Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corporation et al

Filing 41

DEFENDANT AU OPTRONICS CORPORATIONS AND AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICAS ANSWER to Complaint of Eastman Kodak Company byAU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.. (Nedeau, Christopher) (Filed on 9/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

CHRISTOPHER A. NEDEAU (CA SBN 81297)
CARL L. BLUMENSTEIN (CA SBN 124158)
PATRICK J. RICHARD (CA SBN 131046)
KATHARINE CHAO (CA SBN 247571)
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.398.2438
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

10

Attorneys for Defendants
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

11

[additional defendants on signature page]

9

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

Case No. 3:10-CV-5452 SI

3:10-CV-5452 SI

MDL NO. 3:07-MD-1827 SI

17
18

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
vs.

DEFENDANT AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION’S AND AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION AMERICA’S ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT

EPSON IMAGING DEVICES CORPORATION,
et al,
Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
1
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc.

2

(collectively the “AUO Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby answer the

3

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and state as follows:

4
5

1.

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the FAC, and therefore deny these allegations.

6

2.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the FAC relate to other Defendants, and/or

7

third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

8

to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 2 relate to the AUO

9

Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

10

3.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the FAC are derived from public records

11

or statements by/to government authorities or a Defendant, those records or statements speak for

12

themselves and no response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 3 may be deemed to

13

require a response, and these allegations relate to other Defendants, the AUO Defendants lack personal

14

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. With

15

respect to the second to last sentence in Paragraph 3, the AUO Defendants admit the fact of the

16

indictment but dispute the truth of the allegations underlying the indictment. The AUO Defendants

17

otherwise deny Paragraph 3.

18

4.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the FAC relate to other Defendants, the

19

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

20

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 4 relate to the AUO Defendants, the

21

AUO Defendants deny them.

22

5.

Paragraph 5 of the FAC consists of Plaintiff’s description of its claims and legal

23

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the AUO

24

Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 5 and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief it

25

seeks.

26
27

6.

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

To the extent that a response is deemed required, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
2
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 6 and therefore deny

2

them.

3

7.

Paragraph 7 of the FAC consists of legal conclusions to which no response is required.

4

To the extent that a response is deemed required, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or

5

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 7 and therefore deny

6

them, except that AU Optronics Corporation America, Inc. admits that it maintains an office in

7

California.

8
9

8.

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

To the extent that a response is deemed required, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or

10

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 8 and therefore deny

11

them.

12

9.

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

13

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

14

Defendants, said Defendants deny these allegations, except admit that Plaintiff’s action was consolidated

15

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

16

of California, Judge Susan Illston presiding.

17

10.

The AUO Defendants admit that the first two sentences of Paragraph 10 of the FAC

18

generally describe some basic aspects of the nature, technology, and means of manufacturing TFT-LCD

19

panels, modules, and appliances containing TFT-LCD panels, but deny that this description is

20

comprehensive or entirely accurate. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of the

21

FAC.

22
23
24
25
26
27

11.

Paragraph 11 of the FAC contains no factual averment – accordingly, no response is

required to that Paragraph.
12.

Paragraph 12 of the FAC contains no factual averment – accordingly, no response is

required to that Paragraph.
13.

Paragraph 13 of the FAC contains no factual averment – accordingly, no response is

required to that Paragraph.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
3
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

14.

Paragraph 14 of the FAC contains no factual averment – accordingly, no response is

required to that Paragraph.
15.

The AUO Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.
16.

With respect to Paragraph 16 of the FAC, the AUO Defendants admit that AU Optronics

6

Corporation manufactures LCD panels and that it has its corporate headquarters at No. 1, Li-Hsin Rd. 2,

7

Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 30078, Taiwan. Except as otherwise specifically admitted, the AUO

8

Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 16.

9

17.

With respect to Paragraph 17 of the FAC, The AUO Defendants admit that AU Optronics

10

Corporation America maintains its principal place of business at 9720 Cypresswood Drive, Suite 241,

11

Houston, Texas, that it is incorporated in California and that it is a wholly but indirectly owned

12

subsidiary of AU Optronics Corporation. Except as specifically admitted, the AUO Defendants deny the

13

allegations in Paragraph 17.

14

18.

AUO Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the FAC.

15

19.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
20.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
21.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
22.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
23.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
24.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
25.

AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the FAC and therefore deny them.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
4
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

26.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

27.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

6

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

7

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the

8

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

9

28.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

10

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

11

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the

12

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

13
14
15

29.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.
30.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

16

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

17

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 30 relate to the

18

AUO Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

19

31.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

20

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

21

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the

22

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

23

32.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

24

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

25

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the

26

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

27
28

33.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of the FAC and therefore deny them.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
5
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

34.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
35.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the FAC and therefore deny them.
36.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

6

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

7

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the

8

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

9

37.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

10

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

11

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the

12

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

13

38.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

14

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

15

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the

16

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

17

39.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

18

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

19

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the

20

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

21

40.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

22

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

23

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the

24

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

25

41.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

26

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

27

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the

28

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
6
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

42.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

43.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

6

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

7

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the

8

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

9

44.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

10

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

11

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the

12

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

13

45.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

14

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

15

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the

16

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

17

46.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

18

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

19

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the

20

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

21

47.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

22

as to the truth of the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 47 of the FAC, and therefore

23

deny them. With respect to the second sentence of Paragraph 47, the AUO Defendants admit that AU

24

Optronics Corporation had commenced production of certain LCD panels by 2003.

25

48.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

26

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

27

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the

28

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
7
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

49.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

50.

The AUO Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the FAC.

6

51.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

7

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

8

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the

9

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

10
11
12
13
14

52.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.
53.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.
54.

The AUO Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the FAC. Further, to the

15

extent the allegations in Paragraph 54 are based upon statements/communications by or attributed to the

16

AUO Defendants, the contents of those statements/communications (to the extent they occurred) speak

17

for themselves.

18
19
20

55.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.
56.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

21

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

22

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the

23

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

24

57.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

25

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

26

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the

27

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
8
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

58.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

3

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

4

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the

5

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied, except the AUO Defendants admit that

6

Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America maintains and has maintained an office in California.

7

59.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the FAC are derived from statements

8

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

9

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

10

Paragraph 59 may be deemed to require a response, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge and

11

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 and

12

therefore deny them.

13

60.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the FAC are derived from statements

14

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

15

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

16

Paragraph 60 may be deemed to require a response, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge and

17

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 and

18

therefore deny them.

19

61.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

20

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

21

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the

22

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

23

62.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the FAC are derived from statements

24

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

25

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent that the allegations contained in

26

Paragraph 62 may be deemed to require a response, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge and

27

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 and

28

therefore deny them.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
9
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

63.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

64.

The AUO Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the FAC.

6

65.

The AUO Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the FAC.

7

66.

The AUO Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the FAC.

8

67.

The AUO Defendants admit the fact of the Superseding Indictment, but deny the truth of

9
10

the indictment’s underlying allegations. The terms of the indictment speak for themselves.
68.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

11

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

12

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the

13

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

14

69.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

15

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

16

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the

17

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

18

70.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

19

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

20

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the

21

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

22

71.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

23

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

24

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the

25

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

26

72.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the FAC are derived from statements

27

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

28

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
10
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

allegations in Paragraph 72 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

2

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

3

therefore deny them. To the extent a response is required and the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

73.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the FAC are derived from statements

6

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

7

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

8

allegations in Paragraph 73 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

9

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

10

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

11

Defendants, they are denied.

12

74.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the FAC are derived from statements

13

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

14

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

15

allegations in Paragraph 74 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

16

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

17

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

18

Defendants, they are denied.

19

75.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the FAC are derived from statements

20

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

21

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

22

allegations in Paragraph 75 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

23

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

24

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

25

Defendants, they are denied.

26

76.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the FAC are derived from statements

27

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

28

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
11
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

allegations in Paragraph 76 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

2

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

3

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

4

Defendants, they are denied.

5

77.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the FAC are derived from statements

6

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

7

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

8

allegations in Paragraph 77 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

9

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

10

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

11

Defendants, they are denied.

12

78.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the FAC are derived from statements

13

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

14

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

15

allegations in Paragraph 78 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

16

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

17

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

18

Defendants, they are denied.

19

79.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the FAC are derived from statements

20

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

21

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

22

allegations in Paragraph 79 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

23

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

24

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

25

Defendants, they are denied.

26

80.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the FAC are derived from statements

27

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

28

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
12
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

allegations in Paragraph 80 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

2

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

3

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

4

Defendants, they are denied.

5

81.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the FAC are derived from statements

6

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

7

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

8

allegations in Paragraph 81 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

9

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

10

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

11

Defendants, they are denied.

12

82.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the FAC are derived from statements

13

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

14

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

15

allegations in Paragraph 82 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

16

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

17

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

18

Defendants, they are denied.

19

83.

To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the FAC are comprised of legal

20

conclusions no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the allegations in

21

Paragraph 83 relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal

22

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the

23

extent the allegations in Paragraph 83 relate to the AUO Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

24

84.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 84 relate to other Defendants and/or third

25

parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

26

their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 84 relate to the AUO

27

Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
13
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

85.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 85 relate to other Defendants and/or third

2

parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

3

their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 85 relate to the AUO

4

Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

5

86.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 86 relate to other Defendants and/or third

6

parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

7

their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 86 relate to the AUO

8

Defendants, the AUO Defendants deny them.

9

87.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the FAC are derived from statements

10

by/to government authorities, news reports and/or statements in public documents, these statements or

11

reports speak for themselves and no response is required. To the extent a response is required and the

12

allegations in Paragraph 87 of the FAC relate to other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO

13

Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and

14

therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the FAC are directed to the AUO

15

Defendants, they are denied.

16

88.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

17

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

18

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the

19

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

20

89.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

21

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

22

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the

23

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

24

90.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 90 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

25

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

26

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 90 of the

27

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
14
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

91.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

92.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

6

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

7

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the

8

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

9

93.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

10

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

11

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the

12

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

13

94.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 94 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

14

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

15

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 94 of the

16

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

17

95.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the FAC relate to other Defendants,

18

Plaintiff or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form

19

a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the

20

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

21
22
23

96.

The AUO Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above responses as if fully set

forth herein.
97.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

24

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

25

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the

26

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

27
28

98.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
15
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the

2

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

3

99.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

4

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

5

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 99

6

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

7

100.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

8

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

9

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the

10
11

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.
101.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

12

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

13

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 101

14

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied, except that the AUO Defendants admit

15

that AU Optronics Corporation “continue[s] to manufacture LCD panels.”

16

102.

17

forth herein.

18

103.

The AUO Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above responses as if fully set

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 103 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

19

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

20

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 103 of the

21

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

22

104.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 104 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

23

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

24

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 104 of the

25

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied, except that AU Optronics America admits

26

that maintained an office in California during the period described in the FAC.

27
28

105.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 105 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
16
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 105 of the

2

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

3

106.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

4

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

5

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the

6

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

7

107.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 107 of the FAC relate to plaintiffs, other

8

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

9

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 107

10

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

11

108.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 108 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

12

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

13

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 108 of the

14

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

15

109.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

16

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

17

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the

18

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

19

110.

20

forth herein.

21

111.

The AUO Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above responses as if fully set

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 111 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

22

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

23

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 111 of the

24

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

25

112.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

26

with respect to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 112 of the FAC, and therefore deny

27

them.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
17
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

113.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 113 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

2

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

3

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 113 of the

4

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

5

114.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 114 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

6

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

7

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 114 of the

8

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

9

115.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 115 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

10

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

11

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 115 of the

12

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

13

116.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 116 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

14

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

15

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 116

16

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

17

117.

To the extent the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 117 of the FAC relate to

18

Plaintiff, other Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or

19

information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the

20

allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 117 of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they

21

are denied. The second sentence of Paragraph 117 of the FAC consists of Plaintiff’s description of their

22

claims and legal conclusions to which no response is required - to the extent a response is required these

23

allegations are denied.

24

118.

25

forth herein.

26

119.

27

The AUO Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above responses as if fully set

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 119 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
18
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 119 of the

2

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

3

120.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 120 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

4

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

5

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 120

6

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

7

121.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

8

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 121 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.

9

Additionally, to the extent Paragraph 121 of the FAC is comprised of legal conclusions, no response is

10
11

required.
122.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 122 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

12

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

13

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 122

14

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

15

123.

16

forth herein.

17

124.

The AUO Defendants incorporate by reference all of the above responses as if fully set

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 124 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

18

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

19

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 124 of the

20

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

21

125.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 125 of the FAC relate to other Defendants

22

and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a

23

belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 125 of the

24

FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

25

126.

To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 126 of the FAC relate to Plaintiff, other

26

Defendants and/or third parties, the AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient

27

to form a belief as to their truth and therefore deny them. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 126

28

of the FAC are directed to the AUO Defendants, they are denied.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
19
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

127.

The AUO Defendants lack personal knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

2

as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 127 of the FAC, and therefore deny them.

3

Additionally, to the extent Paragraph 127 of the FAC is comprised of legal conclusions, no response is

4

required.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

5
6

Without assuming any burden of proof it would not otherwise bear, the AUO Defendants assert

7

the following additional and/or affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s FAC:

8

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(Failure to State a Claim)

10

The FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

11

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(Waiver, Estoppel, and/or Laches)

13
14

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred, in whole or in part, by
the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and/or laches.

15

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Unclean Hands)

17
18

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred, in whole or in part, by
the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.

19

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

(Remedies Unconstitutional, Unauthorized or Contrary to Public Policy)

21

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

22

because the remedies sought are unconstitutional, contrary to public policy, or are otherwise

23

unauthorized.

24

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Absence of Damages)

26
27

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has suffered no injury or damages as a
result of the matters alleged in the FAC. To the extent that Plaintiff purportedly suffered injury or

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
20
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

damage, which the AUO Defendants specifically deny, the AUO Defendants further contend that any

2

such purported injury or damage was not by reason of any act or omission of the AUO Defendants.

3

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

(No Antitrust Injury)

5
6

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not suffered actual, cognizable
antitrust injury of the type antitrust laws are intended to remedy.

7

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Uncertainty of Damages)

9
10

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because the alleged damages sought are too speculative
and uncertain, and cannot be practicably ascertained or allocated.

11

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(Failure to Mitigate Damages)

13
14

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs failed to take all
necessary, reasonable, and appropriate actions to mitigate its alleged damages, if any.

15

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Statute of Limitations)

17
18

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed to the extent that they are barred, in whole or in part, by
the applicable statute(s) of limitations.

19

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

(Unjust Enrichment)

21

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

22

because Plaintiffs would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to recover any part of the damages

23

alleged in the FAC.

24

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Adequate Remedy at Law)

26
27

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have available an
adequate remedy at law.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
21
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Competition)

3

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

4

any action taken by or on behalf of the AUO Defendants was justified, constituted bona fide business

5

competition and was taken in pursuit of their own legitimate business and economic interests, and is

6

therefore privileged.

7

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Non-Actionable or Governmental Privilege)

9

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

10

Defendants that is the subject of the FAC was caused by, due to, based upon, or in response to

11

directives, laws, regulations, policies, and/or acts of governments, governmental agencies and entities,

12

and/or regulatory agencies, and such is non-actionable or privileged.

13

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Comparative Fault)

15

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

16

because any and all injuries alleged in the FAC, the fact and extent of which the AUO Defendants

17

specifically deny, were directly and proximately caused or contributed to by the statements, acts, and/or

18

omissions of Plaintiffs and/or third parties or entities, other than the AUO Defendants.

19

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

20

(Acquiescence)

21

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

22

Plaintiff’s acquiescence in and/or confirmation of any and all conduct and/or omissions alleged as to the

23

AUO Defendants.

24

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Failure to State a Claim Under the Sherman Act)

26
27

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts
sufficient to support a claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
22
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Uncertainty)

3

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for uncertainty and vagueness and because its claims are

4

ambiguous, and/or unintelligible. The AUO Defendants aver that Plaintiff’s claims do not describe the

5

events or legal theories with sufficient particularity to permit the AUO Defendants to ascertain what

6

other defenses may exist. The AUO Defendants therefore reserve the right to amend their Answer to

7

assert additional defenses and/or supplement, alter, or change their Answer and/or defenses upon the

8

discovery of more definitive facts upon the completion of their investigation and discovery.

9

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10

(Lack of Standing to Sue for Injuries Alleged)

11
12

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed, in whole or in part, to the extent Plaintiffs lack standing to
sue for the injuries alleged in the FAC.

13

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Competition Not Harmed)

15

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

16

because the AUO Defendants’ actions did not lessen competition in the relevant market.

17

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18

(Intervening or Superseding Acts of Third Parties)

19

Plaintiff’s purported damages, if any, resulted from the acts or omissions of third parties over

20

whom the AUO Defendants had no control or responsibility. The acts of such third parties constitute

21

intervening or superseding causes of harm, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs.

22

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

(Injury or Damages Offset by Benefits Received)

24

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

25

because any claimed injury or damage has been offset by benefits Plaintiffs received with respect to the

26

challenged conduct.

27

////

28

///

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
23
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Failure to Allege Fraud or Fraudulent Conspiracy with Particularity)

3

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

4

because Plaintiffs have failed to allege fraud or fraudulent concealment with sufficient particularity.

5

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

6

(Failure to Plead Conspiracy with Particularity)

7

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

8

because Plaintiffs have failed to allege conspiracy with sufficient particularity.

9

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

10

(Set-Off)

11

Without admitting that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages in this matter, the AUO

12

Defendants are entitled to set off from any recovery Plaintiffs may obtain against the AUO Defendants

13

any amount paid to by any other defendants who have settled, or do settle, Plaintiff’s claims in this

14

matter.

15

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Failure to State a Claim for Injunctive Relief)

17

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

18

because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for injunctive relief insofar as Plaintiffs seek to enjoin

19

alleged events that have already transpired without the requisite showing of threatened harm or

20

continuing harm.

21

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22

(Lack of Jurisdiction)

23

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

24

because any alleged conduct of the AUO Defendants occurred outside of the personal jurisdiction or

25

subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court.

26

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

27

(No Attorney Fees Allowed)

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
24
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

An award of attorneys’ fees, based upon the conduct alleged in the FAC, is not allowed under
applicable federal or state law.

3

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

4

(Due Process Violation)

5

To the extent Plaintiffs purports to seek relief on behalf of members of the general public who

6

have suffered no damages, the FAC and each of its claims for relief therein violate the AUO

7

Defendants’ right to due process.

8

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(Justification)

10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any conduct engaged in by the AUO

11

Defendants has been reasonable, based upon independent, legitimate business and economic

12

justifications, and without any purpose or intent to injure competition

13

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

14

(Ultra Vires Conduct)

15
16

Plaintiff’s claims against the AUO Defendants are barred, in whole or in part, because all such
conduct would have been committed by individuals acting ultra vires.

17

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18

(Damages Passed On)

19
20

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any injury or damage alleged in the
FAC, if any, was passed on to persons or entities other than Plaintiffs.

21

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22

(No Unreasonable Restraint of Trade)

23
24

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any actions taken by the AUO
Defendants have not unreasonably restrained trade.

25

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

26

(Compliance with FTC Rules, Regulations and Statutes)

27
28

Any alleged conduct by the AUO Defendants has complied with the rules and regulations of, and
the statutes administered by, the Federal Trade Commission or other official departments, divisions,

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
25
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

commissions, or agencies of the United States as such rules, regulations or statutes are interpreted by the

2

Federal Trade Commission or such departments, divisions, commissions or agencies, or the federal

3

courts.

4

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

5

(Duplicative Damages)

6
7

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek damages that
are duplicative of damages sought in other actions.

8

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

9

(Voluntary Payment Doctrine)

10
11

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the voluntary payment doctrine, under which
one cannot recover payments made with full knowledge of the facts.

12

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Lack of Market Power)

14

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have failed to allege or prove

15

that the AUO Defendants possessed or possesses market power in any legally cognizable relevant

16

market.

17

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

18

(Improper Venue)

19

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because venue in the Northern District of

20

California is improper with respect to the allegations, claims, and/or causes of action set forth in the

21

FAC that arise from conduct alleged to have occurred outside of that District.

22

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

23

(Other Causes)

24

Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff’s losses, if any, resulted

25

from causes other than the acts and occurrences alleged in the FAC.

26

///

27

///

28

///

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
26
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Independent Conduct of Others)

3

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

4

alleged in the FAC, in which the AUO Defendants deny having any part, were caused by independent

5

conduct of one or more persons and/or entities over whom the AUO Defendants had no control and for

6

whose actions/omissions the AUO Defendants are not responsible.

7

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Due Diligence)

9
10

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s failure to exercise due diligence to
uncover any alleged conspiracy.

11

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

12

(No Attempt to Conceal)

13
14

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the AUO Defendants made no
affirmative attempt to conceal any alleged conduct.

15

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

16

(Accord and Satisfaction)

17

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

18

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

(Equal Protection)

20

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

21

punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate the AUO Defendants’ rights

22

guaranteed by the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

23

Constitution.

24

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

25

(Double Jeopardy)

26

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

27

punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate the AUO Defendants’ rights

28

guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
27
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

2

(Excessive Fines)

3

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

4

punitive award for a single wrong because such an award would violate the AUO Defendants’ rights

5

guaranteed by the Excessive Fines provision of the Eighth Amendment of the United States

6

Constitution.

7

FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

8

(Unconstitutional Multiplicity)

9

To the extent any recovery by Plaintiffs would be duplicative of recovery by other plaintiffs and

10

other lawsuits, subjecting the AUO Defendants to the possibility of multiple recovery, such recovery is

11

barred by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

12

FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

13

(Privileged Conduct)

14
15

Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, as premised upon privileged conduct or actions
by the AUO Defendants.

16

FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

17

(Other Defenses Incorporated by Reference)

18

The AUO Defendants adopt and incorporate by reference any and all other additional or

19

affirmative defenses asserted or to be asserted by any other defendant in this proceeding to the extent

20

that the AUO Defendants may share in such affirmative defenses.

21

FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

22

(Reservation of Rights to Assert Additional Defenses)

23

The AUO Defendants have not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses and

24

explicitly reserve the right to assert and rely on such other applicable defenses as may become available

25

or apparent during discovery proceedings. The AUO Defendants further reserve the right to amend their

26

Answer and/or their defenses accordingly, and/or to delete defenses that they determine are not

27

applicable during the course of subsequent discovery.

28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
28
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1
2
3

WHEREFORE, Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America
pray for judgment as follows:

4

1.

That Plaintiffs take nothing under the FAC, and the FAC be dismissed with prejudice;

5

2.

That judgment be entered in favor of AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics

6
7
8
9
10

Corporation America and against Plaintiffs on each and every cause of action set forth in the SAC;
3.

That AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America recover their

costs of suit and attorneys’ fees incurred herein; and
4.

That AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America be granted such

other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

11

Respectfully submitted,

12
13

Dated: September 23, 2011

NOSSAMAN LLP

14
15

By /s/ Christopher A. Nedeau
Christopher A. Nedeau (State Bar No. 81297)
Carl L. Blumenstein
Patrick J. Richard
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

16
17
18
19
20

Attorneys for Defendants
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION and
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

262587_1.DOC

MASTER FILE NO.: 3:07-MD-1827 SI
29
CASE NO.: 3:10-CV-5452 SI
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO KODAK’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT