Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 107
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No.1:13-cv-1800 GMS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FUJITSU LIMITED AND
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF
`DEFENDANTS FUJITSU LIMITED AND FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.
`
`Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by and through its counsel, hereby responds to
`
`the counterclaims of Defendants Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Fujitsu” or “Defendants”).
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Memory Integrity restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-16 of its Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant Fujitsu Limited is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Japan, with a principal place of business at Shiodome City Center, 1-5-2 Higashi-
`
`Shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-7123, Japan.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No.1:13-cv-1800 GMS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FUJITSU LIMITED AND
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF
`DEFENDANTS FUJITSU LIMITED AND FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.
`
`Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by and through its counsel, hereby responds to
`
`the counterclaims of Defendants Fujitsu Limited and Fujitsu America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Fujitsu” or “Defendants”).
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Memory Integrity restates and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-16 of its Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant Fujitsu Limited is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Japan, with a principal place of business at Shiodome City Center, 1-5-2 Higashi-
`
`Shimbashi Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-7123, Japan.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 108
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaimant Fujitsu America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of California, with a principal place of business is located at 1250
`
`East Arques Avenue, M/S 124, Sunnyvale, California 94085.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Counterclaim-defendant Memory Integrity has alleged it is a limited liability
`
`company organized under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business at 1220 N. Market
`
`Street, Suite 806, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity admits that it is a limited liability company organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware. Memory Integrity has a place of business at 1013
`
`Centre Road, Suite 403S Wilmington, DE 19805. Memory Integrity denies the remainder of the
`
`allegations of paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367 and 2201-02, and this matter arises under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`5.
`
`Counterclaim-defendant has consented to personal jurisdiction for this action in
`
`this District by filing the Complaint in this action.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity admits that it has consented to personal jurisdiction in
`
`this Court for the present action.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court only to the extent it is proper for Memory Integrity’s
`
`claims against Fujitsu. Fujitsu, however, believes that, for the convenience of the parties and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 109
`
`witnesses, and in the interest of justice, transfer of this case (including Memory Integrity’s
`
`claims and Fujitsu’s counterclaims) to another district is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1404(a).
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity admits that venue is proper. Memory Integrity denies
`
`all other allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`CLAIM ONE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’121 patent)
`
`7.
`
`Fujitsu repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations in paragraphs 1
`
`through 6 of the Counterclaims, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to
`
`the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`8.
`
`There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Fujitsu and Memory
`
`Integrity over the validity of the ’121 patent, as evidenced by counterclaim-defendant’s filing of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity admits that there exists an actual and justiciable
`
`controversy between Fujitsu and Memory Integrity over the validity of the ’121 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`All claims of the ’121 patent are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions
`
`of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or
`
`112.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`10.
`
`Fujitsu is entitled to a judicial declaration and order that all claims of the ’121
`
`patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 110
`
`CLAIM TWO
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ’121 patent)
`
`11.
`
`Fujitsu repeats and incorporates by reference all allegations in paragraphs 1
`
`through 10 of the Counterclaims, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to
`
`the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`12.
`
`There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Fujitsu and Memory
`
`Integrity as to whether Fujitsu infringes or has infringed the ’121 patent, as evidenced by
`
`counterclaim-defendant’s filing of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER: Memory Integrity admits that there exists an actual and justiciable
`
`controversy between Fujitsu and Memory Integrity as to whether Fujitsu infringes or has
`
`infringed the ’121 Patent.
`
`13.
`
`Fujitsu is not infringing and has not infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`claim of the ’121 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`14.
`
`Fujitsu is entitled to a judicial declaration and order that it does not infringe and
`
`has not infringed any valid claim of the ’121 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`By way of further answer, as Affirmative Defenses to Fujitsu’s Counterclaims, and
`
`without assuming any burden that it would not otherwise have, Memory Integrity states as
`
`follows:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Fujitsu’s Counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 111
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Memory Integrity expressly reserves the right to assert any other legal or equitable
`
`defenses to which it is entitled.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Memory Integrity prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A. Dismiss Fujitsu’s Counterclaims in their entirety without prejudice;
`
`B. Deny all of Fujitsu’s Counterclaims against Memory Integrity;
`
`C. Award Memory Integrity its costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending
`
`against these Counterclaims; and
`
`D. Award Memory Integrity any and all further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FARNEY DANIELS PC
`
`/s/ Tim Devlin
`Timothy Devlin #4241
`tdevlin@farneydaniels.com
`1220 Market Street, Suite 850
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 300-4626
`
`Jonathan Baker (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`FARNEY DANIELS, PC
`411 Borel Avenue, Ste. 350
`San Mateo, CA 94402
`Telephone: (424) 268-5210
`
`Bryan Atkinson (Admitted pro hac vice)
`batkinson@farneydaniels.com
`Jennifer Towle (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jtowle@farneydaniels.com
`FARNEY DANIELS, PC
`800 South Austin Ave., Suite 200
`Georgetown, Texas 78626
`Telephone: (512) 582-2828
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`Stamatios Stamoulis #4606
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`Richard C. Weinblatt #5080
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Telephone: (302) 999-1540
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Memory Integrity, LLC
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Dated: March 26, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01800-GMS Document 14 Filed 03/26/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 113
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 26, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document
`
`with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Tim Devlin
`Timothy Devlin #4241
`
`
`
`
`7
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
