Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2515 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S ANSWER TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S ANSWER TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2516 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo” or “Plaintiff”) files this Answer to Ford Motor
`
`Company’s (“Ford” or “Defendant”) Counterclaims (ECF No. 65)
`
`(“Counterclaims”) and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Admitted.
`
`Neo admits that Neo has accused Ford of infringing the patents-in-suit.
`
`Neo also admits that in its Answer Ford denies that any of its products or services
`
`infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the patents-in-suit.
`
`3.
`
`Admitted.
`
`PARTIES
`On information and belief, admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Neo admits that the Western District of Missouri has jurisdiction over
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Ford’s counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a), 2201, and/or 2202 and the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. Neo admits personal
`
`jurisdiction is proper in the Western District of Missouri because Neo elected the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2517 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`forum for suit and subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Court for purposes of
`
`these counterclaims against it.
`
`7.
`
`Neo lacks the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`about the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE ’366 PATENT
`Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`8.
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`9.
`
`Admitted.
`
`10. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’366 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`11. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`12. Denied.
`
`COUNT TWO: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE ’908 PATENT
`13. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`14. Admitted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2518 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`15. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’908 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`16. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`17. Denied.
`
`COUNT THREE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’941 PATENT
`18. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`19. Admitted.
`
`20. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’941 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`21. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`22. Denied.
`
`COUNT FOUR: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’450 PATENT
`23. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2519 Filed 09/14/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`24. Admitted.
`
`25. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’450 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`26. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`27. Denied.
`
`COUNT FIVE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE ’512 PATENT
`28. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`29. Admitted.
`
`30. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’512 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`31. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`32. Denied.
`
`COUNT SIX: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE ’302 PATENT
`33. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2520 Filed 09/14/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`34. Admitted.
`
`35. Neo denies that Ford has not infringed and does not infringe, either
`
`directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’302 patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Neo admits that Ford denies the same.
`
`36. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`37. Denied.
`
`COUNT SEVEN: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF
`THE ’366 PATENT
`38. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`39. Admitted.
`
`40. Neo denies that the ’366 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`41. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`42. Denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2521 Filed 09/14/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`COUNT EIGHT: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF
`THE ’908 PATENT
`43. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`44. Admitted.
`
`45. Neo denies that the ’908 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`46. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`47. Denied.
`
`COUNT NINE: DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE
`’941 PATENT
`48. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`49. Admitted.
`
`50. Neo denies that the ’941 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2522 Filed 09/14/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`51. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`52. Denied.
`
`COUNT TEN: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE
`’450 PATENT
`53. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`54. Admitted.
`
`55. Neo denies that the ’450 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`56. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`57. Denied.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2523 Filed 09/14/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`COUNT ELEVEN: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF
`THE ’512 PATENT
`58. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`59. Admitted.
`
`60. Neo denies that the ’512 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`61. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`62. Denied.
`
`COUNT TWELVE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF
`THE ’302 PATENT
`63. Neo restates and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`64. Admitted.
`
`65. Neo denies that the ’302 patent and each of its claims are invalid for
`
`failing to meet one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2524 Filed 09/14/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
`66. Neo admits an actual justiciable case or controversy exists between Neo
`
`and Ford.
`
`67. Denied.
`
`NEO’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Neo alleges and asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations
`
`
`
`above, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those affirmative defenses
`
`deemed affirmative defenses by law and for which the burden is imposed upon
`
`Neo, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Neo specifically
`
`reserves all rights to allege additional affirmative defenses that become known
`
`through the course of discovery. Neo incorporates herein by reference the
`
`admissions and denials contained in its Answer above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ford fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.
`
`Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’366 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`3.
`
`The claims of the ’366 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`4.
`
`Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’908 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2525 Filed 09/14/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The claims of the ’908 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`6.
`
`Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’941 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`7.
`
`The claims of the ’941 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`8.
`
`Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’450 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`9.
`
`The claims of the ’450 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`10. Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’512 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`11. The claims of the ’512 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`12. Ford does infringe and/or induce infringement of valid claims of the
`
`’302 Patent, as set forth in Neo’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 28).
`
`13. The claims of the ’302 Patent are not invalid under any provision of
`
`law.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2526 Filed 09/14/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`DENIAL OF ANY REMAINING ALLEGATIONS
`Except as specifically admitted herein, Neo denies any remaining allegations
`
`
`
`in the Counterclaims that are directed at Neo.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Neo denies all allegations contained in the section entitled “Prayer for Relief,”
`
`and further denies that any relief should be granted to Ford whatsoever, either as
`
`requested in its Counterclaims or otherwise. WHEREFORE, Neo prays that this
`
`Court:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dismiss each of Ford’s Counterclaims;
`
`Deny Ford any damages sought by way of its Counterclaims;
`
`c. Make an award of Neo’s taxable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in
`
`defending against the Counterclaims; and
`
`d.
`
`Order such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may
`
`deem appropriate.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Neo hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims and all issues so
`
`
`triable.
`
`
`DATED: September 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 80, PageID.2527 Filed 09/14/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on September 14, 2022, the foregoing
`
`document was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
`
`system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
`
`/s/ Jason D. Cassady
`Jason D. Cassady
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
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
