Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:440
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu, Bar No. 253114
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera Bar No. 314664
`KCanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`Telephone: 858.720.5700
`Facsimile: 858.720.5799
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile
`Communication Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL
`Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC., HUIZHOU
`TCL MOBILE COMMUNICATION
`CO. LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD TECHNOLOGY
`CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`Judge: Hon. George H. Wu
`Mag. Judge: Hon. Alka Sagar
`
`TCL’S ANSWER, DEFENSES AND
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:441
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication
`Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively
`“TCL”), by and through their attorneys, hereby answer the Second Amended
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed by Plaintiff Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`(“Ancora”) (Dkt. No. 44). TCL denies the allegations of the Second Amended
`Complaint to the extent such allegations are not expressly admitted in the following
`paragraphs.
`TCL admits that Ancora filed the Second Amended Complaint naming
`1.
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. as defendants. TCL denies
`the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`TCL admits that Case Nos. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx and 2:20-cv-
`2.
`01252-GW-ASx were co-pending and have now been consolidated. TCL denies
`the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`I.
`THE PARTIES
`TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`3.
`the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and thus denies those
`allegations.
`TCL admits that Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.
`4.
`is a company existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China with a
`place of business at 7F, Block F4, TCL Communication Technology Building, TCL
`International E-city, Zhong Shan Yuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen,
`Guangdong, P.R. China. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`TCL admits that Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. is a
`5.
`company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China
`and maintains its principal place of business at No. 86 Hechang Qi Lu Xi, Zhongkai
`Gaoxin District, Huizhou City, Guandong Province, P.R. China. TCL denies the
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:442
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TCL admits that TCT Mobile (US) Inc. it is a corporation organized
`6.
`and existing under the laws of Delaware and maintains a principal place of business
`at 25 Edelman, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92618. TCL denies the remaining
`allegations in this paragraph.
`TCL admits that it sells mobile devices in the United States, including
`7.
`mobile devices branded with Alcatel. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this
`paragraph.
`TCL admits that it sells mobile devices in the United States, including
`8.
`mobile devices that are branded with Blackberry. TCL denies the remaining
`allegations in this paragraph.
`TCL admits that it sells mobile devices in the United States, including
`9.
`mobile devices that are branded with Blackberry or Alcatel. TCL admits that it
`sells Android mobile devices in the United States. TCL denies the remaining
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION
`II.
`10. TCL admits that the Second Amended Complaint purports to assert an
`action arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. TCL denies that it is liable
`for patent infringement. TCL does not contest that this Court has subject matter
`jurisdiction over Ancora’s claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). TCL
`denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`11. TCL does not contest, for purposes of this action only, that the Court
`has personal jurisdiction over TCL. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this
`paragraph.
`12. TCL does not contest, for purposes of this action only, that venue is
`proper in this District. TCL admits that Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.
`Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic
`of China. TCL admits that Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. is
`a company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of
`-2-
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:443
`
`
`China. TCL denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement in the
`State of California or this District. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this
`paragraph.
`13. TCL does not contest, for purposes of this action only, that venue is
`proper in this District. TCL admits that Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.
`Ltd. it is a company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic
`of China. TCL admits that Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. is
`a company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of
`China. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`III. BACKGROUND
`14. TCL admits that Exhibit A to the Second Amended Complaint appears
`on its face to be U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”). TCL admits that the
`’941 patent states on its face that it has a title of “Method of Restricting Software
`Operation within a License Limitation.” TCL admits that the ’941 patent states on
`its face that it was issued on June 25, 2002. TCL admits that Exhibit B to the
`Second Amended Complaint appears on its face to be a reexamination certificate
`relating to the ’941 patent. TCL admits that Exhibit B states on its face that it was
`issued on June 1, 2010. TCL admits that Exhibit B states on its face that the
`patentability of claim 1-19 was confirmed. TCL denies the remaining allegations in
`this paragraph.
`15. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and thus denies those
`allegations.
`16. TCL admits that the ’941 patent has been involved in litigation against
`other defendants. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and thus
`denies those allegations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:444
`
`
`17. TCL admits that the ’941 patent has been involved in litigation against
`other defendants. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and thus
`denies those allegations.
`18. TCL admits that the ’941 patent has been involved in litigation against
`other defendants. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and thus
`denies those allegations.
`19. TCL admits that the ’941 patent has been involved in litigation against
`other defendants. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and thus
`denies those allegations.
`20. TCL admits that the ’941 patent was involved in a Covered Business
`Method proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. TCL
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`remaining allegations contained in this paragraph and thus denies those allegations.
`21. TCL admits that the ’941 patent was involved in an appeal to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TCL lacks knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`contained in this paragraph and thus denies those allegations.
`22. TCL admits that the ’941 patent was involved in an appeal to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TCL lacks knowledge or
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`contained in this paragraph and thus denies those allegations.
`23. TCL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and thus denies those
`allegations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:445
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. COUNT I - PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`24. TCL repeats and incorporates by reference each of the answers in
`paragraphs 1 through 23 above as if fully set forth herein.
`25. TCL admits that this paragraph reproduces the language of Claim 1 of
`the ’941 patent, with alterations. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this
`paragraph.
`26. Denied.
`27. Denied.
`28. TCL admits that it sells mobile devices, including mobile devices that
`are branded with Alcatel. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`29. TCL admits that it sells mobile devices, including mobile devices that
`are branded with Blackberry. TCL admits that it sells a mobile device branded as
`Blackberry KEYone. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`30. TCL admits that it sells mobile devices, including mobile devices that
`are branded with Blackberry. TCL admits that it sells a mobile device branded as
`Blackberry KEY2. TCL denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`31. Denied.
`32. Denied.
`33. Denied.
`34. Denied.
`35. Denied.
`36. Denied.
`37. Denied.
`38. Denied.
`39. Denied.
`40. Denied.
`41. Denied.
`42. Denied.
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:446
`
`
`43. Denied.
`44. Denied.
`45. Denied.
`46. Denied.
`47. Denied.
`48. Denied.
`49. Denied.
`50. Denied.
`51. Denied.
`
`V. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`TCL denies all allegations in Ancora’s prayer for relief and denies that
`Ancora is entitled to any relief.
`VI. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`No response is required to Ancora’s demand of trial by jury, but TCL hereby
`demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, including without limitation, TCL’s
`defenses.
`
`TCL’S DEFENSES
`TCL incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs in their entirety and
`asserts the following affirmative and other defenses. By asserting these defenses,
`TCL does not admit that it bears the burden of proof on any issue and does not
`accept any burden it would not otherwise bear. TCL 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.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:447
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`Each claim of the ’941 patent is invalid for failing to meet the requirements
`of patentability, including, without limitation, one or more of Sections 101, 102,
`103, and/or 112 of Title 35 of the United States Code.
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Non-infringement)
`TCL has not infringed any valid claim of the ’941 patent, either directly or
`indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, because the accused
`instrumentalities do not practice every claimed limitation.
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`By reason of the prior art and/or statements and representations made to and
`by the United States Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution of the
`applications that led to the issuance of the ’941 patent, during prosecution of any
`related applications, during any post-issuance proceedings involving the ’941
`patent, 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 ’941 patent
`could be properly construed to cover any activity of TCL.
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Equitable Doctrines)
`Ancora’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
`waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, laches, and/or unclean hands.
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`(License and Exhaustion)
`Ancora’s claims of patent infringement are barred to the extent the alleged
`infringement is licensed, either expressly or impliedly, or otherwise authorized.
`-7-
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:448
`
`
`Ancora’s claims of patent infringement are also barred to the extent that Ancora has
`exhausted its rights and remedies as to the alleged infringement.
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`(Lack of Standing)
`Ancora lacks standing to assert the ’941 patent.
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation for Sales Covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a))
`Ancora’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 to the extent that the
`alleged infringement is based on any product or service made for, used by, or sold
`to the government.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`(Extraterritoriality)
`Ancora’s claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part to
`the extent that any accused functionality of acts are located or performed outside
`the United States.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`(Patent Expiration)
`Ancora’s claims for damages are barred, in whole or in part, by reason of the
`fact that the term of the ’941 patent expired on October 1, 2018.
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages)
`Ancora’s claim for damages, if any, against TCL for alleged infringement is
`statutorily barred, in whole or in part, by the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 286,
`287 and/or 288.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:449
`
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`(No Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284)
`TCL has not willfully infringed the ’941 patent and Ancora’s claims for
`enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, if any, and an award of fees and
`costs against TCL have no basis in fact or law and should be denied.
`THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
`(No Attorneys’ Fees)
`Ancora cannot show that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 285.
`
`FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`Ancora’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
`
`can be granted.
`
`FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
`(Ensnarement)
`Ancora’s claims are barred or limited in whole or in part by the doctrine of
`ensnarement.
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`TCL has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses, and
`it reserves the right to assert and rely upon other applicable defenses that may
`become available or apparent throughout the course of this action. TCL reserves the
`right to amend, or seek to amend, its answer, including its affirmative and other
`defenses.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, Defendants and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL Mobile
`Communication Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:450
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(collectively “TCL”) bring these Counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Ancora Technologies, Inc. (“Ancora”) and allege the following:
`THE PARTIES
`Counterclaimant Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. is a
`1.
`company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China
`and maintains its principal place of business at No. 86 Hechang Qi Lu Xi, Zhongkai
`Gaoxin District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province, P.R. China.
`Counterclaimant TCT Mobile (US) Inc. is a corporation organized and
`2.
`existing under the laws of Delaware, United States and has its principal place of
`business at 25 Edelman, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618.
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. is a company
`3.
`existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China with a principal place of
`business at 7F, Block F4, TCL Communication Technology Building, TCL
`International E-city, Zhong Shan Yuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen,
`Guangdong, P.R. China.
`Upon information and belief, Ancora is a corporation organized and
`4.
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business at 23977
`S.E. 10th Street, Sammamish, Washington 98075.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`TCL seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of
`5.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941 patent”). This Court has subject matter
`jurisdiction over these counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a),
`1367(a), 2201, and 2202.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ancora because it consented
`6.
`to jurisdiction of this Court by stipulation with TCL to transfer this action from the
`Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of California.
`Venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this District because
`7.
`Ancora consented to the propriety of venue in this District by stipulation with TCL
`-10-
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:451
`
`
`to transfer this action from the Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of
`California.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of ’941 Patent)
`TCL incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1–51 of its Answer, each
`8.
`of its Defenses, and paragraph 1–7 of its Counterclaims.
`As reflected in the Second Amended Complaint and TCL’s Answer
`9.
`thereto, an actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the
`’941 patent.
`10. The ’941 patent expired on or about October 1, 2018.
`11. Although Ancora alleges in its Second Amended Complaint that TCL
`infringed the claims of the ’941 patent, TCL has denied these allegations and
`contends that TCL has not infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and
`enforceable claim of the ’941 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under the
`doctrine of equivalents. A justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 2201 and 2202, therefore exists between Ancora and TCL.
`12. By this Counterclaim, TCL seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) that it does not infringe the ’941 patent or any valid and
`enforceable claims thereof.
`13. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with
`respect to the non-infringement of the claims of the ’941 patent is now necessary
`and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`COUNTERCLAIM COUNT II
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941)
`14. TCL incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1–51 of its Answer, each
`of its Defenses, and paragraph 1–13 of its Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-11-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:452
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`15. As reflected in the Second Amended Complaint and TCL’s Answer
`thereto, an actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged validity of the ’941
`patent.
`16. Although Ancora alleges in its Second Amended Complaint that the
`’941 patent is valid and was duly issued, TCL has denied these allegations and
`contends that the ’941 patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy one or more
`conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including, but not
`limited to, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. A justiciable controversy therefore
`exists between Ancora and TCL.
`17. By this Counterclaim, TCL seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) that the ’941 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`103, and/or 112.
`18. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with
`respect to the invalidity of the claims of the ’941 patent is now necessary and
`appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`TCL demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this action.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`TCL prays for the following relief:
`A. That Ancora’s claims against TCL be dismissed with prejudice and
`that Counterclaim-Defendant Ancora takes nothing by way of its Second Amended
`Complaint;
`B. That judgment be rendered in favor of TCL and against Ancora;
`C. That TCL be granted declaratory judgment that TCL has not infringed
`and is not infringing any claim of the ’941 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or
`under the doctrine of equivalents;
`D. That TCL be granted declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’941
`patent are invalid;
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-12-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:453
`
`
`E. That TCL be awarded its attorneys’ fees in this action pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 285;
`F.
`That TCL be awarded its costs and expenses incurred in this action;
`
`and
`
`For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu, Bar No. 253114
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera, CA Bar No. 314664
`KCanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`Tel.: 858.720.5700
`Fax.: 858.720.5799
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Huizhou TCL
`Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology
`Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`G.
`
`
`DATED: May 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-13-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 45 Filed 05/01/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:454
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to
`have consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) on May 1, 2020.
`By: /s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`Kyle R. Canavera
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TCL’S ANSWER TO
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`-14-
`
`Case No. 8:19-CV-02192-GW-ASx
`
`