STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation

Filing 169

MOTION to Strike 162 Answer to Counterclaim and Answer to Complaint - Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Intel's Affirmative Defense Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9 & 10 and to Dismiss Intel's Second Counterclaim by STC. UNM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pedersen, Steven) Modified text on 1/9/2012 (vh).

Exhibit A

Case 6:11-cv-01118-GAP-DAB Document 22

Filed 12/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID 140

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CRYSTAL PHOTONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
-vs-

Case No. 6:11-cv-1118-Orl-31DAB

SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS USA,
INC.,
Defendant/Counterplaintiff.
______________________________________

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Strike Defenses and Dismiss
Counterclaims (Doc. 18) filed by the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Crystal Photonics, Inc. (“Crystal
Photonics”), and the response in opposition (Doc. 20) filed by the Defendant/Counterplaintiff,
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. (“Siemens”). Crystal Photonics asserts that most but not all
of the counterclaims and affirmative defenses raised by Siemens are insufficiently pled or do not
constitute affirmative defenses. Crystal Photonics is correct. The counterclaims and affirmative
defenses raised by Siemens are nothing more than bare recitations of legal conclusions.1 There is
nothing in either the answer or in Siemens’s response to the instant motion that suggests these
defenses or counterclaims have merit.

1

For example, Siemens’s first affirmative defense states, in its entirety, that “[t]he Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (Doc. 14 at 5). Its fifth defense reads,
“[Crystal Photonics’s] suit is barred or its claim for recovery is limited under the doctrines of waiver,
acquiescence, implied license, and/or unclean hands.” (Doc. 14 at 5). Siemens’s third counterclaim
asserts, in pertinent part, that the company is seeking a declaratory judgment of unenforceability
because “discovery is likely to show that [one of the patents at issue] is unenforceable against
Siemens Medical in whole or in part under the doctrines of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, unclean
hands, and/or laches.” (Doc. 14 at 8-9).

Case 6:11-cv-01118-GAP-DAB Document 22

Filed 12/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID 141

Siemens argues that the defenses and counterclaims are sufficient because they put Crystal
Photonics on notice that it may defend the instant suit on the asserted grounds. But the pleadings
must serve as something more as a placeholder for potential claims and defenses. Conclusory
allegations such as these do not put anyone on notice, as they do not suggest that the party actually
intends to pursue them. If anything, they conceal any potentially meritorious counterclaims and
affirmative defenses in a sea of irrelevancies. Such pleading practices likely also run afoul of
Rule 11, which requires the pleading attorney to certify that “the claims, defenses, and other legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). An
attorney with no reason to believe the counterclaim or defense has any basis in fact cannot
legitimately make such a certification.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Strike Defenses and Dismiss Counterclaims (Doc. 18) is
GRANTED. All of Siemens’s affirmative defenses are STRICKEN, and all of its counterclaims
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent Siemens wishes to file an amended
answer asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims consistent with Rule 11 and its other
relevant requirements, it may do so on or before January 3, 2012.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on December 21, 2011.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
-2-