Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation et al

Filing 39

Answer to Amended Complaint / Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.'s Answer to Eastman Kodak Company's First Amended Complaint byToshiba America Electronics Components, Inc.. (Chung, John) (Filed on 9/23/2011)

1
2
3

John H. Chung (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

4
5
6
7

Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)
Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

8
9
10

Attorneys for Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
Mobile Display Co., Ltd., and Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 3:07-md-01827-SI
Case No. 3:10-cv-05452-SI

This Document Relates to:

15

TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC
COMPONENTS, INC.’S ANSWER TO
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16
17
Case No.: 10-cv-5452-SI
18
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
19
Plaintiff,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
EPSON IMAGING DEVICES
CORPORATION; EPSON ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC.; TOSHIBA
CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;
TOSHIBA MOBILE DISPLAY CO., LTD.; AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION; AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
INC.,
Defendants.

27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Defendant Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“TAEC”), by its undersigned

2

attorneys, for its Answer to Eastman Kodak Company’s First Amended Complaint (the

3

“Complaint”), dated December 1, 2010 as follows:

4

I.

5
6
7

INTRODUCTION
1. TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, denies these allegations.
2. Paragraph 2 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and legal conclusions,

8

to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 2

9

relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient

10

to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To

11

the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies

12

these allegations.

13

3. Paragraph 3 consists of purported statements by government authorities and/or

14

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

15

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 may be deemed to require a

16

response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except TAEC admits that: Sharp

17

Corporation, LG Display Co. Ltd. (and its U.S. subsidiary, LG Display America Inc.),

18

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, Chi Mei Optoelectronics

19

Corporation, and HannStar Display Corporation agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for

20

their roles in several separate and distinct conspiracies to fix the prices of TFT-LCD panels; and

21

AU Optronics and AU Optronics America have been indicted.

22

4. Paragraph 4 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and legal conclusions,

23

to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 4

24

relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient

25

to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To

26

the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies

27

these allegations.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

1

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

5. Paragraph 5 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

3

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 may be deemed to require a response from

4

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Plaintiff has filed an action to obtain

5

certain relief and damages.

6

6. Paragraph 6 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

7

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 may be deemed to require a response from

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

7. Paragraph 7 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and legal conclusions,

10

to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 7

11

relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient

12

to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To

13

the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies

14

these allegations.

15

8. Paragraph 8 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

16

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 may be deemed to require a response from

17

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

18

9. Paragraph 9 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

19

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 may be deemed to require a response from

20

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Plaintiff’s action was consolidated

21

and assigned to the San Francisco Division of the United States District Court for the Northern

22

District of California, Judge Susan Illston presiding.

23

III.

24

DEFINITIONS
10. Paragraph 10 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of a defined term used in its

25

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

26

Paragraph 10 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

2

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

11. Paragraph 11 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of a defined term used in its

2

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

3

Paragraph 11 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

4

12. Paragraph 12 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of a defined term used in its

5

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

6

Paragraph 12 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

7

13. Paragraph 13 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of a defined term used in its

8

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

9

Paragraph 13 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

10

14. Paragraph 14 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of a defined term used in its

11

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

12

Paragraph 14 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

13

IV.

14
15

THE PARTIES
15. TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

16

AU Optronics

17

16. Paragraph 16 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

18

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16

19

and, therefore, denies these allegations.

20

17. Paragraph 17 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

21

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17

22

and, therefore, denies these allegations.

23

18. Paragraph 18 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claim and Plaintiff’s

24

explanation of a defined term used in its Complaint, to which no response is required. To the

25

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 relate to other Defendants and/or third

26

parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

27

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

3

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

in Paragraph 18 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

2

allegations.

3

Epson

4

19. Paragraph 19 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

5

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19

6

and, therefore, denies these allegations.

7

20. Paragraph 20 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

8

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20

9

and, therefore, denies these allegations.

10

21. Paragraph 21 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claim and Plaintiff’s

11

explanation of a defined term used in its Complaint, to which no response is required. To the

12

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 relate to other Defendants and/or third

13

parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

14

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

15

in Paragraph 21 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

16

allegations.

17

Toshiba

18

22. Paragraph 22 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

19

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22

20

and, therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, except TAEC admits that

21

Toshiba Corporation is a Japanese Company with its principal place of business at 1-1, Shibaura

22

1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-8001, Japan.

23

23. Paragraph 23 relates to another Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

24

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23

25

and, therefore, denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, except TAEC is generally

26

aware that Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., f/k/a Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co.,

27

Ltd., is a Japanese company located at 1-9-2, Hatara-cho, Fukaya-shi, Saitama, 366-0032, Japan.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

4

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

24. TAEC denies each and ever allegation contained in Paragraph 24, except admits that

2

TAEC is located at 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 400, Irvine, California; that TAEC is a

3

wholly-owned subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc; and that during at least a portion of the time

4

period between January 1, 1996 and December 11, 2006, TAEC marketed, sold and/or

5

distributed certain types of LCD panels to customers in the United States. TAEC specifically

6

denies having manufactured LCD panels.

7

25. Paragraph 25 consists of Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and Plaintiff’s

8

explanation of a defined term used in its Complaint, to which no response is required. To the

9

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 may be deemed to require a response from

10

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

11

26. Paragraph 26 consists of Plaintiff’s explanation of defined terms used in its

12

Complaint, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

13

Paragraph 26 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

14

Co-Conspirators

15

27. Paragraph 27 relates to third parties to this action. Accordingly, TAEC lacks

16

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

17

in Paragraph 27 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

18

28. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 relate to other

19

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

20

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

21

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

22

allegations.

23

V.

24

KODAK’S PURCHASES OF LCD PANELS AND LCD PRODUCTS
29. TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

25

the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

26

VI.

27
28

THE MARKET FOR LCD PANELS AND LCD PRODUCTS
30. Paragraph 30 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 relate to other Defendants, TAEC lacks
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

5

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

2

therefore, denies the allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 are

3

directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

4

31. Paragraph 31 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

5

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 relate to other Defendants, TAEC lacks

6

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

7

therefore, denies the allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 are

8

directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

32. Paragraph 32 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

10

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 relate to other Defendants, TAEC lacks

11

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

12

therefore, denies the allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 are

13

directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

14

33. Paragraph 33 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

15

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 relate to other Defendants, TAEC lacks

16

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

17

therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 33

18

are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain types of LCD

19

panels are used in notebook computers, monitors, and DSC finished products.

20
21
22

34. TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 and, therefore, denies these allegations.
35. Paragraph 35 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of their claims and/or

23

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. TAEC lacks knowledge or information

24

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 and,

25

therefore, denies these allegations.

26
27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

6

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3

VII.

DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS ENGAGED IN A
CONSPIRACY TO FIX THE PRICE OF LCD PANELS
A.

4
5

Defendants and Their Co-Conspirators Engaged in Bilateral and Multilateral Meetings and Communications With Competitors To Inflate Prices of
LCD Panels and LCD Products

36. Paragraph 36 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

6

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

7

in Paragraph 36 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

8

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

9

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 are directed to

10

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

11

37. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 relate to other

12

Defendants and/or third parties to this action, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient

13

to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To

14

the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies

15

these allegations.

16

38. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 relate to other

17

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

18

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

19

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

20

allegations.

21

39. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 relate to other

22

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

23

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

24

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

25

allegations.

26

40. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 relate to other

27

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

28

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

7

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

2

allegations.

3

41. Paragraph 41 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

4

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

5

the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

6

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

7

allegations.

8

42. Paragraph 42 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

9

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

10

the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

11

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

12

allegations.

13

43. Paragraph 43 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

14

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

15

the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

16

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

17

allegations.

18

44. Paragraph 44 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

19

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

20

the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

21

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

22

allegations.

23

45. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 relate to other

24

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

25

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

26

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

27

allegations.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

8

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

46. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 relate to other

2

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

4

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

5

allegations.

6

47. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 relate to other

7

Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

8

belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

9

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

10
11

allegations.
48. Paragraph 48 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

12

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

13

in Paragraph 48 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

14

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

15

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 may be deemed to

16

require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

17

49. Paragraph 49 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

18

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

19

in Paragraph 49 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

20

allegations. To the extent Paragraph 49 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this

21

action, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

22

allegations contained in Paragraph 49 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

23

50. Paragraph 50 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

24

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

25

in Paragraph 50 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

26

allegations. To the extent Paragraph 50 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this

27

action, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

28

allegations contained in Paragraph 50 and, therefore, denies these allegations.
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

9

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

51. Paragraph 51 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

2

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

3

in Paragraph 51 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

4

allegations. Paragraph 51 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

5

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

6

the allegations contained in Paragraph 51 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

7

52. Paragraph 52 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

8

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

9

in Paragraph 52 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these

10

allegations. To the extent Paragraph 52 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this

11

action, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

12

allegations contained in Paragraph 52 and, therefore, denies these allegations.

13

53. Paragraph 53 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

14

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

15

in Paragraph 53 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

16

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

17

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 may be deemed to

18

require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

19

54. Paragraph 54 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

20

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

21

the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

22

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

23

allegations.

24

55. Paragraph 55 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

25

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

26

the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

27

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

28

allegations.
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

10

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

B.

2
3

The Conspiracy Extended to the United States
and In Particular to California

56. Paragraph 56 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 56 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations except admits that Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. maintained

8

an office in California between January 1, 1996–December 11, 2006. To the extent that the

9

allegations contained in Paragraph 56 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

10

57. Paragraph 57 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

11

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

12

in Paragraph 57 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

13

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

14

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 are directed to

15

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

16

58. Paragraph 58 contains purported statements made by other Defendants and

17

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

18

required. Paragraph 58 also contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

19

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 relate to other Defendants and/or third

20

parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

21

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations except admits that Toshiba America

22

Electronic Components, Inc. maintained offices in California between January 1, 1996-

23

December 11, 2006. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 are directed to

24

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

25

C.

26

59. Paragraph 59 consists of purported statements by government authorities, new

27

Defendants’ Participation in the Conspiracy

reports and/or statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

11

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 may be

2

deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

60. Paragraph 60 consists of purported statements by government authorities, new

4

reports and/or statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no

5

response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 may be

6

deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

7

Epson

8

61. Paragraph 61 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

9

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

10

in Paragraph 61 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

11

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

12

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 61 are directed to

13

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

14

62. Paragraph 62 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

15

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

16

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 may be deemed to require

17

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Epson Imaging

18

Devices Corporation agreed to plead guilty and pay a criminal fine for its participation in a

19

conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

20

63. Paragraph 63 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

21

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. Also, Paragraph 63 relates to other

22

Defendants and/or third parties to this action. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

23

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 63

24

and, therefore, denies these allegations. .To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph

25

63 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

26

AU Optronics

27

64. Paragraph 64 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

28

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. Also, Paragraph 64 relates to other
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

12

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Defendants and/or third parties to this action. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or

2

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 64

3

and, therefore, denies these allegations. .To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph

4

64 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

5

65. Paragraph 65 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

6

65. Paragraph 65 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

7

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

8

the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

9

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

10
11

allegations.
66. Paragraph 66 relates to other Defendants and/or third parties to this action.

12

Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

13

the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent

14

that the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these

15

allegations.

16

67. Paragraph 67 consists of purported statements by government authorities and/or

17

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

18

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 may be deemed to require

19

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

20

Toshiba

21

68. Paragraph 68 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

22

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 may be deemed to require a response from

23

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

24

69. Paragraph 69 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

25

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 may be deemed to require a response from

26

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations. Also, Paragraph 69 relates to other Defendants and/or

27

third parties to this action. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

13

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 and, therefore, denies

2

these allegations.

3

70. Paragraph 70 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

4

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 may be deemed to require a response from

5

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations. Also, Paragraph 70 relates to other Defendants and/or

6

third parties to this action. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to

7

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 and, therefore, denies

8

these allegations, except admits that (i) TAEC entered into a TFT-LCD Technology Transfer

9

and License Agreement with a predecessor of HannStar in March 1998; (ii) TAEC and

10

Matsushita formed a joint venture, AFPD PFE., Ltd., to manufacture TFT-LCDs in March 2001;

11

(iii) in April 2002, TAEC and Matsushita formed Toshiba Mobile Display Co., Ltd., f/k/a

12

Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.; and (iv) in 2006, TAEC purchased an

13

approximate 20% stake in LGD’s TFT-LCD manufacturing facility in Poland.

14

71. Paragraph 71 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

15

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

16

in Paragraph 71 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

17

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

18

these allegations except admits that Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. maintained

19

an office in California between January 1, 1996–December 11, 2006. To the extent that the

20

allegations contained in Paragraph 71 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

21

72. Paragraph 72 consists of purported statements by government authorities, which

22

speak for themselves and to which no response is required. Paragraph 72 also relates to another

23

Defendant. Accordingly, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

24

the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 and, therefore, denies these allegations. To

25

the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 72 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies

26

these allegations, except admits that Sharp Corporation agreed to plead guilty for its

27

participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

14

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

73. Paragraph 73 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

2

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

3

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 may be deemed to require

4

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that LG Display Co. Ltd.

5

and LG Display America, Inc. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for their

6

participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

7

74. Paragraph 74 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

8

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

9

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 may be deemed to require

10

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain current and

11

former executives of LG Display Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for their

12

participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

13

75. Paragraph 75 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

14

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

15

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 75 may be deemed to require

16

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain current and

17

former executives of LG Display Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for their

18

participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

19

76. Paragraph 76 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

20

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

21

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 76 may be deemed to require

22

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain current and

23

former executives of LG Display Co. Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for their

24

participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

25

Chunghwa

26

77. Paragraph 77 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

27

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

28

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 may be deemed to require
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

15

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Chunghwa Picture

2

Tubes, Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for its participation in a conspiracy to

3

fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

4

78. Paragraph 78 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

5

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

6

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 may be deemed to require

7

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain current and

8

former executives of Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal

9

fines for their participation in a conspiracy to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

10

79. Paragraph 79 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

11

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

12

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 may be deemed to require

13

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that certain former

14

executives of Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. have been indicted for alleged violations of the

15

Sherman Act.

16

HannStar

17

80. Paragraph 80 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

18

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

19

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 80 may be deemed to require

20

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that HannStar Display

21

Corporation agreed to plead guilty and pay a criminal fine for its participation in several separate

22

and distinct conspiracies to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

23

Chi Mei

24

81. Paragraph 81 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

25

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

26

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 81 may be deemed to require

27

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Chi Mei

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

16

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Optoelectronics agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for its participation in a conspiracy

2

to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

3

Hitachi

4

82. Paragraph 82 contains purported statements by government authorities and/or

5

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

6

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 82 may be deemed to require

7

a response from TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations, except admits that Hitachi Displays,

8

Ltd. agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal fines for its participation in several separate and

9

distinct conspiracies to fix prices of TFT-LCD panels.

10
11
12

VIII. DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS CONCEALED THEIR
CONSPIRACY TO FIX THE PRICE OF LCD PANELS
83. Paragraph 83 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

13

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

14

in Paragraph 83 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

15

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

16

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 83 are directed to

17

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

18

84. Paragraph 84 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

19

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

20

in Paragraph 84 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

21

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

22

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 84 are directed to

23

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

24

85. Paragraph 85 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

25

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

26

in Paragraph 85 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

27

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

17

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 85 are directed to

2

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

86. Paragraph 86 contains argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 86 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 86 are directed to

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

IX.

10

CONSPIRACY’S EFFECT ON U.S. COMMERCE
87. Paragraph 87 contains purported statements made by other Defendants and

11

statements in public documents, which speak for themselves and to which no response is

12

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 87 relate to other Defendants

13

and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

14

truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the

15

allegations contained in Paragraph 87 may be deemed to require a response from TAEC, TAEC

16

denies these allegations.

17

88. Paragraph 88 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

18

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 88 relate to other Defendants,

19

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

20

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

21

in Paragraph 88 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

22

89. Paragraph 89 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

23

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 89 relate to other Defendants,

24

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

25

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

26

in Paragraph 89 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

27
28

90. Paragraph 90 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is
required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 90 relate to other Defendants,
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

18

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

2

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

3

in Paragraph 90 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

4

91. Paragraph 91 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

5

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 91 relate to other Defendants,

6

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

7

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

8

in Paragraph 91 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

92. Paragraph 92 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

10

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 92 relate to other Defendants,

11

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

12

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

13

in Paragraph 92 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

14

93. Paragraph 93 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

15

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 93 relate to other Defendants,

16

TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these

17

allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained

18

in Paragraph 93 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

19

94. Paragraph 94 consists of legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the

20

extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 94 relate to other Defendants, TAEC lacks

21

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

22

therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 94

23

are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

24

X.

25

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
95. Paragraph 95 contains argument and legal conclusions, to which no response is

26

required. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 95 relate to other Defendants

27

and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

19

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the

2

allegations contained in Paragraph 95 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

First Claim For Relief
(Violation Of Sherman Act Against All Defendants)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

96. TAEC hereby incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-95 of the
Complaint as set forth above.
97. Paragraph 97 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or
legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained
in Paragraph 97 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 97 are directed to
TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.
98. Paragraph 98 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or
legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained
in Paragraph 98 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 98 are directed to
TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.
99. Paragraph 99 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or
legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained
in Paragraph 99 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 99 are directed to
TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.
100. Paragraph 100 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or
legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained
in Paragraph 100 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

20

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 100 are directed to

2

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

101. Paragraph 101 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 101 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 101 are directed to

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9
10
11
12

Second Claim For Relief
(Violation Of California Antitrust Law For All U.S. Purchases)
102. TAEC hereby incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-101 of the
Complaint as set forth above.

13

103. Paragraph 103 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

14

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

15

in Paragraph 103 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

16

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

17

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 103 are directed to

18

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

19

104. Paragraph 104 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

20

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

21

in Paragraph 104 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

22

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

23

these allegations except admits that Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. maintained

24

an office in California between January 1, 1996 –December 11, 2006. To the extent that the

25

allegations contained in Paragraph 104 are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

26

105. Paragraph 105 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

27

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

28

in Paragraph 105 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

21

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

2

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 105 are directed to

3

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

4

106. Paragraph 106 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

5

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

6

in Paragraph 106 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

7

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

8

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 106 are directed to

9

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

10

107. Paragraph 107 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

11

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

12

in Paragraph 107 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

13

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

14

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 107 are directed to

15

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

16

108. Paragraph 108 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

17

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

18

in Paragraph 108 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

19

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

20

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 108 are directed to

21

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

22

109. Paragraph 109 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

23

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

24

in Paragraph 109 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

25

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

26

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 109 are directed to

27

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

22

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

Third Claim For Relief
(Violation Of California Antitrust Law For California Purchases)
110. TAEC hereby incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-109 of the
Complaint as set forth above.
111. Paragraph 111 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of tits claims

6

and/or legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations

7

contained in Paragraph 111 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks

8

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and,

9

therefore, denies these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 111

10

are directed to TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

11

112. Paragraph 112 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

12

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

13

in Paragraph 112 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

14

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

15

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 112 are directed to

16

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

17

113. Paragraph 113 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

18

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

19

in Paragraph 113 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

20

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

21

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 113 are directed to

22

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

23

114. Paragraph 114 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

24

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

25

in Paragraph 114 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

26

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

23

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 114 are directed to

2

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

115. Paragraph 115 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 115 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 115 are directed to

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

116. Paragraph 116 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

10

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

11

in Paragraph 116 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

12

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

13

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 116 are directed to

14

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

15

117. Paragraph 117 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

16

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

17

in Paragraph 117 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

18

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

19

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are directed to

20

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

21

Fourth Claim For Relief
(Violation Of Nevada Antitrust Law)

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

118. TAEC hereby incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-117 of the
Complaint as set forth above.
119. Paragraph 119 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or
legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained
in Paragraph 119 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

24

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 119 are directed to

2

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

120. Paragraph 121 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 120 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 120 are directed to

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

121. Paragraph 121 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

10

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

11

in Paragraph 121 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

12

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

13

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 121 are directed to

14

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

15

Fifth Claim For Relief
(Violation Of New York Antitrust Law)

16
17
18

122. TAEC hereby incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-121 of the
Complaint as set forth above.

19

123. Paragraph 123 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

20

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

21

in Paragraph 123 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

22

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

23

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 123 are directed to

24

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

25

124. Paragraph 124 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

26

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

27

in Paragraph 124 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

28

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

25

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 124 are directed to

2

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

3

125. Paragraph 126 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

4

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

5

in Paragraph 125 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

6

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

7

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 125 are directed to

8

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

9

126. Paragraph 126 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

10

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

11

in Paragraph 126 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

12

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

13

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 126 are directed to

14

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

15

127. Paragraph 127 consists of argument, Plaintiff’s characterization of its claims and/or

16

legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained

17

in Paragraph 127 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, TAEC lacks knowledge or

18

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and, therefore, denies

19

these allegations. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 127 are directed to

20

TAEC, TAEC denies these allegations.

21

XI.

22

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In answer to the Prayer for Relief, TAEC denies each and every allegation in the Prayer

23

and further specifically denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested or any

24

remedy whatsoever against TAEC.

25
26

All allegations of the Complaint not heretofore admitted or denied are here and now
denied as though specifically denied herein.

27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

26

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3

GENERAL DEFENSES
FIRST DEFENSE
The conduct alleged to provide a basis for the claims of Plaintiff did not have a direct,

4

substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on trade or commerce with the United States. The

5

Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of Plaintiff. The Court also

6

lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

7

SECOND DEFENSE

8
9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a.
THIRD DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in, whole or part, because the Complaint fails to plead

14

conspiracy with the particularity required under applicable law.

15

FIFTH DEFENSE

16

Plaintiff has failed to plead fraudulent concealment with the particularity required by

17

Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

18

SIXTH DEFENSE

19
20
21

The Complaint should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens.
SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims against TAEC are barred to the extent that they have agreed to

22

arbitration or chosen a different forum for the resolution of their claims.

23

EIGHTH DEFENSE

24

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff lacks standing to bring

25

or maintain the claims set forth in the Complaint.

26

NINTH DEFENSE

27
28

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff was not validly
assigned those claims.
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

27

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

TENTH DEFENSE
TAEC asserts as defenses to Plaintiff’s claims any additional defense that it might have

3

against Plaintiff’s purported assignors, as to whom additional defenses cannot presently be

4

ascertained.

5

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
TWELFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has suffered no
antitrust injury.
THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

11

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of limitations,

12

including but not limited to: 15 U.S.C. § 15b; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208; Cal. Bus. &

13

Prof. Code § 16750.1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 337-340; Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 11.190 and

14

598A.220; and N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(2).

15

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.
FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims relating to purchases of LCD panels other than TFT-LCD panels,

21

including, but not limited to, thin film diode (“TFD”), color super-twist nematic (“CSTN”), film

22

super-twist nematic (“FSTN”) and monochrome super-twist nematic (“MSTN”), are barred by

23

applicable statutes of limitations, including but not limited to: 15 U.S.C. § 15b; Cal. Bus. &

24

Prof. Code § 17208; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750.1; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 337-340; Nev.

25

Rev. Stat. §§ 11.190 and 598A.220; N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214(2). These claims are also barred by the

26

doctrine of laches, and because the allegations relating to these products fail to state a claim

27

upon which relief can be granted.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

28

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

2

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has not been injured in

3

its business or property by reason of any act of TAEC.

4

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

5

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged injuries and

6

damages were not legally or proximately caused by any acts or omissions of TAEC and/or were

7

caused, if at all, solely and proximately by the conduct of third parties, including, without

8

limitation, the prior, intervening or superseding conduct of such third parties.

9

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

10

To the extent that any actionable conduct occurred, Plaintiff’s claims against TAEC are

11

barred because all such conduct would have been committed by individuals acting ultra vires.

12

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

13

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff has suffered no

14

damages as a result of any actions taken by TAEC and/or the other Defendants.

15

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

16

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damages, if any, are

17

speculative and because of the impossibility of the ascertainment and allocation of such alleged

18

damages.

19

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

20

Plaintiff is barred from recovery of any damages because of and to the extent of its

21

failure to mitigate damages.

22

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

23

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any actions or practices of

24

TAEC that are the subject of the Complaint were undertaken unilaterally for legitimate business

25

reasons and in pursuit of TAEC’s independent interests and those of its customers, and were not

26

the product of any contract, combination or conspiracy between TAEC and any other person or

27

entity.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

29

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

2

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any acts or practices of TAEC

3

that are the subject of the Complaint were adopted in furtherance of the legitimate business

4

interests of TAEC and of its customers and did not unreasonably restrain competition.

5

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

6

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any acts or practices of TAEC

7

that are the subject of the Complaint were cost justified or otherwise economically justified and

8

resulted from a good-faith effort to meet competition or market conditions.

9

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as premised upon privileged conduct or

11

actions by TAEC.

12

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

13

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged conduct complained

14

of was caused by, due to, based upon, or in response to directives, laws, regulations, policies

15

and/or acts of governments, governmental agencies and entities and/or regulatory agencies, and

16

as such is non-actionable or privileged.

17

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

18

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent they seek improper

19

multiple damage awards, and damage awards duplicative of those sought in other actions, in

20

violation of the Due Process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

21

States Constitution.

22

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE

23

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean

24

hands.

25

THIRTIETH DEFENSE

26
27

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of accord and
satisfaction.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

30

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed because Plaintiff has available

3

an adequate remedy at law.

4

THIRTY-SECOND DEFENSE

5

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred, in whole or in

6

part, for failure to join indispensable parties.

7

THIRTY-THIRD DEFENSE

8
9

Without admitting the existence of any contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint
of trade, TAEC contends that it is entitled to set off any amounts paid to Plaintiff by any

10

Defendants other than TAEC who have settled, or do settle, Plaintiff’s claims against them in

11

this action.

12

THIRTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

13

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are barred, in whole or in part, insofar as Plaintiff

14

seeks to enjoin alleged events that have already transpired without the requisite showing of

15

threatened future harm or continuing harm.

16

THIRTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

17

TAEC adopts by reference any applicable defense pleaded by any other Defendant not

18

otherwise expressly set forth herein.

19

THIRTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

20
21
22
23
24
25

TAEC reserves the right to assert other defenses as this action proceeds up to and
including the time of trial.
DEFENSES TO SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation Of California Antitrust Law For All U.S. Purchases)
THIRTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute its state antitrust claims, in whole or in part, under,

26

without limitation, the following statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq.; Cal. Bus. &

27

Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

31

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

THIRTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute its claims, in whole or in part, under, without

3

limitation, the following statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

4

THIRTY-NINTH DEFENSE

5

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that the claims are based on

6

California law and any of the alleged events took place outside the state of California without

7

impact on California residents.

8

FORTIETH DEFENSE

9

Any award of restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 based upon asserted

10

interests or injuries of Plaintiff would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth

11

Amendment (as incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) to the

12

United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution.

13

FORTY-FIRST DEFENSE

14

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 are barred, in

15

whole or in part, because TAEC did not acquire any money or property from Plaintiff.

16

FORTY-SECOND DEFENSE

17

Any finding of liability under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, 17203 or 17204 would

18

violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

19

and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, because the standards of liability under

20

these statutes are unduly vague and subjective, permitting retroactive, random, arbitrary and

21

capricious punishment that serves no legitimate governmental interest.

22

FORTY-THIRD DEFENSE

23

Any award of restitution to the Plaintiff under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 would

24

constitute a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Taking Clause of

25

the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (as incorporated by the Due Process

26

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and Article I, Section 19

27

of the California Constitution.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

32

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

FORTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 improperly delegates the Executive Branch’s

3

prosecutorial power to private parties, in contravention of the separation-of-powers doctrine and

4

the provisions of Article V of the California Constitution vesting the State’s executive power in

5

the Executive Branch, by authorizing private plaintiffs without any individualized injury to bring

6

suit on behalf of the interests of the general public.

7

FORTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

8
9

Any award of restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 to persons who refuse to
execute an acknowledgment that the payment is in full settlement of claims against Defendants

10

would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

11

Constitution.

12

FORTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

13

Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq., are barred, in whole or

14

in part, because the application of §§ 16700, et seq., to wholly interstate or foreign commerce

15

violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

16

FORTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

17

Any award of treble damages, punitive damages or restitution pursuant to Cal. Bus. &

18

Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16727, 16750, or 16761 would violate the Excessive Fines and Due

19

Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and equivalent clauses in the California

20

Constitution.

21

FORTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

22

Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq., §§ 17200, et seq., and

23

California unjust enrichment law are barred, in whole or in part, because those statutes are

24

inapplicable to alleged wrongs suffered by non-California residents based on alleged conduct of

25

TAEC occurring outside of California.

26
27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

33

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

FORTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment brought under California law are barred, in

3

whole or in part, because TAEC did not receive a benefit from Plaintiff, TAEC did not retain

4

any benefit, and/or the receipt of any benefit was not unjust.

5
6
7
8
9

DEFENSES TO THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation Of California Antitrust Law For California Purchases)
FIFTIETH DEFENSE
Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute its state antitrust claims, in whole or in part, under,
without limitation, the following statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq.; Cal. Bus. &

10

Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

11

FIFTY-FIRST DEFENSE

12

Plaintiff lacks standing to prosecute its claims, in whole or in part, under, without

13

limitation, the following statutes: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

14

FIFTY-SECOND DEFENSE

15

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that the claims are based on

16

California law and any of the alleged events took place outside the state of California without

17

impact on California residents.

18

FIFTY-THIRD DEFENSE

19

Any award of restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 based upon asserted

20

interests or injuries of Plaintiff would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth

21

Amendment (as incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) to the

22

United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution.

23

FIFTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

24
25

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 are barred, in
whole or in part, because TAEC did not acquire any money or property from Plaintiff.

26
27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

34

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

FIFTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Any finding of liability under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, 17203 or 17204 would

3

violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

4

and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, because the standards of liability under

5

these statutes are unduly vague and subjective, permitting retroactive, random, arbitrary and

6

capricious punishment that serves no legitimate governmental interest.

7

FIFTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

8

Any award of restitution to the Plaintiff under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 would

9

constitute a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Taking Clause of

10

the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (as incorporated by the Due Process

11

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and Article I, Section 19

12

of the California Constitution.

13

FIFTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

14

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 improperly delegates the Executive Branch’s

15

prosecutorial power to private parties, in contravention of the separation-of-powers doctrine and

16

the provisions of Article V of the California Constitution vesting the State’s executive power in

17

the Executive Branch, by authorizing private plaintiffs without any individualized injury to bring

18

suit on behalf of the interests of the general public.

19

FIFTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

20

Any award of restitution under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 to persons who refuse to

21

execute an acknowledgment that the payment is in full settlement of claims against Defendants

22

would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

23

Constitution.

24

FIFTY-NINTH DEFENSE

25

Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq., are barred, in whole or

26

in part, because the application of §§ 16700, et seq., to wholly interstate or foreign commerce

27

violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

35

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

SIXTIETH DEFENSE
Any award of treble damages, punitive damages or restitution pursuant to Cal. Bus. &

3

Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16727, 16750, or 16761 would violate the Excessive Fines and Due

4

Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and equivalent clauses in the California

5

Constitution.

6

SIXTY-FIRST DEFENSE

7

Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16700, et seq., §§ 17200, et seq., and

8

California unjust enrichment law are barred, in whole or in part, because those statutes are

9

inapplicable to alleged wrongs suffered by non-California residents based on alleged conduct of

10

TAEC occurring outside of California.

11

SIXTY-SECOND DEFENSE

12

Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment brought under California law are barred, in

13

whole or in part, because TAEC did not receive a benefit from Plaintiff, TAEC did not retain

14

any benefit, and/or the receipt of any benefit was not unjust.

15

DEFENSES TO FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation Of Nevada Antitrust Law)

16
17
18

SIXTY-THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims under Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598A, et seq., are barred, in whole or in part,

19

because under § 598A.060, that act applies only to activity occurring, at least in part, in Nevada.

20

DEFENSES TO FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation Of New York Antitrust Law)

21
22
23

SIXTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 are barred, in whole or in part,

24

because any alleged conduct by TAEC is, or if in interstate commerce would be, subject to and

25

compliant with the rules and regulations of, and statutes administered by, the Federal Trade

26

Commission or other official department, division, commission or agency of the United States,

27

as these rules, regulations, or statutes are interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission or such

28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

36

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

department, division, commission or agency of the federal courts. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §

2

349(d).

3

SIXTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

4

Plaintiff’s claims under New York law and other applicable laws are barred by the

5

voluntary payment doctrine, under which one cannot recover payments with full knowledge of

6

the facts.

7

SIXTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

8
9

Plaintiff’s claims under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 are barred, in whole or in part,
because Plaintiff cannot establish actual damages.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

TAEC’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, TAEC prays for judgment as follows:
1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by reason of the Complaint, and that the action be
dismissed with prejudice;
2. That the Court enter judgment in favor of TAEC and against Plaintiff with respect to
all causes of action in the Complaint;
3. That the Court award TAEC its attorneys’ fees and other costs reasonably incurred in
the defense of this action; and
4. That the Court order such other further relief for TAEC as the Court may deem just
and proper.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

37

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
Respectfully submitted,
2
3
Dated: September 23, 2011
4

WHITE & CASE LLP

5
By: /s/ John H. Chung
John H. Chung (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9

Christopher M. Curran (pro hac vice)
Kristen J. McAhren (pro hac vice)
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
Mobile Display Co., Ltd., and Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WASHINGTON 2069894 (2K)

38

TAEC’S ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT