Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 3118
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-134
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, BROADCOM
`CORPORATION, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES,
`LTD., AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC.,
`and LSI CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER OF GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1 TO BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., AND LSI CORPORATION’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge” or “Plaintiff”), for its Answer to the
`
`Amended Counterclaims of Defendants Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom Corp.”), Avago
`
`Technologies U.S., Inc. (“Avago U.S.”), and LSI Corporation (“LSI”) (collectively,
`
`“Counterclaimants”), avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 2, and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 3, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-134
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, BROADCOM
`CORPORATION, AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES,
`LTD., AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC.,
`and LSI CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER OF GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1 TO BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., AND LSI CORPORATION’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge” or “Plaintiff”), for its Answer to the
`
`Amended Counterclaims of Defendants Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom Corp.”), Avago
`
`Technologies U.S., Inc. (“Avago U.S.”), and LSI Corporation (“LSI”) (collectively,
`
`“Counterclaimants”), avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 2, and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`IP Bridge is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 3, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 3119
`
`
`4.
`
`Admits that IP Bridge states in its Complaint and First Amended Complaint that it
`
`is a Japanese Corporation with its principal place of business located at c/o Sakura Sogo Jimusho,
`
`1-11 Kanda Jimbocho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0051, Japan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Admits that this Court has jurisdiction over Counterclaimants’ counterclaims
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201.
`
`6.
`
`For purposes of this action only, IP Bridge does not contest that it is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in this District; and otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of the
`
`Amended Counterclaims.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Admits that venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`Admits that an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties; and
`
`otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Admits that on February 15, 2016 IP Bridge filed the instant suit asserting
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,538,324 (“the ’324 Patent”), 6,197,696 (“the ’696 Patent”),
`
`7,126,174 (“the ’174 Patent”), 8,354,726 (“the ’726 Patent”), RE43,729 (“the RE’729 Patent”),
`
`and RE41,980 (“the RE’980 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).
`
`10.
`
`Admits that IP Bridge owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the Asserted Patents, including the right to sue and recover damages, including damages
`
`for past infringement; and otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims.
`
`11.
`
`Admits that IP Bridge has claimed in its Complaint and First Amended Complaint
`
`that Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technologies U.S., Inc., and LSI Corporation have infringed
`
`and are infringing one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3120
`
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT 1 – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,197,696
`
`12.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-11 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT II – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,197,696
`
`15.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-14 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT III – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,538,324
`
`19.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-18 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT IV – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,538,324
`
`22.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-21 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 3121
`
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT V – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE41,980
`
`26.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-25 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT VI – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE41,980
`
`29.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-28 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT VII – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,126,174
`
`33.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-32 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT VIII – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,126,174
`
`36.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-35 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 3122
`
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT IX – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,354,726
`
`40.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-39 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 41 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 42 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT X – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,354,726
`
`43.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-42 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 44 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 45 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 46 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT XI – INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,729
`
`47.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-46 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 50 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO COUNT XII – NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,729
`
`51.
`
`IP Bridge realleges and incorporates by reference its responses, above, to the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-50 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 3123
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Counterclaimants’ counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`IP Bridge denies that Counterclaimants are entitled to any of the relief requested in
`
`connection with its counterclaims.
`
`RESPONSE TO JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`IP Bridge also demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, IP Bridge prays for a judgment in its favor and against Counterclaimants
`
`and respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`1.
`
`A judgment dismissing Counterclaimants’ counterclaims and all claims stated
`
`therein with prejudice;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A judgment requiring Counterclaimants to pay IP Bridge’s costs and expenses;
`
`A judgment finding that this is an exceptional case and awarding IP Bridge’s
`
`attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Such further necessary and proper relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202; and
`
`Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 5, 2016
`
`/s/ Andrew T. Radsch
`Melissa R. Smith
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`TX State Bar No. 24001351
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 3124
`
`
`
`Andrew N. Thomases
`(CA Bar No. 177339)
`(Eastern District of Texas Member)
`Andrew T. Radsch
`(CA Bar No. 303665)
`(Eastern District of Texas Member)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Telephone: (650) 617-4000
`Facsimile: (650) 617-4090
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
`Alexander E. Middleton
`(NY Bar No. 4797114)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 596-9000
`(212) 596-9090
`alexander.middleton@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 61 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 3125
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service
`
`
`
`are being served on August 5, 2016, with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`systems per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Andrew T. Radsch
`Andrew T. Radsch
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
