Parallel Networks, LLC v. Adidas America, Inc. et al

Filing 399

Plaintiff's ANSWER to #331 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim of LG Electronics USA, Inc. ("LGE") by Parallel Networks, LLC.(Tadlock, Charles)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Parallel Networks, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Adidas America, Inc. et al. Defendants PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. ("LGE") Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC ("Parallel Networks") hereby Answers the Counterclaims [Dkt. No. 331] of Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. ("LGE"), by corresponding paragraph number as follows: ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS THE PARTIES 1. 2. Admitted. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Admits that LGE filed a claim for Declaratory Judgment which arises from an No. 6:10-cv-00491-LED Jury Trial Demanded

actual and existing controversy between LGE and Parallel Networks, but denies that LGE is entitled to any relief. 4. 5. 6. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

COUNT I--DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT 1

7.

Parallel Networks incorporates by reference its statements in and responses to the

preceding paragraphs 1-6 as if fully set forth herein. 8. 9. Admitted. Admits that LGE requests a declaration by the Court that LGE has not infringed,

and does not infringe, any valid claim of the '111 patent, whether directly, indirectly, individually, jointly, contributorily, and/or by inducement, but denies that LGE is entitled to such relief, or any further relief. COUNT II--DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY 10. Parallel Networks incorporates by reference its statements in and responses to the

preceding paragraphs 1-9 as if fully set forth herein. 11. 12. Admitted. Admits that LGE requests a declaration by the Court that each claim of the '111

patent is invalid for failing to satisfy the conditions for patentability specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., but denies that LGE is entitled to such relief, or any further relief. COUNT III--DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY 13. Parallel Networks incorporates by reference its statements in and responses to the

preceding paragraphs 1-12 as if fully set forth herein. 14. 15. Admitted. Admits that LGE requests a declaration by the Court that the claims of the '111

patent are unenforceable, but denies that LGE is entitled to such relief, or any further relief.

2

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Parallel Networks denies that LGE is entitled to any relief, including that requested in its Prayer for Relief.

Dated: December 16, 2010

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Charles Craig Tadlock Charles Craig Tadlock Texas State Bar No. 00791766 TADLOCK LAW FIRM 400 E. Royal Lane, Suite 290 Irving, Texas 75039 214-785-6014 (phone) [e-mail] and 315 N. Broadway, Suite 307 Tyler, Texas 75702 903-283-2758 (phone) George S. Bosy (pro hac vice) David R. Bennett (pro hac vice) Bosy & Bennett 300 N. La Salle St. 49th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served this 16th day of December, 2010, with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. /s/ Charles Craig Tadlock One of the Attorneys for Parallel Networks, LLC

4