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

Filing 87

Plaintiffs' ANSWER to 65 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Defendant Filemaker, Inc. by Uniloc USA, Inc..(Bostock, Dean)

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

Doc. 87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED, Plaintiffs, v. (1) NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORP.; (2) PERVASIVE SOFTWARE, INC.; (3) ADOBE SYSTEMS INC.; (4) FILEMAKER, INC.; (5) SAFENET, INC.; (6) CA, INC.; (7) PINNACLE SYSTEMS, INC.; (8) SONIC SOLUTIONS; (9) ONYX GRAPHICS, INC.; (10) SYMANTEC CORP.; (11) ALADDIN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS, INC. and (12) ALADDIN KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS LTD. Defendants. Civ. Action No.: 6:10-cv-00472-LED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT FILEMAKER, INC. Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Limited (together "Uniloc" or "Plaintiffs"), reply to the counterclaims of defendant, FileMaker, Inc. ("FileMaker"), as follows: COUNTERCLAIMS NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION 1. Admitted.

Dockets.Justia.com

PARTIES 2. 3. 4. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. 6. Admitted. Uniloc admits the allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 6, but denies the

remaining allegations of paragraph 6. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. 8. 9. Admitted. Admitted. Uniloc admits that a justiciable controversy exists between Uniloc and FileMaker

concerning the infringement and validity of the `216 patent. Uniloc denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 9. 10. Denied. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (Declaration of Noninfringement) 11. herein. 12. 12. 13. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of Uniloc admits that the `216 patent states, inter alia, the passage quote in paragraph Uniloc incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-10 above as if fully set forth

paragraph 13 and, therefore, denies them.

2

14.

Uniloc admits that its complaint against FileMaker states, inter alia, as follows: On information and belief, FileMaker has directly and/or indirectly infringed at least one claim of the `216 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States by, among other things, making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing a system, device and/or method for reducing software piracy, reducing casual copying and/or reducing the unauthorized use of software, including without limitation its FileMaker Pro and FileMaker Pro Advanced products that permit customers to activate and/or register software. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, FileMaker is thereby liable for direct and indirect infringement of the `216 patent, which infringement has caused damage, reparable and irreparable, to Uniloc. FileMaker's unlawful acts will continue unless and until its infringement is enjoined. To the extent that any allegations of paragraph 14 are inconsistent with the

foregoing, they are denied. 15. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of

paragraph 15 and, therefore, denies them. 16. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of

paragraph 16 and, therefore, denies them. 17. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of

paragraph 17 and, therefore, denies them. 18. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of

paragraph 18 and, therefore, denies them. 19. Uniloc is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the allegations of

paragraph 19 and, therefore, denies them. 20. The pre-filing actions of Uniloc and its counsel are protected against disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Therefore, Uniloc is not obliged to respond to the allegations of paragraph 20.

3

21.

The pre-filing actions of Uniloc and its counsel are protected against disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. Therefore, Uniloc is not obliged to respond to the allegations of paragraph 21. 22. 23. Denied. Denied. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM (Invalidity of Patent-in-Suit) 24. herein. 25. 26. Denied. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 27. FileMaker is barred from relief by the doctrines of waiver, estoppels, laches, unclean Uniloc incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-23 above as if fully set forth

hands and/or other equitable defenses. 28. 29. FileMaker's counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Uniloc reserves the right to assert other affirmative defenses as it may discover or

appreciate during this proceeding. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Uniloc requests that the Court: A. B. C. Enter judgment in favor of Uniloc on all counts of the counterclaims; Dismiss FileMaker's counterclaims with prejudice; Deny all relief requested in FileMaker's counterclaims and prayer for relief;

4

D.

Declare this case exceptional and award Uniloc its attorneys' fees, expenses and

costs incurred in defending against FileMaker's counterclaims; and E. Award Uniloc such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial of all issues triable of right by jury.

Respectfully submitted, UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC SINGAPORE PRIVATE LTD. Date: December 10, 2010 By: /s/ Dean Bostock Paul J. Hayes ­ Lead Attorney Dean G. Bostock MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY and POPEO, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] T. John Ward 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] Email: [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on December 10, 2010. As of this date, all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this documents through the Court's CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). /s/ Dean G. Bostock

6
5164529v.1