Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 415
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-cv-04488-KAM-GRB
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-cv-04492-KAM-GRB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ACER INC.; and ACER AMERICA
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA CORPORATION, and TOSHIBA
`AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC’S ANSWER AND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”), hereby answers the
`
`First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) filed on November 10, 2014, by Andrea Electronics
`
`Corporation (“Andrea” or “Plaintiff”). TAIS denies all allegations not expressly admitted below
`
`and specifically denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 5,825,898 (“the ’898 Patent”), 6,049,607 (“the ’607 Patent”), 6,363,345 (“the ’345
`
`Patent”), and 6,483,923 (“the ’923 Patent”) (collectively “the patents-in-suit”) in this district or
`
`any other district. TAIS further denies that Andrea is entitled to the requested relief or any other
`
`relief.
`
`
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0001
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 416
`
`
`
`NATURE OF ACTION1
`
`1.
`
`TAIS admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, et seq., but TAIS specifically denies that it has committed any acts of patent
`
`infringement with respect to the patents-in-suit in this district or any other district. TAIS further
`
`acknowledges that the Complaint purports to seek remedies for alleged infringement of the
`
`patents-in-suit, but TAIS denies that Andrea is entitled to the requested relief or any other relief.
`
`TAIS denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`TAIS admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for direct infringement,
`
`but TAIS denies that it has committed any acts of direct patent infringement with respect to the
`
`patents-in-suit in this district or any other district. TAIS denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`3.
`
`TAIS admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for indirect infringement,
`
`but TAIS denies that it has committed any acts of indirect patent infringement with respect to the
`
`patents-in-suit in this district or any other district. TAIS denies the remaining allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`5.
`
`TAIS admits that Toshiba Corporation is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.
`
`
`1 TAIS repeats the headings set forth in the Complaint for ease of reference, but makes no
`admissions regarding the substance of the headings or any other allegations in the Complaint. To
`the contrary, to the extent that a particular heading can be construed as an allegation, or
`otherwise contains factual and/or legal characterizations, TAIS specifically denies all such
`allegations and/or characterizations.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0002
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 417
`
`
`
`6.
`
`TAIS admits that it is headquartered at 9740 Irvine Boulevard, Irvine, California
`
`92618. TAIS further admits that it is a subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc. TAIS denies that it
`
`is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`TAIS admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent infringement.
`
`TAIS further admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions for patent
`
`infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), but TAIS denies that it has committed
`
`any acts of patent infringement with respect to the patents-in-suit in this district or any other
`
`district.
`
`8.
`
`For purposes of this action only, TAIS admits that this Court has specific personal
`
`jurisdiction over it. TAIS also admits that it acknowledged specific personal jurisdiction for this
`
`action in its answer to the original Complaint, but TAIS denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`patent infringement with respect to the patents-in-suit in this district or any other district. The
`
`remainder of paragraph 8 contains legal conclusions which do not require a response from TAIS.
`
`To the extent a response is required, TAIS 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
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`9.
`
`For purposes of this action only, TAIS admits that venue is proper in this district,
`
`but TAIS reserves its right to seek transfer to another venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or otherwise.
`
`TAIS denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement with respect to the
`
`patents-in-suit in this district or any other district.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0003
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 418
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND AND FACTS RELATED TO THIS ACTION
`
`10.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`11.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`12.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`13.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`14.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`15.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`16.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0004
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 419
`
`
`
`17.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`18.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`19.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`20.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’898 Patent)
`
`21.
`
`TAIS hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-20 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`TAIS admits that what Plaintiff purports to be a true and correct copy of the ’898
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint and is entitled “System and Method for
`
`Adaptive Interference Cancelling.” TAIS further admits that the document attached as Exhibit A
`
`indicates on its face that it was issued on October 20, 1998. TAIS denies the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0005
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 420
`
`
`
`23.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`24.
`
`TAIS asserts that paragraph 24 of the Complaint contains conclusions which do
`
`not require a response. To the extent a response is required, TAIS admits that the specification
`
`of the ’898 patent appears to describe technology that may generally be characterized as falling
`
`within the field of signal processing, but TAIS otherwise denies that paragraph 24 of the
`
`Complaint accurately and/or fully describes the ’898 patent and any alleged inventions described
`
`or claimed therein.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’607 Patent)
`
`27.
`
`TAIS hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-26 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`TAIS admits that what Plaintiff purports to be a true and correct copy of the ’607
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint and is entitled “Interference Canceling Method
`
`and Apparatus.” TAIS further admits that the document attached as Exhibit B indicates on its
`
`face that it was issued on April 11, 2000. TAIS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 28
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0006
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 421
`
`
`
`30.
`
`TAIS asserts that paragraph 30 of the Complaint contains conclusions which do
`
`not require a response. To the extent a response is required, TAIS admits that the specification
`
`of the ’607 patent appears to describe technology that may generally be characterized as falling
`
`within the field of interference canceling, but TAIS otherwise denies that paragraph 30 of the
`
`Complaint accurately and/or fully describes the ’607 patent and any alleged inventions described
`
`or claimed therein.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint
`
`TAIS admits that it became aware of the ’607 patent sometime after the filing of
`
`the original Complaint in this Action. TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`34.
`
`TAIS admits that the document attached as Exhibit E is a copy of a webpage
`
`discussing certain features of a Toshiba-branded product, but TAIS denies that it has committed
`
`any acts of induced infringement with respect to the ’607 patent in this district or any other
`
`district. TAIS denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0007
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 422
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’345 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`TAIS hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-38 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`TAIS admits that what Plaintiff purports to be a true and correct copy of the ’345
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint and is entitled “System, Method and Apparatus
`
`for Cancelling Noise.” TAIS further admits that the document attached as Exhibit C indicates on
`
`its face that it was issued on March 26, 2002. TAIS denies the remaining allegations in
`
`paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`42.
`
`TAIS asserts that paragraph 42 of the Complaint contains conclusions which do
`
`not require a response. To the extent a response is required, TAIS admits that the specification
`
`of the ’345 patent appears to describe technology that may generally be characterized as falling
`
`within the field of noise cancellation and reduction, but TAIS otherwise denies that paragraph 42
`
`of the Complaint accurately and/or fully describes the ’345 patent and any alleged inventions
`
`described or claimed therein.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS admits that it became aware of the ’345 patent sometime after the filing of
`
`the original Complaint in this Action. TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0008
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 423
`
`
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`46.
`
`TAIS admits that the document attached as Exhibit E is a copy of a webpage
`
`discussing certain features of a Toshiba-branded product, but TAIS denies that it has committed
`
`any acts of induced infringement with respect to the ’345 patent in this district or any other
`
`district. TAIS denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Complaint
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’923 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`TAIS hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-50 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`TAIS admits that what Plaintiff purports to be a true and correct copy of the ’923
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint and is entitled “System and Method for
`
`Adaptive Interference Cancelling.” TAIS further admits that the document attached as Exhibit D
`
`indicates on its face that it was issued on November 19, 2002. TAIS denies the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
`
`53.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0009
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 424
`
`
`
`54.
`
`TAIS asserts that paragraph 54 of the Complaint contains conclusions which do
`
`not require a response. To the extent a response is required, TAIS admits that the specification
`
`of the ’923 patent appears to describe technology that may generally be characterized as falling
`
`within the field of signal processing, but TAIS otherwise denies that paragraph 54 of the
`
`Complaint accurately and/or fully describes the ’923 patent and any alleged inventions described
`
`or claimed therein.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS admits that it became aware of the ’923 patent sometime after the filing of
`
`the original Complaint in this Action. TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`58.
`
`TAIS admits that the document attached as Exhibit E is a copy of a webpage
`
`discussing certain features of a Toshiba-branded product, but TAIS denies that it has committed
`
`any acts of induced infringement with respect to the ’923 patent in this district or any other
`
`district. TAIS denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
`
`TAIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0010
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 425
`
`
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Alleged Notice of the Asserted Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 287)
`
`63.
`
`TAIS hereby incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-62 of the
`
`Complaint
`
`64.
`
`TAIS lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations
`
`65.
`
`TAIS admits that it became aware of the patents-in-suit sometime after the filing
`
`of the original Complaint in this Action. TAIS denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 65
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial contains no factual allegations requiring a response from
`
`TAIS. To the extent a response is required, TAIS also demands a jury trial on all issues so
`
`triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`TAIS denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief, whether enumerated as (a)-(e) in the
`
`Complaint or otherwise requested. TAIS has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of
`
`the patents-in-suit, and Plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy, relief, or recovery. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiff’s prayer for relief should be denied in its entirety with prejudice, and Plaintiff should
`
`take nothing.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Further answering Plaintiff’s Complaint, TAIS asserts the following defenses without
`
`assuming any burden that it would not otherwise have, including without admitting or
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0011
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 426
`
`
`
`acknowledging that it bears the burden of proof as to any of the defenses denominated herein.
`
`TAIS reserves the right to amend its answer with additional defenses as further information is
`
`obtained through discovery.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-infringement of the ’898 Patent)
`
`66.
`
`TAIS does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’898 Patent under
`
`any theory, including directly (whether individually or jointly), indirectly (whether contributorily
`
`or by inducement), literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-infringement of the ’607 Patent)
`
`67.
`
`TAIS does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’607 Patent under
`
`any theory, including directly (whether individually or jointly), indirectly (whether contributorily
`
`or by inducement), literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-infringement of the ’345 Patent)
`
`68.
`
`TAIS does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’345 Patent under
`
`any theory, including directly (whether individually or jointly), indirectly (whether contributorily
`
`or by inducement), literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-infringement of the ’923 Patent)
`
`69.
`
`TAIS does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’923 Patent under
`
`any theory, including directly (whether individually or jointly), indirectly (whether contributorily
`
`or by inducement), literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0012
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 427
`
`
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity of the ’898 Patent)
`
`70.
`
`One or more claims of the ’898 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one
`
`or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including without limitation §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity of the ’607 Patent)
`
`71.
`
`One or more claims of the ’607 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one
`
`or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including without limitation §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity of the ’345 Patent)
`
`72.
`
`One or more claims of the ’345 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one
`
`or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including without limitation §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity of the ’923 Patent)
`
`73.
`
`One or more claims of the ’923 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one
`
`or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including without limitation §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff is estopped from construing any valid claim of the patents-in-suit to be
`
`infringed or to have been infringed, either literally or by application of the doctrine of
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0013
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 428
`
`
`
`equivalents, by any product made, used, imported, sold, or offered for sale by TAIS in view of
`
`prior art and/or because of admissions, representations, and/or statements made to the Patent and
`
`Trademark Office during prosecution of any application leading to the issuance of the patents-in-
`
`suit or any related patents, because of disclosure or language in the specification of the patents-
`
`in-suit, and/or because of limitations in the claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Equitable Defenses)
`
`75.
`
`The relief sought by Plaintiff is barred, in whole or in part, under principles of
`
`equity including, without limitation, laches, equitable estoppel, waiver, unclean hands, and/or
`
`acquiescence.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`76.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 286, Plaintiff may not recover damages for any alleged
`
`infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to Mark)
`
`77.
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff, or any predecessors-in-interest to the patents-in-suit,
`
`failed to properly mark any of their relevant products, the monetary damages sought by Plaintiff
`
`are barred in whole or in part for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287 by Plaintiff, any prior
`
`owners of the patents-in-suit, and/or their licensees. Any claim for damages for patent
`
`infringement by Plaintiff is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 287 to those damages occurring only after the
`
`notice of infringement.
`
`
`
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(No Recovery of Costs)
`
`-14-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0014
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 429
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with this
`
`
`
`action.
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Barring of Claims for Injunctive Relief)
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief against TAIS at least because Plaintiff
`
`does not compete with TAIS, Plaintiff does not practice any claim of the patents-in-suit, Plaintiff
`
`has not suffered irreparable harm, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law (to the extent it is
`
`entitled to any remedy, which TAIS denies), and/or the public interest would not be served by an
`
`injunction.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`80.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`TAIS reserves the right to revise, supplement, or amend its Answer and Affirmative
`
`Defenses, including reserving all defenses permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the patent laws of the United States, and/or at law or in equity, that may now exist or may in the
`
`future be available based on discovery and/or further investigation in this case.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, TAIS respectfully prays for an Order and Judgment:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Denying all relief sought by Andrea;
`
`Dismissing all of Andrea’s claims against TAIS with prejudice and entering
`
`judgment in favor of TAIS on all counts;
`
`(c)
`
`Finding this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding TAIS its
`
`costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0015
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 430
`
`
`
`(d)
`
`Granting TAIS such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
`
`equitable.
`
`
`
`DATED: November 24, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Douglas F. Stewart
`Douglas F. Stewart
`Washington State Bar No. 34068
`Jared Schuettenhelm
`Washington State Bar No. 46181
`BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, WA 98104
`(206) 204-6200
`doug.stewart@bgllp.com
`jared.schuettenhelm@bgllp.com
`
`David J. Ball
`BRACEWELL & GIULIANI, LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`49th Floor
`New York, NY 10020-1100
`(212) 508-6133
`david.ball@bgllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Toshiba America
`Information Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0016
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-04492-JG-GRB Document 39 Filed 11/24/14 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 431
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served and filed on November 24, 2014 by electronic means, via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system, in accordance with the procedures promulgated by the Court.
`
`/s/ Douglas F. Stewart
`Douglas F. Stewart
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RTL345-2_1009-0017