Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP., Plaintiff, v. DELL, INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.; ACER INC.; ACER AMERICA CORP.; AOC INTERNATIONAL; ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC.; TPV TECHNOLOGY, LTD.; TPV INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.; AU OPTRONICS CORP.; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA a/k/a AU OPTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; BENQ CORP.; BENQ AMERICA CORP.; CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. a/k/a CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES CO.; TATUNG CO.; TATUNG CO. OF AMERICA, INC.; BOE HYDIS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; BOE HYDIS AMERICA INC.; CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS; COMPAL ELECTRONICS, INC.; HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORP.; JEAN CO., LTD.; LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORP.; LITE-ON, INC. a/k/a LITEON TRADING USA, INC.; MAG TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; MAG TECHNOLOGY USA, INC.; PROVIEW INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD.; PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY, INC.; PROVIEW ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; and QUANTA DISPLAY, INC. Defendants. ________________________________________________________

C.A. No.: 05-27-SLR Jury Trial Demanded

GUARDIAN'S REPLY TO QUANTA DISPLAY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Guardian Industries Corp. ("Guardian") replies to Quanta Display Inc.'s ("QDI") counterclaims as follows: REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS 121. 122. Admitted. Admitted.

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 2 of 7

123.

Guardian admits that QDI's counterclaims purport to include claims for

declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity and that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these particular counterclaims, but denies that the counterclaims have any merit and denies that QDI is entitled to any of the relief sought in its counterclaims or Prayer. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 123 of QDI's counterclaim. 124. 125. Admitted. Guardian admits that there exists an actual controversy between Guardian and

QDI concerning infringement of the `214, `187, `065 and `588 patents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 125 of QDI's counterclaims. 126. Paragraph 126 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that QDI has not infringed any claim of the `214 patent, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, or either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 126 of QDI's counterclaims. 127. Paragraph 127 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that QDI has not infringed any claim of the `187 patent, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, or either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 127 of QDI's counterclaims. 128. Paragraph 128 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that QDI has not infringed any claim of the `065 patent, either directly, contributorily, or by

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 3 of 7

inducement, or either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 128 of QDI's counterclaims. 129. Paragraph 129 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that QDI has not infringed any claim of the `588 patent, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, or either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 129 of QDI's counterclaims. 130. Guardian admits that there exists an actual controversy between Guardian and

QDI concerning the validity of the `214, `187, `065 and `588 patents. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 130 of QDI's counterclaims. 131. Paragraph 131 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that the `214 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 131 of QDI's

counterclaims. 132. Paragraph 132 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that the `187 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 132 of QDI's

counterclaims.

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 4 of 7

133.

Paragraph 133 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that the `065 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 133 of QDI's

counterclaims. 134. Paragraph 134 of QDI's counterclaims is a request for relief, and does not state

any allegation that calls for a response. QDI is not entitled to a declaration from the Court that the `588 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 134 of QDI's

counterclaims. 135. Guardian denies that QDI is entitled to recover any attorneys' fees and/or costs

from Guardian and denies that any of Guardian's activities provide any basis for finding in favor of QDI on the issue of whether this is an exceptional case. Guardian does contend that certain defendants' activities, including potentially QDI, provide a basis for this Court to find, in favor of Guardian, that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and to award Guardian its attorneys' fees and its costs incurred in connection with this litigation. Guardian denies any and all remaining averments in Paragraph 135 of QDI's counterclaims. 136. Admitted.

-4-

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 5 of 7

WHEREFORE Guardian respectfully submits that QDI's counterclaims should be dismissed, with costs assessed against QDI, and seeks such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. *****

Dated: June 1, 2005

/s/ Richard K. Herrmann Richard K. Herrmann (I.D. No. 405) MORRIS JAMES HITCHENS & WILLIAMS 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 302.888.6800 [email protected] Robert G. Krupka, P.C. Bryan S. Hales Craig D. Leavell Meredith Zinanni Eric D. Hayes KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 861-2000 Counsel for Plaintiff Guardian Industries Corp.

-5-

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 1st day of June, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing document, GUARDIAN'S REPLY TO QUANTA DISPLAY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS, with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Richard L. Horwitz, Esq. David E. Moore, Esq. Potter Anderson & Corroon Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Robert W. Whetzel, Esq. Matthew W. King, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Gerard M. O'Rourke, Esq. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 North Orange Street, P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207 Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Additionally, I hereby certify that on the 1st day of June, 2005, the foregoing document was served via email on the following non-registered participants:

Daniel T. Shvodian, Esq. Teresa M. Corbin, Esq. Howrey LLP 301 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025-3434 [email protected] [email protected] Roderick B. Williams, Esq. Avelyn M. Ross, Esq. Vinson & Elkins 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-7568 [email protected] [email protected]

York M. Faulkner, Esq. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5675 [email protected] Peter J.Wied, Esq. Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP 1620 26th Street, Fourth Floor, N Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 [email protected]

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 108

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 7 of 7

Robert J. Gunther, Jr., Esq. Kurt M. Rogers Latham & Watkins 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 [email protected] [email protected] Jeffrey A. Snyder, Esq. Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean 245 Lytton Avenue, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94301 [email protected]

Robert C. Weems, Esq. Baum & Weems 58 Katrina Lane San Anselmo, CA 94960 [email protected] E. Robert Yoches, Esq. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 [email protected]

/s/ Richard K. Herrmann Richard K. Herrmann (#405) MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 302.888.6800 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Guardian Industries Corp.

-2-