IP Law Daily, PATENT—M.D. Fla.: Affirmative defenses and counterclaims sufficiently pleaded in video streaming dispute, (May 11, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Motions to strike affirmative defenses and to dismiss counterclaims were denied because each defense was properly raised and factual allegations sufficient to support the counterclaims were made.

An alleged infringer properly stated its affirmative defenses and counterclaims, the U.S. District Court in Tampa has held. Two affirmative defenses which ought to have been set out as specific denials would be treated as such without the necessity of striking and reasserting them (Interactive Content Engines, LLC v. Rumble USA, Inc., May 8, 2023, Mizelle, K.).

Interactive Content Engines (ICE) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,437,472 (the ’472 patent) and 7,644,136 (the ’136 patent), which claimed an interactive broadband file system and a virtual file system, respectively, using “chunked storage of media files.” ICE brought suit against Rumble, Inc. and Rumble USA, Inc. (collectively, Rumble) for infringement, alleging that they operated an online video platform using the patented chunked storage system. Rumble, Inc. claimed that it did not use the patented technology, while Rumble USA, Inc. claimed that it did not operate an online video platform at all. Rumble filed several affirmative defenses and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. ICE moved to strike the affirmative defenses and to dismiss the counterclaims.

Affirmative defenses. Two affirmative defenses, that the defendants either did not use the infringing technology or did not operate a video platform at all, were not proper affirmative defenses but rather denials of the allegations. The court chose to treat these as specific denials rather than to strike them and have them pleaded again. The remaining defenses were stated with enough specificity to put ICE on notice of what would be relied upon at trial, which was all that was required.

Counterclaims. ICE argued that the counterclaims did not set out specific factual allegations but merely recited the elements of non-infringement and invalidity. The court reviewed the counterclaims and found that the allegations were sufficient to put ICE on notice, which was all that the court required in the counterclaim context.

The court denied the motions to strike and to dismiss.

The Case is No. 8:22-cv-01949-KKM-AEP.

Attorneys: Joel B. Rothman (Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC) for Interactive Content Engines, LLC. John Todd Timmerman (Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP) for Rumble USA, Inc. and Rumble, Inc.

Companies: Interactive Content Engines, LLC; Rumble USA, Inc.; Rumble, Inc.

Cases: Patent FloridaNews