Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-O1285—GI\/IS Document 34 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
ENZON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. )
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1285 GMS
)
PHOENIX PHARMACOLOGICS, INC. )
)
)
Defendants. )
)
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant Phoenix Pharmacologics, Inc. ("Phoenix"), by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby answer Plaintiff s Complaint, in accordance with the numbered paragraphs
thereoi as follows:
Nature of the Action
1. Phoenix admits that Enzon has styled its Complaint as an action pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 256.
2. Denied.
3. Denied.
4. Denied.
5. Denied. A
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. Admitted
7. Admitted.
593286vl

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 34 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 2 of 4
The Parties
8. Phoenix is without knowledge or infomation sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies
the same.
9. Denied.
Allegations Applicable to Both Counts
10. Denied to the extent that the Agreement and General Release attached as
Exhibit C to the Complaint states that Dr. C1ark’s employment by Enzon terminated on April 22,
1996.
p l 1. Admitted.
1 2. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
1 5. Admitted.
16. Admitted.
17. Phoenix is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies
the same.

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 34 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 3 of 4
Count I
18. Phoenix restates its answers to Allegations 1-17 as if set forth herein.
19. Denied.
20. Phoenix is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies
the same.
21. Phoenix is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies
the same.
22. Phoenix is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and, on that basis, denies
the same.
Count II
23. Phoenix restates its answers to Allegations 1-17 as if set forth herein.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
Defenses
Phoenix avers the following defenses, without prejudice to its right to modify or
withdraw any defense and/or to assert additional defenses:

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 34 Filed 07/O1/2005 Page 4 of 4
First Defense
Count I is barred under the doctrines of laches and/or equitable estoppel.
Second Defense
Count II is barred under the doctrines of laches and/or equitable estoppel.
July 1, 2005
THE BAYARD FIRM
li _,lse pppq , ,_A,
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922).
222 Delaware Avenue, 9m floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
[email protected]
(302) 655~5000
Attorneys for defendant,
Phoenix Pharmacologics, Inc.
or COUNSEL:
Joseph Lucci
Patrick J. Farley
WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP
One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 568-3100
RDK/099999-0028/1055630/1
593286vl