Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 220-3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 3
20. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiff` s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 20.
21. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiffs
allegations, Maritz dcmes the allegations of Paragraph Zl.
22. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiff s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 22.
23. Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 23, and specilically denies that it
falsely marked the VAULT system as "patent pending."
U 24. Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 24, and specifically denies that it
thlsely marked the VAULT system as “patent pending?
25. Maritz denies the allegations of`Paragr:=.ph 25, and specifically denies that it made
misrepresentations related to patent status-
CLAIM I
26. Matitz incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 25 by reference as if
fully set forth.
27. Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 27.
28. Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 28, and specifically denies it has
committed acts of infringement.
29. Maritz denies the allegations ofParagraph 29, and specifically denies it has
committed acts of in fringernent.
CLAIM It
30. Maritz incorporates its responses to Paragraphs l through 29 by reference as if
fully set forth.
A

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 220-3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 3
31. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiff`s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 31.
32. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiff` s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations ot“.l-‘aragraph 32.
33. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature of plaintiff s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 33.
34. Maritz denies the allegations ot" Paragraph 34.
CI,AIl‘vT HI
35. Maritz incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 25 and 31 through 34
by reference as if fully set forth.
36. Given what appears to be the intentionally ambiguous nature ofplaintiff`s
allegations, Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 36.
37. Maritz denies the allegations of Paragraph 37.
38. As understood, denied.
39. l\»larit2 denies the allegations of Paragraph 39, and specifically denies that it has
made intentionally false statements.
40. Maritz admits that it sometimes competes with ALG. Maritz denies the
remaining allegations of Paragraph 40.
41. Matitz denies the allegations ofParagraph 41, and specifically denies that it has
made false statements.
5

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 220-3 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEPENSES
Maritz incorporates its Answer and the allegations of its Counterclaim by reference as if
fully set forth.
A. The Amended Complaint tails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
B. The claims of the ‘4t2 Patent are invalid under one or more provisions of the
Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. § I, et seq., including, but not necessarily limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ lOl,
lO2,103, and/or II2.
C. Maritz does not infringe any valid claim of the *412 patent, and has not engaged
in willful patent intringemciit
D. The ‘4l2 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
E. The doctrine of unclean hands bars enforcement ofthe ‘4l2 patent.
•
in-
H. ANP is barred nom recovering damages for any activities prior to commencement
of the present suit, due to a failure to comply with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 287(a).
l. Andys false marking claim fails, because Maritz has not marked, affixed to any
article, or used in advettising in connection with any article, patent markings as contemplated by
the patent statutes and interpretive case law, nor has it acted with deceptive intent.
1. ANP has no standing to assert claims for alleged false marking in this case.
K. ANP has no standing to assert a Lanham Act violation in this case, and the
activity it challenges, even were it provable, is not cognizable under the Lanham Act.
6

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 220-3

Filed 08/29/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 220-3

Filed 08/29/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 220-3

Filed 08/29/2006

Page 3 of 3