throbber
Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID 77
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Sony Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (U.S.A.) INC.’S ANSWER TO B.E.
`TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`For its Answer to the Complaint for Patent Infringement of Plaintiff B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C. (“BET”) (D.I. 1), Sony Mobile Communications (U.S.A.) Inc. (“SoMC”) upon
`
`knowledge as to its own acts, and upon information and belief as to the acts of others, responds
`
`to each of the numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”) as set forth below. SoMC will answer each allegation of the Complaint directed
`
`to “Sony” on behalf of itself and no other defendant named in any related action. To the extent
`
`that SoMC responds to the allegations of the Complaint with respect to any defendant named in a
`
`related action or responds to the allegations of the Complaint with respect to the general term
`
`“Sony,” such responses are made on information and belief and shall not be understood to
`
`constitute an admission or denial on behalf of any other defendant, or to supplant any answer by
`
`any other defendant to the allegations made therein. SoMC, by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby responds to each of the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows:
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID 78
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION AND PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`SoMC admits that the Complaint purports to commence an action for patent
`
`infringement under Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`2.
`
`SoMC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`3.
`
`SoMC admits that SoMC is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`SoMC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`VENUE
`
`5.
`
`SoMC denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`6.
`
`SoMC admits that what appears to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (“the
`
`’290 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. SoMC also admits that the ’290 Patent
`
`appears from its first page to be entitled “Computer Interface Method And Apparatus With
`
`Portable Network Organization System And Targeted Advertising.”
`
`7.
`
`SoMC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`8.
`
`SoMC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,290
`
`9.
`
`SoMC incorporates by reference herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 8.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID 79
`
`
`10.
`
`SoMC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`11.
`
`SoMC denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 11.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`First Defense: Invalidity
`
`12.
`
`The ’290 Patent is wholly or partially invalid for failure to comply with one or
`
`more of the conditions and requirements of the patent laws, including, but not limited to,
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112, and the rules, regulations and laws pertaining to those
`
`provisions.
`
`Second Defense: Noninfringement
`
`13.
`
`SoMC has not directly infringed, induced others to infringe, or committed acts of
`
`contributory infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’290 Patent, either literally
`
`or by the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Third Defense: Laches
`
`14.
`
`BET’s claims of infringement are barred in whole or in part by the equitable
`
`doctrine of laches.
`
`Fourth Defense: Costs Barred
`
`15.
`
`BET is barred from receiving costs associated with this action under 35 U.S.C.§
`
`288.
`
`Fifth Defense: Time Limit on Recovery
`
`16.
`
`BET’s claims for damages for any alleged infringement are time limited under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 286.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 25 Filed 12/31/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID 80
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`/s/ __John Flock_____
`John Flock (admission pending)
`jflock@kenyon.com
`Michael E. Sander (admission pending)
`msander@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`212.425.7200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Sony Mobile
`Communications (U.S.A.) Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`
`/s/ Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid. Jr. (TN B.P.R. # 8184)
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`(901) 537-1057
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (TN B.P.R. # 06389)
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`(901) 537-1069
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`
`
`60305340.1
`12/31/2012 9:16 am
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-

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