Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 202

Minerva Reply to UTStarcom Amended Counterclaims ANSWER to Counterclaim by Minerva Industries, Inc..(Fenster, Marc)

Minerva Industries, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Doc. 202

Case 2:07-cv-00229-TJW

Document 202

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MINERVA INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al. Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. Civil Action No: 2-07 CV-229 The Honorable T. John Ward United States District Judge

MINERVA INDUSTRIES, INC.'S REPLY TO UTSTARCOM, INC.'S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Minerva Industries, Inc. files this Reply to UTStarcom, Inc.'s Amended Counterclaims as set forth in its Second Amended Answer to Complaint and alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff Minerva Industries, Inc. ("Minerva") admits the allegations in paragraph

1 of UTStarcom, Inc.'s ("UTStarcom") Counterclaims ("Counterclaims"). 2. 3. 4. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Relief as to the `120 Patent) 5. 6. 7. 8. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims. To the extent the allegation that Minerva's foreign filings "constituted a violation

of 35 U.S.C. § 184" is other than a legal conclusion (which would require no response), Minerva

2839-002 080319 Reply UTStarcom AmCounterclaims

1
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00229-TJW

Document 202

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 2 of 4

denies these allegations. Counterclaims. 9.

Minerva otherwise admits the allegations in paragraph 8 of the

The allegations contained in this paragraph 9 are legal conclusions that do not

require a response. 10. The allegations contained in this paragraph 10 are legal conclusions that do not

require a response. 11. 12. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Counterclaims. The allegations contained in this paragraph 12 are legal conclusions that do not

require a response. 13. 14. 15. 16. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims. To the extent the allegation that Minerva's foreign filings "constituted a violation

of 35 U.S.C. § 184" is other than a legal conclusion (which would require no response), Minerva denies these allegations. Counterclaims. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims. Minerva admits the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Counterclaims. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Counterclaims are other than Minerva otherwise admits the allegations in paragraph 16 of the

legal conclusions (which would require no response), Minerva denies these allegations. 22. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Counterclaims are other than

legal conclusions (which would require no response), Minerva denies these allegations. 23. 24. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Counterclaims. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims.

2839-002 080319 Reply UTStarcom AmCounterclaims

2

Case 2:07-cv-00229-TJW

Document 202

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 3 of 4

25.

To the extent the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims are other than

legal conclusions (which would require no response), Minerva denies these allegations. 26. Minerva denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Counterclaims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Minerva denies that UTStarcom is entitled to any relief requested in the Prayer for Relief in its Counterclaims, or any other relief whatsoever.

Dated: March 19, 2008

By:

/s/ Marc A. Fenster Marc A. Fenster, pro hac vice California State Bar No. 181067 E-mail: [e-mail] David R. Gabor, pro hac vice California State Bar No. 145729 E-mail: [e-mail] Irene Y. Lee, pro hac vice California State Bar No. 213625 E-mail: [e-mail] Eric B. Carlson, pro hac vice California State Bar No. 193401 E-mail: [e-mail] Robert E. Satterthwaite, pro hac vice California State Bar No. 223767 E-mail: [e-mail] RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Attorney-In-Charge Texas State Bar No. 03895700 E-mail: [e-mail] Collin M. Maloney Texas State Bar No.00794219 E-mail: [e-mail] IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500

2839-002 080319 Reply UTStarcom AmCounterclaims

3

Case 2:07-cv-00229-TJW

Document 202

Filed 03/19/2008

Page 4 of 4

P.O. Box 7879 Tyler, Texas 75711 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] S. Calvin Capshaw Texas State Bar # 0378390 [e-mail] Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Esq. Texas State Bar # 05770585 [e-mail] BROWN MCCARROLL LLP 1127 Judson Road, Suite 220 P.O. Box 3999 Longview, Texas 75601-5157 903/236-9800 903/236-8787 ­ fax Franklin Jones Jr. Texas State Bar # 00000055 [e-mail] JONES & JONES, INC., P.C. 201 West Houston Street P.O. Drawer 1249 Marshall, Texas 65671-1249 903/938-4395 903/938-3360 ­ fax Attorneys for Plaintiff Minerva Industries, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on March 19, 2008. Any other counsel of record will be served via First Class U.S. Mail on this same date.

By:

/s/ Marc A. Fenster

2839-002 080319 Reply UTStarcom AmCounterclaims

4