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

Filing 411

Plaintiff's ANSWER to #356 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim of Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC 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 VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT BRAND MANAGEMENT, LLC Plaintiff Parallel Networks, LLC ("Parallel Networks") hereby Answers the Counterclaims [Dkt. No. 356] of Defendant Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC ("VSDBM"), by corresponding paragraph number as follows: ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS Parties 1. 2. Admitted. Admitted. Jurisdiction 3. Admit that this is an action for a Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and No. 6:10-cv-00491-LED Jury Trial Demanded

invalidity of the `111 patent, but denies the VSDBM is entitled to any relief. 4. Admitted that Parallel Networks is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the

`111 patent, that Parallel Networks has charged VSDBM with infringement of the `111 patent, that VSDBM has denied the charges of infringement and has alleged that the `111 patent is invalid, and that there is an actual and justiciable controversy existing between VSDBM and

1

Parallel Networks. Denied that VSDBM does not infringe, that the patent is invalid, and that VSDBM is entitled to any relief. All other allegation in paragraph 4 are denied. 5. 6. 7. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement) 8. Parallel Networks incorporates by reference its statements in and responses to the

preceding paragraphs 1-7 as if fully set forth herein. 9. Denied. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM (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. Denied. JURY DEMAND VSDBM's Jury Demand is an averment to which no responsive pleading is required. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Parallel Networks denies that VSDBM 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 2

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

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

3