WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al
Filing
121
WiLAN Reply to Ericsson Inc.'s 2nd Amended Answer and 1st Amended Counterclaims - ANSWER to 111 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by WI-LAN Inc..(Weaver, David)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
WI-LAN INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.;
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
ERICSSON; ERICSSON INC.; SONY
ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
AB; SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.; HTC
CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA, INC.;
EXEDEA INC.; LG ELECTRONICS, INC.;
LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
INC.; LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-521-LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WI-LAN, INC.’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT ERICSSON INC.’S SECOND AMENDED
ANSWER AND FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Wi-LAN, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) hereby replies to the numbered paragraphs of the
Amended Counterclaims of Defendant Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) as follows:
Wi-LAN reasserts and incorporates by reference herein its allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1-68 of its original Complaint.
1.
Wi-LAN admits that Ericsson Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business at 6300 Legacy Drive,
Plano, Texas 75024.
2.
Wi-LAN admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada with
its principal place of business at 11 Holland Ave., Suite 608, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
3.
Wi-LAN admits the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Ericsson’s
counterclaims.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
4.
Wi-LAN admits Wi-LAN and Ericsson executed a Patent and Conflict Resolution
Agreement having an effective date of November 1, 2007. Wi-LAN denies the remaining
allegations of paragraph 4 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
5.
Wi-LAN denies that the Patent and Conflict Resolution Agreement precludes the
filing of Wi-LAN’s original Complaint, and further denies the remaining allegations of
paragraph 5 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
6.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
7.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’326 PATENT
8.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
9.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
10.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
11.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’327 PATENT
12.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 12 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
13.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 13 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
14.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
15.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’819 PATENT
16.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
17.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 17 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
18.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
19.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’211 PATENT
20.
Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 20 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
21.
Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims.
22.
Wi-LAN does not have knowledge or information to either admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 22 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims, and on that basis denies them.
23.
Wi-LAN does not have knowledge or information to either admit or deny the
allegations of paragraph 23 of Ericsson’s Counterclaims, and on that basis denies them.
REPLY TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
To the extent a reply is necessary, Wi-LAN denies that Ericsson is entitled to any of the relief
requested in its Prayer for Relief.
WI-LAN’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In view of the foregoing, Wi-LAN respectfully requests the following relief:
A.
An order dismissing with prejudice Ericsson’s Counterclaims;
B.
An order finding Wi-LAN has not breached the Patent and Conflict Resolution
agreement executed by Ericsson and Wi-LAN, or in the alternative finding that
Ericsson has not suffered any actual damages;
C.
Ericsson’s prayer for attorney’s fees and costs be denied;
D.
Judgment be entered in favor of Wi-LAN that each of the claims of the ’326,
’327, and ’819 patents is valid and infringed;
E.
In the event the Court finds a case or controversy exists as to the validity of the
’211 patent, an order finding the ’211 patent valid;
F.
An order declaring that this is an exceptional case and awarding Wi-LAN its
costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and all other
applicable statutes, rules, and common law, including all such laws governing
contracts in the State of New York; and
G.
The Court award Wi-LAN the relief sought in its original Complaint.
Dated: September 19, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ David B. Weaver
Local Counsel
Johnny Ward
Texas Bar No. 00794818
Wesley Hill
Texas Bar No. 24032294
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
111 W. Tyler Street
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: (903) 757-6400
Fax: (903) 757-2323
jw@jwfirm.com
wh@jwfirm.com
David B. Weaver, Lead Attorney
Texas Bar No. 00798576
Juliet M. Dirba
Texas Bar No. 24051063
John A. Fedock
Texas Bar No. 24059737
Syed K. Fareed
Texas Bar No. 24065216
Jeffrey T. Han
Texas Bar No. 24069870
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Tel: (512) 542-8400
Fax: (512) 236-3476
Wi-LAN@velaw.com
Chuck P. Ebertin
California Bar No. 161374
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1918
Tel: (650) 687-8204
Fax: (650) 618-8508
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wi-LAN Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). All other counsel
of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct
copy of the foregoing by email and/or fax, on this the 19th day of September, 2011.
/s/ David B. Weaver
David B. Weaver
US 1054625v.1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?