throbber
Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 3359
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`HTC CORPORATION’S
`ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT, LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant HTC Corporation (“Defendant” or “HTC”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby responds to AGIS Software Development, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “AGIS”)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970
`
`patent”), 9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”), 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”), and 9,467,838 (the “’838
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). Except as expressly admitted herein, HTC denies
`
`all allegations of the Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`HTC admits that it is a Taiwanese corporation. HTC denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`HTC admits that the Complaint purports to bring an action for infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., but HTC denies that it infringes any valid patent claim of the asserted
`
`patents. HTC admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`141462922.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 3360
`
`1338(a). HTC denies that AGIS has presented allegations sufficient to invest this Court with
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`4.
`
`HTC denies that this Court has personal jurisdiction over HTC. HTC denies that
`
`it conducts business in this district, the State of Texas, or the United States. HTC denies that it
`
`has committed acts of patent infringement in this district, the State of Texas, or the United States.
`
`HTC denies that it has induced acts of patent infringement by others in this district, the State of
`
`Texas, or the United States. HTC denies that it has contributed to acts of patent infringement by
`
`others in this district, the State of Texas, or the United States.
`
`5.
`
`HTC denies that venue is proper in this district. HTC denies that it has a regular
`
`and established place of business in this district. HTC denies that it is deemed to reside in this
`
`district. HTC denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this district. HTC denies that
`
`is has purposely transacted business involving the accused products in this district. HTC denies
`
`that this district is a convenient forum for this case.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`6.
`
`HTC admits that the ’970 patent states on its face that it has an issue date of
`
`July 3, 2012. HTC admits that the ’970 patent is titled “Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for
`
`Interactive Remote Communications.” HTC denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`HTC admits that the ’055 patent states on its face that it has an issue date of
`
`August 2, 2016. HTC admits that the ’055 patent is titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and
`
`Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks.” HTC denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`HTC admits that the ’251 patent states on its face that it has an issue date of
`
`September 13, 2016. HTC admits that the ’251 patent is titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and
`
`141462922.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3361
`
`Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks.” HTC denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`HTC admits that the ’838 patent states on its face that it has an issue date of
`
`October 11, 2016. HTC admits that the ’838 patent is titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and
`
`Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks.” HTC denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 9.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 11, and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies them.
`
`13.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`HTC admits that it manufactures products that use the Android operating system.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 14, and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`HTC denies that it manufactures any Android-based smartphone or tablets
`
`(“accused devices”) in the United States. HTC denies that it uses any accused devices in the
`
`United States. HTC denies that it sells any accused devices in the United States. HTC denies
`
`that it offers for sale any accused devices in the United States. HTC denies that it imports any
`
`accused devices into the United States. HTC denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15.
`
`141462922.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 3362
`
`COUNT 1
`(Infringement of the ’970 Patent)
`
`16.
`
`HTC incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth in
`
`their entireties.
`
`17.
`
`HTC admits it has not entered into a license with AGIS for the ’970 patent, but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether it is licensed
`
`or authorized through third-parties who have agreements with AGIS. HTC denies that it makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the accused devices in/into the United States. HTC denies
`
`that it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports any accused devices that “embody the
`
`inventions” of the ’970 patent. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of the ’055 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`HTC incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth in
`
`their entireties.
`
`26.
`
`HTC admits it has not entered into a license with AGIS for the ’055 patent, but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether it is licensed
`
`or authorized through third-parties who have agreements with AGIS. HTC denies that it makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the accused devices in/into the United States. HTC denies
`
`141462922.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 3363
`
`that it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports any accused devices that “embody the
`
`inventions” of the ’055 patent. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 30 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 30.
`
`31.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 31 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 31.
`
`32.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 32 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 33 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 34 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`141462922.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 3364
`
`COUNT III
`(Infringement of the ’251 Patent)
`
`38.
`
`HTC incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth in
`
`their entireties.
`
`39.
`
`HTC admits it has not entered into a license with AGIS for the ’251 patent, but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether it is licensed
`
`or authorized through third-parties who have agreements with AGIS. HTC denies that it makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the accused devices in/into the United States. HTC denies
`
`that it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports any accused devices that “embody the
`
`inventions” of the ’251 patent. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 43 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 43.
`
`44.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 44 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 44.
`
`45.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 45 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 45.
`
`141462922.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 3365
`
`46.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 46 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 46.
`
`47.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 47 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Infringement of the ’838 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`HTC incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth in
`
`their entireties.
`
`52.
`
`HTC admits it has not entered into a license with AGIS for the ’838 patent, but
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether it is licensed
`
`or authorized through third-parties who have agreements with AGIS. HTC denies that it makes,
`
`uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the accused devices in/into the United States. HTC denies
`
`that it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports any accused devices that “embody the
`
`inventions” of the ’838 patent. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`141462922.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 3366
`
`56.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 56 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 56.
`
`57.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 57 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 57.
`
`58.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 58 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 58.
`
`59.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 59 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 59.
`
`60.
`
`HTC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 60 describing functionality of third-party software, and therefore
`
`denies them. HTC denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`No response is required to AGIS’s demand for a trial by jury, but HTC hereby demands a
`
`trial by jury on all issues so triable, including without limitation, HTC’s defenses.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`HTC denies that AGIS is entitled to any relief.
`
`141462922.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 3367
`
`HTC’S DEFENSES
`
`HTC incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs in their entirety and asserts the
`
`following affirmative and other defenses. By asserting these defenses, HTC does not admit that
`
`it bears the burden of proof on any issue and does not accept any burden it would not otherwise
`
`bear. HTC reserves all other defenses pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that
`
`now exist or in the future may be available based on discovery and further factual investigation
`
`in this case.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`A.
`
`This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over HTC in the present action, and the
`
`Complaint should be dismissed.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`B.
`
`HTC does not and has not infringed (not directly, indirectly, contributorily, by
`
`inducement, willfully, jointly, or otherwise) any valid and enforceable claim of the asserted
`
`patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`C.
`
`Each of the claims of the asserted patents is invalid for failing to comply with one
`
`or more requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`D.
`
`Each of the claims of the asserted patents fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`because each asserted claim is directed towards patent-ineligible subject matter such as abstract
`
`141462922.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 3368
`
`ideas without any inventive concept to transform the abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject
`
`matter.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`E.
`
`By reason of the prior art and/or statements and representations made to and by
`
`the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the applications that led to the
`
`issuance of the asserted patents, during prosecution of any related applications, during any post-
`
`issuance proceedings involving the asserted patents, and during any post-issuance proceedings
`
`involving any related patents, the claims of the asserted patents are so limited by the doctrines of
`
`prosecution history estoppel and/or prosecution disclaimer that none of the claims of the asserted
`
`patents could be properly construed to cover any activity of HTC.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`F.
`
`AGIS’s claim for damages is limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and/or 287.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`G.
`
`HTC did not have notice of any of the asserted patents prior to service of the
`
`Complaint. For at least that reason, HTC could not have, and did not, indirectly infringe any of
`
`the asserted patents prior to service of the Complaint. AGIS is therefore also prohibited from
`
`recovering any damages in this case prior to the date on which AGIS served the Complaint on
`
`HTC.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`H.
`
`AGIS’s claims and requested relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the
`
`equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, acquiescence, patent misuse, estoppel, and/or patent
`
`exhaustion.
`
`141462922.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 3369
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`I.
`
`AGIS’s complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`HTC reserves the right to amend this Answer and these Defenses should it learn of
`
`additional information or defenses.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HTC asserts the following
`
`Counterclaims for declaratory judgment against AGIS. HTC expressly reserves the right to
`
`allege additional claims as they become known to HTC through the course of discovery.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant HTC Corporation is a Taiwanese corporation with a principal
`
`place of business at No. 88 Section 3, Zhongxing Road, Xindian District, New Taipei City 231,
`
`Taiwan, R.O.C.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, AGIS is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Texas, having a principal place of business in Marshall,
`
`Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`HTC seeks declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and patent invalidity
`
`of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”), 9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”), 9,445,251 (the
`
`“’251 patent”), and 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”) under the
`
`Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
`
`141462922.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 3370
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant, and without
`
`limitation, to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
`
`5.
`
`AGIS has submitted to personal jurisdiction and to venue in this district by filing
`
`this action. Thus, venue for AGIS is proper in this district, although other venues are more
`
`convenient for the parties, and HTC reserves the right to seek transfer of this action under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a). Upon information and belief, and by virtue of AGIS’s filing of the instant
`
`action, this Court has personal jurisdiction over AGIS.
`
`FACTS
`
`6.
`
`By its Complaint, AGIS purports to assert a claim against HTC for infringement
`
`of the asserted patents.
`
`7.
`
`HTC denies AGIS’s allegations of infringement of the asserted patents. HTC also
`
`contends that each claim of the asserted patents is invalid.
`
`8.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between HTC and AGIS as to the
`
`non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 1
`(Non-Infringement of the ’970 patent)
`
`9.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’970 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’970 patent.
`
`HTC has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`claim of the ’970 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`141462922.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 3371
`
`13.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the products it sells or has sold do
`
`not directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`infringe any valid claim of the ’970 patent.
`
`14.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that it has not induced the infringement
`
`of and has not contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’970 patent.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 2
`(Invalidity of the ’970 patent)
`
`15.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’970 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’970 patent and
`
`by implication alleged that the claims of the ’970 patent are valid.
`
`18.
`
`The claims of the ’970 patent are invalid for failing to comply with one or more
`
`requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`19.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the claims of the ’970 patent are
`
`invalid pursuant to one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including but
`
`not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 3
`(Non-Infringement of the ’055 patent)
`
`20.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`141462922.1
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’055 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’055 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 3372
`
`23.
`
`HTC has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`claim of the ’055 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`24.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the products it sells or has sold do
`
`not directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`infringe any valid claim of the ’055 patent.
`
`25.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that it has not induced the infringement
`
`of and has not contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’055 patent.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 4
`(Invalidity of the ’055 patent)
`
`26.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’055 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’055 patent and
`
`by implication alleged that the claims of the ’055 patent are valid.
`
`29.
`
`The claims of the ’055 patent are invalid for failing to comply with one or more
`
`requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`30.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the claims of the ’055 patent are
`
`invalid pursuant to one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including but
`
`not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 5
`(Non-Infringement of the ’251 patent)
`
`31.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’251 patent.
`
`141462922.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 3373
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’251 patent.
`
`HTC has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`claim of the ’251 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`35.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the products it sells or has sold do
`
`not directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`infringe any valid claim of the ’251 patent.
`
`36.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that it has not induced the infringement
`
`of and has not contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’251 patent.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 6
`(Invalidity of the ’251 patent)
`
`37.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’251 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’251 patent and
`
`by implication alleged that the claims of the ’251 patent are valid.
`
`40.
`
`The claims of the ’251 patent are invalid for failing to comply with one or more
`
`requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`41.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the claims of the ’251 patent are
`
`invalid pursuant to one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including but
`
`not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 7
`(Non-Infringement of the ’838 patent)
`
`42.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`141462922.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 3374
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’838 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’838 patent.
`
`HTC has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`claim of the ’838 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`46.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the products it sells or has sold do
`
`not directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`infringe any valid claim of the ’838 patent.
`
`47.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that it has not induced the infringement
`
`of and has not contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’838 patent.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 8
`(Invalidity of the ’838 patent)
`
`48.
`
`HTC incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of these
`
`Counterclaims as though fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`AGIS has asserted that it is the owner of the ’838 patent.
`
`AGIS has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’838 patent and
`
`by implication alleged that the claims of the ’838 patent are valid.
`
`51.
`
`The claims of the ’838 patent are invalid for failing to comply with one or more
`
`requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`52.
`
`HTC seeks and is entitled to a declaration that the claims of the ’838 patent are
`
`invalid pursuant to one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including but
`
`not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`141462922.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 3375
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, HTC requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Judgment declaring that HTC has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’970 patent, either directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Judgment declaring that the claims of the ’970 patent are invalid;
`
`Judgment declaring that HTC has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’055 patent, either directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents;
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Judgment declaring that the claims of the ’055 patent are invalid;
`
`Judgment declaring that HTC has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’251 patent, either directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Judgment declaring that the claims of the ’251 patent are invalid;
`
`Judgment declaring that HTC has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’838 patent, either directly or indirectly, individually or jointly, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents;
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Judgment declaring that the claims of the ’838 patent are invalid;
`
`Judgment that HTC is not liable for the relief sought in the Complaint with
`
`respect to AGIS’s patent infringement allegations, denying AGIS all such relief, and dismissing
`
`AGIS’s claims with prejudice;
`
`141462922.1
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 3376
`
`J.
`
`Judgment declaring this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that HTC is
`
`entitled to recover its reasonable fees, expenses, and costs in connection with this litigation; and
`
`K.
`
`Any such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY
`
`HTC hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: October 12, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera
`CA State Bar No. 314664
`kcanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Eric Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`141462922.1
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 82 Filed 10/12/18 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 3377
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on October 12, 2018, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
` Kyle R. Canavera
`
`141462922.1
`
`19
`
`

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