Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 1 of 8

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 RITZ CAMERA CENTERS, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff FlashPoint Technology, Inc. ("FlashPoint") hereby responds to each paragraph of Ritz Camera Centers, Inc.'s ("Ritz Camera") 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, that an actual justiciable controversy exists between FlashPoint and Ritz Camera regarding the validity of one or more of the patents-in-suit and the
{BMF-W0095375.}

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 2 of 8

infringement of one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, that FlashPoint is the legal owner 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. COUNT ONE: 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 Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `480 patent, but otherwise denied. COUNT TWO: INVALIDITY OF THE `480 PATENT 8. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-7 above as if

fully set forth herein. 9. 10. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `480 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT THREE: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `956 PATENT 11. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-10 above as if

fully set forth herein. 12. 13. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `956 patent, but otherwise denied.

{BMF-W0095375.}

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 3 of 8

COUNT FOUR: INVALIDITY OF THE `956 PATENT 14. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-13 above as if

fully set forth herein. 15. 16. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `956 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT FIVE: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `538 PATENT 17. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-16 above as if

fully set forth herein. 18. 19. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `538 patent, but otherwise denied. COUNT SIX: INVALIDITY OF THE `538 PATENT 20. FlashPoint incorporates by reference the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-

19 above as if fully set forth herein. 21. 22. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `538 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT SEVEN: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `190 PATENT 23. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-23 above as if

fully set forth herein. 24. 25. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `190 patent, but otherwise denied.
{BMF-W0095375.}

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 4 of 8

COUNT EIGHT: INVALIDITY OF THE `190 PATENT 26. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-25 above as if

fully set forth herein. 27. 28. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `190 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT NINE: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `316 PATENT 29. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-28 above as if

fully set forth herein. 30. 31. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `316 patent, but otherwise denied. COUNT TEN: INVALIDITY OF THE `316 PATENT 32. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-31 above as if

fully set forth herein. 33. 34. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `316 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT ELEVEN: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `914 PATENT 35. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-35 above as if

fully set forth herein. 36. Although FlashPoint is still investigating this matter, FlashPoint does not

presently allege that Ritz Camera infringes, contributes to the infringement of, or actively induces others to infringe, any claim of the `914 patent.
{BMF-W0095375.}

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 5 of 8

37.

FlashPoint does not presently assert that any claim of the `914 patent is

infringed by Ritz Camera. COUNT TWELVE: INVALIDITY OF THE `914 PATENT 38. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-37 above as if

fully set forth herein. 39. 40. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `914 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. COUNT THIRTEEN: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `575 PATENT 41. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-40 above as if

fully set forth herein. 42. 43. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that Ritz

Camera does not infringe the `575 patent, but otherwise denied. COUNT FOURTEEN: INVALIDITY OF THE `575 PATENT 44. FlashPoint incorporates the replies set forth in Paragraphs 1-43 above as if

fully set forth herein. 45. 46. Denied. Admitted that Ritz Camera seeks a declaration from this Court that the

claims of the `575 patent are invalid, but otherwise denied. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 47. No response to Paragraph 47 is required.

{BMF-W0095375.}

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 6 of 8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF In addition to the relief requested in Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment against Ritz Camera as follows: A. B. That Ritz Camera 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. /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. Any and all further relief for Plaintiff as the Court may deem just and

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

{BMF-W0095375.}

-6-

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 7 of 8

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 Ritz Camera Centers, 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. 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.

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.

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

{BMF-W0095375.}

Case 1:08-cv-00139-GMS

Document 109

Filed 05/20/2008

Page 8 of 8

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

Walgreen Co. 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, IL 60015

/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-W0095375.}