Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1264058
`
`Filing date:
`
`02/03/2023
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`91281934
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Chia Network Inc.
`
`ELVIRA BELLE BOROVIK
`611 GATEWAY BLVD STE 120
`SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: chaip@chia.net
`Secondary email(s): b.borovik@chia.net
`415-265-8825
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Elvira Belle Borovik
`
`b.borovik@chia.net
`
`/Elvira Belle Borovik/
`
`02/03/2023
`
`Applicant Response to Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses_02-03-23.
`pdf(347303 bytes )
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE
`
`TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`
`
`)
`)
`
` Opposition No.: 91281934
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
` )
` )
`
` )
`vs.
` )
`)
`
`)
`CHIA NETWORK INC,
` )
`Applicant. )
`
` Opposer,
`
`Serial No.: 97/123,673
`
`Mark: CAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT’S FIRST, THIRD,
`FOURTH, AND FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND RESERVATION OF
`RIGHTS
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`Applicant Chia Network Inc. (“Chia” or “Applicant”) respectfully submits
`
`this
`
`Memorandum in Opposition to Caterpillar Inc.’s (“Caterpillar” or “Opposer”) Opposer’s Motion to
`
`Strike Applicant’s First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”). As shown
`
`below, Applicant has properly pleaded legally cognizable affirmative defenses as required at this
`
`stage of these proceedings. Applicant respectfully submits that the Board deny the Motion.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On November 13, 2021, Applicant filed intent-to-use Trademark Application Serial No.
`
`97123673 for the mark CAT covering the following goods and services (as amended):
`
`“Downloadable computer application software for servers, computers and mobile
`devices, namely, software for secure aggregation, processing, monitoring and analyzing
`data and for facilitating and managing digital currency and financial transactions;
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`downloadable computer software for secure aggregation, processing and analyzing data
`for the purpose of providing customized tracking and reporting in the field of finance,
`digital currency and cryptocurrency; downloadable computer software for the exchange
`of digital currency and cryptocurrency; downloadable computer software for the secure
`storage of financial information, digital currency and cryptocurrency; downloadable
`computer software for financial management and for facilitating and processing
`financial, digital currency and cryptocurrency transactions; downloadable computer
`software for secure financial data aggregation; downloadable computer software for
`secure mining, tracking and storage of digital currency and cryptocurrency;
`downloadable computer software platforms for the exchange of digital currency and
`cryptocurrency for enterprise blockchains; downloadable computer software platforms
`for the design, testing, deployment and management of blockchain systems;
`downloadable computer software platforms for the deployment, transfer and management
`of digital currency and cryptocurrency; downloadable computer software for creating,
`managing, storing, analyzing and providing data on distributed public ledgers and peer-
`to-peer payment networks in the fields of cryptocurrency, digital currency, blockchain
`based technologies and decentralized applications; downloadable software for use in
`database management, financial record keeping and processing, tracking and reporting
`transactions in the digital currency, cryptocurrency and blockchain markets;
`downloadable virtual goods, namely, computer programs featuring clothing, art, toys,
`books, accessories and bags for use online and online virtual worlds” in Class 009;
`“Financial exchange services, namely, a financial exchange for trading and selling
`digital currency and cryptocurrency; financial services in the fields of digital currency
`and cryptocurrency, namely, providing currency exchange services, electronic payment
`transaction processing services, and currency tracing and tracking services between
`accounts, all in the fields of digital currency and cryptocurrency; financial services,
`namely, providing digital currency and cryptocurrency in the nature of virtual currency,
`the foregoing being for use by members of an on-line community via a global computer
`network; online monitoring services of financial data for financial reporting, namely,
`monitoring the financial status of digital currency and cryptocurrency transactions;
`providing financial data tracking of digital currency and cryptocurrency transactions;
`financial services, namely, financial analysis of financial records over electronic
`communications networks; providing financial information in the fields of financial
`affairs, digital currency and cryptocurrency; providing online personal banking and
`currency exchange services; providing online electronic funds transfer services; financial
`transaction services, namely, providing secure commercial transactions in the nature of
`digital currency and cryptocurrency transactions; providing financial information in the
`fields of finance, digital currency and cryptocurrency acquisition and transactions and in
`the field of blockchain technology; providing an online searchable database featuring
`financial information about digital currency and cryptocurrency; providing a website
`featuring financial information in the fields of blockchain, digital currency and
`cryptocurrency; financial transaction services, namely, providing secure electronic
`commercial transactions and payment options utilizing virtual currencies in the nature of
`digital currency and cryptocurrency” in Class 036; and
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`“Computer services, namely, creating computer network-based indexes of information
`and resources; Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for financial
`management, for securing financial information, for processing and tracking digital
`currency transactions and cryptocurrency transactions, for processing and tracking
`online financial transactions and managing personal banking, and for keeping a record
`of personal records and aggregating financial data; Software as a service (SAAS)
`services featuring software for database management, file management and data
`processing; computer security services in the nature of providing secure and optimized
`electronic data storage in the field of digital currency, cryptocurrency and blockchain;
`advisory services in the field of product development and quality improvement of
`software; Platform as a service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for the
`development of improved quality and optimized digital security software ; Platform as a
`service (PAAS) featuring computer software platforms for authenticating, facilitating,
`matching, processing, clearing, storing, receiving, tracking, transferring and submitting
`trade data and trading transaction details; application services provider featuring
`application programming interface (API) software for facilitating and managing
`interactions between digital currency and cryptocurrency, and blockchain information
`databases; collaborative computer programming for others in the nature of development
`of blockchain technology and digital security optimization technology; computer
`services, namely, remote management of information technology (IT) systems of others
`comprised of software, databases and applications in the field of digital currency,
`cryptocurrency and blockchain; computer software development; computer software
`design; computer software development in the field of mobile applications; computer
`software development in the field of digital currency and cryptocurrency creation and
`mining, and blockchain; computer programming and maintenance of computer software
`for digital currency and cryptocurrency mining and blockchain purposes; customizing
`computer software by developing custom technology and application software in the field
`of blockchain; product design and development in the field of digital currency,
`cryptocurrency and blockchain technology” in Class 042 (the “‘673 Application”).
`The ‘673 Application published on July 26, 2022, and, after seeking the maximum allowable
`
`extension of time to oppose, Opposer filed a Notice of Opposition on November 22, 2022. 1
`
`TTABVUE.
`
`On January 1, 2023, Applicant timely filed its Answer to Opposers’ Notice of Opposition.
`
`In its Answer, Applicant included the following among its affirmative defenses:
`
`First Affirmative Defense: “The Opposition fails to state a claim for which relief can be
`granted.”
`
`
`Third Affirmative Defense: “Opposer has acquiesced to similar competitive marks which
`exist in the marketplace.”
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense: “Opposer is barred by laches as it has failed to enforce its
`alleged rights against similar parties with identical or substantially similar marks.”
`Fifth Affirmative Defense: “The Opposition is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.”
`
`4 TTABVUE.
`
`Applicant also reserved the right to amend its Answer to add affirmative defenses: “There
`
`may be additional affirmative defenses to the claims in the Opposition that are currently unknown
`
`to Applicant. Therefore, Applicant reserves the right to amend its Answer to the Opposition to
`
`allege additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery of additional information
`
`indicates they are appropriate.” 4 TTABVUE.
`
`On January 20, 2023, Opposers moved to strike the aforementioned affirmative defenses under
`Rule 12(f).
`
`
`
`As a threshold matter, Opposer cites to Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robbins Co., 697 F.2d 880,
`
`885 (9th Cir 1983) to stand for the proposition that “naked assertions are inadequately pleaded and
`
`should be stricken to allow the parties to focus on the claims and defenses that are properly before
`
`the Board.” See Motion at 5. This proposition is contained nowhere in that case, which primary
`
`covers standards for striking a post judgment decision from a judgement derived in a medical
`
`device malfunction personal injury claim. In addition, the provided quote, (“the function of a 12(f)
`
`motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating
`
`spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial…”), is used in that context to support a
`
`decision to strike a motion to reconsider which was ultimately denied.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`An answer, in addition to responding to initial allegations, may also include a short and
`
`plain statement of any defenses, including affirmative defenses that the defendant may have to the
`
`claim or claims asserted by the plaintiff. Affirmative defenses are sufficiently pled if they “give
`
`fair notice” of the defense. See, e.g., Harsco Corp. v. Elec. Sci. Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1570 (TTAB
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`1988) (declining to strike matter that bears directly on claims and use of mark); Order of Sons of
`
`Italy in Am. v. Profumi Fratelli Nostra AG, 36 USPQ2d 1221, 1223 (TTAB 1995).
`
`As the Opposer correctly notes, the Federal standard for a motion to strike comes from Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 12(f) which states that, “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
`
`any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, 37
`
`Code of Federal Regulations § 2.116(a) makes an exception to all Federal Civil Procedure Rules
`
`stating that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided […] procedure and practice in inter parties proceedings
`
`shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a) (2023). It is
`
`important to look for standards that apply to a given subject area. The standard governing
`
`proceedings by the United States Patent and Trademark Office given under TBMP § 506.01
`
`generally disfavors Rule 12(f) motions to strike affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Ohio State Univ. v.
`
`Ohio Univ., 51 USPQ2d 1289, 1293 (TTAB 1999). As a result, matter from a pleading will not be
`
`stricken unless it clearly has no bearing on issues in a case, its insufficiency is clearly apparent, and
`
`it fails to raise factual issues that should be determined on the merits. Harsco Corp., 9 USPQ2d at
`
`1570. Flawed or otherwise incomplete pleadings may still be included if they do not prejudice the
`
`adverse party or may serve as the basis for a claim. Id. (citing 2A Moore's Federal Practice, Section
`
`12.21[2] (2nd ed. 1985) (“Even if the allegations are redundant or immaterial, they need not be
`
`stricken if their presence in the pleading cannot prejudice the adverse party.”)).
`
`Consistent with this standard, the TBMP provides the following:
`
`Motions to strike are not favored, and matter usually will not be stricken unless it clearly
`has no bearing upon the issues in the case. The primary purpose of pleadings, under the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is to give fair notice of the claims or defenses asserted.
`Thus, the Board, in its discretion, may decline to strike even objectionable pleadings
`where their inclusion will not prejudice the adverse party, but rather will provide fuller
`notice of the basis for a claim or defense. A defense will not be stricken as insufficient if
`the insufficiency is not clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be
`determined on the merits.
`
`TBMP § 506.01.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Opposer cites Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 183 (1962), Am. Express Mktg. & Dev. Corp.
`
`v. Gilad Dev. Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1294 (TTAB 2010) and Leatherwood Scopes Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Leatherwood, 63 USPQ2d 1699, 1702 (TTAB 2002) to support its proposition that the Board must
`
`strike Applicant’s affirmative defenses with prejudice at this stage of the proceeding. However, all
`
`three cases are inapposite.
`
`In Forman v. Davis, the Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm the
`
`District Court’s denial of motion to amend a pleading. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. at 182-183.
`
`In fact, in its discussion of the standard applicable to deciding Rule 15(a) motion, the Court notes
`
`that, “If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of
`
`relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Id. at 182. The Court
`
`adds, “outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is
`
`not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of
`
`the Federal Rules.” Id. at 182. Here, as discovery has not yet been conducted and no facts have
`
`been examined, a denial of amendment would be “inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.”
`
`Not only does the Opposer misconstrue the holding of a Supreme Court precedent to
`
`conform to its position, the Opposer omits the fact that the additional affirmative defense pled in
`
`Am. Express Mktg. & Dev. Corp. v. Gilad Dev. Corp. was non-commercial use. See Am. Express
`
`Mktg. & Dev. Corp. v. Gilad Dev. Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1294. As the Board explained, “…
`
`‘noncommercial use’ exception set out in Trademark Act § 43(c)(3)(C) does not apply in a Board
`
`proceeding involving a mark sought to be registered as a trademark or service mark, because an
`
`applicant seeking registration is necessarily relying on a claim of use of its mark, or intended use
`
`of its mark, in commerce.” See id. at 1299.
`
`Likewise, in Leatherwood Scopes Int’l, Inc. v. Leatherwood, the Board concluded that an
`
`amendment to the original notice of opposition to add a claim of laches and acquiescence would be
`
`futile “… because laches and acquiescence are affirmative defenses, not grounds for opposition to
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`registration of a mark. See University Book Store v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, 33
`
`USPQ2d 1385, 1401 n. 39 (TTAB 1994).” Leatherwood Scopes Int’l, Inc. v. Leatherwood, 63
`
`USPQ2d at 1703.
`
`In both Am. Express Mktg. & Dev. Corp. v. Gilad Dev. Corp. and Leatherwood Scopes Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Leatherwood, the Board chose to strike claims and defenses that were legally insufficient,
`
`that is, as a matter of law, they could not succeed under any circumstances. See U.S. Sec. & Exch.
`
`Comm ‘n v. Thorn, No. 2:01–CV–290, 2002 WL 31412440 *2 (S. D. Ohio Sept.30, 2002) (quoting
`
`Ameriwood Indus. Int'l Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 961 F.Supp. 1078, 1083 (W.D. Mich.
`
`1997)). As outlined below, that is simply not the case here, and striking affirmative defenses with
`
`prejudice prior to discovery would be improper.
`
`While the Applicant agrees that insufficient, immaterial, redundant, or impertinent matter
`
`have the potential to clutter the docket and create the need for unnecessary discovery, if Opposer
`
`had wished to “avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious
`
`issues,” (Motion at 5), Opposer could have verbally requested that the Examining Attorney consider
`
`striking defenses during a discovery conference, rather than put the discovery process on hold to
`
`accommodate this motion to strike. The Opposer’s motion to strike negates the policy Opposer sites
`
`as reasons for striking.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Opposer’s bases for its Motion reflect Opposer’s attempts to delay discovery and preclude
`
`Applicant from advancing good-faith affirmative defenses. Opposer’s arguments do not bear out
`
`and, therefore, must fail.
`
`A. Applicant’s First Affirmative Defense of Failure to State a Claims Is Proper
`
`Opposer contends that Applicant’s assertion of the affirmative defense for failure to state a
`
`claim should be stricken because it is not a true affirmative defense. Opposer is incorrect, as case
`
`law is clear that failure to state a claim is a proper affirmative defense. See, e.g., Order of Sons of
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Italy, 36 USPQ2d at 1222 (reasoning that an answer may include the “defense” of failure to state a
`
`claim upon which relief can be granted); TBMP 311.02(b)(1), Note 1 (citing Sons of Italy for same
`
`proposition). Simply put, Opposer’s position fails.
`
`Much of Opposer’s effort is spent setting forth why Opposer believes its claim is properly
`
`pled. Opposer’s attempts to argue the merits of their pleadings is off point, but to the extent the
`
`Board were to consider the substance of Opposer’s claim, Applicant submits that Opposer’s
`
`pleadings fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. In order to support a claim, an opposer
`
`must allege facts that would, if proven, establish that (1) the opposer has standing to maintain the
`
`proceeding, and (2) a valid ground exists for opposing registration. See Lipton Indus., Inc. v.
`
`Ralston Purina Co., 670 F.2d 1024, 213 USPQ 185 (CCPA 1982).
`
`Here, at least, Opposer has not properly plead priority with respect to the goods and services
`
`claimed by Applicant, but has, instead, relied upon use of its marks in connection with dissimilar
`
`goods or services in other classes. Opposer’s template form Notice of Opposition fails to appreciate
`
`the differences in the goods and services at issue here. Moreover, Opposer bases its likelihood of
`
`confusion allegations on purported similarity between the marks, without alleging why Applicant’s
`
`“CAT”-formative mark is any more confusing than the litany of third-party registered or common-
`
`law marks that also incorporate “CAT,” or how the presence of such a mark would dilute Opposer’s
`
`marks where other third-party marks have not. For at least the above reasons, Opposer has not
`
`properly plead priority or a likelihood of confusion, and therefore, failed to state a claim on which
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`Moreover, Opposer has not shown, and has not attempted to show, that it stands to suffer
`
`any actual prejudice from Applicant’s affirmative defense of failure of the complaint to state a
`
`claim on which relief can be granted. Nor could the Opposer show actual prejudice: this affirmative
`
`defense has ample bearing on the issues in this case, as it raises factual issues that should be
`
`determined on the merits. On that basis alone, Opposer’s Motion should be denied. See Pennington
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 947 F. Supp. 2d 529, 534 (E.D. Pa. 2013); Baum v. Faith Techs., Inc.,
`
`10-CV0144-CVE-TLW, 2010 WL 2365451, at *4 (N.D. Okl. June 9, 2010) (refusing to strike
`
`unnecessary affirmative defense because “[p]laintiff has not shown any real prejudice caused by
`
`this sentence, or by any portion of defendant’s pleadings.”).
`
`B. Applicant’s Laches and Acquiescence Affirmative Defenses are Proper.
`
`Opposer requires Applicant’s affirmative defenses to adhere to a standard of pleading
`
`unsupported by the rules or case law. “Rule 8(a) requires a statement ‘showing’ that the plaintiff is
`
`entitled to relief; Rule 8(b) merely requires that a defendant ‘state’ its defenses. Applying different
`
`pleading standards recognizes the differences between these words; ‘showing’ requires some
`
`factual underpinnings to plead a plausible claim, while ‘stating’ contemplates that defendants can
`
`plead their defenses in a more cursory fashion.” Owen v. Am. Shipyard Co., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-
`
`413 S, 2016 WL 1465348, at *2 (D.R.I. Apr. 14, 2016). Furthermore, boilerplate affirmative
`
`defenses suffice to give Opposer fair notice of Applicant’s defenses. See Sibley v. Choice Hotels
`
`Int'l, Inc., 304 F.R.D. 125, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (declining to strike defendant’s essentially
`
`boilerplate objections and finding they gave plaintiff fair notice of its defenses).
`
`Opposer ignores the pleading standard applicable to affirmative defenses and suggests that
`
`Applicant be held to a standard of pleading that requires Applicant to plead the “basis for a claim.”
`
`See Motion at 9-10. Affirmative defenses are not claims, and Applicant does not have the burden
`
`to prove a claim relating thereto. Opposer’s attempt to strike Applicant’s laches and acquiescence
`
`affirmative defenses fails.
`
`Additionally, because Opposer has offered no basis for claiming it stands to suffer
`
`prejudice, Opposer’s Motion fails for this reason as well.
`
`C. Applicant Has Properly Pled the Affirmative Defense of Unclean Hands.
`
`Opposer implies that Applicant must satisfy a heightened pleading requirement relating to
`
`the unclean hands affirmative defense, by suggesting that Applicant must provide “specific
`
`9
`
`

`

`allegations of misconduct” at this stage of the proceedings. See Motion at 11. However, the
`
`affirmative defense of unclean hands is not subject to the heightened pleading standards of Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 9. Opposer does not cite to any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure or rule of the Trademark
`
`Trial and Appeal Board in support of their position. Instead, Opposer relies on Midwest Plastic
`
`Fabricators Inc. v. Underwriters Labs. Inc., 5 USPQ2d 1067, 1069 (TTAB 1980). That case is
`
`inapposite. Midwest Plastic Fabricators involved a motion to amend an answer following
`
`discovery. Here, by contrast, no discovery has been conducted. Applicant submits that discovery
`
`will bear on the issues relating to this defense. Thus, striking this defense with prejudice would be
`
`improper.
`
`Additionally, because Opposer has offered no basis for claiming it stand to suffer prejudice,
`
`Opposer’s Motion fails for this reason as well.
`
`D. Applicant’s Reservation of Right to Amend to Add Affirmative Defenses is Proper.
`
`Contrary to Opposer's claim, Applicant properly reserved its right to amend its Answer to
`
`assert additional affirmative defenses as this case progresses. Although Opposer suggests that
`
`Applicant is reserving “unidentified defenses,” (Motion at 6), Applicant’s Answer simply reflects
`
`that Applicant has and reserves the right to amend its Answer to include additional defenses
`
`consistent with the proper and undisputed procedure for doing so. Although Opposer argues it is
`
`without notice of the specific affirmative defenses that may be sought in the future, this position
`
`proves too much, as Opposer would effectively foreclose any effort to amend pleadings.
`
`This, of course, is not the rule. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provide that
`
`pleadings may be amended. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Indeed, Opposer’s request that the Board strike
`
`Applicant’s reservation of its right to amend to add affirmative defenses with prejudice would deny
`
`Applicant the ability to seek to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. In effect, this would preclude
`
`Applicant from claiming additional affirmative defenses that may become known through the
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`course of discovery, in contravention of the rules and of TBMP §501.01. See Bd. of Regents v. S.
`
`Ill. Miners, LLC, 110 USPQ2d 1182, 1186 (TTAB 2014).
`
`In support of its onerous position, Opposer cites FDIC v. Mahajan, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1133,
`
`1141 (N.D. Ill. 2013). In FDIC v. Mahajan, the defendant attempted to reserve the right to simply
`
`assert any and all affirmative defenses rather than merely reserve its right to amend. See 923 F.
`
`Supp. 2d at 1133. That is not what Applicant’s Answer reflects. Instead, Applicant simply notes
`
`that it “… reserves the right to amend its Answer to the Opposition to allege additional affirmative
`
`defenses in the event that discovery of additional information indicates they are appropriate.”
`
`Answer at 5, 4 TTABVUE. Opposer’s efforts to preemptively foreclose those rights must fail.
`
`Additionally, because Opposer has offered no basis for claiming it stand to suffer prejudice,
`
`its Motion fails for this reason as well.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board deny
`
`Opposer’s Motion to Strike Applicant’s First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Affirmative Defenses.
`
`In the event the Board concludes that any of Applicant’s affirmative defenses are
`
`insufficiently pled, Applicant respectfully requests leave to re-plead its affirmative defenses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 3rd, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Chia Network Inc.
`By: /Elvira Belle Borovik/
`
`
`Elvira Belle Borovik
`Associate General Counsel
`Chia Network Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and complete copy of the foregoing RESPONSE TO OPPOSER’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT’S FIRST, THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES has been served on the Opposer’s counsel of record on February 3,
`2023, via electronic mail to:
`
`
`
`NARESH KILARU FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER,
`LLP
`
`naresh.kilaru@finnegan.com docketing@finnegan.com
`
`katie.mcknight@finnegan.com
`
`laura.johnson@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`
`
`Name: Elvira Belle Borovik
`
` Date: February 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`