Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cv-0041 5-***-IVI PT Document 26 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG, )
Plaintiff, g
I v. { C.A. No. 07-415
OLYMPUS CORPORATION, and g JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OLYMPUS IMAGING AMERICA, Inc., )
Defendants. g
PAPST’S REPLY TO OLYMPUS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiff Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG ("Papst") answers the counterclaims
of Defendants Olympus Corporation and Olympus Imaging America, Inc. (collectively
"Olympus") as follows:
General Denial
Unless specifically admitted below, Papst denies each and every allegation set for
in Olympus’ counterclaims.
Answer to Specific Allegations in O1)@pus’ Counterclaims
1. Papst is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of
the averments in paragraph 1, and therefore denies those averments.
2. Papst admits that, upon information and belief, Olympus Imaging America, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation located at 3500 Corporate Parkway, Center Valley, PA 18034.
Papst is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of other
averments in paragraph 2, and therefore denies those other averments.
1

Case 1 :07-cv-0041 5-***-IVI PT Document 26 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
3. Papst admits that Olympus manufactures and sells digital cameras. Papst is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of other averments in
paragraph 3, and therefore denies those other averments.
4. Admitted.
5. Papst admits that it does not manufacture or sell consumer products, and that it is in
the business of obtaining intellectual property rights and obtaining commercial benefit
from those rights. Papst denies any other averments in paragraph 5.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Papst denies that it is presently prosecuting divisional applications of the ‘399 and the
‘449 patents. Papst admits the other averments in paragraph 8.
9. Papst admits that it told Olympus that it was prepared to proceed with litigation if
settlement could not be reached. Papst denies the other averments in paragraph 9.
10. Admitted.
11. Papst admits that Olympus has asserted that its products do not inhinge the ‘399
patent or the ‘449 patent, including during a meeting on November 2, 2006. Papst denies
the other averments in paragraph 11, including averments that Olympus’ products do not
infringe the ‘399 and ‘449 patents.
12. Papst admits that it has offered to license Olympus to practice the ‘399 and ‘449
patents. Papst denies the other averments in paragraph 12.
13. Papst denies that Olympus’ digital cameras do not inkinge the ‘399 and ‘449 patents.
Papst admits that Olympus has declined to take a license to practice those patents. Papst
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the truth of other
2

Case 1 :O7—cv-0041 5-***-IVI PT Document 26 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
averments in paragraph 13, and therefore denies those other avennents, including
averments as to why Olympus has declined to take a license.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
18. Admitted
19. Papst replies and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 18
above as if fully set forth herein.
20. Denied.
21. Denied.
22. Admitted.
23. Denied.
24. Papst replies and incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 23
above as if fully set forth herein.
25. Denied.
26. Denied.
27. Admitted.
28. Denied.
29. Papst admits that Olympus asserted that it reserves a right to amend its
counterclaims. Papst denies any other averments in paragraph 29.
3

Case 1 :07-cv-0041 5-***-IVI PT Document 26 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
Reply to Olggppus’ Reguested Relief
Papst denies that Olympus is entitled to any relief in this action, either as
requested in its counterclaims or otherwise.
Papst’s Defenses
1. The counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Olympus does infringe the ‘399 and the ‘449 patents directly or indirectly.
3. The claims of the ‘399 and the ‘449 patents are valid and enforceable.
Jury Demand
Papst demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
ASHBY & GEDDES
/s/ Lauren E. Maguire
Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114)
John G. Day (I.D. #2403)
Lauren E. Maguire (I.D. #4261)
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 654-1888
sbalick@ashby—geddes.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for
Papst Licensing GmbH & C0. Kg
Of Counsel:
Jerold B. Schnayer
John L. Ambrogi
WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
120 S. Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 655-1500
Dated: October 10, 2007
184849.1
4