Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP. et al

Filing 202

RESPONSE to 178 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim of Defendant Symantec Corporation by Uniloc Singapore Private Limited, Uniloc USA, Inc.. (Nelson, Edward)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC., et al.
Civ. Action No.: 6:10-cv-00472
Plaintiffs,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP., et al.
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT SYMANTEC
CORPORATION
Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc (Singapore) Private Limited (collectively,
“Uniloc”) reply to the counterclaims of Defendant Symantec Corporation as follows:

COUNTERCLAIMS
PARTIES
1. Admit.
2. Admit.
3. Admit.
4. Admit.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Admit.
6. Admit.
7. Admit.
8. Admit.
1

9. Admit.
10. Admit, among other purposes.
11. Admit that Symantec denies Uniloc‟s claims, but deny Symantec‟s allegations.
12. Admit.
13. Admit that venue is proper.
14. Admit.
COUNTERCLAIM ONE
15. Uniloc incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-14 above as if fully set forth herein.
16. Admit.
17. Deny.
18. Admit that a real and justiciable controversy has arisen between Uniloc and Symantec
concerning the infringement of the „216 patent.
19. Deny.
20. Deny.
COUNTERCLAIM TWO
21. Uniloc incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-20 above as if fully set forth herein.
22. Admit that a real and justiciable controversy has arisen between Uniloc and Symantec
concerning the validity of the „216 patent.
23. Deny.
24. Admit that there is currently an ex parte reexamination proceeding of the „216 patent
(control number 90/010,831) in progress in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Deny the remainder of the allegations.
25. Deny.
2

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
26. Symantec is barred from relief by the doctrines of waiver, estoppels, laches, unclean
hands and/or other equitable defenses.
27. Symantec‟s counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
28. Uniloc reserves the right to assert other affirmative defenses as it may discover or
appreciate during this proceeding.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Uniloc respectfully requests the Court:
A. Enter judgment in favor of Uniloc on all counts of the counterclaims;
B. Dismiss Symantec‟s counterclaims with prejudice;
C. Deny all relief requested in Symantec‟s counterclaims and prayer for relief;
D. Declare this case exceptional and award Uniloc its attorney‟s fees, expenses, and costs
incurred in defending Symantec‟s counterclaims; and
E. Award Uniloc such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of all issues so triable.

Dated: August 5, 2011.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Edward R. Nelson, III
Edward R. Nelson, III
Attorney-in-Charge
Texas State Bar No. 00797142
Barry J. Bumgardner
Texas State Bar No. 24041918
Steven W. Hartsell
3

Texas State Bar No. 24040199
S. Brannon Latimer
Texas State Bar No. 24060137
Jaime K. Olin
Texas State Bar No. 24070363
NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, Texas 76107
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

T. John Ward, Jr.
Texas State Bar. No. 00794818
J. Wesley Hill
Texas State Bar. No. 24032294
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
111 West Tyler St.
Longview, Texas 75601
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS UNILOC USA,
INC. AND UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE
LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on August 5, 2011, the foregoing document was filed
electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all
counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
/s/ Edward R. Nelson, III
Edward R. Nelson, III
NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
4