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

Filing 161

RESPONSE to 153 Response to Non-Motion WI-LAN INC.S REPLY TO DEFENDANT SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.S SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS by WI-LAN Inc.. (Fedock, John)

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 SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiff Wi-LAN, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) hereby replies to the numbered paragraphs of the
Second Amended Counterclaims (“SEUS’s 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 lacks sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the

allegations contained in paragraph 1 of SEUS’s Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same.
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.

US 1267274v.1

3.

Wi-LAN admits that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
4.

Wi-LAN admits that it sent a letter to SEUS offering to license the patents that

were owned by Wi-LAN at that time. Wi-LAN further denies the remainder of the allegations as
stated in Paragraph 4 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
5.

Wi-LAN admits that Wi-LAN and SEUS entered into a Patent and Conflict

Resolution Agreement (“CRA”) that has an effective date of November 1, 2007. Wi-LAN
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 in Paragraph 7 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

8.

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

9.

Wi-LAN admits the first two sentences of Paragraph 9 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

Wi-LAN also admits that the Sony Ericsson produts Vivaz, Xperia X10, Equinox, W518a, Satio,
Xperia X2a, Xperia Pureness, Aino, and Naite comply with specifications for HSPA in 3GPP
Release 5. Wi-LAN denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
10.

Wi-LAN admits that all of the currently accused products incorporate HSPA

technology.

Wi-LAN denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 of SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
11.

Wi-LAN lacks sufficient information or knowledge to either admit or deny the

first sentence of Paragraph 11 of SEUS’s Counterclaims, and therefore denies the same. WiLAN admits that it has previously asserted that certain wireless devices complying with the IEEE
802.11a and 802.11g standards fall within the scope of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,282,222 and RE37802,
neither of which has been asserted in this case or is related to any patents that have been asserted
2
US 1267274v.1

in this case.

Wi-LAN denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 of SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
12.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
13.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
14.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of SEUS’s

Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’819 PATENT
15.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of Paragraph 15 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

16.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of Paragraph 16 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

17.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

18.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE ’211 PATENT

19.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of Paragraph 19 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

20.

Wi-LAN admits the allegations of Paragraph 20 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

21.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of SEUS’s Counterclaims.

22.

Wi-LAN denies the allegations of Paragraph 22 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’ Counterclaims;
3

US 1267274v.1

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’ 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.

4
US 1267274v.1

Dated: February 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
By:

/s/ John A. Fedock
Johnny Ward
Texas State Bar No. 00794818
Wesley Hill
Texas State 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 State Bar No. 00798576
John A. Fedock
Texas State Bar No. 24059737
Juliet M. Dirba
Texas State Bar No. 24051063
Jeffrey T. Han
Texas State Bar No. 24069870
Syed K. Fareed
Texas State Bar No. 24065216
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Charles P. Ebertin
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1918
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wi-LAN Inc.

5
US 1267274v.1

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 23rd day of February, 2012.

/s/ John A. Fedock
John A. Fedock

6
US 1267274v.1