`
`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
`
`