Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 50
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2-23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) submit this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and
`
`Counterclaims to the Complaint filed February 8, 2023, by Plaintiff Slyde Analytics LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff” or “Slyde”). Except as hereinafter specifically admitted, qualified, or affirmatively
`
`alleged, Samsung denies each and every allegation, matter, or thing contained in the Complaint
`
`and states in response to each of the numbered paragraphs of said Complaint as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung admits that SEC is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic
`
`of Korea. Samsung admits that SEC has a place of business at 129 Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-gu,
`
`Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, Republic of Korea. Samsung admits that SEC manufactures
`
`certain smartphones that are sold in the United States, including in Texas, and other markets,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 51
`
`
`including certain products accused in the Complaint. Samsung admits that SEA distributes certain
`
`smartphones in the United States. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the
`
`Complaint, and specifically denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent
`
`infringement.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA has a principal place of business at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park,
`
`New Jersey 07660. Samsung admits that SEA has offices located at 6225 Declaration Drive, Plano,
`
`Texas 75023. Samsung admits that SEA may be served with process in Texas through its registered
`
`agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136. Samsung
`
`denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`Samsung admits that the Complaint purports to make claims under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. Samsung admits, for purposes of this action only, that
`
`this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a). Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and
`
`specifically denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung, for purposes of this action only, will not challenge personal jurisdiction
`
`in this Court. Samsung denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent
`
`infringement. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung, for purposes of this action only, will not challenge that venue over
`
`Samsung properly lies in this District. Samsung admits that it has not contested venue in this
`
`District in certain other cases, but only for purposes of those other cases. Samsung denies any
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 52
`
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and specifically denies that it has
`
`committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’678 Patent is entitled “Method and Circuit
`
`for Switching a Wristwatch from a First Power Mode to a Second Power Mode” and includes an
`
`issuance date of October 31, 2017. Samsung admits a copy of the ’678 Patent is available at the
`
`USPTO website. Samsung denies that the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’678 Patent.
`
`Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’085 Patent is entitled “Method and Circuit
`
`for Switching a Wristwatch from a First Power Mode to a Second Power Mode” and includes an
`
`issuance date of February 5, 2019. Samsung admits a copy of the ’085 Patent is available at the
`
`USPTO website. Samsung denies that the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’085 Patent.
`
`Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’033 Patent is entitled “Wristwatch with
`
`Electronic Display” and includes an issuance date of November 19, 2013. Samsung admits a copy
`
`of the ’033 Patent is available at the USPTO website. Samsung denies that the USPTO duly and
`
`legally issued the ’033 Patent. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’922 Patent is entitled “Wristwatch with a
`
`Touch Screen and Method for Displaying on a Touch-Screen Watch” and includes an issuance
`
`date of May 16, 2017. Samsung admits a copy of the ’922 Patent is available at the USPTO
`
`website. Samsung denies that the USPTO duly and legally issued the ’922 Patent. Samsung denies
`
`any remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 53
`
`
`11.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`13.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`Samsung denies that any Samsung products infringe, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’678 or ’085 Patents. Samsung is without sufficient
`
`information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`14 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung denies that any Samsung products infringe, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’033 Patent. Samsung is without sufficient information
`
`or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 of the
`
`Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`
`Samsung denies that any Samsung products infringe, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’922 Patent. Samsung is without sufficient information
`
`or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 of the
`
`Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 54
`
`
`COUNT I
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’678 Patent)
`
`18.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraph 1-17 as if set forth
`
`fully herein.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`21.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`22.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 22 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 23 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 24 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`25.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 25 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 26 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 55
`
`
`29.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`30.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`31.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`COUNT II
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’085 Patent)
`
`32.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraph 1-17 as if set forth
`
`fully herein.
`
`33.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`34.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`35.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`36.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 36 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`37.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 37 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`38.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 38 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 56
`
`
`40.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`41.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`42.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`43.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`COUNT III
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’033 Patent)
`
`44.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraph 1-17 as if set forth
`
`fully herein.
`
`45.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`46.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`47.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`48.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 48 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`49.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 49 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`50.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 57
`
`
`51.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`52.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`53.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`54.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’922 Patent)
`
`55.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraph 1-17 as if set forth
`
`fully herein.
`
`56.
`
`Samsung is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`57.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`58.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`59.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 59 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 59.
`
`60.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 60 set forth legal conclusions, to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 60.
`
`61.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 58
`
`
`62.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`63.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`64.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`65.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, and specifically
`
`denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent infringement.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`66.
`
`To the extent a response is required, Samsung admits that the Complaint contains
`
`a request for a jury trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`67.
`
`To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies that Slyde is entitled to any
`
`of its requested relief. Samsung specifically denies that it has directly or indirectly infringed any
`
`claims of the ’678, ’085, ’033, and ’922 Patents (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”); specifically
`
`denies that Slyde is entitled to any injunctive relief; specifically denies that Slyde is entitled to any
`
`damages, interest, or costs; specifically denies that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285; specifically denies that Slyde is entitled to attorneys fees; and specifically
`
`denies that Slyde is entitled to any other relief in this action.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`68.
`
`To the extent that any allegations of the Complaint are not specifically admitted,
`
`Samsung hereby denies them.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 59
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`69.
`
`Samsung asserts the following affirmative defenses and other defenses and reserves
`
`the right to amend its answer to assert additional defenses as more information becomes available.
`
`In asserting the defenses below, Samsung does not assume any burden it would otherwise not have.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`70.
`
`Samsung does not infringe and has not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and is not liable for infringement
`
`of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’678 Patent.
`
`71.
`
`Samsung does not infringe and has not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and is not liable for infringement
`
`of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’085 Patent.
`
`72.
`
`Samsung does not infringe and has not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and is not liable for infringement
`
`of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’033 Patent.
`
`73.
`
`Samsung does not infringe and has not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and is not liable for infringement
`
`of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’922 Patent.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`74.
`
`The ’678 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including sections 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116, 119, 132, 251,
`
`256, and/or 282.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 60
`
`
`75.
`
`The ’085 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including sections 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116, 119, 132, 251,
`
`256, and/or 282.
`
`76.
`
`The ’033 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including sections 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116, 119, 132, 251,
`
`256, and/or 282.
`
`77.
`
`The ’922 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including sections 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116, 119, 132, 251,
`
`256, and/or 282.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Failure to Mark)
`
`78.
`
`Slyde’s claims for damages prior to the filing of this lawsuit are barred to the extent
`
`Slyde, its predecessors-in-interest, or licensees failed to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287, including its marking requirement. In particular, Slyde fails to identify any facts or
`
`allegations that could establish that Slyde or its licensees complied with the marking requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 287 for any practicing products, and therefore Slyde is not entitled to seek damages
`
`any earlier than the date it can establish actual notice of the alleged infringement.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Equitable Doctrines)
`
`79.
`
`Slyde’s claims of patent infringement are barred in whole or in part by the equitable
`
`doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, patent misuse, and/or unclean hands.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 61
`
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`80.
`
`Slyde’s claims of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, if any, are
`
`barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel and/or prosecution
`
`disclaimer.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`81.
`
`Slyde’s claims for damages are barred to the extent Slyde seeks damages beyond
`
`the six-year time limitation set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287 and/or 288.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Ensnarement)
`
`82.
`
`Slyde’s claims of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, if any, are
`
`barred under the doctrine of ensnarement.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(No Injunction)
`
`83.
`
`Slyde is not entitled to an injunction with respect to the Patents-in-Suit under any
`
`theory because Slyde has not suffered and will not suffer irreparable harm. Slyde does not practice
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, Slyde is not without adequate remedy at law, and/or public policy concerns
`
`weigh against any equitable relief.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(License and Exhaustion)
`
`84.
`
`Slyde’s claims of patent infringement are barred to the extent the alleged
`
`infringement is licensed, either expressly or impliedly, or otherwise authorized. Slyde’s claims of
`
`patent infringement are also barred to the extent that Slyde has exhausted its rights and remedies
`
`as to the alleged infringement.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 62
`
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(Extraterritoriality)
`
`85.
`
`Slyde’s claims for patent infringement are barred in whole or in part to the extent
`
`that any accused functionality or acts are located or performed outside the United States.
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Standing)
`
`86.
`
`Slyde’s claims for patent infringement are barred in whole or in part to the extent
`
`Slyde lacks standing.
`
`TWELFTH DEFENSE
`(Substantial Non-Infringing Uses)
`
`87.
`
`Slyde’s claims for patent infringement are barred in whole or in part because all
`
`products or actions accused of infringement have substantial uses that do not infringe and do not
`
`induce or contribute to the alleged infringement.
`
`THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`88.
`
`Slyde’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including,
`
`but not limited to, failure of the Complaint to meet the standard for pleading set by the Supreme
`
`Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`544 (2007).
`
`FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
`(Not an Exceptional Case)
`
`89.
`
`If Slyde is entitled to any remedy, it is not entitled to a finding that this case is
`
`exceptional warranting attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, or pursuant to the Court’s inherent
`
`power.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 63
`
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint other than those
`
`expressly admitted herein, and without prejudice to either SEC’s or SEA’s right to plead additional
`
`counterclaims as additional information becomes available, Counterclaim-Plaintiff Samsung
`
`alleges as follows against Counterclaim-Defendant Slyde:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`According to the allegations set forth in its Complaint, Slyde claims to be the
`
`assignee and owner of the Patents-in-Suit. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 11.
`
`3.
`
`Slyde has accused Samsung of infringing the Patents-in-Suit. Samsung denies that
`
`any of its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim in any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`4.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde concerning the
`
`alleged infringement of one or more valid claims of the Patents-in-Suit, and that controversy is
`
`ripe for adjudication by this Court.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff SEC is a business entity organized under the laws of the
`
`Republic of Korea with a principal place of business at 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-
`
`si, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, Republic of Korea.
`
`6.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff SEA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York
`
`with its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendant Slyde is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of
`
`business located at 104 East Houston Street, Suite 170, Marshall, TX 75670.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 64
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a). These Counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Slyde, at least because by initiating this
`
`lawsuit, Slyde has submitted to the jurisdiction of this District.
`
`10. Venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
`
`and 1400.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-infringement of ’678 Patent)
`
`11.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`12. An actual controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde as to whether Samsung
`
`infringes the ’678 Patent, as Slyde contends, or does not do so, as Samsung contends.
`
`13.
`
`Samsung has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ’678 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`Samsung has been damaged by Slyde’s filing of a lawsuit against Samsung based
`
`on a patent that Samsung does not infringe.
`
`15.
`
`By this Counterclaim, Samsung seeks a declaration that it has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’678 Patent either directly or indirectly,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or willfully, and is entitled to a declaration to that
`
`effect.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 65
`
`
`16. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Samsung
`
`may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the ’678 Patent and with respect to any past,
`
`present, or future manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of its products.
`
`17.
`
`This is an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award of its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-infringement of ’085 Patent)
`
`18.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 17 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`19. An actual controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde as to whether Samsung
`
`infringes the ’085 Patent, as Slyde contends, or does not do so, as Samsung contends.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ’085 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`Samsung has been damaged by Slyde’s filing of a lawsuit against Samsung based
`
`on a patent that Samsung does not infringe.
`
`22.
`
`By this Counterclaim, Samsung seeks a declaration that it has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’085 Patent either directly or indirectly,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or willfully, and is entitled to a declaration to that
`
`effect.
`
`23. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Samsung
`
`may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the ’085 Patent and with respect to any past,
`
`present, or future manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of its products.
`
`24.
`
`This is an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award of its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 66
`
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-infringement of ’033 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 24 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`26. An actual controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde as to whether Samsung
`
`infringes the ’033 Patent, as Slyde contends, or does not do so, as Samsung contends.
`
`27.
`
`Samsung has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ’033 Patent.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung has been damaged by Slyde’s filing of a lawsuit against Samsung based
`
`on a patent that Samsung does not infringe.
`
`29.
`
`By this Counterclaim, Samsung seeks a declaration that it has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’033 Patent either directly or indirectly,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or willfully, and is entitled to a declaration to that
`
`effect.
`
`30. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Samsung
`
`may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the ’033 Patent and with respect to any past,
`
`present, or future manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of its products.
`
`31.
`
`This is an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award of its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-infringement of ’922 Patent)
`
`32.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 31 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`33. An actual controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde as to whether Samsung
`
`infringes the ’922 Patent, as Slyde contends, or does not do so, as Samsung contends.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 67
`
`
`34.
`
`Samsung has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly or indirectly, any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ’922 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Samsung has been damaged by Slyde’s filing of a lawsuit against Samsung based
`
`on a patent that Samsung does not infringe.
`
`36.
`
`By this Counterclaim, Samsung seeks a declaration that it has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’922 Patent either directly or indirectly,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or willfully, and is entitled to a declaration to that
`
`effect.
`
`37. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time such that Samsung
`
`may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the ’922 Patent and with respect to any past,
`
`present, or future manufacture, use, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of its products.
`
`38.
`
`This is an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award of its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of ’678 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 38 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’678 Patent are invalid for failing to meet the conditions
`
`for patentability set forth in Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 115,
`
`116, 119, 132, 251, 256, and/or 282.
`
`41. An actual controversy exists between Samsung and Slyde based on Slyde’s having
`
`filed the Complaint against Samsung alleging infringement of the ’678 Patent.
`
`42.
`
`Samsung has been injured and damaged by Slyde’s lawsuit.
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 16 Filed 06/26/23 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 68
`
`
`43.
`
`Samsung therefore seeks a declaration that the asserted claims of the ’678 Patent
`
`are invalid for failing to meet the conditions for patentability in 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`44.
`
`This is an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award of its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of ’085 Patent)
`
`45.
`
`Samsung incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 44 of its Counterclaims as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`46.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’085 Pate