Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:455
`
`
`
`
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5780
`Tel: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`Consolidated Case No.:
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`
`[Hon. George H. Wu]
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO TCL’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`v.
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC.,
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE
`COMMUNICATION CO.,
`LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5780
`Tel: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel: (248) 358-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES,
`INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`Consolidated Case No.:
`Case No. 2:20-cv-01252-GW-ASx
`
`[Hon. George H. Wu]
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO TCL’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO SECOND
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`v.
`
`TCT MOBILE (US) INC.,
`HUIZHOU TCL MOBILE
`COMMUNICATION CO.,
`LTD., and SHENZHEN TCL
`CREATIVE CLOUD
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:456
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Ancora Technologies,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Ancora”)
`
`2
`
`respectfully submits the following Answer to Defendants TCT Mobile (US) Inc.,
`
`3
`
`Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud
`
`4
`
`Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “TCL”) Amended Counterclaims:
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Counterclaimant Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. is a
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaimant TCT Mobile (US) Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware, United States and has its principal place of
`
`16
`
`business at 25 Edelman, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Shenzhen TCL Creative Cloud Technology Co., Ltd. is a company
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`2
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:457
`
`
`
`International E-city, Zhong Shan Yuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen,
`
`Guangdong, P.R. China.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ancora is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business at 23977
`
`S.E. 10th Street, Sammamish, Washington 98075.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`TCL seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ancora because it consented
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`3
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:458
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Denied, but Ancora does not challenge personal jurisdiction in this
`
`lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this District because Ancora
`
`consented to the propriety of venue in this District by stipulation with TCL to
`
`transfer this action from the Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of
`
`California.
`
`ANSWER: Denied, but Ancora does not challenge venue in this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of ’941 Patent)
`
`8.
`
`TCL incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1–51 of its Answer, each of
`
`its Defenses, and paragraph 1–7 of its Counterclaims.
`
`ANSWER: Ancora incorporates its allegations and responses to the identified
`
`paragraphs herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`As reflected in the Second Amended Complaint and TCL’s Answer
`
`thereto, an actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the
`
`’941 patent.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`4
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:459
`
`
`
`
`
`10. The ’941 patent expired on or about October 1, 2018.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202, therefore exists between Ancora and TCL.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`17
`
`enforceable claims thereof.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`5
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:460
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Ancora is without sufficient facts to form a belief as to the basis
`
`for this allegation, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`patent.
`
`ANSWER: Ancora is without sufficient facts to form a belief as to the basis
`
`for this allegation, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`6
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:461
`
`
`
`limited to, sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. A justiciable controversy therefore exists
`
`between Ancora and TCL.
`
`ANSWER: Ancora admits that it alleges infringement and TCL denies such
`
`allegation, but with respect to any additional allegations, Ancora is without
`
`sufficient facts to form a belief as to the basis for this allegation, and therefore
`
`denies the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER: Admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`ANSWER: Ancora is without sufficient facts to form a belief as to the basis for this
`
`allegation, and therefore denies the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 15, 2020
`
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`
`
`
` /s/ John P. Rondini
`Marc Lorelli (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`John P. Rondini (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jrondini@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`7
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-02192-GW-AS Document 46 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:462
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark A. Cantor (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mcantor@brookskushman.com
`John S. LeRoy (Admitted pro hac vice)
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Phone: (248) 358-4400
`
`William E. Thomson, Jr. (SBN 47195)
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2080
`Los Angeles, California 90017-5780
`Phone: (213) 622-3003
`wthomson@brookskushman.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ancora Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`Case No. 8:19-cv-02192-GW-ASx
`
`8
`
`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
`
`
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
