throbber
Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:103
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-10608
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS CO., a Foreign
`Corporation, and LG ELECTRONICS USA
`INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`TO PLAINTIFF ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP.’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEUSA” or “Defendant”) respectfully submits
`
`
`
`
`
`its Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims to the Complaint filed on November 24, 2015
`
`(“Complaint”) by Plaintiff Rosetta-Wireless Corp. (“Rosetta” or “Plaintiff”) alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7, 149, 511 (“the ’511 Patent”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Rosetta is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Illinois. Rosetta
`
`was founded in 2000 to develop and market novel solutions to consumers’ wireless access
`
`problems. Rosetta has a principal place of business at 15522 Hawkhaven Road, Homer Glen, IL
`
`60441.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`
`
`1
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0001
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:104
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics Co. is a foreign
`
`corporation having a place of business at LG Twin Towers 20, Yeouido dong, Yeongdeungpo-
`
`gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea 150-721 with its United States headquarters at 10101 Old Grove
`
`Road, San Diego CA 92131. LG Electronics Co. does substantial business in this judicial district
`
`including the marketing, sale, offering for sale, and importation of cellular telephone devices that
`
`are accused of patent infringement in this case.
`
`Answer: Denied.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics USA Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 1000
`
`Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. LG Electronics USA Inc. is registered to do
`
`business in Illinois and can be served with process through its registered agent, United States
`
`Corporation Co., at 801 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield, IL 62703.
`
`Answer: Admitted.
`
`4.
`
`LG Electronics Co. and LG Electronics USA Inc. are referred to collectively as
`
`“LG.”
`
`Answer: Paragraph 4 of the Complaint does not require a response.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et
`
`seq. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b) in
`
`that each Defendant has done business in this District, has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District, and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District, entitling Plaintiff to relief.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA admits that this action is styled as one for the alleged violation of the
`
`patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
`2
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0002
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:105
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). LGEUSA also admits that venue is proper in this federal district
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b). LGEUSA also admits that it has done
`
`business in this District. LGEUSA denies the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`6.
`
`On December 12, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,149,511 (the “‘511 Patent”)
`
`was issued for inventions titled “Wireless Intelligent Personal Server.” On January 10, 2012, an
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued regarding Claims 1 and 58 of the ’511 Patent.
`
`Rosetta owns, and during all relevant times, has owned, all right, title and interest in the ’511
`
`Patent, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA admits that United States Patent No. 7,149,511 (the “’511 Patent”)
`
`was issued on December 12, 2006 and that the ’511 Patent states on its face that it is titled
`
`“Wireless Intelligent Personal Server.” LGEUSA also admits that an Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Certificate was issued regarding Claims 1 and 58 of the ’511 Patent on January 10, 2012, and
`
`LGEUSA admits that Rosetta attached a purported copy of the ’511 Patent as Exhibit A to the
`
`Complaint. LGEUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`those allegations.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed directly and continue to
`
`infringe directly the ’511 Patent. The infringing acts include, but are not limited to, the
`
`manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale within the United States, or the importation into the
`
`United States of products that embody the patented invention, including the products listed for
`
`each Defendant in the attached Exhibit B. Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’511
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
`3
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0003
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:106
`
`Answer: Denied.
`
`8.
`
`The acts of infringement by Defendants have caused damage to Rosetta, and
`
`Rosetta is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Rosetta as a result of
`
`Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. The infringement of Rosetta’s
`
`exclusive rights under the ’511 Patent by Defendants has damaged and will continue to damage
`
`Rosetta, causing irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`Answer: Denied.
`
`9.
`
`To the extent required, Rosetta has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Rosetta
`
`has never sold a product in the United States and is therefore not required itself to mark products,
`
`nor has it licensed the ’511 Patent.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants had knowledge of the ’511 Patent no
`
`later than January 27, 2015, yet Defendants have continued to infringe said patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’511 Patent by Defendants is willful, deliberate and unreasonable, and with
`
`full knowledge of the patent, entitling Rosetta to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and
`
`to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA admits that it had knowledge of the ’511 Patent on January 27, 2015.
`
`LGEUSA denies the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.
`
`Answer: Paragraph 11 of the Complaint does not require a response.
`4
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0004
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:107
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`12. Wherefore, Rosetta requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendants
`
`as follows:
`
`a) A declaration that Defendants, and each of them, have infringed and are infringing the
`
`’511 Patent;
`
`b) An injunction against Defendants’ continuing infringement;
`
`c) An award of damages to Rosetta arising out of Defendants’ infringement of the ’511
`
`Patent, including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with
`
`prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;
`
`d) An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted by
`
`law; and
`
`e) Costs and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Answer: LGEUSA denies that Rosetta is entitled to any relief whatsoever from
`
`LGEUSA or the Court, either as requested in its Prayer for Relief or otherwise, including the
`
`relief requested in Paragraphs (a) through (e).
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`In further answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, LGEUSA alleges the following defenses.
`
`LGEUSA asserts these defenses without admitting that it bears the burden of proof on any of
`
`them.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement of the ’511 Patent)
`
`LGEUSA does not infringe and has not infringed, willfully or otherwise, any valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the ’511 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0005
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:108
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity of the ’511 Patent)
`
`The claims of the ’511 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of
`
`patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including
`
`without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 and/or 116.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`Rosetta’s Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Waiver, Estoppel, Latches and Unclean Hands)
`
`Rosetta’s claims are barred in whole or in part by one or more of the equitable doctrines
`
`of waiver, estoppel, laches and/or unclean hands.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Limitations on Damages)
`
`To the extent Rosetta seeks damages for alleged infringement more than six years prior to
`
`the filing date of this action, the relief sought by Rosetta is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286. To the
`
`extent Rosetta seeks damages for alleged infringement prior to its giving actual or constructive
`
`notice of the ’511 Patent to LGEUSA, the relief sought by Rosetta is barred, in whole or in part,
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 287. Rosetta is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with
`
`this action. Further, Rosetta’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of Rosetta’s failure
`
`to mitigate damages, if any exist.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`Rosetta is estopped from construing the claims of the ’511 Patent in such a way as may
`
`cover any of LGEUSA’s products or processes by reason of statements, representations,
`
`disclaimers and/or amendments made to and/or before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`
`
`6
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0006
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:109
`
`Office during the prosecution and/or reexamination of the applications that led to the issuance or
`
`reissue of the ’511 Patent or any of its claims.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(No Injunctive Relief)
`
`Rosetta is not entitled to any injunctive relief (whether preliminary or permanent)
`
`because any alleged injury to Rosetta is not immediate or irreparable and because Rosetta has an
`
`adequate remedy at law for any alleged injury, if such remedy is required.
`
`ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`LGEUSA reserves the right to amend this Answer and to assert additional defenses,
`
`cross-claims and third party claims in this action when and if they become appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0007
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:110
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff LGEUSA counterclaims against Counterclaim-Defendant Rosetta
`
`as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEUSA”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business
`
`at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant Rosetta-Wireless Corp. (“Rosetta”) has expressly
`
`alleged that it is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business at 15522 Hawkhaven
`
`Road, Homer Glen, IL 60441.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202.
`
`5.
`
`Rosetta is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District arising out of its
`
`purposeful acts and/or transactions directed toward this District, including but not limited to
`
`Rosetta specifically availing itself of the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`While LGEUSA does not concede that the Northern District of Illinois is
`
`convenient for the parties and witnesses under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), venue on this counterclaim
`
`is proper in this District pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) because Rosetta alleges that its
`
`main offices are located in this District.
`
`7.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between LGEUSA and Rosetta.
`
`Rosetta has asserted LGEUSA infringes one or more claims of the ’511 Patent. LGEUSA denies
`
`
`
`8
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0008
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:111
`
`that LGEUSA infringes any claim of the ’511 Patent, and LGEUSA further contends that any
`
`relevant claim in the ’511 Patent is invalid.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511)
`
`8.
`
`LGEUSA repeats and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its
`
`allegations in Paragraphs 1-7 of its Counterclaims.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`LGEUSA does not infringe any valid claim of the ’511 Patent.
`
`LGEUSA is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any valid
`
`claim of the ’511 Patent.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,511)
`
`11.
`
`LGEUSA incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its allegations in
`
`Paragraphs 1-10 of its Counterclaims.
`
`12.
`
`The claims of the ’511 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of
`
`patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including
`
`without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 and/or 116.
`
`13.
`
`LGEUSA is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’511 Patent
`
`are invalid.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, LGEUSA demands a jury
`
`trial for all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, LGEUSA respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Judgment denying each request for relief made by Rosetta against LGEUSA with
`
`prejudice;
`
`
`
`9
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0009
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:112
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Judgment granting each of LGEUSA’s Affirmative Defenses;
`
`Judgment granting each of LGEUSA’s Declaratory Judgment Counterclaims;
`
`Declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and requiring
`
`Rosetta to pay LGEUSA’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in this action; and
`
`E.
`
`Award to LGEUSA of such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Lisa M. Mazzone
`James R. Figliulo (Bar No. 6183947)
`Lisa M. Mazzone (Bar No. 6303922)
`Figliulo & Silverman, P.C.
`10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone (312) 251-4600
`Facsimile (312) 251-4610
`jfigliulo@fslegal.com
`lmazzone@fslegal.com
`
`Steven Lieberman
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Jenny L. Colgate
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst, & Manbeck, P.C.
`(pro hac vice applications pending)
`607 14TH Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone (202) 783-6040
`Facsimile (202) 783-6031
`slieberman@rfem.com
`jcolgate@rfem.com
`btollefson@rfem.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0010
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10608 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/23/15 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:113
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached:
`
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.’S ANSWER, DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`TO PLAINTIFF ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP.’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`was caused to be filed with the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois
`via the Court’s ECF filing system on December 23, 2015. Counsel named below will be served
`a copy of same via this Court’s ECF notification system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lisa M. Mazzone
`
`• Jenny L Colgate
`jcolgate@rfem.com, mrawls@rfem.com, biddinn@rfem.com
`• James R. Figliulo
`jfigliulo@fslegal.com
`• Kyle L. Harvey
`harvey@stadheimgrear.com, rodriguez@stadheimgrear.com, ichou@stadheimgrear.com,
`kelleher@stadheimgrear.com
`• Joo mee Kim
`jkim@rfem.com
`• Steven Lieberman
`slieberman@rothwellfigg.com, nhage@rfem.com
`• Lisa Michelle Mazzone
`lmazzone@fslegal.com
`• Michael K Ng
`michael.ng@kobrekim.com, travis.anderson-hamilton@kobrekim.com,
`robert.lee@kobrekim.com, matthew.lightfoot@kobrekim.com
`• Brian A. Tollefson
`btollefson@rfem.com, biddinn@rfem.com
`• Daniel A. Zaheer
`daniel.zaheer@kobrekim.com
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2013
`
`0011

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