Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, D/B/A CINGULAR WIRELESS, HTC AMERICA, INC., HTC CORP., KYOCERA WIRELESS CORP., KYOCERA CORP., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., MOTOROLA, INC., NOKIA, INC., NOKIA CORP., PALM, INC., RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD., SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., D/B/A SPRINT PCS, T-MOBILE USA, INC., and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendants § § § § § C.A. No. 08-140-GMS § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED § § § § § § § § § § §

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO MOTOROLA, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff FlashPoint Technology, Inc. ("FlashPoint") hereby responds to each paragraph of Motorola, Inc.'s ("Motorola") Counterclaims as follows: THE PARTIES 1. 2. Admitted. Upon information and belief, admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Admitted that the Counterclaims purport to arise under United States, 35 U.S.C.

§§ 100, et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2002, and that jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 and 2202, but otherwise denied. 4. Admitted.

{BMF-W0095361.}

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 2 of 7

NATURE OF THE ACTION 5. Admitted that this purports to be an action for declaratory relief under the patent

laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2002, that Motorola seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit and non-infringement of the patents-in-suit by Motorola, and that an actual controversy exists between FlashPoint and Motorola regarding the validity of one or more of the patents-in-suit and Motorola's infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, but otherwise denied. COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,118,480 6. herein. 7. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

presently allege that Motorola infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `480 patent. 8. 9. Denied. Denied. COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,177,956 10. herein. 11. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

presently allege that Motorola infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `956 patent. 12. 13.
{BMF-W0095361.}

Denied. Denied. -2-

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 3 of 7

COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,222,538 14. herein. 15. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

presently allege that Motorola infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `538 patent. 16. 17. Denied. Denied.

COUNT IV: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,223,190 18. herein. 19. 20. 21. Denied. Denied. Denied. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

COUNT V: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,249,316 22. herein. 23. 24. 25. Denied. Denied. Denied. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

{BMF-W0095361.}

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 4 of 7

COUNT VI: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,486,914 26. herein. 27. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

presently allege that Motorola infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `914 patent. 28. 29. Denied. Denied.

COUNT VII: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,486,914 30. herein. 31. 32. 33. Denied. Denied. Denied. PRAYER FOR RELIEF In addition to the relief requested in Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment as follows against Motorola as follows: A. B. That Motorola takes nothing by its Counterclaims; That the Court award Plaintiff costs and attorneys' fees incurred in defending FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth to Paragraphs 1-5 as if fully set forth

against these Counterclaims; and C. Any and all further relief for Plaintiff as the Court may deem just and proper.

{BMF-W0095361.}

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 5 of 7

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. Patrick J. Coughlin Michael J. Dowd Ray Arun Mandlekar COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1058 John F. Ward John W. Olivo, Jr. David M. Hill Michael J. Zinna WARD & OLIVO 380 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 (212) 697-6262 Dated: May 20, 2008 /s/ Evan O. Williford David J. Margules (I.D. No. 2254) Evan O. Williford (I.D. No. 4162) BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Flashpoint Technology, Inc.

{BMF-W0095361.}

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Evan O. Williford, hereby certify that on May 20, 2008, I caused to be electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document ­ Plaintiff's Reply to Motorola, Inc.'s Counterclaims ­ with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following local counsel for defendants: Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esquire Steven J. Fineman, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Corp. Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire John W. Shaw, Esquire Karen E. Keller, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Kyocera Wireless Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC and Motorola, Inc. Arthur G. Connolly, III, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA Inc. Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire David E. Moore, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants HTC America, Inc., HTC Corp., Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd.

{BMF-W0095361.}

Case 1:08-cv-00140-GMS

Document 71

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 7 of 7

Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Sprint Spectrum d/b/a Sprint PCS Steven J. Balick, Esquire John G. Day, Esquire Lauren E. Maguire, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. Rex A. Donnelly, IV, Esquire Joanne Ceballos, Esquire Ratner Prestia 1007 Orange Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Palm, Inc.

/s/ Evan O. Williford David J. Margules (I.D. No. 2254) Evan O. Williford (I.D. No. 4162) BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 573-3500 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for plaintiff Flashpoint Technology, Inc.

{BMF-W0095361.}