 19 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 20. Paragraph 20 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 20 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 21. Paragraph 21 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 21 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 22. Paragraph 22 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 22 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. COUNT III: ABS'S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,263,064 23. above. 24. Paragraph 24 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore Genesys incorporates by reference each of its answers to Paragraphs 1-22

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 24 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 6 of 22

25.

Paragraph 25 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 25 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 26. Paragraph 26 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 26 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 27. Paragraph 27 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 27 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 28. Paragraph 28 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 28 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. COUNT IV: ABS'S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,728,357 29. above. 30. Paragraph 30 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore Genesys incorporates by reference each of its answers to Paragraphs 1-28

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 30 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 31. Paragraph 31 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 31 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied.

6

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 7 of 22

32.

Paragraph 32 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 32 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 33. Paragraph 33 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 33 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. 34. Paragraph 34 contains allegations not directed to Genesys and therefore

requires no response from Genesys. To the extent Paragraph 34 contains any factual allegations requiring a response from Genesys, such allegations are denied. COUNT V: GENESYS'S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,421,439 35. 36. Genesys incorporates by reference each answer to Paragraphs 1-34 above. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 36, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. 37. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 37, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. 38. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 38,

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement, and further denies any willful infringement. 39. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 39,

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement, and further denies that Microsoft is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever. 40. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 40, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 8 of 22

COUNT VI: GENESYS'S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,430,289 41. 42. Genesys incorporates by reference each answer to Paragraphs 1-40 above. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 42, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. 43. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 43, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. 44. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 44,

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement, and further denies any willful infringement. 45. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 45,

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement, and further denies that Microsoft is entitled to recover any damages whatsoever. 46. Genesys denies each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 46, and

specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As and for its Affirmative Defenses, Genesys alleges as follows: First Affirmative Defense (Failure to State a Claim) 47. granted. Second Affirmative Defense (Non-Infringement) 48. Genesys has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or Microsoft's purported claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be

induced the infringement of any claim of the `439 Patent or the `289 Patent.

8

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 9 of 22

Third Affirmative Defense (Patent Invalidity) 49. The claims of the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are invalid for failure to

comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Fourth Affirmative Defense (Inequitable Conduct) 50. conduct. 51. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent both issued to Stephen M. Liffick. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are unenforceable due to inequitable

The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent claim virtually identical inventions. Claim 1 of the `439 Patent claims: In an environment where subscribers call a user over a telephone network, wherein a user telephone is coupled with the telephone network, a system for processing an incoming call from a subscriber to a user in the telephone network according to user specifications, the system comprising: a data structure contained within a computer network to store userselectable criteria for call processing, wherein the data structure stores the user-selectable criteria in one or more lists that are used in filtering an incoming call and wherein some of the one or more lists are used to filter the incoming call according to current activity of subscribers on the computer network or according to current activity of the user on the computer network; a computer network access port used by the telephone network to access the data structure such that the telephone network has access to the one or more lists over the computer network access port; and a controller to receive the incoming call designated for the user telephone and to process the incoming call in accordance with the user-selectable criteria, the controller accessing the user-selectable criteria in the one or more lists of the data structure via the computer network access port and thereby applying the userselectable criteria to the incoming call.

9

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 10 of 22

Similarly, claim 1 of the `289 Patent claims: In a system that includes a telephone network and a computer network with one or more users, wherein each user is connected through a user computer the computer network and is logically connected through the computer network to the telephone network, a method of determining when to establish telephone communication between two parties, at least one of whom is a user connected to said computer network, comprising: at the computer network, receiving information from the telephone network that a first party from whom a call is originating desires to establish telephone communication with a second party; at the computer network, monitoring activity of a user computer connected to the computer network and associated with the second party; at the computer network, storing a set of pre-determined rules for determining when the second party is available to take a call from the first party; at the computer network, using the set of a pre-determined rules to process i) the information received from the telephone network regarding the call being originated by the first party, and ii) information regarding the monitored activity of the user computer of the second party, to determine when the second party is available to take the call originated by the first party; and using the information processed at the computer network to facilitate connecting the call originated by the first party through the telephone network to the second party. 52. During the prosecution of the application leading to the `439 Patent only

three prior art references were considered by the examiner of that application. During the prosecution of the application leading to the `289 Patent, only five prior art references were considered by the examiner of that application. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent were examined by different patent examiners. None of the prior art references before the examiner of the `289 Patent were before the examiner of the `439 Patent.

10

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 11 of 22

53.

On information and belief, one or more of the inventor, and/or the

prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent were aware of the disclosures contained in the prior art references considered by the examiner of the `289 Patent. The references cited during the prosecution of the `289 Patent were highly material to the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during prosecution of the `439 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent knew that one or more of the references cited during the prosecution of the `289 Patent were material to the patentability of the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during the prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application withheld and failed to disclose the references cited in the application for the `289 Patent with an intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 54. On information and belief, one or more of the inventor, and/or the

prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `289 Patent were aware of the disclosures contained in the prior art references considered by the examiner of the `439 Patent. The references cited during the prosecution of the `439 patent were highly material to the claims of the `289 Patent. On information and belief, during prosecution of the `289 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `289 Patent knew that one or more of the references cited during the prosecution of the `439 Patent were material to the patentability of the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during the prosecution of the application leading to the `289 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or

11

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 12 of 22

the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application withheld and failed to disclose the references cited in the application for the `439 Patent with an intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Fifth Affirmative Defense (Laches) 55. Microsoft's claim for any damages purportedly incurred prior to filing this

action is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. Sixth Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mark) 56. On information and belief, Microsoft has not marked its products in

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287 and, accordingly, Microsoft's damages claim is limited in accordance with that statute.

12

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 13 of 22

COUNTERCLAIMS As and for its counterclaims against Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation, Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc. alleges as follows: Parties 1. Counterclaim-Plaintiff Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc.

("Genesys") is incorporated in California and has its offices at 2001 Junipero Serra Boulevard, Daly City, California 94014. 2. Counterclaim-Defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") is a

Washington corporation with a principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of

the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 4. This is also an action for declaratory relief for which this Court has

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 2201. 5. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because

Microsoft has committed acts of infringement in and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and because Microsoft has consented to the propriety of venue in this Court by filing its claim for patent infringement in this Court. Facts 6. Genesys is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and

interest in and to United States Patent No. 6,167,395 ("the `395 Patent") entitled "Method and

13

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 14 of 22

Apparatus for Creating Specialized Multimedia Threads in a Multimedia Communication Center." The `395 Patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 26, 2000, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The inventors of the `395 Patent are Christopher Clemmett MacLeod Beck, Jonathan Michael Berke, Joel A. Johnstone, Robin Marie Mitchell, James Karl Powers, Mark Franklin Sidell and Charles Dazler Knuff. 7. Genesys is the owner by valid assignment of the entire right, title, and

interest in and to United States Patent No. 5,953,332 ("the `332 Patent") entitled "Agent-initiated Dynamic Requeing." The `332 Patent, which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 14, 1999, is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The inventor of the `332 Patent is Alec Miloslavsky. Count I: Non-Infringement 8. herein. 9. By the filing of its Complaint, Microsoft has purported to assert a claim Genesys incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-7 as if fully set forth

against Genesys for the alleged infringement of the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent. 10. Genesys has denied Microsoft's allegations of infringement and believes

that the Complaint has been filed without good cause. 11. An actual controversy exists between Microsoft and Genesys in that

Microsoft contends that the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are infringed by Genesys, and Genesys in turn contends that it does not infringe these patents. 12. Genesys is entitled to judgment from this Court that the `439 patent and

the `289 Patent are not infringed by Genesys or any of its products.

14

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 15 of 22

Count II: Invalidity 13. herein. 14. An actual controversy exists between Microsoft and Genesys in that Genesys incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth

Microsoft contends that the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are valid and enforceable, while Genesys in turn contends that these patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. 15. As a result, Genesys is entitled to judgment from this Court finding that

the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Count III: Unenforceability 16. herein. 17. An actual controversy exists between Microsoft and Genesys in that Genesys incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth

Microsoft contends that the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are valid and enforceable, while Genesys in turn contends that these patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. 18. conduct. 19. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent both issued to Stephen M. Liffick. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are unenforceable due to inequitable

The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent claim virtually identical inventions. Claim 1 of the `439 Patent claims: In an environment where subscribers call a user over a telephone network, wherein a user telephone is coupled with the telephone network, a system for processing an incoming call from a subscriber to a user in the telephone network according to user specifications, the system comprising: a data structure contained within a computer network to store userselectable criteria for call processing, wherein the data structure stores the user-selectable criteria in one or more lists that are used 15

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 16 of 22

in filtering an incoming call and wherein some of the one or more lists are used to filter the incoming call according to current activity of subscribers on the computer network or according to current activity of the user on the computer network; a computer network access port used by the telephone network to access the data structure such that the telephone network has access to the one or more lists over the computer network access port; and a controller to receive the incoming call designated for the user telephone and to process the incoming call in accordance with the user-selectable criteria, the controller accessing the user-selectable criteria in the one or more lists of the data structure via the computer network access port and thereby applying the userselectable criteria to the incoming call. Similarly, claim 1 of the `289 Patent claims: In a system that includes a telephone network and a computer network with one or more users, wherein each user is connected through a user computer the computer network and is logically connected through the computer network to the telephone network, a method of determining when to establish telephone communication between two parties, at least one of whom is a user connected to said computer network, comprising: at the computer network, receiving information from the telephone network that a first party from whom a call is originating desires to establish telephone communication with a second party; at the computer network, monitoring activity of a user computer connected to the computer network and associated with the second party; at the computer network, storing a set of pre-determined rules for determining when the second party is available to take a call from the first party; at the computer network, using the set of a pre-determined rules to process i) the information received from the telephone network regarding the call being originated by the first party, and ii) information regarding the monitored activity of the user computer of the second party, to determine when the second party is available to take the call originated by the first party; and

16

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 17 of 22

using the information processed at the computer network to facilitate connecting the call originated by the first party through the telephone network to the second party. 20. During the prosecution of the application leading to the `439 Patent only

three prior art references were considered by the examiner of that application. During the prosecution of the application leading to the `289 Patent, only five prior art references were considered by the examiner of that application. The `439 Patent and the `289 Patent were examined by different patent examiners. None of the prior art references before the examiner of the `289 Patent were before the examiner of the `439 Patent. 21. On information and belief, one or more of the inventor, and/or the

prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent were aware of the disclosures contained in the prior art references considered by the examiner of the `289 Patent. The references cited during the prosecution of the `289 Patent were highly material to the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during prosecution of the `439 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent knew that one or more of the references cited during the prosecution of the `289 Patent were material to the patentability of the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during the prosecution of the application for the `439 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application withheld and failed to disclose the references cited in the application for the `289 Patent with an intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 22. On information and belief, one or more of the inventor, and/or the

prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `289 Patent were aware of the disclosures contained in the prior art references considered 17

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 18 of 22

by the examiner of the `439 Patent. The references cited during the prosecution of the `439 patent were highly material to the claims of the `289 Patent. On information and belief, during prosecution of the `289 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application for the `289 Patent knew that one or more of the references cited during the prosecution of the `439 Patent were material to the patentability of the claims of the `439 Patent. On information and belief, during the prosecution of the application leading to the `289 Patent, one or more of the inventor, and/or the prosecuting attorneys, and/or others associated with the filing and prosecution of the application withheld and failed to disclose the references cited in the application for the `439 Patent with an intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 23. As a result, Genesys is entitled to judgment from this Court finding that

the `439 Patent and the `289 Patent are unenforceable. Count IV: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,167,395 24. herein. 25. Microsoft has been and is now making, using, selling, offering for sale Genesys incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23 as if fully set forth

products within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that infringe the `395 Patent. 26. Microsoft has been and is now contributing to the infringement of and/or

actively inducing the infringement of the `395 Patent by others. 27. Microsoft's infringement of the `395 Patent has injured Genesys, and thus

Genesys is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for that infringement. 28. Microsoft's acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause

irreparable injury to Genesys unless and until enjoined by this Court. 18

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 19 of 22

Count V: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,953,332 29. herein. 30. Microsoft has been and is now making, using, selling, offering for sale Genesys incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth

within the United States, or importing into the United States, products that infringe the `332 Patent. 31. Microsoft has been and is now contributing to the infringement of and/or

actively inducing the infringement of the `332 Patent by others. 32. Microsoft's infringement of the `332 patent has injured Genesys, and thus

Genesys is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for that infringement. 33. Microsoft's acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause

irreparable injury to Genesys unless and until enjoined by this Court. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Genesys seeks judgment as follows: A. invalid; B. are unenforceable; C. That Microsoft take nothing by its Complaint and that Microsoft's That U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439 and 6,430,289, and every claim thereof, That U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439 and 6,430,289 are not infringed and

Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; D. That Microsoft infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,167,395 and 5,953,332;

19

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 20 of 22

E.

That Microsoft and its officers, agents, employees, representatives,

successors, and assigns, and any others acting in concert with them be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,167,395 and 5,953,332; F. That Genesys be awarded damages resulting from Microsoft's

infringement adequate to compensate it for that infringement; G. case; H. this action; and I. That Genesys be granted such other and additional relief as this Court That Genesys be awarded its attorneys' fees incurred in connection with That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Court find that this an exceptional

deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Genesys hereby demands a trial by jury.

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Maryellen Noreika Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Maryellen Noreika (#3208) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Genesys Laboratories, Inc. Telecommunications

20

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 21 of 22

Of Counsel: Steven C. Cherny Clement J. Naples LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10022-4834 (212) 906-1200 David A. Nelson Sasha D. Mayergoyz LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5800 Chicago IL 60606 (312) 876-7700 David M. Farnum LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 (202) 637-2232 Date: July 13, 2007

21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 22 of 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maryellen Noreika, hereby certify that on July 13, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing document, which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire Fish & Richardson I also certify that copies were caused to be served on July 13, 2007 upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 919 N. Market Street Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 BY E-MAIL Brian R. Nester, Esquire Jeffrey R. Whieldon, Esquire Rama G. Elluru, Esquire William E. Sekyi, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 1425 K. Street, N.W. 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 /s/ Maryellen Noreika Maryellen Noreika (#3208) [email protected]

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 2 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 3 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 4 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 5 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 6 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 7 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 8 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 9 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 10 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 11 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 12 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 13 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 14 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 15 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 16 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 17 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 18 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 19 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 20 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 21 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 22 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 23 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 24 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 25 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 26 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 27 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 28 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 29 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 30 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 31 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 32 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 33 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 34 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 35 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 36 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 37 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 38 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 39 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 40 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 41 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 42 of 42

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 2 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 3 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 4 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 5 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 6 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 7 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 8 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 9 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 10 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 11 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 12 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 13 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 14 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 15 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 16 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 17 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 18 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 19 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 20 of 21

Case 1:07-cv-00090-SLR

Document 21-3

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 21 of 21