Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 24 PageID 301
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`7-ELEVEN, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02868
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Defendant, 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) files this Answer to R2 Solutions (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“R2 Solutions”) Complaint for Patent Infringement. Defendant denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations in Plaintiff’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`1. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`2. 7-Eleven admits that it is a Texas corporation with headquarters at 3200 Hackberry
`
`Road, Irving, Texas 75063. 7-Eleven admits that it may be served with process through its
`
`registered agent, Corporate Creations Network Inc., at 5444 Westheimer #1000, Houston, Texas
`
`77056.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`3. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 271, et seq. 7-Eleven
`
`admits that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, but 7-Eleven denies it has
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 24 PageID 302
`
`committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`4. 7-Eleven does not contest whether personal jurisdiction over it properly lies in this
`
`judicial district in this case. 7-Eleven denies it has committed or is committing acts of
`
`infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`5. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`6. 7-Eleven does not contest venue in this district. 7-Eleven further denies it has committed
`
`or is committing acts of infringement and on that basis, denies that rest of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 9.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`7. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 7, and therefore denies them.
`
`8. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 8, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`9. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 9, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`10. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10, and therefore denies them.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`
`
`11. 7-Eleven admits that a purported copy of the ’157 Patent is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Ex. 1, and that the face of the patent indicates that it issued on December 25, 2012. 7-Eleven
`
`is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
`
`in Paragraph 11, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`12. 7-Eleven admits that a purported copy of the ’329 Patent is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Ex. 2, and that the face of the patent indicates that it issued on April 13, 2010. 7-Eleven is
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 3 of 24 PageID 303
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 12, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`13. 7-Eleven admits that a purported copy of the ’317 Patent is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Ex. 3, and that the face of the patent indicates that it issued on June 26, 2012. 7-Eleven is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 13, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`14. 7-Eleven admits that a purported copy of the ’097 Patent is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Ex. 4, and that the face of the patent indicates that it issued on October 31, 2017. 7-Eleven is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 14, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`15. 7-Eleven admits that a purported copy of the ’272 Patent is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Ex. 5, and that the face of the patent indicates that it issued on January 8, 2019. 7-Eleven is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 15, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`16. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`17. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`
`
`18. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`
`
`
`
`19. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 4 of 24 PageID 304
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`
`
`20. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`
`
`21. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`
`
`22. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`
`
`23. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`
`
`24. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`
`
`25. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`26. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 5 of 24 PageID 305
`
`
`
`27. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`
`
`28. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`
`
`29. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`
`
`30. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`
`
`31. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`
`
`32. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`
`
`33. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`
`
`34. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 6 of 24 PageID 306
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`
`
`35. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 35.
`
`
`
`36. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`
`
`37. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`
`
`38. The patents-in-suit speak for themselves, but to the extent Plaintiff asserts that they
`
`are directed to patent eligible subject matter and not directed to abstract ideas, 7-Eleven denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,341,157
`
`
`
`39. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 7-Eleven denies it
`
`has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`40. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`41. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41, and therefore denies them.
`
`Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`42. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 42.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 7 of 24 PageID 307
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 43.
`
`44. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`45. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`Indirect Infringement (Inducement – 35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`46. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`47. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`48. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`49. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`50. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`51. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 51.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,698329
`
`52. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement under the
`
`Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 7-Eleven denies it has
`
`committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`53. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 53, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`54. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 54, and therefore denies them.
`
`Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`56. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 56.
`
`57. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 57.
`
`58. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 8 of 24 PageID 308
`
`
`
`Indirect Infringement (Inducement – 35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`59. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 59.
`
`60. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 60.
`
`61. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 61.
`
`62. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 62.
`
`Damages
`
`
`
`
`
`63. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,209,317
`
`64. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 7-Eleven denies it
`
`has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`65. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 65, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`66. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 66, and therefore denies them.
`
`Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`67. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 67.
`
`68. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 68.
`
`69. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 69.
`
`70. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 70.
`
`Indirect Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`71. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 9 of 24 PageID 309
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`72. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 72.
`
`73. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.
`
`74. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 74.
`
`Damages
`
`
`
`
`
`75. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,805,097
`
`76. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 7-Eleven denies it
`
`has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`77. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 77, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`78. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 78, and therefore denies them.
`
`Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`79. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 79.
`
`80. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.
`
`81. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 81.
`
`82. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 82.
`
`Indirect Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`83. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 83.
`
`84. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 84.
`
`85. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 85.
`
`86. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 86.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 10 of 24 PageID 310
`
`
`
`Damages
`
`
`
`
`
`87. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 87.
`
`COUNT V
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,176,272
`
`88. 7-Eleven admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action for infringement
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. 7-Eleven denies it
`
`has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`
`
`89. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 89, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`90. 7-Eleven is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 90, and therefore denies them.
`
`Direct Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`91. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 91.
`
`92. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 92.
`
`93. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 93.
`
`94. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 94.
`
`Indirect Infringement (35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`95. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 95.
`
`96. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 96.
`
`97. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 97.
`
`98. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 98.
`
`Damages
`
`
`
`
`
`99. 7-Eleven denies the allegations in Paragraph 99.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 11 of 24 PageID 311
`
`
`
`[PLAINTIFF’S] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`No answer is required, but 7-Eleven denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`[PLAINTIFF’S] PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`To the extent that a response is required to Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, 7-Eleven denies
`
`that Plaintiff is entitled to any judgment against 7-Eleven and/or an order granting relief in any of
`
`the forms requested in parts (i)–(vii).
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Affirmative Defenses are listed below. 7-Eleven reserves the right to amend its answer to
`
`add additional Affirmative Defenses consistent with the facts discovered in this action.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`
`
`7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe, under any theory of infringement
`
`(including directly (whether individually or jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by
`
`inducement)), any valid, enforceable claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. Nos. 8,341,157 (“the ’157
`
`patent”), 7,698,329 (“the ’329 patent”), 8,209,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 9,805,097 (“the ’097
`
`patent”), and 10,176,272 (“the ’272 patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid for failure to comply with one or more
`
`of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff and any predecessors in interest to the Patents-in-Suit failed to
`
`properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, or
`
`otherwise give proper notice that 7-Eleven’s actions allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit, 7-
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 12 of 24 PageID 312
`
`Eleven is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have been performed before it received actual
`
`notice that it was allegedly infringing the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are not entitled to a scope sufficient to encompass any
`
`system employed or process practiced by 7-Eleven.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, among
`
`other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that 7-Eleven makes, uses, or sells each
`
`claimed element of any asserted claim, or that 7-Eleven directs or controls another entity to make,
`
`use, or sell any element that is not made, used, or sold by 7-Eleven.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Should 7-Eleven be found to infringe any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`such infringement was not willful.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent Plaintiff asserts that 7-Eleven indirectly infringes, either by contributory
`
`infringement or inducement of infringement, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
`
`can be granted.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that 7-Eleven indirectly infringes, either by contributory
`
`infringement or inducement of infringement, 7-Eleven is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged
`
`to have been performed before 7-Eleven knew that its actions would cause indirect infringement.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for damages are statutorily limited or barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 13 of 24 PageID 313
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`To the extent Plaintiff relies on the doctrine of equivalents to allege infringement,
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the asserted scope of the equivalency encompasses or
`
`ensnares the prior art.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff is precluded from recovering its reasonable attorneys’ fees and/or costs under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Should 7-Eleven be found to infringe any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`Plaintiff is precluded from recovering increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and such alleged
`
`infringement was not willful.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 14 of 24 PageID 314
`
`DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`For their counterclaims against Counterclaim Defendant R2 Solutions LLC, (“R2”),
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
` 7-Eleven is a Texas corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Delaware, having headquarters at 3200 Hackberry Road, Irving, Texas 75063.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief based solely on Paragraph 1 of the Complaint as pled
`
`by R2, R2 is a Texas limited liability company located in Frisco, Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-2 above.
`
`These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35,
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`United States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.,
`
`and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201-02.
`
`5.
`
`R2 has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court at least by commencing
`
`its action for patent infringement in this District, as set forth in its Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Based solely on R2 filing of this action, venue is proper in this District pursuant to
`
`at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`COUNT I: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’157 PATENT
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–6 above.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157 (the “’157 Patent).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 15 of 24 PageID 315
`
`9.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’157 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising the steps of”: (1) “receiving, over a
`
`network, a query from a user, the query comprising at least one query token,” (2) “analyzing the
`
`query, using at least one computing device, to identify at least one query keyword,” (3)
`
`“determining, at least the one computing device, a plurality of intents from the at least one
`
`keyword, each of the plurality of intents indicates a type of information regarding the query
`
`keyword that is likely to be desired by a user submitting the query,” (4) “classifying the query,
`
`using the at least one computing device, into at least one of the plurality of intents,” (5)
`
`“identifying, using the at least one computing device, a plurality of data objects available over the
`
`network that match the at least one query keyword,” (6) “assigning, using the at least one
`
`computing device, at least one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality of data
`
`objects,” (7) “ranking, using the at least one computing device, the plurality of data objects,” (8)
`
`“building a result, using the at least one computing device, using the ranked plurality of data
`
`objects, the result comprises a plurality of display entries, at least one display entry customized to
`
`a respective assigned intent is constructed for each of the ranked plurality of data objects,” and/or
`
`(9) “transmitting the result, over the network, to the user.”
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’157 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`COUNT II: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’329 PATENT
`
`11.
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–10 above.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 16 of 24 PageID 316
`
`12.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329 (the “’329 Patent).
`
`13.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’329 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising”: (1) “ranking a plurality of documents
`
`recalled by a search engine for a query,” (2) “wherein the plurality of documents contain certain
`
`documents, each document of said certain documents containing at least one section that is not
`
`used by said search engine for recall and one or more sections that are used by said search engine
`
`for recall,” (3) “wherein ranking a plurality of documents includes ranking said plurality of
`
`documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section of said certain documents not used by
`
`said search engine to recall documents,” “wherein the method is performed by one or more
`
`computing devices.”
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’329 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`COUNT III: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’317 PATENT
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–14 above.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317 (the “’317 Patent).
`
`17.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’317 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not make, use, or sell “a computer database system for providing search
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 17 of 24 PageID 317
`
`results to a user in response to user submissions over a data network, the computer database system
`
`comprising:” (1) “a database configured to store information about events in the computer database
`
`system,” “a query reconstruction server in data communication with the database and operative to
`
`receive a partial query submitted at a remote user client system by a user seeking search results
`
`matching the submitted partial query and, in response to the received partial query, determine a
`
`full query based on (i) the received partial query, and (ii) information stored in the database about
`
`queries previously-submitted by users, wherein the submitted partial query comprises an
`
`abbreviated or incomplete search query which is not fully representative of an entire search query
`
`desired by the user and the full query is better representative of the entire search query desired by
`
`the user.”
`
`18.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’317 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`COUNT IV: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’097 PATENT
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–18 above.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097 (the “’097 Patent).
`
`21.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’097 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method, implemented on at least one computing device each
`
`of which has at least one processor, storage, and a communication platform connected to a network
`
`for providing a search result, the method comprising”: (1) “receiving a search request from a user,”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 18 of 24 PageID 318
`
`(2) “determining a plurality of content items based on the search request,” (3) “selecting one or
`
`more content items from the plurality of content items,” (4) “generating a framed structure having
`
`at least one sub-component,” (5) “determining a correspondence between the one or more content
`
`items and the at least one sub-component,” (6) “arranging each of the one or more content items
`
`with respect to a corresponding sub-component,” (7) “generating a search result based on the one
`
`or more content items and the framed structure,” and/or (8)“providing the search result.”
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’097 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`COUNT V: DECLARATION REGARDING
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’272 PATENT
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–22 above.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s First Affirmative
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 7-
`
`Eleven infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,176,272 (the “’272 Patent).
`
`25.
`
`7-Eleven does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’272 Patent because, among other
`
`things, 7-Eleven does not practice “a method comprising”: (1) “receiving structural data associated
`
`with a web page, the web page including a widget, the widget including a plurality of widget
`
`elements, wherein the structural data includes a size of a browser window used to display the web
`
`page,” (2) “accessing a constraint regarding a pre-determined number of the widget elements to
`
`display within the widget,” (3) “triggering during a display of the browser window and the plurality
`
`of widget elements a reduction in a size of the widget and a reduction in a plurality of sizes of the
`
`widget elements to display within the widget when the size of the browser window reduces,” (4)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 12 Filed 02/17/23 Page 19 of 24 PageID 319
`
`“removing one or more of the widget elements from being displayed within the widget after
`
`reducing the sizes of the widget elements, wherein said removing the one or more of the widget
`
`elements is performed until the constraint is achieved,” (5) “increasing a size of remaining one of
`
`the widget elements of the reduced size to fit within the widget of the reduced size upon achieving
`
`the constraint,” and/or (6) “sending data for displaying the widget.”
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 7-
`
`Eleven requests a declaration by the Court that 7-Eleven has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`any claim of the ’272 Patent under any theory (including directly (whether individually or jointly)
`
`or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)).
`
`COUNT VI: DECLARATION REGARDING
`INVALIDITY OF THE ’157 PATENT
`
`7-Eleven incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-26 above.
`
`Based on R2’s filing of this action and at least 7-Eleven’s Second Affirmative
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the par