Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:229
`
`Victor de Gyarfas, State Bar No. 171950
`vdegyarfas@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3500
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411
`Telephone: 213-972-4500
`Facsimile: 213-486-0065
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LOGIC TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No: 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`FONTEM VENTURES B.V., a
`Netherlands company; and FONTEM
`HOLDINGS 1 B.V., a Netherlands
`company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LOGIC TECHNOLOGY
`DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Florida limited
`liability company, and DOES 1-5,
`Inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 1 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:230
`
`Defendant Logic Technology Development LLC (“Logic Technology”) hereby
`answers Plaintiffs Fontem Ventures B.V., and Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. (“Fontem” or
`“Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) as follows:
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Logic Technology admits that Plaintiffs’ present action purports to be a civil
`1.
`
`action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35
`U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., and in particular § 271, but Logic Technology denies that
`Plaintiffs have any viable claim thereunder. Logic Technology denies any wrongdoing or
`liability on its own behalf.
`
`2.
`Logic Technology admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
`this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), but denies the legal sufficiency of
`Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations. Except as so expressly admitted herein, Logic
`Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`3.
`Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`4.
`Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`PARTIES
`Logic Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`5.
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`6.
`Logic Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`7.
`Logic Technology admits that it is a limited liability company organized and
`existing under the laws of the State of Florida and has its principal place of business at
`2004 N.W. 25th Ave., Pompano Beach, Florida, 33069, USA. Except as so expressly
`admitted herein, Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of the
`Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Logic Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`1
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 2 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:231
`
`as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Logic Technology incorporates its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs
`9.
`
`1-8 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`10. Logic Technology admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,742 (the
`“’742 patent”) indicates that it issued on February 5, 2013. Logic Technology denies that
`the ’742 patent was duly and legally issued. Logic Technology denies that the ‘742
`patent is valid and subsisting in full force and effect. Logic Technology admits that a
`purported copy of the ’742 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Logic
`Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`11. Logic Technology admits that Plaintiff filed a Joint Status Report on
`February 13, 2014. Logic Technology denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 11
`of the Complaint.
`
`12. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`14. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`17. Logic Technology incorporates its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs
`
`1-8 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`18. Logic Technology admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 8,375,957 (the
`“’957 patent”) indicates that it issued on February 19, 2013. Logic Technology denies
`that the ’957 patent was duly and legally issued. Logic Technology denies that the ‘957
`patent is valid and subsisting in full force and effect. Logic Technology admits that a
`2
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 3 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:232
`
`purported copy of the ’957 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Logic
`Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`19. Logic Technology admits that Plaintiff filed a Joint Status Report on
`February 13, 2014. Logic Technology denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 19
`of the Complaint.
`
`20. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`21. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`25. Logic Technology incorporates its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs
`
`1-8 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`26. Logic Technology admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 8,393,331 (the
`“’331 patent”) indicates that it issued on March 12, 2013. Logic Technology denies that
`the ’331 patent was duly and legally issued. Logic Technology denies that the ‘331
`patent is valid and subsisting in full force and effect. Logic Technology admits that a
`purported copy of the ’331 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. Logic
`Technology lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore
`denies them.
`
`27. Logic Technology admits that Plaintiff filed a Joint Status Report on
`February 13, 2014. Logic Technology denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 27
`of the Complaint.
`
`28. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`3
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 4 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:233
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`31. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`32. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`33. Logic Technology incorporates its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs
`
`1-8 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`34. Logic Technology admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628 (the
`“’628 patent”) indicates that it issued on July 23, 2013. Logic Technology denies that the
`’628 patent was duly and legally issued. Logic Technology denies that the ‘628 patent is
`valid and subsisting in full force and effect. Logic Technology admits that a purported
`copy of the ’628 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Logic Technology
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`35. Logic Technology admits that Plaintiff filed a Joint Status Report on
`February 13, 2014. Logic Technology denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 35
`of the Complaint.
`
`36. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`37. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`38. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`41. Logic Technology incorporates its responses to the allegations of Paragraphs
`
`1-8 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`42. Logic Technology admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 8,689,805 (the
`“’805 patent”) indicates that it issued on April 8, 2014. Logic Technology denies that the
`’805 patent was duly and legally issued. Logic Technology denies that the ‘805 patent is
`valid and subsisting in full force and effect. Logic Technology admits that a purported
`4
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 5 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:234
`
`copy of the ’805 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E. Logic Technology
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`43. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`44. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`
`47. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`
`48. Logic Technology denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Logic Technology denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in
`
`Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief, and to the extent that the Prayer for Relief contains any
`factual allegations, Logic Technology denies those allegations.
`GENERAL DENIAL
`To the extent not expressly admitted above, Logic Technology denies the factual
`
`allegations contained in the Complaint.
`LOGIC TECHNOLOGY’S DEFENSES
`Without altering any burden of proof, Logic Technology asserts the following
`
`defenses:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(NON-INFRINGEMENT)
`Logic Technology has not infringed, and is not infringing, either literally or
`1.
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim any of the patents-in-suit.
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(PATENT INVALIDITY AND UNENFORCEABILITY)
`Upon information and belief, the patents-in-suit are invalid and
`2.
`
`unenforceable for failing to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in the U.S.
`patent laws, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`5
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 6 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:235
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(ESTOPPEL)
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrine of
`3.
`
`estoppel, including, but not limited to, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Upon
`information and belief, by reason of proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`during the prosecution of the application that resulted in the patents-in-suit, as is shown
`by their file histories, and by reason of amendment, cancellation, or abandonment of
`claims, and the admissions and other statements made therein by or on behalf of the
`patentee(s), Plaintiff is estopped from claiming a construction of the patents-in-suit that
`would cause any valid claim to cover or include any method or system made, used,
`offered for sale, sold, or imported by Logic Technology.
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
`Upon information and belief, the Complaint fails to state facts upon which a
`4.
`
`claim for relief can be granted against Logic Technology.
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(NO ENHANCED DAMAGES)
`Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts to show objective recklessness, and Logic
`5.
`
`Technology has not acted with any recklessness and, therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled
`to any enhanced damages.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(DAMAGES LIMITATIONS)
`Upon information and belief, to the extent Plaintiffs may be entitled to
`6.
`
`damages, any claim for damages for patent infringement by Plaintiffs are limited by 35
`U.S.C. §§ 286 and by 287 to those damages occurring only after notice of infringement.
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES)
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part due to Plaintiffs’ failure to
`6
`
`
`
`7.
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 7 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:236
`
`mitigate damages, if any.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(UNCLEAN HANDS)
`Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(DISCLAIMER)
`The claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
`
`8.
`
`hands.
`
`9.
`
`disclaimer.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(ENSNAREMENT)
`10. Plaintiffs’ enforcement of the patents-n-suit against Logic Technology is
`
`barred by the doctrine of ensnarement. Plaintiff is foreclosed from asserting infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents to the extent the scope of such equivalent would render
`the claim invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions of patentability as set
`forth in 35 U.S.C §§ 102 and/or 103.
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(NO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)
`11. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for alleged infringement,
`
`the relief sought by Plaintiff is unavailable because any alleged injury to Plaintiff is not
`immediate or irreparable and because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any
`alleged injury.
`
`TWELFTH DEFENSE
`(NO ATTORNEYS’ FEES OR COSTS)
`12. On information and belief, Logic Technology has not engaged in any
`
`conduct that entitles Plaintiffs to attorneys’ fees or costs.
`THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
`(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT)
`7
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 8 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:237
`
`13. Plaintiffs fail to plead their claims of willful infringement with sufficient
`
`specificity or factual support to put Logic Technology on notice as to the claim being
`made and therefore fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
`FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
`(RESERVATION OF DEFENSES)
`14. Logic Technology reserves all affirmative defenses available under the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may be
`available now or in the future based on discovery or any other factual investigation in this
`case, including but not limited to unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Wherefore, in view of the foregoing Answer, Logic Technology prays that the
`
`Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as follows:
`
`A.
`That Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiffs
`take nothing by its Complaint.
`
`B.
`That the Court find that Logic Technology has not and does not infringe the
`patents-in-suit directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`C.
`That the Court find that the claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid.
`
`D.
`That Plaintiffs be required to pay Logic Technology’s attorneys’ fees and
`expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`E.
`That Plaintiffs be required to pay Logic Technology’s costs.
`
`F.
`That Logic Technology be awarded such other and further relief as the Court
`deems just and reasonable.
`
`Dated: May 2, 2014
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Victor de Gyarfas
`VICTOR DE GYARFAS
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`Attorneys for Defendant LOGIC
`TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`8
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 9 of 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-01654-GW-MRW Document 24 Filed 05/02/14 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:238
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Defendant Logic Technology Development LLC
`
`demands a trial by jury of all issues raised by the pleadings that are triable by jury.
`
`Dated: May 2, 2014
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Victor de Gyarfas
`VICTOR DE GYARFAS
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`Attorneys for Defendant LOGIC
`TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4828-5095-0938.1
`
`9
`
`ANSWER TO FAC
`Case No. 2:14-cv-01654-GW (MRWx)
`
`IPR2015-01587
`Fontem Ex. 2004, Page 10 of 10