throbber
Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 505
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Civil No. 2:14-cv-04489-KAM-GRB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC., and
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION’S ANSWER TO
`DEFENDANTS LENOVO HOLDING COMPANY, INC. AND LENOVO
`(UNITED STATES) INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Andrea”) answers defendants Lenovo Holding
`
`Company, Inc. and Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s (collectively, “Lenovo”) counterclaims to
`
`Andrea’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement below. Any allegations not
`
`specifically admitted herein are denied.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 1 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Andrea is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Lenovo’s counterclaims and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Andrea is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 of Lenovo’s counterclaims and therefore denies them.
`
`4.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 506
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Admitted that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims under, without limitation, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202 and that
`
`venue for Lenovo’s counterclaims are proper in this District. All other allegations are denied.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Denied.
`
`Admitted that there is an actual case or controversy between the parties over the
`
`non-infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability of the Asserted Patents, but denied that the
`
`Asserted Patents are not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable.
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898)
`
`10.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 10 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 9 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea as
`
`to whether the ’898 patent is infringed by Lenovo, but denied that the ‘898 patent is not infringed
`
`by Lenovo.
`
`12.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 12 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`13.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 507
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,898)
`
`15.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 15 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 14 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea
`
`regarding the validity of the ’898 patent, but denied that the ’898 patent is invalid.
`
`17.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 17 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`18.
`
`Denied.
`
`19.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607)
`
`20.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 20 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 19 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea as
`
`to whether the ’607 patent is infringed by Lenovo, but denied that the ’607 patent is not infringed
`
`by Lenovo.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 508
`
`22.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 22 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607)
`
`25.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 25 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, incorporates by
`
`reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 24 of its answer to Lenovo’s counterclaims to
`
`Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea
`
`regarding the validity of the ’607 patent, but denied that the ’607 patent is invalid.
`
`27.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 27 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345)
`
`30.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 30 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 29 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 509
`
`31.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea as
`
`to whether the ’345 patent is infringed by Lenovo, but denied that the ’345 patent is not infringed
`
`by Lenovo.
`
`32.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 32 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT SIX
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345)
`
`35.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 35 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 34 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea
`
`regarding the validity of the ’345 patent, but denied that the ’345 patent is invalid.
`
`37.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 37 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`38.
`
`Denied.
`
`39.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923)
`
`40.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 40 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 510
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 39 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea as
`
`to whether the ’923 patent is infringed by Lenovo, but denied that the ’923 patent is not infringed
`
`by Lenovo.
`
`42.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 42 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,483,923)
`
`45.
`
`No allegations are set forth in Paragraph 45 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as
`
`such, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Andrea
`
`incorporates by reference its answers in paragraphs 1 through 44 of its answer to Lenovo’s
`
`counterclaims to Andrea’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Admitted that an actual case or controversy exists between Lenovo and Andrea
`
`regarding the validity of the ’923 patent, but denied that the ’923 patent is invalid.
`
`47.
`
`Andrea lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`allegation set forth in Paragraph 47 of Lenovo’s counterclaims, and as such denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`48.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 511
`
`LENOVO'S PRA YER FOR RELIEF
`
`Andrea denies that defendant Lenovo is entitled to any of the relief set forth in Lenovo's
`
`counterclaims to Andrea's First Amended Complaint.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Lenovo's demand for ajury trial contains no allegations requiring a response. To the
`
`extent a response is required, Andrea restates its demand for a jury trial on all triable issues.
`
`Date: December 15,2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Goutam Patnaik
`Tuhin Ganguly
`Kelly E. Rose
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`Hanlilton Square
`600 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-2004
`Tel: 202.220.1200
`Fax: 202.220.1665
`
`William D. Belanger
`Frank Liu
`Suparna Datta
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-2736
`Tel: 617.204.5100
`Fax: 617.204.5150
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and Counterclaim
`Defendant Andrea Electronics Corporation
`
`-7-
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04489-JG-GRB Document 45 Filed 12/15/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 512
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on December 15, 2014, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of
`
`the Court and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or the Eastern
`
`District’s Local Rules, and/or the Eastern District’s Rules on Electronic Service upon the
`
`following parties and participants:
`
`Eric J. Klein
`Kellie Johnson
`Todd Landis
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1700 Pacific Avenue
`Suite 4100
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Fred I. Williams
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1350
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Wesley D. Markham
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`One Bryant Park
`Bank Of America Tower
`New York, NY 10036
`
`
`Counsel for defendants Lenovo Holding Company, Inc.
`and Lenovo (Untied States) Inc.
`
`/s/ Goutam Patnaik
`_________________________________
`Goutam Patnaik
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`600 Fourteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-2004
`Tel: 202.220.1200
` Fax: 202.220.1665
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Andrea Electronics Corporation
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RTL345-1_1006-0008

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