Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1575
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 19-1365-MN
`
`
`
`TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ABB INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ABB INC.’S ANSWER TO FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant ABB Inc., by and through its attorneys, hereby answers Plaintiff SIPCO, LLC’s
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“FAC”). Defendant generally denies all of the
`
`allegations of the FAC except those specifically admitted below.
`
`1.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant admits that it is incorporated in Delaware and that Corporation Trust
`
`Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 is Defendant’s registered agent for service
`
`of process. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the FAC are denied.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegation that it has made the statements in Paragraph 3 of the FAC, and therefore
`
`denies making such statements.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant denies that the FAC states a cognizable claim arising under U.S. patent
`
`law, and therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the FAC.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1576
`
`5.
`
`It is unclear who is meant by “all Defendant” in Paragraph 5 of the FAC. As such,
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations of Paragraph 5 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant denies that the FAC states a cognizable claim arising under U.S. patent
`
`law, and therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the FAC.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant admits that Plaintiff previously sued Defendant in SIPCO, LLC v. ABB
`
`Inc., et. al. Case No. 6:11-cv-00048 (E.D. Tex.). Defendant admits that Plaintiff licensed its patent
`
`portfolio to Defendant on November 25, 2014. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 of the
`
`FAC are denied.
`
`14.
`
`It is unclear what is meant by “the products here at issue” and “the products accused
`
`of infringement in this action” in Paragraph 14 of the FAC. As such, Defendant is without
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1577
`
`information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph
`
`14 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies that any amendment to the licensing agreements, any royalty
`
`payment, or any justification for Defendant’s course of conduct was needed. The remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 16 of the FAC are denied.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the FAC.
`
`It is unclear what is meant at least by “the ABB Wireless HART Systems and the
`
`components thereof,” “Gateways associated with two or more of the above components,” and
`
`“Other supporting components associated with systems that include two or more of the
`
`components identified [ ] above” in Paragraph 19 of the FAC. As such, Defendant is without
`
`information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph
`
`19 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`20.
`
`For at least the same reasons as Paragraph 19 of the FAC, it is unclear what is meant
`
`by “the Accused Instrumentalities” in Paragraph 20 of the FAC. As such, Defendant is without
`
`information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph
`
`20 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`COUNT I
`
`21.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 21 of the FAC.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1578
`
`22.
`
`Defendant admits that Exhibit A to the FAC appears to be a copy of United States
`
`Patent No. 6,914,893 (“the ’893 Patent”). The remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 of the FAC
`
`are denied.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant admits it was aware of the existence of the ’893 Patent on November 25,
`
`2014, when Plaintiff licensed the ’893 Patent to Defendant. The remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 29 of the FAC are denied.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the FAC.
`
`COUNT II
`
`31.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 31 of the FAC.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1579
`
`32.
`
`Defendant admits that Exhibit C to the FAC appears to be a copy of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,964,708 (“the ’708 Patent”). The remaining allegations of Paragraph 32 of the FAC
`
`are denied.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant admits that, on November 25, 2014, Plaintiff licensed U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/758,590, which later matured into the ’708 Patent, to Defendant. The
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 37 of the FAC are denied.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the FAC.
`
`COUNT III
`
`40.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 40 of the FAC.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant admits that Exhibit E to the FAC appears to be a copy of United States
`
`Patent No. 9,430,936 (“the ’936 Patent”). Defendant is without information or knowledge
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff owns the ’936 Patent, and
`
`therefore denies the same. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 41 of the FAC are denied.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1580
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the FAC.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`45.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 45 of the FAC.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the FAC.
`
`COUNT V
`
`51.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 51 of the FAC.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1581
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant admits it was aware of the existence of United States Patent No.
`
`7,103,511 (“the ’511 Patent”) on November 25, 2014, when Plaintiff licensed the ’511 Patent to
`
`Defendant. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 57 of the FAC are denied.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the FAC.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`59.
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to Paragraphs 1-20 of the FAC in
`
`answer to Paragraph 59 of the FAC.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant admits that Exhibit K to the FAC appears to be a copy of United States
`
`Patent No. 7,978,059 (“the ’059 Patent”). The remaining allegations of Paragraph 60 of the FAC
`
`are denied.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the FAC, and therefore they are denied.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant admits that some of the claims of the ’511 Patent and the ’059 Patent
`
`include the language “wide area network.” The remaining allegations of Paragraph 62 of the FAC
`
`are denied.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant admits it was aware of the existence of the ’059 Patent on November 25,
`
`2014, when Plaintiff licensed the ’059 Patent to Defendant. The remaining allegations, if any, of
`
`Paragraph 64 of the FAC are denied.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 65 of the FAC.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the FAC.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1582
`
`67.
`
`Defendant admits it was aware of the existence of the ’059 Patent on November 25,
`
`2014, when Plaintiff licensed the ’059 Patent to Defendant. The remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 67 of the FAC are denied.
`
`68.
`
`Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the FAC.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Reserving its rights to assert additional defenses, and without conceding that any of the
`
`following necessarily must be pled as an affirmative defense, or that any of the following is not
`
`already at issue by virtue of the foregoing denials, and undertaking the burden of proof only as to
`
`those defenses deemed affirmative defenses by law regardless of how they are denominated herein,
`
`Defendant hereby asserts the following defenses to Plaintiff’s claims:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant.
`
`Defendant has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’893 Patent, the
`
`’708 Patent, the ’936 Patent, United States Patent No. 9,439,126 (“the ’126 Patent”), the ’511
`
`Patent, or the ’059 Patent (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).
`
`C.
`
`Defendant has not infringed, or Plaintiff is barred from asserting infringement,
`
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents, including, but not limited to, because of the applicant’s and/or
`
`patentee’s statements to the public and/or the USPTO, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel,
`
`the dedication-disclosure rule, and/or the notice function of the claims.
`
`D.
`
`Defendant has never induced infringement of or contributed to another’s
`
`infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, and Plaintiff fails to state
`
`the elements of one or more such claims.
`
`E.
`
`One or more claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy one or
`
`more of the requirements of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including, but not limited to, the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1583
`
`conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or described as part
`
`of the doctrine of obviousness-style double patenting.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`One or more of Plaintiff’s claims is limited and/or barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286.
`
`One or more of Plaintiff’s claims is limited and/or barred for failure to comply with
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`H.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary or permanent injunctive relief because it is
`
`unable to satisfy one or more elements of such a claim.
`
`I.
`
`One or more of Plaintiff’s claims is limited and/or barred by the passage of time
`
`and/or the conduct of one or more of the alleged past or present owners of the Asserted Patents,
`
`including, but not limited to, on grounds of estoppel, laches, unclean hands, the statute of
`
`limitations, waiver, and/or 35 U.S.C. § 288.
`
`J.
`
`One or more of the Asserted Patents are unenforceable and/or not enforceable
`
`against Defendant, including on grounds of patent misuse.
`
`Plaintiff has licensed the Asserted Patents to Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff has released Defendant from liability relating to the Asserted Patents.
`
`Defendant reserves the right to add or amend its defenses following discovery in
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`this case.
`
`DEFENDANT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Dismiss with prejudice the FAC in its entirety;
`
`Enter judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims brought by Plaintiff, dismissing
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief in their entirety, with prejudice, and with costs awarded to Defendant;
`
`C.
`
`Deny any and all relief sought by Plaintiff;
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01365-MN Document 20 Filed 08/12/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1584
`
`D.
`
`Declare that Defendant never directly infringed, induced infringement of, or
`
`contributed to infringement of the Asserted Patents, whether literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Declare that the Asserted Patents are invalid;
`
`Declare that the Asserted Patents are unenforceable;
`
`Award Defendant costs as a prevailing party;
`
`Declare this case exceptional and award to Defendant its attorneys’ fees and all
`
`recoverable costs and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`I.
`
`Provide Defendant any further relief that this Court deems to be just.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Defendant hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`Dated: August 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Chad S.C. Stover
`Chad S.C. Stover (No. 4919)
`1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 300-3474
`Facsimile: (302) 300-3456
`Chad.Stover@btlaw.com
`
`Paul B. Hunt (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joshua P. Larsen (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kevin T. McCusker (admitted pro hac vice)
`11 South Meridian Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204
`Telephone: (317) 231-1313
`Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
`Paul.Hunt@btlaw.com
`Joshua.Larsen@btlaw.com
`Kevin.McCusker@btlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant ABB Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`