throbber
Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 422
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., and
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§ Civil No. 2:14-cv-04489-KAM-SIL
`§
`
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., AND LENOVO (UNITED
`STATES) INC.’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Defendants Lenovo Holding Company, Inc., and Lenovo (United States), Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Lenovo”) answer Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation’s First Amended
`
`Complaint (D.I. 35) as follows. Any allegations or averments not specifically admitted herein
`
`are denied.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Lenovo admits that paragraph 1 alleges that this is an action for infringement of one or
`
`more claims in U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898 (the “’898 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (the
`
`“’607 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (the “’345 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923
`
`(the “’923 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Lenovo denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 1.
`
`2.
`
`Lenovo admits that paragraph 2 alleges that this is an action for direct infringement.
`
`Lenovo denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 2.
`
`
`
`1
`
`RTL923_1005-0001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 423
`
`3.
`
`Lenovo admits that paragraph 3 alleges that this is also an action for indirect infringement
`
`of one or more methods claimed in the ’607, ’345, and ’923 Patents. Lenovo denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 3.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 4 and therefore denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Lenovo admits that Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. (“Lenovo Holding”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with offices in Morrisville, North Carolina. Lenovo admits that Lenovo Holding is a
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd. Lenovo denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Lenovo admits that Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo U.S.”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with offices in Morrisville, North Carolina. Lenovo admits that Lenovo U.S. is a
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Holding. Lenovo denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Lenovo admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent claims.
`
`Lenovo does not contest that, for purposes of this case only, the Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Lenovo Holding and Lenovo U.S. Lenovo denies the remaining allegations in
`
`paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Lenovo does not contest that venue is proper in this District as to Lenovo Holding and
`
`Lenovo U.S. in this case. Lenovo denies that this District is a convenient forum for this case.
`
`Lenovo denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`RTL923_1005-0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 424
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS RELATED TO THIS ACTION
`
`10.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 10 and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 11 and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 12 and therefore denies them.
`
`13.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 13 and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 15 and therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 16 and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 17 and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 18 and therefore denies them.
`
`19.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 19 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`3
`
`RTL923_1005-0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 425
`
`20.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Infringement of the ’898 Patent)
`
`21.
`
`Lenovo incorporates its answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1-20 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`22.
`
`Lenovo admits that, on its face, the ’898 patent appears to be titled “System and Method
`
`for Adaptive Interference Cancelling,” and was issued on October 20, 1998. Lenovo is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 22 and therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 23 and therefore denies them.
`
`24.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 24 and therefore denies them.
`
`25.
`
`Denied.
`
`26.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Infringement of the ’607 Patent)
`
`27.
`
`Lenovo incorporates its answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1-26 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`4
`
`RTL923_1005-0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 426
`
`28.
`
`Lenovo admits that, on its face, the ’607 patent appears to be titled “Interference
`
`Canceling Method and Apparatus,” and was issued on April 11, 2000. Lenovo is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 28 and therefore denies them.
`
`29.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 29 and therefore denies them.
`
`30.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 30 and therefore denies them.
`
`31.
`
`Denied.
`
`32.
`
`Denied.
`
`33.
`
`Lenovo admits that the original complaint in this action was filed on July 25, 2014.
`
`Lenovo denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`36.
`
`Denied.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`38.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Infringement of the ’345 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`Lenovo incorporates its answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`5
`
`RTL923_1005-0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 427
`
`40.
`
`Lenovo admits that, on its face, the ’345 patent appears to be titled “System, Method and
`
`Apparatus for Cancelling Noise,” and was issued on March 26, 2002. Lenovo is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 40 and therefore denies them.
`
`41.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 41 and therefore denies them.
`
`42.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 42 and therefore denies them.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`45.
`
`Lenovo admits that the original complaint in this action was filed on July 25, 2014.
`
`Lenovo denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 45.
`
`46.
`
`Denied.
`
`47.
`
`Denied.
`
`48.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`50.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Infringement of the ’923 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`Lenovo incorporates its answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1-50 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`6
`
`RTL923_1005-0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 428
`
`52.
`
`Lenovo admits that, on its face, the ’923 patent appears to be titled “System and Method
`
`for Adaptive Interference Cancelling,” and was issued on November 19, 2002. Lenovo is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 52 and therefore denies them.
`
`53.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 53 and therefore denies them.
`
`54.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 54 and therefore denies them.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`56.
`
`Denied.
`
`57.
`
`Lenovo admits that the original complaint in this action was filed on July 25, 2014.
`
`Lenovo denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 57.
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`59.
`
`Denied.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`61.
`
`Denied.
`
`62.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Notice of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 287)
`
`63.
`
`Lenovo incorporates its answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1-62 as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`7
`
`RTL923_1005-0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 429
`
`64.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 64 and therefore denies them.
`
`65.
`
`Lenovo admits that the original complaint in this action was filed on July 25, 2014.
`
`Lenovo is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 65 and therefore denies them.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`This paragraph sets forth Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial to which no response is required.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`This paragraph, in subparts a. through e., sets forth a statement of the relief requested by Plaintiff
`
`to which no response is required. Lenovo denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested
`
`relief and denies all allegations.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`Subject to the responses above, Lenovo 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
`
`addition to the defenses described below, subject to the responses above, Lenovo specifically
`
`reserves all rights to allege additional defenses that become known through the course of
`
`discovery.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`
`
`8
`
`RTL923_1005-0008
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 430
`
`2.
`
`Lenovo does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, indirectly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, willfully, or otherwise) any valid, enforceable claim of the ’898 patent either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`3.
`
`Lenovo does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, indirectly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, willfully, or otherwise) any valid, enforceable claim of the ’607 patent either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`4.
`
`Lenovo does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, indirectly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, willfully, or otherwise) any valid, enforceable claim of the ’345 patent either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`5.
`
`Lenovo does not infringe and has not infringed (not directly, indirectly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, willfully, or otherwise) any valid, enforceable claim of the ’923 patent either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`6.
`
`The claims of the ’898 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including sections 102, 103, and 112.
`
`7.
`
`The claims of the ’607 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including sections 102, 103, and 112.
`
`8.
`
`The claims of the ’345 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including sections 102, 103, and 112.
`
`9.
`
`The claims of the ’923 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including sections 102, 103, and 112.
`
`
`
`9
`
`RTL923_1005-0009
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 431
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Waiver, Laches, Limitations, Estoppel)
`
`10.
`
`The claims of the ’898 patent are unenforceable as asserted, in whole or in part, by the
`
`doctrines of waiver, laches, limitations, and/or estoppel.
`
`11.
`
`The claims of the ’607 patent are unenforceable as asserted, in whole or in part, by the
`
`doctrines of waiver, laches, limitations, and/or estoppel.
`
`12.
`
`The claims of the ’345 patent are unenforceable as asserted, in whole or in part, by the
`
`doctrines of waiver, laches, limitations, and/or estoppel.
`
`13.
`
`The claims of the ’923 patent are unenforceable as asserted, in whole or in part, by the
`
`doctrines of waiver, laches, limitations, and/or estoppel.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief)
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements applicable to its request for injunctive relief and
`
`has an adequate remedy at law.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff’s requested relief is barred or otherwise limited pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Costs)
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff’s requested relief is barred or otherwise limited pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 288.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`
`
`10
`
`RTL923_1005-0010
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 432
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(Exhaustion)
`
`Plaintiff’s requested relief is barred or otherwise limited based on exhaustion, the “first
`
`
`18.
`
`sale” doctrine, and/or restrictions on double recovery.
`
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(Reservation of Rights)
`
`19.
`
`Lenovo has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to
`
`whether it may have as yet unstated separate and additional defenses available. Lenovo reserves
`
`the right to amend this Answer to add, delete, or modify defenses based upon legal theories
`
`which may or will be divulged through clarification of Plaintiff’s claims, through discovery, or
`
`through further legal analysis of Plaintiff’s claims and positions in this litigation.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`Lenovo, for its Counterclaims against Plaintiff and upon information and belief, states as
`
`follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Lenovo Holding is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 1009 Think Place, Morrisville,
`
`North Carolina 27560.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Lenovo U.S. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
`
`of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, North
`
`Carolina 27560.
`
`
`
`11
`
`RTL923_1005-0011
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 433
`
`4.
`
`According to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation is a
`
`New York corporation with its principal place of business at 65 Orville Drive, Suite One,
`
`Bohemia, New York 11716. Plaintiff’s Answer of November 10, 2014 (D.I. 34) admitted the
`
`same.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Subject to Lenovo’s defenses and denials, Lenovo alleges that this Court has jurisdiction
`
`over the subject matter of these Counterclaims under, without limitation, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this District. Plaintiff’s
`
`Answer of November 10, 2014 (D.I. 34) admitted that jurisdiction and venue for Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims are proper.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Answer of November 10,
`
`2014 (D.I. 34) admitted the same.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`In its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Lenovo has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898
`
`(the “’898 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (the “’607 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345
`
`(the “’345 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923 (the “’923 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”)
`
`8.
`
`The Asserted Patents are invalid and/or have not been, and are not being, infringed by
`
`Lenovo, directly or indirectly.
`
`9.
`
`Consequently, there is an actual case or controversy between the parties over the non-
`
`infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability of the Asserted Patents. Plaintiff’s Answer of
`
`November 10, 2014 (D.I. 34) admitted that an actual case or controversy exists.
`
`
`
`12
`
`RTL923_1005-0012
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 434
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898)
`
`10.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 9 of
`
`the Counterclaims.
`
`11. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’898
`
`patent is not infringed by Lenovo.
`
`12. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`regarding the ’898 patent.
`
`13.
`
`Lenovo has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, by inducement or
`
`by contribution, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’898 patent, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`14.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898)
`
`15.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 14
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`16. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’898
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`17. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`as to whether the ’898 patent is invalid.
`
`
`
`13
`
`RTL923_1005-0013
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 435
`
`18.
`
`The ’898 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or
`
`otherwise comply with one or more requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including sections
`
`102, 103, and 112.
`
`19.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607)
`
`20.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 19
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`21. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’607
`
`patent is not infringed by Lenovo.
`
`22. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`regarding the ’607 patent.
`
`23.
`
`Lenovo has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, by inducement or
`
`by contribution, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’607 patent, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`24.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607)
`
`
`
`14
`
`RTL923_1005-0014
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 436
`
`25.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 24
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`26. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’607
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`27. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`as to whether the ’607 patent is invalid.
`
`28.
`
`The ’607 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or
`
`otherwise comply with one or more requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including sections
`
`102, 103, and 112.
`
`29.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345)
`
`30.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 29
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`31. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’345
`
`patent is not infringed by Lenovo.
`
`32. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`regarding the ’345 patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`RTL923_1005-0015
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 437
`
`33.
`
`Lenovo has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, by inducement or
`
`by contribution, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’345 patent, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`34.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT SIX
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345)
`
`35.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 34
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`36. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’345
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`37. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`as to whether the ’345 patent is invalid.
`
`38.
`
`The ’345 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or
`
`otherwise comply with one or more requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including sections
`
`102, 103, and 112.
`
`39.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923)
`
`
`
`16
`
`RTL923_1005-0016
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 438
`
`40.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 39
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`41. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’923
`
`patent is not infringed by Lenovo.
`
`42. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`regarding the ’923 patent.
`
`43.
`
`Lenovo has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, by inducement or
`
`by contribution, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’923 patent, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`44.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923)
`
`45.
`
`Lenovo restates and incorporates by reference its allegations in paragraphs 1 through 44
`
`of the Counterclaims.
`
`46. An actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Plaintiff as to whether the ’923
`
`patent is invalid.
`
`47. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Lenovo may ascertain its rights
`
`as to whether the ’923 patent is invalid.
`
`
`
`17
`
`RTL923_1005-0017
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 439
`
`48.
`
`The ’923 patent is invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or
`
`otherwise comply with one or more requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including sections
`
`102, 103, and 112.
`
`49.
`
`This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including without limitation because
`
`Plaintiff filed its Complaint and First Amended Complaint with knowledge of the facts stated in
`
`this Counterclaim.
`
`LENOVO’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Lenovo respectfully prays for the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against Lenovo with
`
`prejudice;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`A judgment in favor of Lenovo, including on all of its Counterclaims;
`
`A judgment and declaration that Lenovo has not infringed, contributed to the
`
`infringement of, or induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of any of the Asserted Patents;
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and declaration that the claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid and
`
`unenforceable;
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`An award to Lenovo for the amount of damages as proven at trial;
`
`A declaration that this case is exceptional and an award to Lenovo of its
`
`reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees;
`
`g.
`
`A judgment limiting or barring Plaintiff’s ability to enforce the Asserted Patents
`
`in equity; and
`
`
`
`18
`
`RTL923_1005-0018
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 440
`
`h.
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lenovo respectfully
`
`demands a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action.
`
`Dated: November 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`fwilliams@akingump.com
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1900
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 499-6200
`Facsimile: (512) 499-6290
`Todd E. Landis
`Texas State Bar No. 24030226
`
`Eric J. Klein
`Texas State Bar No. 24041258
`eklein@akingump.com
`Kellie M. Johnson
`Texas State Bar No. 24070003
`kmjohnson@akingump.com
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 969-2800
`Facsimile: (214) 969-4343
`Wesley D. Markham
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`One Bryant Park
`Bank Of America Tower
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 872-1000
`Fax: (212) 872-1002
`Email: wmarkham@akingump.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Lenovo Holding
`Company, Inc. and Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`RTL923_1005-0019
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 441
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served this 24th day of November, 2014, with a copy of
`the foregoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`/s/ Eric J. Klein
`Eric J. Klein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`RTL923_1005-0020

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket