Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FLASHPOINT TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. AIPTEK, INC., ARGUS CAMERA CO., LLC, BUSHNELL INC., DXG TECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.) INC., DXG TECHNOLOGY CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., LEICA CAMERA AG, LEICA CAMERA INC., MINOX GMBH, MINOX USA, INC., MUSTEK, INC. USA, MUSTEK, INC., OREGON SCIENTIFIC, INC., POLAROID CORP., RITZ INTERACTIVE, INC., RITZ CAMERA CENTERS, INC., SAKAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., D/B/A DIGITAL CONCEPTS, TABATA U.S.A., INC., D/B/A SEA & SEA, TARGET CORP., VISTAQUEST CORP., VUPOINT SOLUTIONS, INC., WALGREEN CO., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendants § § § § § C.A. No. 08-139-GMS § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO TABATA U.S.A., INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff FlashPoint Technology, Inc. ("FlashPoint") hereby responds to each paragraph of Tabata U.S.A., Inc.'s ("Tabata") Counterclaims as follows: THE PARTIES 1. 2. Upon information and belief, admitted. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Admitted that this action purports to arise under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. §100 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, based on an actual justiciable controversy between FlashPoint and

{BMF-W0095374.}

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 2 of 7

Tabata regarding the infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202, but otherwise denied. 4. Admitted.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `480 PATENT 5. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-4 above as if

fully set forth herein. 6. 7. Denied. Admitted that Tabata seeks a declaration from this Court that Tabata does

not infringe any valid, asserted claim of the `480 patent, but otherwise denied. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `956 PATENT 8. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 above as if

fully set forth herein. 9. 10. Denied. Admitted that Tabata seeks a declaration from this Court that Tabata does

not infringe any valid, asserted claim of the `956 patent, but otherwise denied. THIRD COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `538 PATENT 11. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-10 above as if

fully set forth herein. 12. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not

presently allege that Tabata infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `538 patent. 13. FlashPoint does not presently assert that any claim of the `538 patent is

infringed by Tabata.
{BMF-W0095374.}

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 3 of 7

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `190 PATENT 14. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-13 above as if

fully set forth herein. 15. 16. Denied. Admitted that Tabata seeks a declaration from this Court that Tabata does not

infringe any valid, asserted claim of the `190 patent, but otherwise denied. FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `316 PATENT 17. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-16 above as if

fully set forth herein. 18. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not

presently allege that Tabata infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `316 patent. 19. FlashPoint does not presently assert that any claim of the `316 patent is

infringed by Tabata. SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `914 PATENT 20. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-19 above as if

fully set forth herein. 21. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not

presently allege that Tabata infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `914 patent. 22. FlashPoint does not presently assert that any claim of the `914 patent is

infringed by Tabata.

{BMF-W0095374.}

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 4 of 7

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `575 PATENT 23. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-22 above as if

fully set forth herein. 24. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not

presently allege that Tabata infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `575 patent. 25. FlashPoint does not presently assert that any claim of the `575 patent is

infringed by Tabata. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 26. No response to Paragraph 26 is required. PRAYER FOR RELIEF In addition to the relief requested in Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment as follows against Tabata as follows: A. B. That Tabata takes nothing by its Counterclaims; That the Court award Plaintiff costs and attorneys' fees incurred in

defending against these Counterclaims; and C. proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues. Any and all further relief for Plaintiff as the Court may deem just and

{BMF-W0095374.}

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 5 of 7

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-W0095374.}

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

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 Tabata U.S.A., 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:

Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Bushnell, Inc., and Tabata U.S.A., Inc. d/b/a Sea & Sea and Steven J. Balick, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Defendant General Electric Company

Richard D. Kirk, Esquire The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Sakar International Inc. d/b/a Digital Concepts

Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Leica Camera AG and Leica Camera, Inc. and Mustek, Inc. USA

Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire David E. Moore, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Wal-Mart Stores, and Target Corp.

Candice Toll Aaron, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Ritz Camera Centers, Inc. and Ritz Interactive, Inc.

{BMF-W0095374.}

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 111

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 7 of 7

Daniel V. Folt, Esquire Matthew Neiderman, Esquire Aimee M. Czachorowski, Esquire Duane Morris 1100 North Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Aiptek, Inc.

Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esquire Kevin F. Brady, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendants Polaroid Corporation

Paul E. Crawford, Esquire Kevin F. Brady, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Oregon Scientific, Inc. Francis DiGiovanni, Esquire Chad S.C. Stover, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 302-658-9141 Attorneys for Defendants DXG Technology [U.S.A.] Inc. and DXG Technology Corp.

Richard D. Kirk, Esquire Bayard 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Sakar International Inc. d/b/a Digital Concepts and VuPoint Solutions, Inc.

I further certify that on May 20, 2008, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served on the following defendants by First Class Mail: Argus Camera Company LLC 1610 Colonial Parkway Inverness, IL 60067 VistaQuest Corporation 6303 Owensmouth Avenue 10th Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Minox USA Inc. 438 Willow Brook Road Plainfield, NH 03781 /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] Attorneys for plaintiff Flashpoint Technology, Inc.
{BMF-W0095374.}

Walgreen Co. 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015