VL Collective IP LLC v. Microsoft Corporation — Entry #44: RESPONSE to [35] Answer to Amended Complaint (Plaintiff's Answer to Counterclaims) by VL Collective IP LLC
Case: VL Collective IP LLC v. Microsoft Corporation txed · 2:26-cv-00346
filed April 29, 2026
What this document is
Docket entry #44 · filed August 31, 2026
RESPONSE to [35] Answer to Amended Complaint (Plaintiff's Answer to Counterclaims) by VL Collective IP LLC. (Alberti, David)
Who is involved
- Microsoft Corporation
- VL Collective IP LLC
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- CoreWeave: its project “Plano Data Center” appears in a filing in this case.
…announced a deal with CoreWeave to allow Microsoft to use CoreWeave’s Plano data center for its Microsoft…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved September 29, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
6 page(s), 9,818 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 637
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC (“VL IP”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
answers Microsoft Corporation’s (“Defendant” or “Microsoft”) counterclaims as follows:
PARTIES
1. VL IP admits that Microsoft admitted in Paragraph 12 of its Answer to VL IP’s
Complaint that Microsoft Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Washington corporation.
2. Admitted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. VL IP admits that Microsoft purports to bring these Counterclaims under the
patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. VL IP denies that Microsoft is entitled to any of the relief it seeks for its
Counterclaims.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 638
6. Admitted.
COUNT 1 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’868 Patent)
7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
8. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more
claims of the ’868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
9. Admitted.
10. Denied.
11. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the claims of the ’868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
COUNT 2 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’599 Patent)
12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
13. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more
claims of the ’599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
14. Admitted.
15. Denied.
16. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the claims of the ’599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
COUNT 3 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the ’474 Patent)
17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
18. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more
2
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 639
claims of the ’474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
19. Admitted.
20. Denied.
21. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the claims of the ’474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
COUNT 4 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’868 Patent)
22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
23. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the ’868 Patent is valid, enforceable,
and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.
24. Admitted.
25. Denied.
26. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the ’868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
COUNT 5 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’599 Patent)
27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
28. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the ’599 Patent is valid, enforceable,
and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.
29. Admitted.
30. Denied.
31. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the ’599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
3
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 640
COUNT 6 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the ’474 Patent)
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set
forth fully herein.
33. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the ’474 Patent is valid, enforceable,
and was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.
34. Admitted.
35. Denied.
36. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights
of the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the ’474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.
MICROSOFT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
VL IP denies the allegations set forth in Microsoft’s Prayer for Relief, and VL IP further
denies that Microsoft is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including any of the relief sought in
paragraphs a-g of its Prayer for Relief. Microsoft’s prayer should be denied in its entirety and with
prejudice, and Microsoft should take nothing.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Microsoft’s demand for jury trial does not contain allegations subject to admission
or denial by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
CV-38, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
4
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 641
Dated: August 31, 2026 By: /s/ David Alberti
David Alberti
CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
dalberti@albertilim.com
Sal Lim
CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
slim@albertilim.com
Russell S. Tonkovich
CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
rtonkovich@albertilim.com
James P. Barabas (pro hac vice)
NY Bar No. 3911484
jbarabas@albertilim.com
Hong S. Lin
CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
hlin@albertilim.com
Andrew Hamill
CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)
ahamill@albertilim.com
Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)
CA Bar No. 253705
jarmstrong@albertilim.com
Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)
CA Bar No. 237687
nmartini@albertilim.com
Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)
CA Bar No. 321645
rdooley@albertilim.com
ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP
950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725
Foster City, CA 94404
Telephone: (650) 825-4300
Facsimile: (650) 460-8443
Andrea L. Fair
Texas Bar No. 24078488
andrea@millerfairhenry.com
Garrett C. Parish
Texas Bar No. 24125824
garrett@millerfairhenry.com
MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC
1507 Bill Owens Pkwy
Longview, Texas 75604
Telephone: (903) 757-6400
Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
5
Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 642
Attorneys for Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the
Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this August 31, 2026.
/s/ David Alberti
David Alberti
6