Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 3405
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`ANSWER TO DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COUNTERCLAIMS
`OF DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF HTC CORPORATION
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”), as and
`
`for its Answer to the Declaratory Judgment Counterclaims of Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
`
`HTC Corporation (“Counterclaimant” or “HTC”), states as follows:
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`AGIS denies all allegations contained in headings preceding individually numbered
`
`
`
`paragraphs of Counterclaimant’s Counterclaims. AGIS denies all allegations to the extent not
`
`expressly admitted. AGIS hereby responds to the individually numbered paragraphs of
`
`Counterclaimant’s Counterclaims as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`AGIS admits that HTC states that HTC is a Taiwanese corporation with a
`
`1.
`
`principal place of business at No. 88 Section 3, Zhongxing Road, Xindian District, New Taipei
`
`City 231, Taiwan, R.O.C.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`ANSWER TO DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COUNTERCLAIMS
`OF DEFENDANT/COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF HTC CORPORATION
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”), as and
`
`for its Answer to the Declaratory Judgment Counterclaims of Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
`
`HTC Corporation (“Counterclaimant” or “HTC”), states as follows:
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`AGIS denies all allegations contained in headings preceding individually numbered
`
`
`
`paragraphs of Counterclaimant’s Counterclaims. AGIS denies all allegations to the extent not
`
`expressly admitted. AGIS hereby responds to the individually numbered paragraphs of
`
`Counterclaimant’s Counterclaims as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`AGIS admits that HTC states that HTC is a Taiwanese corporation with a
`
`1.
`
`principal place of business at No. 88 Section 3, Zhongxing Road, Xindian District, New Taipei
`
`City 231, Taiwan, R.O.C.
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 3406
`
`2.
`
`AGIS admits that it 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.
`
`AGIS admits that HTC’s counterclaims purport to seek 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. AGIS denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`4.
`
`AGIS admits that HTC’s Counterclaims purport arise under 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.
`
`AGIS denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`AGIS admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over AGIS and that venue is
`
`currently proper in this District, otherwise denied.
`
`FACTS
`
`AGIS admits that by its Complaint, AGIS purports to assert a claim against HTC
`
`6.
`
`for infringement of the asserted patents.
`
`7.
`
`AGIS admits that HTC purports to deny AGIS’s allegations of infringement of the
`
`asserted patents. AGIS admits that HTC also purports to contend that each claim of the asserted
`
`patents is invalid.
`
`8.
`
`AGIS admits that an actual controversy has arisen and currently exists between
`
`HTC and AGIS as to the infringement and validity of the asserted patents, otherwise denied.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 1
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘970 patent)
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3407
`
`9.
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 8 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`patent.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’970 patent.
`
`AGIS admits it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’970
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 2
`(Invalidity of the ‘970 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 14 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’970 patent.
`
`AGIS admits that it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the
`
`’970 patent and that the claims of the ’970 patent are valid, otherwise denied.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 3
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘055 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 19 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’055 patent.
`
`AGIS admits it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’055
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 3408
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 4
`(Invalidity of the ‘055 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 25 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’055 patent.
`
`AGIS admits that it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the
`
`’055 patent and that the claims of the ’055 patent are valid, otherwise denied.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 5
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘251 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 30 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`patent.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’251 patent.
`
`AGIS admits has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’251
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 6
`(Invalidity of the ‘251 patent)
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 3409
`
`37.
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 36 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’251 patent.
`
`AGIS admits that it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the
`
`’251 patent and that the claims of the ’251 patent are valid, otherwise denied.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 7
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘838 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 41 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`patent.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’838 patent.
`
`AGIS admits has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the ’838
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Counterclaims.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM 8
`(Invalidity of the ‘838 patent)
`
`AGIS repeats and realleges its responses in paragraphs 1 through 47 above as if
`
`fully set forth at length herein.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`AGIS admits that it is the owner of the ’838 patent.
`
`AGIS admits that it has accused HTC of directly and indirectly infringing the
`
`’838 patent and that the claims of the ’838 patent are valid, otherwise denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 3410
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Counterclaims.
`
`AGIS denies the allegations contained in paragraph 52 of the Counterclaims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`AGIS denies that HTC is entitled to any relief, either as prayed for in its HTC's
`
`Counterclaims or otherwise.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, AGIS, prays for the following relief
`
`against HTC, as follows:
`
`A. Entry of Judgment dismissing HTC’s Counterclaims in their entirety;
`
`B. Entry of Judgment declaring the ’970, ’055, ’251 and ’838 patents to be valid,
`
`enforceable and infringed by HTC;
`
`C. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against HTC’s
`
`Counterclaims; and,
`
`D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`AGIS hereby demands a jury for all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: November 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`NY Bar No. 2303089
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 3411
`
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`Shahar Harel
`NY Bar No. 4573192
`Email: sharel@brownrudnick.com
`John A. Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`Daniel J. Shea
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@brownrudnick.com
`Justine Minseon Park
`NY Bar No. 5604483
`Email: apark@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`Fax: (212)209-4801
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Fax: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 86 Filed 11/02/18 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 3412
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on November 2, 2018, all counsel of record who
`
`are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
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
