`
`
`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-