WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 123

WiLAN's Reply to Sony Ericsson's (SEUS) First Amended Answer and Counterclaims - ANSWER to 113 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 SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Wi-LAN, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) hereby replies to the numbered paragraphs of the
Counterclaims of Defendant Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (“SEUS”) 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 does not have sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or

deny the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of SEUS’s Counterclaims, and on that basis denies
them.

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 SEUS’s

counterclaims.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
4.

Wi-LAN admits Wi-LAN and SEUS 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 SEUS’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 SEUS’s Counterclaims.
6.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 6 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

7.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’819 PATENT

8.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

9.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 9 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

10.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

11.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’211 PATENT

12.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 12 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

13.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of paragraph 13 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

14.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

15.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
REPLY TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF

To the extent a reply is necessary, Wi-LAN denies that SEUS 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 SEUS’s Counterclaims;

B.

An order finding Wi-LAN has not breached the Patent and Conflict Resolution
agreement executed by SEUS and Wi-LAN, or in the alternative finding that
SEUS has not suffered any actual damages;

C.

SEUS’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 ’819, and
’211 patents is valid and infringed;

E.

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

F.

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Chuck P. Ebertin
California Bar No. 161374
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1918
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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 1054678v.1