Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation et al
Filing
40
ANSWER to Complaint (First Amended) byEpson Electronics America, Inc., Epson Imaging Devices Corporation. (Freccero, Stephen) (Filed on 9/23/2011)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (CA SBN 34097)
MGoldman@mofo.com
STEPHEN P. FRECCERO (CA SBN 131093)
SFreccero@mofo.com
DEREK F. FORAN (CA SBN 224569)
DForan@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendants Epson Imaging
Devices Corporation and Epson Electronics
America, Inc.
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION,
15
MDL File No.: 3:07-MD-1827-SI
CASE NO. 10-cv-5452-SI
MDL NO. 1827
This Document Relates to: 3:10-CV-5254 SI
16
________________________________________
17
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY,
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS EPSON
IMAGING DEVICES
CORPORATION AND EPSON
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF BY EASTMAN KODAK
COMPANY
20
21
22
EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
1
Defendants Epson Imaging Devices Corporation (“EID”) and Epson Electronics America,
2
Inc. (“EEA”) (collectively “Epson Defendants”), by their undersigned attorneys, for their Answer
3
to Eastman Kodak Company’s (“plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) state:
4
1.
To the extent that paragraph 1 may be deemed to require any response, Epson
5
Defendants deny plaintiff’s definition of the term “LCD Panels” because the definition comprises
6
a wide variety of items of commerce that appear at many different levels of many different
7
production chains, and that are traded in multiple, separate markets, including multiple, separate
8
markets for different types of LCD panels, and multiple, separate markets for appliances
9
containing multiple separate types of LCD panels. Thus, as defined, the term “LCD panels”
10
creates confusion in this paragraph and wherever it is used as part of any subsequent allegation in
11
the Complaint. Epson Defendants also deny plaintiff’s definition of the term “digital still
12
cameras” because the definition comprises a wide variety of items of commerce, and, as defined,
13
creates confusion in this paragraph and wherever it is used as part of any subsequent allegation in
14
the Complaint. To the extent any further response is required, Epson Defendants lack the
15
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that
16
basis deny each and every such allegation.
17
2.
With respect to paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
18
to respond because it does not contain any allegations of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
19
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are directed to other
20
defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
21
truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that
22
the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants,
23
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
24
3.
The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint purport to characterize publicly-
25
filed agreements between the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and several
26
defendants, the contents of which agreements speak for themselves and require no further
27
response. To the extent that any further response may be deemed required to such allegations,
28
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint,
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
1
1
except admit that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement in
2
United States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents of
3
which Plea Agreement speaks for itself; and admit that the DOJ reached agreements with LG
4
Display Co. Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.,
5
Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, and HannStar Display Corporation to plead guilty and pay
6
criminal fines for violations of the Sherman Act.
7
4.
With respect to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
8
to respond because it does not contain any allegations of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
9
characterizations of its motivations and its claims. Further responding to paragraph 4 of the
10
Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required to respond because it does not contain any
11
allegations of fact, but rather states legal conclusions. To the extent that the allegations contained
12
in paragraph 4 of the Complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack
13
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that
14
basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
15
paragraph 4 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and
16
every allegation contained in such paragraph.
17
5.
With respect to paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
18
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
19
characterizations of its motivations and of its claims. To the extent that any response may be
20
deemed required, Epson Defendants admit that plaintiff purports to attempt to state a claim for
21
relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) and Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15
22
U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26) and admit that plaintiff purports to seek injunctive relief against all
23
Defendants. Epson Defendants also admit that plaintiff purports to attempt to state a claim for
24
relief under California’s Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700 et seq., Section 598A et
25
seq. of the Nevada Revised Statutes; and Section 340 et seq. of the New York General Business
26
Law, and admit that plaintiff purports to seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the listed
27
statutes. Except as specifically admitted herein, Epson Defendants deny the allegations in
28
paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
2
1
6.
With respect to paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
2
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
3
To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 6 of the
4
Complaint, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
5
7.
With respect to paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
6
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
7
To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 7 that is
8
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
9
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every allegation. To the
10
extent that any response may be deemed required, Epson Defendants admit that EEA conducted
11
business and maintained a place of business within California. Epson Defendants also admit that
12
EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement in United States v.
13
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents of which Plea
14
Agreement speaks for itself.
15
8.
With respect to paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
16
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
17
To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 8 that is
18
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
19
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every allegation. To the
20
extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 8 that is directed
21
to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants admit that EEA conducted business and maintained a
22
place of business within the Northern District of California, as that district is defined in 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 84(a), but deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
24
25
26
9.
With respect to paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
10.
With respect to paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
27
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
28
explanations of terminology. To the extent that paragraph 10 may be deemed to require any
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
3
1
response, Epson Defendants deny plaintiff’s definitions of the terms “TFT,” “TFD-LCD,” “TSN-
2
LCD” and “CTSN-LCD” because these definitions comprise a wide variety of items of commerce
3
that appear at many different levels of many different production chains, and that are traded in
4
multiple, separate markets, including multiple, separate markets for different types of LCD
5
panels, and multiple, separate markets for appliances containing multiple separate types of LCD
6
panels. Thus, as defined, these definitions create confusion in this paragraph and wherever they
7
are used as part of any subsequent allegation in the Complaint. To the extent that any remaining
8
allegations in paragraph 10 may be deemed to require any further response, Epson Defendants
9
admit that paragraph 10 generally describes some basic aspects of the nature, technology, and
10
means of manufacturing LCD panels, modules, and appliances containing LCD panels, that some
11
types of LCD panels are incorporated in many appliances, including, but not limited to, computer
12
monitors, televisions, and cellular telephones, and that at various times, different types of LCD
13
panels were used in a wide variety of appliances, including, but not limited to, wireless handsets.
14
Except as specifically admitted herein, Epson Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 10 of
15
the Complaint.
16
11.
With respect to paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
17
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
18
explanations of terminology.
19
12.
With respect to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
20
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
21
explanations of terminology.
22
13.
With respect to paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
23
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
24
explanations of terminology. Moreover, Epson Defendants deny that the term “original
25
equipment manufacturer” is meaningful given the allegations in plaintiff’s Complaint.
26
14.
With respect to paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
27
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
28
explanations of terminology.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
4
1
15.
With respect to paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants lack knowledge
2
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis
3
deny each and every such allegation.
4
16.
With respect to paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants lack knowledge
5
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis
6
deny each and every such allegation.
7
17.
With respect to paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants lack knowledge
8
and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis
9
deny each and every such allegation.
10
18.
With respect to paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
11
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
12
To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 18, Epson
13
Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such
14
allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
15
19.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Epson
16
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph, except admit that Sanyo
17
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation is a Japanese Corporation with its principal place of business
18
at 4F Annex, World Trade Center Building, 2-3-1 Hamamatsu-cho, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-6104
19
Japan, that EID was formerly known as Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices, is now a wholly-owned
20
subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corporation, and further admit that between October 1, 2004 and
21
December 28, 2006, Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation sold LCD panels or modules
22
containing LCD panels, and these panels or modules were shipped to multiple locations
23
worldwide, including the United States.
24
20.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Epson
25
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph, except admit that EEA is
26
a wholly-owned subsidiary of US Epson Inc., and US Epson, Inc. is in turn a wholly-owned
27
subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corporation, and admit that EEA is a California corporation with a
28
principal place of business at 2580 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California, and admit that EEA
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
5
1
re-sold in the United States LCD panels or modules containing LCD panels manufactured outside
2
the United States by Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, which later, on December 28,
3
2006 became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corporation known as Epson Imaging
4
Devices Corporation.
5
21.
With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Epson
6
Defendants are not required to respond because it does contain any allegation of fact, but rather
7
plaintiff’s explanation of terminology. To the extent that any response may be deemed required
8
to any allegation in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants deny each and every
9
allegation contained in such paragraph.
10
22.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
11
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and on that basis deny
12
each and every such allegation.
13
23.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
14
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint and on that basis deny
15
each and every such allegation.
16
24.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
17
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint and on that basis deny
18
each and every such allegation.
19
25.
With respect to paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
20
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
21
To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in paragraph 25, Epson
22
Defendants lack knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such
23
allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
24
26.
With respect to paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
25
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
26
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint are directed to other
27
defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
28
truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
6
1
the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants,
2
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
27.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
4
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 27, and on that basis deny each and every
5
such allegation.
6
28.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint are
7
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
8
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
9
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint are directed to
10
Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such
11
paragraph.
12
29.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
13
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 29, and on that basis deny each and every
14
such allegation.
15
30.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint are
16
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
17
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
18
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint are directed to
19
Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants admit that EID manufactured and sold LCD panels or
20
modules containing LCD panels, which panels or modules were shipped to multiple locations
21
worldwide, including the United States, and further admit that EEA re-sold in the United States
22
LCD panels or modules containing LCD panels manufactured outside the United States by Sanyo
23
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, which later, on December 28, 2006 became a wholly-owned
24
subsidiary of Seiko Epson Corporation known as Epson Imaging Devices Corporation.
25
31.
With respect to paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants deny that there
26
is any single “market” for “LCD Panels.” Plaintiff’s definitions comprise a wide variety of items
27
of commerce that appear at many different levels of many different production chains, and that
28
are traded in multiple, separate markets, including multiple, separate markets for different types
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
7
1
of LCD panels, and multiple, separate markets for appliances containing multiple separate types
2
of LCD panels. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint are
3
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
4
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
5
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint are directed to
6
Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such
7
paragraph.
8
32.
9
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint are
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
10
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
11
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint are directed to
12
Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such
13
paragraph.
14
33.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint are
15
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form
16
a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation.
17
34.
With respect to paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants deny that there
18
is any single “demand” for “LCD panels.” Plaintiff’s definitions comprise a wide variety of items
19
of commerce that appear at many different levels of many different production chains, and that
20
are traded in multiple, separate markets, including multiple, separate markets for different types
21
of LCD panels, and multiple, separate markets for appliances containing multiple separate types
22
of LCD panels. Further responding to the allegations in paragraph 34, Epson Defendants deny
23
each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
24
35.
With respect to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants deny that there
25
is any single “market” for “LCD panels.” Plaintiff’s definitions comprise a wide variety of items
26
of commerce that appear at many different levels of many different production chains, and that
27
are traded in multiple, separate markets, including multiple, separate markets for different types
28
of LCD panels, and multiple, separate markets for appliances containing multiple separate types
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
8
1
of LCD panels. Further responding to the allegations in paragraph 35, Epson Defendants deny
2
each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
36.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Complaint are
4
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
5
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
6
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 36 are directed to Epson
7
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
8
9
37.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Complaint are
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
10
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
11
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 37 are directed to Epson
12
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
13
38.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint are
14
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
15
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
16
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 38 are directed to Epson
17
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
18
39.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint are
19
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
20
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
21
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 39 are directed to Epson
22
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
23
40.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint are
24
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
25
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
26
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 40 are directed to Epson
27
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
9
1
41.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Complaint are
2
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
3
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
4
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 41 are directed to Epson
5
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
6
42.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Complaint are
7
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
8
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
9
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 42 are directed to Epson
10
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
11
43.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint are
12
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
13
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
14
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 43 are directed to Epson
15
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
16
44.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint are
17
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
18
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
19
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 44 are directed to Epson
20
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
21
45.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint are
22
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
23
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
24
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 45 are directed to Epson
25
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
26
46.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint are
27
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
28
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
10
1
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 46 are directed to Epson
2
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
47.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint are
4
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
5
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
6
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 47 are directed to Epson
7
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
8
9
48.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint are
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
10
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
11
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 48 are directed to Epson
12
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
13
49.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Complaint are
14
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
15
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
16
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 49 are directed to Epson
17
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
18
50.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
19
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 50, and on that basis deny each and every
20
such allegation.
21
51.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint are
22
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
23
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
24
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 51 are directed to Epson
25
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
26
52.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
27
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 52, and on that basis deny each and every
28
such allegation.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
11
1
53.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
2
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 53, and on that basis deny each and every
3
such allegation.
4
54.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
5
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 54, and on that basis deny each and every
6
such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 54 purport to
7
characterize documents produced in discovery, such documents speak for themselves and require
8
no further response.
9
55.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Complaint are
10
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
11
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
12
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 55 are directed to Epson
13
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
14
56.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Complaint are
15
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
16
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
17
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 56 are directed to Epson
18
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
57.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Complaint are
20
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
21
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
22
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 57 are directed to Epson
23
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
24
58.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Complaint are
25
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
26
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
27
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 58 are directed to Epson
28
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph,
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
12
1
except admit that EEA is a California corporation with a principal place of business at 2580
2
Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California.
3
59.
The allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Complaint purport to
4
characterize public statements by government authorities in Japan, Korea and the United States,
5
as well as public disclosures by LG Display, which public statements and public disclosures
6
speak for themselves as to their content and require no further response. To the extent any further
7
response may be deemed required to paragraph 59, Epson Defendants deny each and every
8
allegation contained in such paragraph.
9
60.
The allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint purport to characterize
10
public news reports, which news reports speak for themselves as to their content and require no
11
further response.
12
61.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint are
13
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
14
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
15
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 61 are directed to Epson
16
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph,
17
except admit that that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement
18
in United States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents
19
of which Plea Agreement speaks for itself.
20
62.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 62 of the Complaint are
21
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
22
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
23
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 62 are directed to Epson
24
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph,
25
except admit that that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement
26
in United States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents
27
of which Plea Agreement speaks for itself.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
13
1
63.
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the allegations
2
contained in paragraph 63, except admit that EEA re-sold LCD panels or modules containing
3
LCD panels manufactured overseas by EID.
4
64.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint are
5
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
6
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
7
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 64 are directed to Epson
8
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
9
65.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of the Complaint are
10
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
11
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
12
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 65 are directed to Epson
13
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
14
66.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of the Complaint are
15
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
16
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
17
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 66 are directed to Epson
18
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
67.
The allegations in paragraph 67 purport to characterize a publicly-filed indictment
20
returned against AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc., which
21
indictments speak for themselves as to their contents and require no further response.
22
68.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of the Complaint are
23
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
24
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
25
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 68 are directed to Epson
26
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
27
28
69.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of the Complaint are
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
14
1
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
2
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 69 are directed to Epson
3
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
4
70.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of the Complaint are
5
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
6
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
7
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 70 are directed to Epson
8
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
9
71.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 71 of the Complaint are
10
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
11
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
12
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 71 are directed to Epson
13
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
14
72.
The allegations in paragraph 72 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
15
between the DOJ and Sharp Corporation, which agreement speaks for itself as to its contents and
16
requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in paragraph 72 of the
17
complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information
18
sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every
19
such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 72 are directed to Epson
20
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
21
73.
The allegations in paragraph 73 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
22
between the DOJ and LG Display, Co., Ltd., which agreement speaks for itself as to its contents
23
and requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in paragraph 73 of the
24
complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information
25
sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every
26
such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 73 are directed to Epson
27
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
15
1
74.
The allegations in paragraph 74 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
2
between the DOJ and C.S. Chung, which agreement speaks for itself as to its contents and
3
requires no further response.
4
75.
The allegations in paragraph 75 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
5
between the DOJ and Bock Kwon, which agreement speaks for itself as to its contents and
6
requires no further response.
7
76.
The allegations in paragraph 76 purport to characterize a publicly-filed indictment
8
returned against Duk Mo Koo, which indictment speaks for itself as to its contents and requires
9
no further response.
10
77.
The allegations in paragraph 77 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
11
between the DOJ and Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., which agreement speaks for itself as to its
12
contents and requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in paragraph
13
77 of the complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or
14
information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each
15
and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 77 are
16
directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in
17
such paragraph.
18
78.
The allegations in paragraph 78 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
19
between the DOJ and two Chunghwa executives, which agreements speak for themselves as to
20
their contents and require no further response.
21
79.
The allegations in paragraph 79 of the Complaint purport to characterize publicly-
22
filed indictments returned against two former Chunghwa executives, which indictments speak for
23
themselves as to their contents and require no further response.
24
80.
The allegations in paragraph 80 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
25
between the DOJ and HannStar Display Corporation, which agreement speaks for itself as to its
26
contents and requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in paragraph
27
80 of the complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or
28
information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
16
1
and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 80 are
2
directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in
3
such paragraph.
4
81.
The allegations in paragraph 81 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
5
between the DOJ and Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, which agreement speaks for itself as
6
to its contents and requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in
7
paragraph 81 of the complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the
8
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that
9
basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
10
paragraph 81 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation
11
contained in such paragraph.
12
82.
The allegations in paragraph 82 purport to characterize a publicly-filed agreement
13
between the DOJ and Hitachi Displays Ltd., which agreement speaks for itself as to its contents
14
and requires no further response. To the extent that allegations contained in paragraph 82 of the
15
complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information
16
sufficient to form a belief as to truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every
17
such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 82 are directed to Epson
18
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
83.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 83 of the Complaint are
20
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
21
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
22
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 83 are directed to Epson
23
Defendants, Epson Defendants are not required to respond to the extent it does not contain any
24
allegation of fact, but rather states argument and legal conclusions. To the extent any further
25
response is required, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such
26
paragraph.
27
84.
28
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 84 of the Complaint are
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
17
1
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
2
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 84 are directed to Epson
3
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
4
85.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 85 of the Complaint are
5
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
6
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
7
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 85 are directed to Epson
8
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
9
86.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 86, plaintiff purports to
10
characterize documents produced in discovery, the contents of which document or documents
11
speak for themselves and require no further response. To the extent any further response is
12
required, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
13
87.
With respect to paragraph 87 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
14
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
15
To the extent that any further response may be deemed required to such allegations, Epson
16
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, except
17
admit that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement in United
18
States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents of which
19
Plea Agreement speaks for itself; and admit that the DOJ reached agreements with LG Display
20
Co. Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Chi Mei
21
Optoelectronics Corporation, and HannStar Display Corporation to plead guilty, the contents of
22
which agreements speak for themselves.
23
88.
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 88 of the Complaint are
24
directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to
25
form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such
26
allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 88 are directed to Epson
27
Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
18
1
89.
With respect to paragraph 89 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
2
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
3
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 89 of the Complaint are directed to other
4
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
5
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
6
that the allegations contained in paragraph 89 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
7
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
8
9
90.
With respect to paragraph 90 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
10
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 90 of the Complaint are directed to other
11
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
12
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
13
that the allegations contained in paragraph 90 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
14
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
15
91.
With respect to paragraph 91 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
16
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
17
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 91 of the Complaint are directed to other
18
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
19
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
20
that the allegations contained in paragraph 91 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
21
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
22
92.
With respect to paragraph 92 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
23
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
24
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 92 of the Complaint are directed to other
25
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
26
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
27
that the allegations contained in paragraph 92 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
28
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
19
1
93.
With respect to paragraph 93 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
2
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
3
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 93 of the Complaint are directed to other
4
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
5
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
6
that the allegations contained in paragraph 93 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
7
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
8
9
94.
With respect to paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal conclusions.
10
To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 94 of the Complaint are directed to other
11
defendants, Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
12
the truth of such allegations, and on that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent
13
that the allegations contained in paragraph 94 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson
14
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
15
95.
With respect to paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
16
to respond because it does not contain any allegations of fact, but rather consists of plaintiff’s
17
characterizations of its motivations and its claims. Further responding to paragraph 95 of the
18
Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required to respond because it does not contain any
19
allegations of fact, but rather states legal conclusions. To the extent that the allegations contained
20
in paragraph 95 of the Complaint are directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack the
21
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and on
22
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
23
paragraph 95 are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation
24
contained in such paragraph.
25
96.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 96 of the Complaint, Epson
26
Defendants restate and reincorporate as if fully set forth herein each of the several responses set
27
forth above to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 95, inclusive, of the
28
Complaint.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
20
1
97.
With respect to paragraph 97 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
2
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of arguments and
3
conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in
4
paragraph 97 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or
5
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny
6
each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 97 of
7
the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every
8
allegation contained in such paragraph, except admit that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in
9
the publicly-filed Plea Agreement in United States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D.
10
Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents of which Plea Agreement speaks for itself and requires no
11
further response.
12
98.
With respect to paragraph 98 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
13
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of arguments and
14
conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in
15
paragraph 98 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or
16
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny
17
each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 98 of
18
the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every
19
allegation contained in such paragraph.
20
99.
With respect to paragraph 99 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not required
21
to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of arguments and
22
conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to any allegation in
23
paragraph 99 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants lack knowledge or
24
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on that basis deny
25
each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 99 of
26
the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each and every
27
allegation contained in such paragraph.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
21
1
100.
With respect to paragraph 100 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
2
required to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
3
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
4
any allegation in paragraph 100 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
5
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
6
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
7
paragraph 100 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
8
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
9
101.
With respect to paragraph 101 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
10
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
11
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
12
any allegation in paragraph 101 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
13
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
14
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
15
paragraph 101 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
16
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
17
102.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 102 of the Complaint, Epson
18
Defendants restate and reincorporate as if fully set forth herein each of the several responses set
19
forth above to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 101, inclusive, of the
20
Complaint.
21
103.
With respect to paragraph 103 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
22
required to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
23
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
24
any allegation in paragraph 103 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
25
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
26
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
27
paragraph 103 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
28
and every allegation contained in such paragraph, except admit that EID entered a guilty plea as
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
22
1
set forth in the publicly-filed Plea Agreement in United States v. Epson Imaging Devices
2
Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-cr-0854, the contents of which Plea Agreement speaks for itself
3
and requires no further response.
4
104.
With respect to paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
5
required to respond because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather states legal
6
conclusions. To the extent that any further response may be deemed required to such allegations,
7
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in paragraph 104 of the Complaint,
8
except admit that EEA is a California corporation with a principal place of business at 2580
9
Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California , that EID entered a guilty plea as set forth in the publicly-
10
filed Plea Agreement in United States v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation, N.D. Cal., No. 09-
11
cr-0854, the contents of which Plea Agreement speaks for itself; and admit that the DOJ reached
12
agreements with LG Display Co. Ltd., LG Display America, Inc., Sharp Corporation, Chunghwa
13
Picture Tubes, Ltd., Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, and HannStar Display Corporation to
14
plead guilty, the contents of which agreements speak for themselves.
15
105.
With respect to paragraph 105 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
16
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
17
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
18
any allegation in paragraph 105 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
19
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
20
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
21
paragraph 105 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
22
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
23
106.
With respect to paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
24
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
25
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
26
any allegation in paragraph 106 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
27
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
28
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
23
1
paragraph 106 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
2
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
107.
With respect to paragraph 107 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
4
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
5
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
6
any allegation in paragraph 107 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
7
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
8
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
9
paragraph 107 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
10
11
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
108.
With respect to paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
12
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
13
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
14
any allegation in paragraph 108 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
15
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
16
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
17
paragraph 108 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
18
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
109.
With respect to paragraph 109 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
20
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
21
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
22
any allegation in paragraph 109 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
23
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
24
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
25
paragraph 109 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
26
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
27
28
110.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Epson
Defendants restate and reincorporate as if fully set forth herein each of the several responses set
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
24
1
forth above to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 109, inclusive, of the
2
Complaint.
3
111.
With respect to paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
4
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
5
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
6
any allegation in paragraph 111 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
7
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
8
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
9
paragraph 111 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
10
11
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
112.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
12
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 112, and on that basis deny each and every
13
such allegation.
14
113.
With respect to paragraph 113 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
15
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
16
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
17
any allegation in paragraph 113 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
18
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
19
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
20
paragraph 113 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
21
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
22
114.
With respect to paragraph 114 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
23
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
24
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
25
any allegation in paragraph 114 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
26
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
27
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
25
1
paragraph 114 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
2
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
115.
With respect to paragraph 115 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
4
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
5
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
6
any allegation in paragraph 115 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
7
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
8
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
9
paragraph 115 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
10
11
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
116.
With respect to paragraph 116 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
12
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
13
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
14
any allegation in paragraph 116 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
15
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
16
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
17
paragraph 116 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
18
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
117.
With respect to paragraph 117 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
20
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
21
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
22
any allegation in paragraph 117 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
23
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
24
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
25
paragraph 117 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
26
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
27
28
118.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 118 of the Complaint, Epson
Defendants restate and reincorporate as if fully set forth herein each of the several responses set
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
26
1
forth above to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 117, inclusive, of the
2
Complaint.
3
119.
With respect to paragraph 119 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
4
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
5
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
6
any allegation in paragraph 119 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
7
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
8
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
9
paragraph 119 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
10
11
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
120.
With respect to paragraph 120 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
12
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
13
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
14
any allegation in paragraph 120 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
15
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
16
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
17
paragraph 120 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
18
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
19
121.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
20
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 121, and on that basis deny each and every
21
such allegation.
22
122.
With respect to paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
23
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
24
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
25
any allegation in paragraph 122 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
26
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
27
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
27
1
paragraph 122 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
2
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
123.
Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 123 of the Complaint, Epson
4
Defendants restate and reincorporate as if fully set forth herein each of the several responses set
5
forth above to each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 122, inclusive, of the
6
Complaint.
7
124.
With respect to paragraph 124 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
8
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
9
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
10
any allegation in paragraph 124 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
11
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
12
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
13
paragraph 124 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
14
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
15
125.
With respect to paragraph 125 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
16
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
17
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
18
any allegation in paragraph 125 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
19
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
20
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
21
paragraph 125 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
22
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
23
126.
With respect to paragraph 126 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
24
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
25
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
26
any allegation in paragraph 126 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
27
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
28
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
28
1
paragraph 126 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
2
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
3
127.
Epson Defendants lack the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
4
to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 127, and on that basis deny each and every
5
such allegation.
6
128.
With respect to paragraph 128 of the Complaint, Epson Defendants are not
7
required to answer because it does not contain any allegation of fact, but rather consists of
8
arguments and conclusions of law. To the extent that any response may be deemed required to
9
any allegation in paragraph 128 of the Complaint directed to other defendants, Epson Defendants
10
lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and on
11
that basis deny each and every such allegation. To the extent that the allegations contained in
12
paragraph 128 of the Complaint are directed to Epson Defendants, Epson Defendants deny each
13
and every allegation contained in such paragraph.
14
129.
Epson Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the ad damnum
15
clause of the Complaint and deny each and every allegation contained in the Complaint to the
16
extent that a response has not been provided herein.
17
18
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
1.
As additional defenses to the Complaint, Epson Defendants state, without
19
assuming any burden of pleading or proof that would otherwise rest with the plaintiff, as follows:
20
FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
21
(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
22
2.
The conduct alleged to provide a basis for the plaintiff’s claims did not have a
23
direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on trade or commerce with the United States.
24
The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.
25
26
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
29
1
SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Failure to State a Claim)
3
3.
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4
THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
5
(Failure to Plead Fraud Particularly; Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b))
6
7
4.
Plaintiff has failed to plead fraudulent concealment with the particularity required
by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8
FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
9
(Forum Non Conveniens)
10
5.
The complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
11
FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
12
(Improper Forum/Arbitration)
13
14
6.
Plaintiff’s claims against Epson Defendants are barred to the extent that it has
agreed to arbitration or chosen a different forum for the resolution of their claims.
15
SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
16
(Lack of Standing)
17
18
7.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff lacks standing to
bring or maintain the claims set forth in the Complaint.
19
SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
20
(Lack of Standing – Indirect Purchasers)
21
8.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that it did not
22
purchase LCD panels or LCD products directly from defendants, because it is an indirect
23
purchaser and barred from maintaining an action under 15 U.S.C. § 1 for alleged injuries in that
24
capacity.
25
EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
26
(Lack of Antitrust Injury)
27
9.
28
antitrust injury.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff has suffered no
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
30
1
NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Statute of Limitations)
3
10.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by applicable statutes of
4
limitations, including but not limited to Section 4B of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15b) and the
5
applicable statute of limitations under the laws of the State of Illinois.
6
TENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
7
(Waiver)
8
11.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.
9
ELEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
10
(Estoppel)
11
12.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel.
12
TWELFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
13
(Laches)
14
13.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
15
THIRTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
16
(No Act by Epson Defendants)
17
18
14.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because plaintiff has not been
injured in its business or property by reason of any action by Epson Defendants.
19
FOURTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
20
(Intervening Conduct)
21
15.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged injuries and
22
damages were not legally or proximately caused by any acts or omissions of Epson Defendants
23
and/or were caused, if at all, solely and proximately by the conduct of third parties including,
24
without limitation, the prior, intervening or superseding conduct of such third parties.
25
26
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
31
1
FIFTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Ultra Vires)
3
16.
To the extent that any actionable conduct occurred, plaintiff’s claims against
4
Epson Defendants are barred because all such conduct would have been committed by individuals
5
acting ultra vires.
6
SIXTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
7
(Speculative Damages)
8
9
10
17.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged damages, if
any, are speculative and because of the impossibility of the ascertainment and allocation of such
alleged damages.
11
SEVENTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
12
(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
13
14
18.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred from recovery of any damages because of and to the
extent of its failure to mitigate damages.
15
EIGHTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
16
(Unilateral Action)
17
19.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any actions or practices
18
by Epson Defendants that are the subject of the Complaint were undertaken unilaterally for
19
legitimate business reasons and in pursuit of Epson Defendants’ independent interests and those
20
of its customers, and were not the product of any contract, combination or conspiracy between
21
Epson Defendants and any other person or entity.
22
NINTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
23
(Rule of Reason)
24
20.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any acts or practices by
25
Epson Defendants that are the subject of the Complaint were adopted in furtherance of legitimate
26
business interests of Epson Defendants and of its customers and do not unreasonably restrain
27
competition.
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
32
1
TWENTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Competition)
3
21.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any acts or practices by
4
Epson Defendants that are the subject of the Complaint were cost justified or otherwise
5
economically justified and resulted from a good faith effort to meet competition or market
6
conditions.
7
TWENTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
8
(Privileged Conduct)
9
10
22.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as premised upon privileged
conduct or actions by Epson Defendants.
11
TWENTY-SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
12
(Pass Through)
13
23.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it fails to meet its burden
14
of proving that it was damaged in fact by the conduct of which complaint is here made, including
15
the burden of proving that any so-called overcharge was not absorbed in whole or in part by direct
16
purchasers or by other third parties, and was passed through to the plaintiffs.
17
TWENTY-THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
18
(Pass On)
19
24.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it fails to meet their
20
burden of proving that it was damaged in fact by the conduct of which complaint is here made,
21
including the burden of proving that any so-called overcharge was not passed on by plaintiff to a
22
third party.
23
TWENTY-FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
24
(Due Process)
25
25.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent it seeks an improper
26
multiple punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate Epson
27
Defendants’ rights guaranteed by the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United
28
States Constitution.
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
33
1
TWENTY-FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Due Process)
3
26.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent it seeks an improper
4
multiple punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate Epson
5
Defendants’ rights guaranteed by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
6
United States Constitution.
7
TWENTY-SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
8
(Equal Protection)
9
27.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent it seeks an improper
10
multiple punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate Epson
11
Defendants’ rights guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision clause of the Fourteenth
12
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
13
TWENTY-SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
14
(Double Jeopardy)
15
28.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent it seeks an improper
16
multiple punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate Epson
17
Defendants’ rights guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the
18
United States Constitution.
19
TWENTY-EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
20
(Excessive Fines)
21
29.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent it seeks an improper
22
multiple punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate Epson
23
Defendants’ rights guaranteed by the Excessive Fines provision of the Eighth Amendment of the
24
United States Constitution.
25
TWENTY-NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
26
(Unconstitutional Multiplicity)
27
28
30.
To the extent any recovery by the plaintiff would be duplicative of recovery by
other plaintiffs and other lawsuits, subjecting Epson Defendants to the possibility of multiple
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
34
1
liability, such recovery is barred by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States
2
Constitution.
3
THIRTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
4
(Bar on Duplicative Recovery)
5
31.
To the extent any recovery by the plaintiff would be duplicative of recovery by
6
other plaintiffs that are predecessors or successors to plaintiffs in the chain of distribution,
7
subjecting Epson Defendants to the possibility of multiple liability, such recovery is barred.
8
THIRTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
9
(Release)
10
11
32.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent of any release or
compromise of such claims between the parties.
12
THIRTY-SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
13
(Accord and Satisfaction)
14
15
33.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of accord and
satisfaction.
16
THIRTY-THIRD ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
17
(Failure of Consideration)
18
19
34.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as a result of a failure of
consideration.
20
THIRTY-FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
21
(Illegality of Contract)
22
23
35.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of illegality of
contract.
24
THIRTY-FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
25
(Statute of Frauds)
26
36.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Statute of Frauds.
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
35
1
THIRTY-SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
2
(Fraud)
3
4
37.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent the plaintiff induced
Epson Defendants into entering contracts based on fraud.
5
THIRTY-SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
6
(Mistake of Fact)
7
8
38.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by reason of the doctrine of
mistake of fact.
9
THIRTY-EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
10
(Duress)
11
39.
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by reason of duress.
12
THIRTY-NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
13
(Setoff)
14
15
40.
To the extent that plaintiff has outstanding obligations to Epson Defendants, its
claims are barred or reduced.
16
FORTIETH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
17
(Incorporation of Defenses of Others)
18
19
41.
Epson Defendants adopt by reference any applicable defense pleaded by any other
defendant not otherwise expressly set forth herein.
20
FORTY-FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE
21
(Reservation of Other Defenses)
22
23
42.
Epson Defendants reserve the right to assert other defenses as this action proceeds
up to and including the time of trial.
24
25
26
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
36
1
WHEREFORE, Epson Defendants pray any claims set forth in the Complaint be
2
dismissed with prejudice, that Epson Defendants be awarded their costs in defending this action,
3
and that Epson Defendants be granted such other relief as the court deems just in the premises.
4
5
6
7
Dated: September 23, 2011
MELVIN R. GOLDMAN
STEPHEN P. FRECCERO
DEREK F. FORAN
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
8
9
10
11
By:
/s/ Stephen P. Freccero
STEPHEN P. FRECCERO
Attorneys for Defendant
Epson Imaging Devices Corporation
and Epson Electronics America, Inc.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EPSON DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Master File No. 3-07-MD-1827-SI; Case No. 10-cv-5452-SI
37
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
