DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Sep 24, 2026

Upload by Grenda

Interstellar Inc. alleges patent infringement against Kahoot! EDU, Inc. and Kahoot! ASA in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Austin Division). The defendants file an answer that admits only limited jurisdictional and pleading facts, including the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and admits specific corporate and organizational details. The filing denies the remaining allegations and addresses the purported ’825 patent’s issued date and described subject matter, while withholding admission or denial for many factual background paragraphs.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Nature of Action

The Parties

Jurisdiction and Venue

Alleged Factual Background

Interstellar’s Purported Innovation

Interstellar’s Patent

Defendants’ Acts of Infringement

Case 1:24-cv-00727-ADA Document 17 Filed 02/12/25 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION INTERSTELLAR INC., Plaintiff,-against KAHOOT! EDU, INC. and KAHOOT! ASA, Defendants. Case No. 1:24-cv-727-RP DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Defendants Kahoot! EDU, Inc. and Kahoot! AS 1 (collectively,“Kahoot!”) hereby answer the allegations (“Answer”) in the Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Interstellar Inc. (“Plaintiff”) in the above-entitled action. Except as to those allegations that are expressly admitted in this Answer, including any Headings, Footnotes, Tables and Exhibits, all allegations are hereby denied. Kahoot! responds to the enumerated paragraphs ofthe Complaint as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. Kahoot! admits that this action purportedly arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, et seq. Kahoot! admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) . Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 1. 1 Kahoot! ASA is now known as Kahoot! AS. Case 1:24-cv-00727-ADA Document 17 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 12 THE PARTIES 2. Kahoot! is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 2, and on that basis denies those allegations. 3. Kahoot! admits that Kahoot! EDU, Inc. is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business at 10900 Stonelake Blvd, Building II, Ste. 100, Austin, TX, 78759. Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! EDU, [Inc. is](Inc. is) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kahoot! AS, which provides an online game-based learning platform that is accessible in Texas. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 3. 4. Kahoot! admits that Kahoot! AS is a company organized under the laws of Norway, with its principal place of business at Kronprinsesse Märthas plass 1, 0160 Oslo, Norway. Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! AS provides an online game-based learning platform that is accessible in Texas. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 4. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Kahoot! admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) . Kahoot! further admits that Plaintiff alleges claims purportedly arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 5. 6. Kahoot! admits that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) . Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! EDU, Inc. has a regular and established place of business in this District. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 6. 7. Kahoot! admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Kahoot! EDU, Inc. Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! EDU, Inc. has a regular and established place of business in 2 Case 1:24-cv-00727-ADA Document 17 Filed 02/12/25 Page 3 of 12 this District. Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! EDU, Inc. has transacted business in this District. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 7. 8. Kahoot! admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Kahoot! AS. Kahoot! further admits that Kahoot! AS has transacted business in this District. Kahoot! denies every other allegation of paragraph 8. ALLEGED FACTUAL BACKGROUND Interstellar’s Purported Innovation 9. Kahoot! is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 9, and on that basis denies those allegations. 10. Kahoot! is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 10, and on that basis denies those allegations. 11. Kahoot! is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 11, and on that basis denies those allegations. 12. Kahoot! is without sufficient knowledge or information to

FAQs

What is this filing’s purpose in the lawsuit?

It is the defendants’ answer to Interstellar Inc.’s complaint for patent infringement, responding to each enumerated allegation with admissions or denials.

Which jurisdictional matters does the defendants’ answer admit?

The defendants admit that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), based on the pleaded jurisdictional facts.

How does the answer treat allegations about the ’825 patent and related claims?

The defendants admit limited information about the ’825 patent’s issuance date and title, and they acknowledge that certain claim language is reflected in specified allegations, while denying or reserving positions on many other factual and legal assertions.

Sep 24, 2026

Upload by Grenda