Microunity Systems Engineering, Inc v. Acer Inc. et al

Filing 90

ANSWER to 1 Complaint,,,, COUNTERCLAIM against Microunity Systems Engineering, Inc by Texas Instruments Inc..(Abraham, Amanda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MICROUNITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC. Plaintiff, v. (l) ACER INC., a Republic of China corporation, (2) ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, a California corporation, (3) APPLE, INC., a California corporation, (4) AT&T INC., a Delaware corporation, (5) AT&T MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (6) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware partnership, (7) EXEDEA, INC., a Texas corporation, (8) GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, (9) HTC CORPORATION, a Republic of China corporation, (10) HTC AMERICA, INC., a Texas corporation, (11) LG Electronics, Inc., a Korean limited company, (12) LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., a California corporation, (13) MOTOROLA, INC., a Delaware corporation, (14) NOKIA CORPORATION a Finnish corporation, (15) NOKIA INC., a Delaware corporation, (16) PALM, [NIC., a Delaware corporation, (17) QUALCOMM INC., a Delaware corporation, (18) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean limited company, (19) SAMSUNG, SEMICONDUCTOR INC., a California corporation, (20) SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (21) SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, a Kansas corporation, (21)TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:10-cv-185 § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

DEFENDANT TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF PLAINTIFF MICROUNITY SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, INC.

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185

Page 1 of 11

TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

Patent Infringement of Plaintiff MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. ("MicroUnity" or "Plaintiff") as follows: 1. 2. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the THE PARTIES

Defendant Texas Instruments Incorporated ("TI") hereby answers the Complaint for

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them. it has a principle place of business as specified in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and that it has developed, manufactures and sells its OMAP3 products to suppliers of cell phones and other products. TI denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. TI admits that it is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, that

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to denies them. 4.

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint and, therefore, answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 5.

The allegations of paragraph 3 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

denies them.

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, therefore,

The allegations of paragraph 4 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to denies them.

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and, therefore,
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 2 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

The allegations of paragraph 5 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 6, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 7, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 8, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 9, and therefore denies them. 10. 11. 12. 9. 8. 7. answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to The allegations of paragraph 10 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 11 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 12 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

6.

The allegations of paragraph 6 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 7 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 8 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 9 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 10, and therefore denies them.

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 11, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12, and therefore denies them. answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185

Page 3 of 11

TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 13, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 14, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 15, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 16, and therefore denies them. 17. 18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. 15. 14. answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to TI admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and, with respect to TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,742,840 C1 The allegations of paragraph 16 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 15 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 14 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

13.

The allegations of paragraph 13 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

TI, admits that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c). TI denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17. truth of the allegations of paragraph 18, and therefore denies them. 19.

No. 5,742,840 C1 ("the `840 patent"), entitled "General Purpose, Multiple Precision Parallel Operation, Programmable Media Processor," issued on April 21, 1998 and assigned to
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 4 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

TI admits that, on its face, Exhibit C appears to be United States Patent

MicroUnity. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 19, and therefore denies them. 20.

5,742,840 C1 for the `840 patent issued in response to Reexamination Request No. 90/007,583, in which claim 11 is confirmed, claim 1 is determined to be patentable as amended; claims 2-6, 8, and 9 are dependent on an amended claim and are determined to therefore denies them. 21. 22. 23.

TI admits that, on its face, Exhibit C1 appears to be Reexamination Certificate

be patentable; and claims 7-10 are cancelled. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 20, and TI denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the complaint. The allegations of paragraph 22 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 23 are not directed to TI, and therefore no TI denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the complaint. TI denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the complaint. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,730,287 B2

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 22, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 23, and therefore denies them. 24. 25. 26. answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

Point Arithmetic Operations," issued on June 1, 2010 and assigned to MicroUnity. TI is
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 5 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

No. 7,730,287 B2 ("the `287 patent"), entitled "Method and Software for Group Floating-

TI admits that, on its face, Exhibit U appears to be United States Patent

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 26, and therefore denies them. 27. answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 28. 29. 30. 31. The allegations of paragraph 28 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 29 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 30 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 31 are not directed to TI, and therefore no The allegations of paragraph 27 are not directed to TI, and therefore no

the truth of the allegations of paragraph 27, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 28, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 29, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 30, and therefore denies them. the truth of the allegations of paragraph 31, and therefore denies them. answer is required. 32. JURY DEMAND

answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to answer is required. TI is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Paragraph 32 does not contain any allegations of fact and therefore no PLAINTIFF'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

TI denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of requested relief against TI.
Page 6 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185

Answer to add additional Affirmative Defenses. 34. 33.

TI's Affirmative Defenses are provided below. TI reserves the right to amend its TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. 36. 35.

contributory infringement) infringe any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 either TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

TI has not and does not directly or indirectly (such as by inducement or

conditions of patentability as set forth in 35 U.S.C §§100, 101, 102, 103 and 112. 38. 37. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 is invalid or void for failing to satisfy the TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein.

5,742,840 C1 to be infringed literally or by the Doctrine of Equivalents by any act of TI due and Trademark Office during prosecution of the patents in suit or because of the disclosure or language of the specification or claims thereof. 40. 39. TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

to the disclosures of prior art or to the admissions or statements made to the U.S. Patent

MicroUnity is estopped from construing any valid claim of U.S. Patent No.

products as required by 35 U.S.C. §287 or otherwise give proper notice that TI's actions
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 7 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

To the extent that MicroUnity failed to properly mark any of its relevant

actually infringed the Patents, TI is not liable to MicroUnity for the acts alleged to have C1.

been performed before TI received notice that it was infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 41. TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

contributory infringement or inducement, TI is not liable to MicroUnity for the acts alleged infringement. 44. 43.

to have been performed before TI knew that its actions would cause the indirect TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

42.

To the extent that MicroUnity asserts that TI indirectly infringes, either by

infringing products are directly or indirectly provided to TI or by TI to an entity having an express or implied license to U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1. 45. 46. TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MicroUnity's claims against TI are improper to the extent that any allegedly

remedies at law. 48. 47.

injury to MicroUnity is neither immediate nor irreparable, and MicroUnity has adequate TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. EIGTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

MicroUnity is not entitled to any injunctive relief as demanded because any

from obtaining damages from TI.
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185

MicroUnity is barred by the doctrine of laches and/or equitable estoppel
Page 8 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

involving the '840 patent and accused devices as alleged against TI in this cause of action. That case is now pending in this Court as Docket Number 2:10-cv-91-TJW; styled MicroUnity v. Acer et al. The Plaintiff may not simultaneously assert the same causes of

49.

Plaintiff has filed a prior lawsuit against TI alleging an identical claim

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

have already been joined in the earlier filed case. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 50.

action in separate proceedings, and TI should not be required to defend the same causes of action in parallel proceedings. This action should therefore be dismissed, as these issues TI restates its responses as set forth above as if separately set forth herein. COUNTERCLAIMS

otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271.

infringement of any valid or enforceable claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 and has not patentability as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§100, 101, 102, 103 and 112.

TI has not directly or indirectly infringed, contributed to or induced

U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 is invalid for failing to meet the conditions for An actual controversy exists between TI and MicroUnity concerning the

alleged infringement and validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 by virtue of MicroUnity's complaint herein. has not been and is not being infringed by TI and that the foregoing patent is invalid. incurred in connection with this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 9 of 11

TI is entitled to judgment from this Court that U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 This is an exceptional case entitling TI to an award of its attorney's fees

TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

Answer and/or Counterclaims to assert any additional defenses or counterclaims that come to light upon further investigation and discovery. WHEREFORE TI prays that: No. 5,742,840 C1; 60. 59. 58. 57. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

56.

TI continues to investigate this matter and reserves the right to amend its

the Court declare that TI has not infringed and does not infringe U.S. Patent the Court declare that U.S. Patent No. 5,742,840 C1 is invalid;

the Court dismiss the Complaint against TI with prejudice;

of its expenses for this suit because this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §285; and 62. Respectfully submitted,

whatsoever against TI; 61.

the Court declare that MicroUnity is not entitled to any remedy or relief the Court award TI its costs, together with reasonable attorneys fees and all the Court award TI such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Carl Roth [e-mail] Brendan Roth [e-mail] Amanda Abraham [e-mail] Roth Law Firm 115 N. Wellington, Suite 200 Marshall, TX 75670-3396 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185 Page 10 of 11 TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint

Of Counsel Jay C. Johnson Larry C. Schroeder Mark A. Valetti TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P.O. Box 655474 Mail Station 3999 Dallas, TX 75265 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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) this 11th day of August, 2010. Any other counsel of record will be served by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail. ________________________________________________ AMANDA A. ABRAHAM

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-185

Page 11 of 11

TI's Answer to MicroUnity's Complaint