Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 04-cv-0617-LTB-BNB POLYROCK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a General Steel Corporation; GENSTONE ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, d/b/a GenStone; JEFF KNIGHT; KEVIN KISSIRE; and CHUCK DEMAREST, Defendants. DEFENDANTS GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, GENSTONE ENTERPRISES, LLC AND JEFF KNIGHT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC (hereinafter "General Steel"), Genstone Enterprises, LLC (hereinafter "Genstone") and Jeff Knight (hereinafter "Knight") (collectively "Defendants"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, Lewis Scheid, LLC, hereby answer the Second Amended Complaint of PolyRock Technologies, LLC (hereinafter "PolyRock") as follows: 1. Defendants deny that Plaintiff PolyRock has any action against Defendants to protect

intellectual property rights or proprietary technology (including an economical process for manufacturing lightweight panels that closely resemble stone or brick masonry), for the production of molded polyurethane siding or building panels. Defendants are without knowledge or

information regarding the samples of products manufactured under a license at the websites identified by PolyRock in its Paragraph 1 and therefore deny same. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding PolyRock's statement that "Unlike brick or stone, which required a skilled mason to perform installation, plaintiff's panels can be installed by a person 1

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 2 of 8

having basic carpentry skills and standard carpentry tools" and therefore deny same. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding PolyRock's licenses of the "Proprietary Technology, charging an up-front fee and an ongoing royalty to manufacturers" and therefore deny same. Defendants are further without knowledge or information regarding PolyRock's licensed products generating significant "interest in the marketplace" and therefore deny same. 2. Defendant General Steel admits that it sells steel buildings used in commercial,

industrial or storage purposes. Defendant General Steel denies that "historically", it did not manufacture or sell artificial stone or brick products. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding "other defendants...historically" manufacturing or selling artificial stone or brick products and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. 4. 5. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 3. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 4. Defendants have moved to strike the allegations of Paragraph 5 pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). 6. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding PolyRock's legal

theories for filing the instant lawsuit and therefore deny all the allegations of Paragraph 6. 7. 8. Defendants deny the jurisdictional allegations of Paragraph 7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 8 due to Plaintiff's lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. 9. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 9 and therefore deny same.

2

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 3 of 8

10. 11.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 10. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 11 and therefore deny same. 12. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 12 and therefore deny same. 13. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 13 and therefore deny same. 14. 15. 16. Admitted. Admitted. Defendants admit that Knight is a resident of Colorado and president of General

Steel. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 16. 17. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the allegations of

Paragraph 17 and therefore deny same, except Defendants admit that Defendant Kissire was formerly employed by General Steel. 18. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 18 and therefore deny same, except Defendants admit that Defendant Demarest was a former consultant of General Steel. 19. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 19 and therefore deny same. 20. 21. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 20. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21.

3

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 4 of 8

22.

Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 22 and therefore deny same. 23. Defendants General Steel and Knight deny the allegations of Paragraph 23.

Defendant Genstone is without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23 and therefore denies same. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23 against Demarest and Kissire and therefore deny same. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 24. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 26. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 27. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 28. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 29 and therefore deny same. 30. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 30, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29. 31. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 31 and therefore deny same. 32. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 32 and therefore deny same. 33. 34. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 33. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 34.

4

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 5 of 8

35. 36. 37. 38.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 35. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 36. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 37. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 38, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 33. 39. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 39 and therefore deny same. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 40. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 41. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 42. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 44, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29. 45. 46. 47. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 45. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 46. Defendants are without knowledge or information regarding the truth of the

allegations of Paragraph 47 and therefore deny same. 48. 49. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 48. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 49, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29. 50. 51. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 50. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 51.

5

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 6 of 8

52. 53.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 52. Defendants have moved to strike the allegations of Paragraph 53 pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). 54. 55. 56. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 54. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 56, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 55. 57. 58. 59. 60. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 57. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 58. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 59. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 60, Defendants incorporate by reference

their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 29. 61. 62. 63. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 61. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 62. Each allegation not expressly admitted herein is denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part pursuant to the doctrines of laches, estoppel and waiver.

6

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 7 of 8

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is barred from enforcing any rights against Defendants pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part because their alleged Proprietary Technology was in the public domain or was not protectible in any way FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part pursuant to the applicable statutes of limitations. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part due to lack of standing. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part due to failure of consideration. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part due to breaches of contract and releases by Plaintiff's predecessors in interest. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part due to lack of privity. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The claims asserted by Plaintiff are barred in whole or in part due to Defendants' right to set off damages caused by the actions of Plaintiff's predecessors in interest.

7

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 54

Filed 08/11/2005

Page 8 of 8

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by its failure to join indispensable parties.

Dated August 11, 2005. /s/ Kurt Lewis ____________________________ Kurt S. Lewis Lewis Scheid LLC 2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 320 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 534-5040 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC GENSTONE ENTERPRISES, LLC & JEFF KNIGHT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 11th day of August, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANTS GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, GENSTONE ENTERPRISES, LLC AND JEFF KNIGHT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT with the Clerk of court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: John A. DeSisto E-mail: [email protected] Susan M. Hargleroad E-mail: [email protected]

/s/ Kurt Lewis ____________________________

8