Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1440
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 16-290-JFB-SRF
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) hereby answers Plaintiff
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“IP Bridge”) First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”), on personal knowledge as to its own activities and on information and belief as to
`
`the activities of others, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`2.
`
`OmniVision admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware, and has a principal place of business at 4275 Burton Drive, Santa Clara,
`
`California 95054. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`OmniVision admits that the complaint purports to allege an action for patent
`
`infringement under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States.
`
`While parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court, OmniVision admits
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 1441
`
`this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action for patent infringement pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision does not contest personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware.
`
`OmniVision admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware. OmniVision admits that it has a registered agent for service of process in the State of
`
`Delaware. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`OmniVision does not contest personal jurisdiction in the District of Delaware.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`For the purpose of this action only, OmniVision admits that venue is proper in
`
`the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b). Except as expressly
`
`admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit A to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,583,324 (“the ’324 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’324
`
`patent is entitled “Multi-layered wiring layer and method of fabricating the same,” has an issue
`
`date of March 25, 2003. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and on
`
`that basis denies them.
`
`8.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit B to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,794,677 (“the ’677 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’677
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 1442
`
`patent is entitled “Semiconductor integrated circuit device and method for fabricating the same,”
`
`has an issue date of September 21, 2004. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the
`
`Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`9.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit C to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,709,950 (“the ’950 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’950
`
`patent is entitled “Semiconductor device and method of manufacturing the same,” has an issue
`
`date of March 23, 2004. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and on
`
`that basis denies them.
`
`10.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit D to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,084,796 (“the ’796 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’796
`
`patent is entitled “Solid state imaging apparatus, method for driving the same and camera using
`
`the same,” has an issue date of December 27, 2011. OmniVision lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`11.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit E to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,106,431 (“the ’431 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’431
`
`patent is entitled “Solid state imaging apparatus, method for driving the same and camera using
`
`the same,” has an issue date of January 31, 2012. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11
`
`of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 1443
`
`12.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit F to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,378,401 (“the ’401 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the ’401
`
`patent is entitled “Solid state imaging apparatus, method for driving the same and camera using
`
`the same,” has an issue date of February 19, 2013. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 12
`
`of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`13.
`
`OmniVision admits that Exhibit G to the Complaint purports to be a copy of U.S.
`
`Reissue Patent No. 41,867 (“the ’867 patent”). OmniVision further admits that, on its face, the
`
`’867 patent is entitled “MOS image pick-up device and camera incorporating same,” has an issue
`
`date of October 26, 2010. OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and on
`
`that basis denies them.
`
`14.
`
`OmniVision admits that the ’324, ’677, ’950, ’796, ’431, ’401, and ’867 patents
`
`are collectively referred to as the “IP Bridge patents” in the Complaint.
`
`NOTICE AND PRE-SUIT NEGOTIATIONS
`
`15.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations regarding IP Bridge policy contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint,
`
`and on that basis denies them. OmniVision admits that counsel for OmniVision and counsel for
`
`IP Bridge engaged in pre-lawsuit discussions. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 1444
`
`17.
`
`OmniVision admits that counsel for OmniVision and counsel for IP Bridge
`
`engaged in pre-lawsuit discussions. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`OmniVision admits that on March 28, 2016, counsel for IP Bridge sent
`
`OmniVision’s counsel purported claim charts identifying the OmniVision OV8858 image sensor
`
`and documents purporting to be copies the ’324, ’677, ’950, ’796, ’431, ’401, and ’867 patents.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`OmniVision admits that counsel for IP Bridge sent OmniVision’s counsel
`
`additional purported claim charts, certain of which identify the OmniVision OV23850 image
`
`sensor, the OmniVision OV4689 image sensor, the OmniVision OV8850 image sensor, the
`
`OmniVision OV5650 image sensor, and the OmniVision OV10640 image sensor. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that on April 7, 2016, counsel for OmniVision sent a letter to
`
`IP Bridge’s counsel informing IP Bridge that OmniVision was no longer available to meet on
`
`April 20, 2016. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`OmniVision admits that on April 12, 2016, counsel for IP Bridge sent an email
`
`informing OmniVision’s counsel that IP Bridge considered OmniVision in breach of the
`
`Forbearance Agreement. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. OmniVision explicitly denies that it breached or
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 1445
`
`rescinded the Forbearance Agreement. In the Forbearance Agreement executed by the parties, IP
`
`Bridge agreed “it will not file any lawsuit, claim or other action of any kind or nature in any
`
`forum . . . against OmniVision . . . during the Forbearance Period.” The Forbearance Agreement
`
`had an effective date of March 18, 2016, and defined the Forbearance Period as “a period
`
`extending forty-five (45) days from the effective date of this Agreement.” IP Bridge breached the
`
`Forbearance Agreement, notably by filing this lawsuit against OmniVision on April 22, 2016,
`
`during the Forbearance Period which did not expire until May 2, 2016.
`
`COUNT I
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,538,324
`
`23.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-22 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’324
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`26 of the Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit H to the Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 1446
`
`COUNT II
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,794,677
`
`31.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-30 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’677
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`34 of the Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit I to the Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT III
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,709,950
`
`39.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-38 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`41.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 1447
`
`42.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’950
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`42 of the Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit J to the Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT IV
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,084,796
`
`47.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-46 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`
`48.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’796
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`50 of the Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit K to the Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 1448
`
`COUNT V
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,106,431
`
`55.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-54 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’431
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`58 of the Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit L to the Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT VI
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,378,401
`
`63.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-62 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
`
`64.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`65.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 1449
`
`66.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’401
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`66 of the Complaint.
`
`67.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit M to the Complaint.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT VII
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. REISSUE PATENT NO. 41,867
`
`71.
`
`OmniVision incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-70 of its Answer as if fully
`
`set forth herein in response to the allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision admits that it has not executed a license with IP Bridge to the ’867
`
`patent. Except as expressly admitted, OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph
`
`74 of the Complaint.
`
`75.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of the Complaint,
`
`including those in Exhibit N to the Complaint.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 78 of the Complaint.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 1450
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies the allegations contained in paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
`
`OmniVision denies that IP Bridge is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 81 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies them.
`
`82.
`
`Paragraph 82 of the Complaint does not does not contain any allegation against
`
`OmniVision to which a response is required.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Paragraphs A-G set forth the statement of relief requested by IP Bridge to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, OmniVision denies any and all
`
`allegations contained in the remainder of the Complaint and denies that IP Bridge is entitled to
`
`any of the relief requested in paragraphs A-G of its prayer for relief or to any other relief in any
`
`form whatsoever. OmniVision further denies each and every allegation contained in the
`
`Complaint to which it has not specifically responded.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`IP Bridge’s demand for a jury trial does not state any allegation against OmniVision to
`
`which a response is required. To the extent that any allegations are included in the demand,
`
`OmniVision denies such allegations.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`Subject to the foregoing responses, OmniVision alleges and asserts the following
`
`defenses in response to the allegations, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses
`
`deemed affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. In
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 1451
`
`addition to the defenses described below, OmniVision specifically reserves all rights to allege
`
`additional defenses that become known through the course of discovery.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`83.
`
`IP Bridge’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`83. OmniVision has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced
`
`others to infringe, or infringed in any way any valid claim of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ’796, ’431,
`
`’401, and/or ’867 patents, directly or indirectly, literally or by equivalents, at least because the
`
`accused OmniVision products do not perform one or more limitations of each of the claims of the
`
`’324, ’677, ’950,’796, ’431, ’401, and ’867 patents. In addition, OmniVision has not infringed,
`
`contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to infringe, or infringed in anyway any valid
`
`claim of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ’796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents, directly or indirectly, literally
`
`or by equivalents, to the extent that OmniVision does not make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import
`
`any of the accused image sensors within or into the United States and does not perform, induce a
`
`third party to perform, or contribute to a third party’s performance of any limitations of the ’324,
`
`’677, ’950, ’796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents within the United States. In addition, to the
`
`extent that IP Bridge alleges that OmniVision indirectly infringes the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431,
`
`’401, and/or ’867 patents, OmniVision has at all relevant times believed in good faith that the use
`
`of the accused OmniVision products does not infringe any valid claim of the ’324, ’677, ’950,
`
`‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents, and that the asserted claims of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796,
`
`’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents are invalid thus negating at least the “specific intent” element of
`
`such claims. To the extent that IP Bridge alleges that OmniVision contributes to the infringement
`
`of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents, these claims are further barred in
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 1452
`
`whole or in part under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) in view of the substantial non-infringing uses of
`
`OmniVision’s alleged infringing products. OmniVision has engaged in all relevant activities in
`
`good faith, thereby precluding IP Bridge, even if it were to prevail, from recovering enhanced
`
`damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or recovering its attorneys’ fees and/or
`
`costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In addition, to the extent that IP Bridge does not allege that
`
`OmniVision performs every limitation of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867
`
`patents, OmniVision has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced others to
`
`infringe, or infringed in any way any valid claim of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or
`
`’867 patents, directly or indirectly, literally or by equivalents, at least because OmniVision does
`
`not exercise direction or control over a third party that performs any limitations of the ’324, ’677,
`
`’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`84. The claims of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents are invalid
`
`for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`and/or 112. Upon information and belief, the ’324 patent is invalid in view of, for example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,346,745 entitled “CU-A1 combined interconnect system,” which was filed on
`
`December 4, 1998 and issued on February 12, 2002. Upon information and belief, the ’950
`
`patent is invalid in view of, for example, U.S. Patent No. 5,330,928 entitled “Method for
`
`fabricating stacked capacitors with increased capacitance in a dram cell,” which was filed on
`
`September 28, 1992 and issued on July 19, 1994. Upon information and belief, the ’401, ’796,
`
`and ’431 patents are invalid in view of, for example, U.S. Patent No. 6,992,714 entitled “Image
`
`pickup apparatus having plural pixels arranged two-dimensionally, and selective addition of
`
`different pixel color signals to control spatial color arrangement,” which was filed on May 31,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 1453
`
`2000 and issued on January 31, 2006. Upon information and belief, the ’677 patent is invalid in
`
`view of, for example, U.S. Patent No. 5,899,706 entitled “Method of reducing loading variation
`
`during etch processing,” which was filed on June 30, 1997 and issued on May 4, 1999. Upon
`
`information and belief, the ’867 patent is invalid in view of, for example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,277,679 entitled “Method of manufacturing thin film transistor,” which was filed on November
`
`24, 1999 and issued on August 21, 2001.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`85.
`
`By reason of proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and
`
`by reasons of amendments, disclaimers, disavowals, admissions, representations, arguments,
`
`and/or statements made by the applicants or on their behalf, IP Bridge is estopped from construing
`
`the claims of the ’324, ’677, ’950, ‘796, ’431, ’401, and/or ’867 patents to cover and/or include
`
`any acts or products of OmniVision and is otherwise estopped from claiming that any claim in
`
`any asserted patent is of sufficient scope to cover and/or include any accused acts or products
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`86.
`
`OmniVision is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that IP Bridge may not
`
`claim pre-lawsuit damages, in whole or in part, for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`87.
`
`IP Bridge’s claims for relief and prayer for damages are barred by the equitable
`
`doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`88.
`
`IP Bridge has failed to state facts and/or a legal basis sufficient to permit the
`
`Court to grant equitable or injunctive relief against OmniVision.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 46 Filed 12/06/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 1454
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`
`89.
`
`IP Bridge’s claims against OmniVision are barred under the doctrine of unclean
`
`hands.
`
`RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`90.
`
`OmniVision reserves all defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist or
`
`in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bindu A. Palapura
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant OmniVision
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Erik J. Carlson
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (323) 210-2901
`
`Jose C. Villarreal
`Henry Pan
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 S. Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, 5th Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`Tel: (512) 338-5400
`
`Dated: December 6, 2017
`5579584 / 43303
`
`15
`
`