Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 83
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C,
`
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) hereby responds to the Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC (“B.E.” or “Plaintiff”)
`
`alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,771,290 (the “‘290 patent”) as follows:
`
`SEA’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States.
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that this action purports to be an action for patent infringement
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States, but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`any relief thereunder.
`
`2.
`
`B.E. is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-CV-02825-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID 84
`
`ANSWER: SEA lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Plaintiff’s first numbered Paragraph 2 and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`New York with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that it is a New York corporation having a place of business in
`
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a), as this is an action arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that Plaintiff purports to allege an action arising under the
`
`Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. At this time, SEA does not contest this Court’s subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
`
`VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c),
`
`1391(d), and 1400(b).
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that venue is technically proper in this judicial district under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), 1391(d), and 1400(b), but denies that it is the appropriate
`
`venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`The ’290 patent is entitled “Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With
`
`Portable Network Organization System And Targeted Advertising.” A copy of the ’290 patent is
`
`attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID 85
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that the ‘290 patent bears on its face “Computer Interface
`
`Method And Apparatus With Portable Network Organization System And Targeted
`
`Advertising.” SEA further admits that the document attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`Complaint purports to be the ‘290 patent, which document speaks for itself, but otherwise
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Plaintiff’s second numbered Paragraph 3.
`
`7. The invention of the ’290 patent generally relates to user interfaces for accessing
`
`computer applications and information resources and, in particular, to user interfaces that
`
`provide advertising obtained over a global computer network such as the Internet. The invention
`
`of the ’290 patent also relates to user interfaces for maintaining, organizing and communicating
`
`information accessible to a computer network such as the Internet and, in particular, to user
`
`interfaces that provide the user with availability to that information in a personalized manner.
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that ‘290 patent speaks for itself and that it states that “the
`
`invention related in general to user interfaces for accessing computer applications and
`
`information resources and, in particular, to user interfaces that provide advertising obtained
`
`over a global computer network such as the Internet” and that “this invention also relates to
`
`user interfaces for maintaining, organizing and communicating information accessible to a
`
`computer network such as the Internet and, in particular, to user interfaces that provide the
`
`user with availability to that information in a personalized manner” but otherwise denies the
`
`allegations of Plaintiff’s numbered Paragraph 4.
`
`8.
`
`The application that issued as the ’290 patent was filed on July 16, 1999, and the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued the ’290 patent on August 3,
`
`2004. The ’290 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/118,351, filed on July
`
`17, 1998.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID 86
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that the face of the ‘290 patent indicates that an application
`
`associated with the ‘290 patent was filed on July 16, 1999. SEA further admits that the
`
`face of the ‘290 patent indicates that the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ‘290 patent on August 3, 2004. SEA also admits that the face of the ‘290
`
`patent indicates that the application which issued as the ‘290 patent is a continuation-in-
`
`part of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/118,351, filed on July 17, 1998. The remaining
`
`allegations of Plaintiff’s numbered Paragraph 5 are a legal conclusion to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, SEA denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Plaintiff’s numbered Paragraph 5, including the allegation that the claims
`
`of the ‘290 patent are entitled to a priority date of July 17, 1998.
`
`COUNT I: ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,290
`
`9.
`
`B.E. realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-8.
`
`ANSWER: SEA incorporates by reference its responses to Plaintiff’s first and second
`
`numbered Paragraphs 1-3 and numbered Paragraphs 4-5 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`10.
`
`B.E. owns all right, title, and interest in the ’290 patent, and has owned all right,
`
`title, and interest throughout the period of the infringement complained of herein.
`
`ANSWER: SEA denies that there has been a period of infringement, and lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Plaintiff’s numbered Paragraph 7 and therefore denies the same.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung has infringed at least Claim 2 of the ’290 patent by using, selling, and
`
`offering to sell in the United States tablet computer products that directly infringe at least Claim
`
`2 of the ’290 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The accused products
`
`include Smart TVs: LED 8000 Series Smart TV, Plasma 8000 Series Smart TV, LED 7500 Series
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID 87
`
`Smart TV, LED 7550 Series Smart TV; Smart Blu-Ray/DVD players: BD-E6500, BD-ES6000,
`
`BD-E5900, BD-E5700, BD-EM57C, BD-EM59C.
`
`ANSWER: SEA admits that the Complaint purports to accuse of infringement the
`
`following products: LED 8000 Series Smart TV, Plasma 8000 Series Smart TV, LED
`
`7500 Series Smart TV, LED 7550 Series Smart TV, BD-E6500, BD-ES6000, BD-E5900,
`
`BD-E5700, BD-EM57C, and BD-EM59C. SEA denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Plaintiff’s numbered Paragraph 8.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`SEA admits that the Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`SEA incorporates herein by reference its responses to first and second numbered
`
`Paragraphs 1-3 and numbered Paragraphs 4-8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and denies that Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to any relief or judgment against SEA.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Without prejudice to the denials set forth in this Answer, and without admitting any of
`
`the averments of the Complaint not otherwise admitted, SEA asserts the following affirmative
`
`defenses to the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint, undertaking to prove only
`
`those defenses on which it bears the burden of proof under the applicable law.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SEA has not and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘290
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID 88
`
`3.
`
`The ‘290 patent, and each claim thereof, is invalid for failing to satisfy one or
`
`more requirements of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., including, but not limited to, the
`
`conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 116, 119, and/or 120.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are barred against SEA under the
`
`doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by waiver, implied waiver, laches and/or equitable
`
`estoppel.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`law.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief because there is an adequate remedy at
`
`8.
`
`SEA reserves the right to add to or amend this list of Affirmative Defenses with
`
`additional defenses that discovery may yield.
`
`WHEREFORE, SEA respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor
`
`
`
`dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as not infringed, invalid and/or
`
`unenforceable, and awarding SEA its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief
`
`that the Court may deem appropriate and just under the circumstances.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 26 Filed 12/31/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID 89
`
`
`Dated: December 31st, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jonathan E. Nelson
`Shepherd D. Tate (TN BPR #05638)
`Jonathan E. Nelson (TN BPR #028029)
`BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
`100 Peabody Place, Suite 900
`Memphis, Tennessee 38103
`Telephone: (901) 543-5900
`Facsimile:
`(901) 543-5999
`Email:
`state@bassberry.com
`
`jenelson@bassberry.com
`
`Richard C. Pettus (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin A. MacLean (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone:
`(212) 801-9200
`Facsimile:
`(212) 801-6400
`Email:
`pettusr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`macleanj@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on December 31, 2012, the foregoing was electronically
`filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of
`electronic filing to all parties receiving electronic notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jonathan E. Nelson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`11462201.2