Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 83
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Slyde Analytics LLC (“Slyde” or “Plaintiff”), as and for
`
`its Answer to the Counterclaims of Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”), states as
`
`follows:
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`Slyde denies all allegations contained in headings preceding individually numbered
`
`paragraphs of the Counterclaims. Slyde denies all allegations in the Counterclaims to the extent
`
`not expressly admitted. Slyde hereby responds to the individually numbered paragraphs of the
`
`Counterclaims as follows:
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims state no legal conclusions or
`
`factual allegations to which a response is required. To the extent a response is required, Slyde
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Slyde Analytics LLC (“Slyde” or “Plaintiff”), as and for
`
`its Answer to the Counterclaims of Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”), states as
`
`follows:
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`Slyde denies all allegations contained in headings preceding individually numbered
`
`paragraphs of the Counterclaims. Slyde denies all allegations in the Counterclaims to the extent
`
`not expressly admitted. Slyde hereby responds to the individually numbered paragraphs of the
`
`Counterclaims as follows:
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`1.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims state no legal conclusions or
`
`factual allegations to which a response is required. To the extent a response is required, Slyde
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 84
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`Slyde admits that it is the assignee and owner of the Patents-in-Suit, as alleged in
`
`the Complaint.1 See Dkt. 1. To the extent Samsung alleges Slyde is not the assignee and owner
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit, Slyde denies these allegations.
`
`3.
`
`Slyde admits that it has accused Samsung of infringing the Patents-in-Suit and avers
`
`that the remainder of this paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is
`
`required.
`
`4.
`
`Slyde admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims to the extent it
`
`alleges an actual case and controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning Samsung’s
`
`infringement of the Patents-In-Suit and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains legal
`
`conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Slyde admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde admits the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`Slyde admits that Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims asserts that jurisdiction arises
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Slyde further admits the Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims
`
`asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a). Slyde further admits that Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims asserts that the
`
`
`1 Any defined terms used herein shall be ascribed the meaning set forth in the Complaint and/or
`Counterclaims, unless otherwise expressly stated.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 85
`
`Counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States and avers that the remainder of
`
`this paragraph contains legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`9.
`
`Slyde admits that personal jurisdiction in this District is proper and avers that the
`
`remainder of this paragraph contains legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`10. Slyde admits that venue in this District is proper and avers that the remainder of
`
`this paragraph contains legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-Infringement of the ’678 Patent)
`
`11. Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`12. Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’678 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`13. Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims.
`
`14. Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Counterclaims.
`
`15. Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims.
`
`16. Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Counterclaims.
`
`17. Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Counterclaims.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-Infringement of the ’085 Patent)
`
`18.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 17 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 86
`
`19.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’085 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-Infringement of the ’033 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 24 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`26.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’033 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Counterclaims.
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Non-Infringement of the ’922 Patent)
`
`32.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 31 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 87
`
`33.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’922 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Counterclaims.
`
`FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of the ’678 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 38 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`40.
`
`Slyde denies that the ’678 Patent is invalid and avers that the remainder of this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`41.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’678 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Counterclaims.
`
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of the ’085 Patent)
`
`45.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 44 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 88
`
`46.
`
`Slyde denies that the ’085 Patent is invalid and avers that the remainder of this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`47.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’085 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Counterclaims.
`
`SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of the ’033 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 50 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`52.
`
`Slyde denies that the ’033 Patent is invalid and avers that the remainder of this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`53.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’033 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Counterclaims.
`
`EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Invalidity of the ’922 Patent)
`
`57.
`
`Slyde incorporates by reference its response to Paragraphs 1 through 56 of the
`
`Counterclaims as if set forth herein at length.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 89
`
`58.
`
`Slyde denies that the ’922 Patent is invalid and avers that the remainder of this
`
`paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`59.
`
`Slyde admits an actual controversy exists between Slyde and Samsung concerning
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’922 Patent and avers that the remainder of this paragraph contains
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Counterclaims.
`
`Slyde denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Counterclaims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`63.
`
`Slyde avers that the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Counterclaims contain legal
`
`conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`64.
`
`Slyde denies that Samsung is entitled to the relief requested in its Prayer for Relief
`
`and avers that the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Counterclaims, along with its subparts, contain
`
`legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
`
`SLYDE’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SAMSUNG’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`As further answer and additional defenses, but without assuming any burden that it would
`
`not otherwise have or admitting that it bears the burden of proof with respect to any of the
`
`following, Slyde asserts the following affirmative defenses and alleges as follows. Slyde reserves
`
`all rights to allege additional defenses that become known through the course of discovery.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Counterclaims fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Samsung lacks standing to bring any of the Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 90
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`The Patents-In-Suit are all valid and enforceable.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`If Samsung 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.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Samsung’s Counterclaims are barred in whole or in part by the equitable doctrines of
`
`waiver, estoppel, and/or unclean hands.
`
`OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Slyde reserves the right to assert any and all additional affirmative defenses under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 8(c), the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other legal or equitable defenses which
`
`may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in
`
`this case.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Slyde prays for the following relief against Samsung, as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Entry of Judgment dismissing Samsung’s Counterclaims in their entirety;
`
`Entry of Judgment declaring the Patents-In-Suit, to be valid, enforceable, and
`
`infringed by Samsung;
`
`C.
`
`An award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending against Samsung’s
`
`Counterclaims;
`
`D.
`
`A finding that Samsung’s Counterclaims are not exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 21 Filed 07/17/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 91
`
`E.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: July 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206 South
`Rye, NY 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`John Andrew Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jarubino@rubinoip.com
`Michael Mondelli III
`NY Bar No. 5805114
`Email: mmondelli@rubinoip.com
`RUBINO IP
`51 J.F.K. Parkway
`Short Hills, NJ, 07078
`Telephone: (201) 341-9445
`Facsimile (973) 535-0921
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
