Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 27.6 kB
Pages: 7
Date: September 11, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,257 Words, 8,187 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/38590/108.pdf

Download Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware ( 27.6 kB)


Preview Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware
Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 1 of 7 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COXCOM, INC., COX ENTERPRISES, INC., CSC HOLDINGS, INC. AND CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

CASE NO. 2:06-CV-223 [LED] JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Rembrandt Technologies, LP ("Rembrandt") respectfully submits this Reply to the Answer and Counterclaims of Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Operating LLC (collectively "Charter") filed August 17, 2006: JURISDICTION 1. Rembrandt admits that Charter purports to seek declaratory relief under the Declaratory

Judgment Act and the patent laws of the United States, and that this Court has jurisdiction over such claims, but denies that Charter is entitled to its requested relief. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. 3. Admitted. Denied.

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 2 of 7 Page 2 of 7

4.

Rembrandt admits that there is an actual case or controversy between the parties, but

denies that it is for the reason alleged by Charter. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM 5. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 6. 7. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM 8. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 9. 10. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. THIRD COUNTERCLAIM 11. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 12. 13. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter.

2
Austin 30830v1

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 3 of 7 Page 3 of 7

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM 14. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 15. 16. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM 17. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 18. 19. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM 20. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 21. 22. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM 23. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 24. Denied.

3
Austin 30830v1

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 4 of 7 Page 4 of 7

25.

Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM 26. Rembrandt repeats and re-alleges its response to paragraphs 1-4 of the Counterclaims,

and further incorporates by reference its allegations in its Complaint filed June 1, 2006. 27. 28. Denied. Rembrandt admits that this is an exceptional case, but denies that it is exceptional for the

reason alleged by Charter. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Rembrandt prays that the Court deny in all respects Charter's prayer for relief, that the Court enter judgment against Charter on all claims alleged by Charter, and that the Court enter on behalf of Rembrandt: (a) a judgment that Charter has infringed the Rembrandt patents-in-suit

directly and/or indirectly by way of inducing infringement and/or contributing to the infringement of those patents; (b) a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Charter and its agents,

servants, employees, affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, and those in association therewith, from making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing into the United States any product, or using, offering to sell, or selling any service, which falls within the scope of any claim of the patents-in-suit; (c) a judgment and order requiring Charter to pay Rembrandt damages under

35 U.S.C. § 284, including treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35

4
Austin 30830v1

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 5 of 7 Page 5 of 7

U.S.C. § 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of final judgment with an accounting as needed; (d) a judgment and order requiring Charter to pay Rembrandt pre-judgment

and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded; (e) a judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring

Charter to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorney's fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and (f) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DATED: September 11, 2006

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sam Baxter___________________ Sam Baxter State Bar No. 01938000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 505 E. Travis, Suite 105 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 927-2111 Telecopier: (903) 927-2622 [email protected] Jeffrey A. Carter State Bar No. 03919400 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4006 Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 [email protected] Travis Gordon White State Bar No. 21333000 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 [email protected] 5

Austin 30830v1

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 6 of 7 Page 6 of 7

Robert M. Parker State Bar No. 15498000 Robert Christopher Bunt State Bar No. 00787165 PARKER & BUNT, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Telecopier: (903) 533-9687 [email protected] [email protected] Franklin Jones, Jr. State Bar No. 00000055 JONES & JONES, INC. 201 W. Houston Street P.O. Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 938-4395 Telecopier: (903) 938-3360 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP

6
Austin 30830v1

Case 2:06-cv-00223-TJW-CE Document 108 Case 1:07-cv-00400-GMS Document 39

Filed 06/28/2007 Filed 09/11/2006

Page 7 of 7 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by U.S. mail, on this the 11th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Sam Baxter____________________ Sam Baxter

7
Austin 30830v1