`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`Patricia L. Peden (SBN 2064440)
`Patricia.Peden@leclairryan.com
`LECLAIRRYAN LLP
`44 Montgomery Street, Thirty First Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Phone: 415.391.7111
`Fax: 415.391.8766
`
`Pro hac vice motions to be filed for the following
`counsel
`
`Arthur Gollwitzer III
`agollwitzer@michaelbest.com
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`Terrace 7 Building
`2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 300
`Austin, Texas 78746
`Phone: 512.640.3161
`Fax:
`512.640.3170
`
`Larry Saret
`llsaret@michaelbest.com
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`River Point
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Phone: 312.661.2116
`Fax:
`312.222.0818
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant DYNACRAFT BSC, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenneth M. Albridge, III
`kmalbridge@michaelbest.com
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700
`P.O. Box 1806
`Madison, WI 53701-1806
`Phone: 608.257.3067
`Fax:
`608.283.2275
`
`Rachel N. Bach
`rnbach@michaelbest.com
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
`3300
`Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108
`Phone: 414.271.6560
`Fax:
`414.277.0656
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FISHER-PRICE, INC. and
`MATTEL, INC.,
`
`Case No. 17-CV-03745-LB
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DYNACRAFT BSC, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 2 of 16
`
` Defendant Dynacraft BSC, Inc. (“Dynacraft”) answers Plaintiffs Fisher-Price, Inc. and
`
`Mattel, Inc.’s Complaint as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Fisher-Price, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware having
`
`its principal place of business in East Aurora, New York, is one of the world’s leading designers
`
`and makers of children’s products, including battery-powered ride-on products. Fisher-Price’s
`
`battery-powered ride-ons are sold under the Power Wheels name, and Power Wheels is a
`
`recognized brand leader in the battery-powered ride-on market segment. Fisher-Price is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Mattel.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies that Fisher-Price is one of the world’s leading designers
`
`and makers of children’s products, including battery-powered ride-on products. Dynacraft denies
`
`that Power Wheels is a recognized brand leader in the battery-powered ride-on market segment.
`
`Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware having its
`
`16
`
`principal place of business in El Segundo, California, is one of the world’s leading designers and
`
`17
`
`makers of toys.
`
`18
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies that Mattel is one of the world’s leading designers and
`
`19
`
`makers of toys. Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`20
`
`truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`21
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Dynacraft is a corporation organized and
`
`22
`
`existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and having a principal place of
`
`23
`
`business at 89 South Kelly Road, American Canyon, CA 94503.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C.
`
`27
`
`§ 1, et seq.
`
`28
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that this is an action for patent infringement arising under
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 3 of 16
`
`the patent laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq. Dynacraft denies the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dynacraft because upon information and
`
`6.
`
`belief, it conducts business in this judicial district and has committed acts of patent infringement
`
`in the judicial district including, inter alia, making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`
`importing infringing ride-on products, including the 24V Disney Princess Carriage ride-on
`
`product (hereinafter “Accused Products”) in this judicial district. In addition, Dynacraft regularly
`
`places its products within the stream of commerce, with the knowledge and/or understanding that
`
`such products will be sold in this judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that this is Court has personal jurisdiction over it.
`
`Dynacraft admits that it conducts business in this judicial district including, inter alia, using,
`
`
`15
`
`selling, and offering for sale the 24V Disney Princess Carriage ride-on product. Dynacraft denies
`
`16
`
`the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`17
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c)
`
`18
`
`and § 1400(b).
`
`19
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that venue is proper in this judicial district under 28
`
`20
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(b). Dynacraft denies any remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the
`
`21
`
`Complaint.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`8.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,222,684 (“the ’684 patent”), entitled “System,
`
`Background
`
`24
`
`Apparatus, and Method for Providing Control of a Toy Vehicle,” was duly and legally issued on
`
`25
`
`May 29, 2007 naming David A. Norman, Robert H. Mimlitch, III, and Richard Torrance as
`
`26
`
`inventors, and is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’684 patent is attached as
`
`27
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`28
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that the ’684 patent is entitled “System, Apparatus, and
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 4 of 16
`
`Method for Providing Control of a Toy Vehicle.” Dynacraft admits that the ’684 patent names
`
`David A. Norman, Robert H. Mimlitch, III, and Richard Torrance as inventors. Dynacraft admits
`
`that a purported copy of the ’684 patent is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. Dynacraft
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any of the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel is the owner of the ’684 patent by way of assignment from
`
`9.
`
`Innovation First, Inc.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint
`
`10.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,487,850 (“the ’850 patent”), entitled “Children’s Ride-
`
`On Vehicles Having Improved Shifter Assemblies,” was duly and legally issued on February 10,
`
`2009 naming Christopher F. Lucas and John Rhein as inventors, and is in full force and effect. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’850 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that the ’850 patent is entitled “Children’s Ride-On
`
`
`15
`
`Vehicles Having Improved Shifter Assemblies.” Dynacraft admits that the ’850 patent names
`
`16
`
`Christopher F. Lucas and John Rhein as inventors. Dynacraft admits that a purported copy of the
`
`17
`
`’850 patent is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint. Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information
`
`18
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`19
`
`Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`20
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel is the owner of the ’850 patent by way of assignments from
`
`21
`
`Christopher F. Lucas and John Rhein.
`
`22
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`23
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`24
`
`12.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,621,543 (“the ’543 patent”), entitled “Blow-Molded
`
`25
`
`Wheels Having Undercut Treads, Methods for Producing the Same, and Children’s Ride-On
`
`26
`
`Vehicles Including the Same,” was duly and legally issued on November 24, 2009 naming Albert
`
`27
`
`L. Arendt, James R. Carducci, and Christopher F. Lucas as inventors, and is in full force and
`
`28
`
`effect. A true and correct copy of the ’543 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 5 of 16
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that the ’543 patent is entitled “Blow-Molded Wheels
`
`Having Undercut Treads, Methods for Producing the Same, and Children’s Ride-On Vehicles
`
`Including the Same.” Dynacraft admits that the ’543 patent names Albert L. Arendt, James R
`
`Carducci, and Christopher F. Lucas as inventors. Dynacraft admits that a purported copy of the
`
`’543 patent is attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint. Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel is the owner of the ’543 patent by way of assignments from Albert
`
`L. Arendt, Christopher F. Lucas, and James R. Carducci.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`United States Patent No. 7,950,978 (“the ’978 patent”), entitled “System,
`
`Apparatus and Method for Providing Control of a Toy Vehicle,” was duly and legally issued on
`
`May 31, 2011 naming David A. Norman, Robert H. Mimlitch, III, and Richard D. Torrance as
`
`
`15
`
`inventors, and is in full force and effect. A true and correct copy of the ’978 patent is attached as
`
`16
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`17
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that the ’978 patent is entitled “System, Apparatus and
`
`18
`
`Method for Providing Control of a Toy Vehicle.” Dynacraft admits that the ’978 patent names
`
`19
`
`David A. Norman, Robert H. Mimlitch, III, and Richard D. Torrance as inventors. Dynacraft
`
`20
`
`admits that a purported copy of the ’978 patent is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint.
`
`21
`
`Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any of the
`
`22
`
`remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`23
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel is the owner of the ’978 patent by way of assignment from
`
`24
`
`Innovation First, Inc.
`
`25
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`26
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`27
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Mattel has granted Plaintiff Fisher-Price an exclusive license to the ’684
`
`28
`
`patent, the ’850 patent, the ’543 patent, and the ’978 patent and Plaintiff Fisher-Price has the sole
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 6 of 16
`
`right to make, use, and sell the inventions claimed by the ’684 patent, the ’850 patent, the ’543
`
`patent, and the ’978 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`After incurring considerable research and development costs, Fisher-Price is in the
`
`process of releasing a new line of battery-powered ride-on products with electronic speed controls
`
`that, inter alia, practice the technology of the ’684 and ’978 patents. This technology will be
`
`included in, e.g., Fisher-Price’s Power Wheels ride-ons with Smart DriveTM and Smooth Start
`
`TechnologyTM. Electronic speed control technology allows a child’s ride-on to soft-start, or
`
`accelerate more smoothly, which reduces the abrupt nature in which many children’s battery-
`
`powered ride-ons start. As part of their development efforts, Fisher-Price and Mattel acquired the
`
`’684 and ’978 patents from Innovation First, a former component supplier to Fisher-Price for the
`
`manufacture of battery-powered ride-ons. In contrast to Fisher-Price’s approach, and just as
`
`Fisher-Price’s new line was reaching market, Dynacraft released the Accused Products with an
`
`
`15
`
`electronic speed control circuit without rights to any of Fisher-Price’s and Mattel’s patents.
`
`16
`
`Moreover, on information and belief, Dynacraft developed its speed control circuit by copying the
`
`17
`
`design of a prior Innovation First electronic speed control circuit board that was incorporated into
`
`18
`
`Fisher-Price Power Wheels products. Dynacraft also released the Accused Products without rights
`
`19
`
`to certain Fisher-Price and Mattel shifter and wheel patents, described below, that apply to them.
`
`20
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies that it developed the Accused Products by copying the
`
`21
`
`design of a prior Innovation First electronic speed control circuit board. Dynacraft denies that it
`
`22
`
`needed to obtain rights to Fisher-Price’s and Mattel’s patents, including the ’684 patent, the ’850
`
`23
`
`patent, the ’543 patent, and the ’978 patent, to release its Accused Products. Dynacraft lacks
`
`24
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`25
`
`set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`26
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Fisher-Price has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 with
`
`27
`
`respect to at least the ’850 patent, the ’978 patent and the ’684 patent.
`
`28
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 7 of 16
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`Count I
`Patent Infringement
`(Infringement of the ’684 Patent)
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs Fisher-Price and Mattel repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
`
`1 through 18 as if set forth herein.
`
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft restates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claims
`
`1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 15-16, 22-24, 27-28, 32-34, and 37-38 of the ’684 patent. For example,
`
`Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’684 patent in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using in the United States, without authority, at least the Accused Products
`
`so as to practice, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, each step of at least the
`
`method claims of the ’684 patent identified above.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`
`21.
`
`Dynacraft has also directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’684
`
`16
`
`patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, having made, using, selling and/or offering
`
`17
`
`to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, at least
`
`18
`
`the Accused Products which embody, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, each
`
`19
`
`element of at least the apparatus claims of the ’684 patent identified above.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`A claim chart detailing infringement of the ’684 patent is attached hereto as
`
`22
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that a purported claim chart is attached to the Complaint
`
`24
`
`as Exhibit E. Dynacraft denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the
`
`25
`
`Complaint.
`
`26
`
`23.
`
`Dynacraft continues to promote, advertise, and instruct customers and potential
`
`27
`
`customers about the Accused Products and how to use them, including infringing uses under 35
`
`28
`
`U.S.C. § 271. Dynacraft’s promotion, advertising, and instruction efforts include, at a minimum,
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 8 of 16
`
`publication of owner’s manuals for the Accused Product, one of which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit F. See http://www.dynacraftwheels.com/pub/media/Support_Documents/8802-
`
`64_20160420_small.pdf. Upon information and belief, Dynacraft engages in these acts with the
`
`actual intent to cause the acts which it knows or should know would constitute direct
`
`infringement by third parties, including end users of the Accused Products. Thus, Dynacraft is
`
`inducing infringement of at least claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 22-24, 27-28, and 37 in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(b).
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that it publishes owner’s manuals for the Accused
`
`Products, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F. Dynacraft denies the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`Dynacraft sells the Accused Products to third parties in the United States for use in
`
`practicing the patented methods, knowing that such products are material to practicing the
`
`claimed inventions, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, the Accused
`
`
`15
`
`Products constitute a material part of the invention claimed in the ’684 patent at least because
`
`16
`
`they contain all of the components to generate the claimed transition signal for soft-start
`
`17
`
`acceleration. The Accused Products are made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of
`
`18
`
`the ’684 patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they contain
`
`19
`
`components to generate the claimed transition signal for soft-start acceleration. The use of the
`
`20
`
`Accused Products during normal operation by Dynacraft’s direct and indirect customers directly
`
`21
`
`infringes the ’684 patent. Thus, Dynacraft is contributing to infringement of at least claims 1-3, 5-
`
`22
`
`6, 9, 22-24, 27-28, and 37 of the ’684 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits selling the Accused Products to third parties in the United
`
`24
`
`States. Dynacraft denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25
`
`25.
`
`Dynacraft’s infringement of the ’684 patent is willful pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`
`26
`
`at least as of the filing of this complaint. Despite Dynacraft’s knowledge of and notice of the ’684
`
`27
`
`patent and its infringement, Dynacraft continues to make, have made, use, sell and/or offer to sell
`
`28
`
`within the United States, and/or import into the United States, without authority, the Accused
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 9 of 16
`
`Products which infringe the ’684 patent, and continues to promote, advertise, and instruct
`
`customers and potential customers about infringing uses of the Accused Products. Dynacraft
`
`lacks a justifiable belief that it does not infringe the ’684 patent, or that the ’684 patent is invalid,
`
`and acts recklessly in its infringing activity.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement have caused Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain
`
`26.
`
`monetary damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement will continue to be willful and deliberate, and
`
`unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain irreparable
`
`damage, loss and injury, for which Fisher-Price and Mattel have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`Count II
`Patent Infringement
`(Infringement of the ’850 Patent)
`
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs Fisher-Price and Mattel repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
`
`16
`
`1 through 18 as if set forth herein.
`
`17
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft restates its answer to Paragraph 1 through 18 of the Complaint
`
`18
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19
`
`29.
`
`Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claims
`
`20
`
`1-2, 4, 6-7, and 10-14 of the ’850 patent. For example, Dynacraft has directly infringed and
`
`21
`
`continues to directly infringe the ’850 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, having
`
`22
`
`made, using, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the
`
`23
`
`United States, without authority, at least the Accused Products which embody, either literally or
`
`24
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, each element of at least the claims of the ’850 patent identified
`
`25
`
`above.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`A claim chart detailing infringement of the ’850 patent is attached hereto as
`
`28
`
`Exhibit G.
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 10 of 16
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that a purported claim chart is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Exhibit G. Dynacraft denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`31.
`
`Dynacraft’s infringement of the ’850 patent is willful pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`at least as of the filing of this complaint. Despite Dynacraft’s knowledge of and notice of the ’850
`
`patent and its infringement, Dynacraft continues to make, have made, use, sell and/or offer to sell
`
`within the United States, and/or import into the United States, without authority, at least the
`
`Accused Products which infringe the ’850 patent. Dynacraft lacks a justifiable belief that it does
`
`not infringe the ’850 patent, or that the ’850 patent is invalid, and acts recklessly in its infringing
`
`activity.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement have caused Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain
`
`monetary damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`
`33.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement will continue to be willful and deliberate, and
`
`16
`
`unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain irreparable
`
`17
`
`damage, loss and injury, for which Fisher-Price and Mattel have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`Count III
`Patent Infringement
`(Infringement of the ’543 Patent)
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiffs Fisher-Price and Mattel repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
`
`22
`
`1 through 18 as if set forth herein.
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft restates its answer to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint
`
`24
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`25
`
`35.
`
`Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claims 1,
`
`26
`
`5-8, and 10 of the ’543 patent. For example, Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to
`
`27
`
`directly infringe the ’543 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, having made,
`
`28
`
`using, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 11 of 16
`
`States, without authority, at least the Accused Products which embody, either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, each element of at least the claims of the ’543 patent identified above.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`A claim chart detailing infringement of the ’543 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit H.
`
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that a purported claim chart is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Exhibit H. Dynacraft denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`Dynacraft’s infringement of the ’543 patent is willful pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`at least as of the filing of this complaint. Despite Dynacraft’s knowledge of and notice of the ’543
`
`patent and its infringement, Dynacraft continues to make, have made, use, sell and/or offer to sell
`
`within the United States, and/or import into the United States, without authority, at least the
`
`Accused Products which infringe the ’543 patent. Dynacraft lacks a justifiable belief that it does
`
`not infringe the ’543 patent, or that the ’543 patent is invalid, and acts recklessly in its infringing
`
`
`15
`
`activity.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`38.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement have caused Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain
`
`18
`
`monetary damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement will continue to be willful and deliberate, and
`
`21
`
`unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain irreparable
`
`22
`
`damage, loss and injury, for which Fisher-Price and Mattel have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`Count IV
`Patent Infringement
`(Infringement of the ’978 Patent)
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiffs Fisher-Price and Mattel repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs
`
`27
`
`1 through 18 as if set forth herein.
`
`28
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft restates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 12 of 16
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`Dynacraft has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least claims
`
`1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 21, and 24 of the ’978 patent. For example, Dynacraft has directly infringed
`
`and continues to directly infringe the ’978 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making,
`
`having made, using, selling and/or offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into
`
`the United States, without authority, at least the Accused Products which embody, either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, each element of at least the claims of the ’978 patent
`
`identified above.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`A claim chart detailing infringement of the ’978 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit I.
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft admits that a purported claim chart is attached to the Complaint
`
`as Exhibit I. Dynacraft denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Dynacraft’s infringement of the ’978 patent is willful pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`16
`
`at least as of the filing of this complaint. Despite Dynacraft’s knowledge of and notice of the ’978
`
`17
`
`patent and its infringement, Dynacraft continues to make, have made, use, sell and/or offer to sell
`
`18
`
`within the United States, and/or import into the United States, without authority, at least the
`
`19
`
`Accused Products which infringe the ’978 patent. Dynacraft lacks a justifiable belief that it does
`
`20
`
`not infringe the ’978 patent, or that the ’978 patent is invalid, and acts recklessly in its infringing
`
`21
`
`activity.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement have caused Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain
`
`24
`
`monetary damage, loss and injury, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Dynacraft’s acts of infringement will continue to be willful and deliberate, and
`
`27
`
`unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause Fisher-Price and Mattel to sustain irreparable
`
`28
`
`damage, loss and injury, for which Fisher-Price and Mattel have no adequate remedy at law.
`
`DEFENDANT DYNACRAFT’S ANSWER
`TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`17-CV-03745-LB
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Case 4:17-cv-03745-PJH Document 18 Filed 07/10/17 Page 13 of 16
`
`ANSWER: Dynacraft denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`Affirmative Defenses
`
`Defendant Dynacraft asserts the following affirmative defenses, without assuming the
`
`burden of proof when such burden would otherwise be on the plaintiffs:
`
`First Affirmative Defense – Failure to State a Claim
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against Dynacraft upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense – Invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`Plaintiffs are barred from the relief they seek for infringement of the ’684 patent, the ’850
`
`patent, the ’543 patent, and the ’978 patent (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”) because the
`
`asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid for failing to meet one or more conditions for
`
`patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and 112. For example, the asserted claims of the ’684 patent and the ’978 patent are
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 by prior art references such as:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,634,941, among others; the asserted claims of the ’850 patent are anticipated or
`
`
`15
`
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 by prior art references such as: U.S. Patent No.
`
`16
`
`5,173,591; U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0069557; and U.S. Patent No. 5,571,999, among
`
`17
`
`others; and the asserted claims of the ’543 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious under 35
`
`18
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 by prior art references such as: U.S. Patent No. 5,924,506 and U.S. Patent
`
`19
`
`No. 6,464,557, among others. The asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are also invalid, for
`
`20
`
`indefiniteness and lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 or the doctrine of
`
`21
`
`obviousness-type double patenting. For example, the ’684 patent and ’978 patent fail to inform
`
`22
`
`with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention contrary to 35
`
`23
`
`U.S.C. § 112, due to vague claim phrases such as “significantly longer time period,” “binary
`
`24
`
`throttle signal,” and “cause a delay.” For at least the foregoing reasons, the asserted claims of the
`
`25
`
`patents-in-suit are invalid.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Third Affirma