InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[nieves]

ALL-Must Read-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NOKIA CORPORATION and
NOKIA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION and INTERDIGITAL
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C. A. No. 05-16-JJF
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER AND REQUEST FOR
COMPLEX DESIGNATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.1
Defendants InterDigital Communications Corporation (“IDCC”) and InterDigital
Technology Corporation (“ITC”) file their Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment of Patent Invalidity and Noninfringement and Violations of the
Lanham Act Relating to 3G Mobile Phone Technology (the “Complaint”) and Request
for Complex Designation Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 and for same would show the
Court as follows:.
I.
NOTICE OF INTENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.1(A)
Defendants hereby give Notice of Intent to seek certification of this case as a
complex case pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(a). The present case is one of several actions
that Nokia has filed against Defendants and involves Nokia’s claim under §43(a) of the
Lanham Act, which Nokia asserts “focuses on InterDigital’s entire patent portfolio” of
over 1600 patents. (See Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(h)(3)
(“Nokia’s Brief”) at pp.27-28, 32-33.) Specifically, Nokia alleges that it has been
2
damaged because InterDigital’s statements have “deterred Nokia’s customers from
purchasing standards-compliant products.” Id. at 30.
Defendants maintain that Nokia’s remaining claim should be dismissed and will
be the subject of summary adjudication following focused discovery. In addition,
Defendants maintain that discovery in the sole remaining Lanham Act claim should be
limited to issues relevant only to the Lanham Act claim. Nevertheless, Nokia’s broad
allegations make this case particularly appropriate for designation as a complex case.
Designation of this case as a complex case is appropriate in light of the considerations set
forth in Local Rule 16.1(a)(2) because:
1. This case is one of several interrelated actions filed by
Nokia against Defendants.
2. Nokia’s allegations in this case unnecessarily implicate the
production and review of vast quantities of documents by all parties
in this case.
3. Nokia is a massive, complex organization, with entities,
personal, customers, and documents scattered throughout the world.
4. Plaintiff Nokia Corporation is a Finish Corporation, which
gives rise to the inevitable need for foreign discovery.
5. Nokia’s allegations gives rise to the need for substantial
third party discovery, including potential discovery from all United
States cellular service providers and cellular service providers
located throughout the world.
6. The requirements of 3G Standards and the application of
patents to such 3G Standards present technically complex questions,
which will necessitate expert testimony.
7. Nokia is challenging patent portfolios that contain over
1600 issued patents.
8. The challenged patent portfolios includes patents issued
throughout the world and, if Nokia’s claims are read literally,
requires an analysis and determination that none of the patents are
“essential.”
3
For these reasons, certification of this case as a complex case and the provisions
for efficiently handling same as set forth in Local Rule 16.1(b) is appropriate. A focused
discovery schedule that addresses dispositive issues such as the specific bases for Nokia’s
claim and its alleged harm will inevitably result in summary disposition of this case,
thereby saving judicial resources and avoiding unnecessary costs and expenses by the
parties.
II.
ORIGINAL ANSWER
NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION
1. Defendants admit that this is purportedly an action arising under the
Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Memorandum
and Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(h)(3) as to the Declaratory Judgment Claims (Docket Entries
Nos. 25 and 26) (the “Court’s Order”) and otherwise denies the averments of Paragraph
1.
THE PARTIES
2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 2.
3. Admit.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Defendants admit that this court has jurisdiction over Nokia’s Lanham Act
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Defendants otherwise incorporate the Court’s Order
and deny the averments of Paragraph 4.
5. Admit.
4
6. Admit.
FACTS PURPORTEDLY GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION
7. Because of the vagueness of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7,
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained therein, and therefore deny same.
8. Defendants admit that the IS-54/136 and GSM standards are implemented
through so-called 2G mobile phone systems using Time Division Multiple Access
("TDMA") technology. Because of the vagueness of the other allegations contained in
Paragraph 8, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the other averment of Paragraph 8, and therefore deny same.
9. Defendants admit that Defendants asserted certain 2G patents in court
against Ericsson, Inc. and ITC asserted certain 2G patents in court against Motorola, Inc.
Defendants otherwise deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. Deny.
11. Defendants admit that the WCDMA and cdma2000 standards are
implemented through 3G mobile systems using Code Division Multiple Access
(“CDMA”) technology. Because of the vagueness of the allegations regarding
Defendants’ “allegations” and “contentions,” Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those statements and therefore
deny same. Defendants otherwise deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
11.
12. Defendants admit that Nokia Corporation and Defendants are parties to
three expressly interrelated agreements. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 12.
5
13. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order and deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 13.
14. Defendants admit that Nokia has, to date, refused to pay the fees
Defendants are demanding. Defendants admit that the parties were, at the time the
Complaint was filed, involved in an ICC arbitration as alleged in the last sentence of
Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 14.
15. Defendants admit that Nokia is licensed to ITC’s 3G patents through the
end of 2006. Because of the vagueness of the allegations regarding Defendants’
“contentions,” Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of those statements and therefore deny same. Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15 and therefore deny same.
16. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order and deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 16.
17. Defendants admit that a copy of a Forbes Magazine article is attached as
Exhibit S. Defendants otherwise deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
18. Defendants admit that a copy of a purported transcript of an August 13,
2003, investor conference call is attached as Exhibit T. Defendants otherwise deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order and deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 19.
6
20. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and therefore deny
same.
21. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order and deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 21.
22. Defendants admit that the previously pending arbitration did not involve
3G products. Because of the vagueness of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 22, Defendants are otherwise without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the statements and therefore deny same.
COUNT I
23. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 22 to the Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
24. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count I and
therefore no answer is required.
25. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count I and
therefore no answer is required.
26. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count I and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT II
27. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.
28. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count II and
therefore no answer is required.
7
29. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count II and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT III
30. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein.
31. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count III and
therefore no answer is required.
32. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count III and
therefore no answer is required.
33. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count III and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT IV
34. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein.
35. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IV and
therefore no answer is required.
36. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IV and
therefore no answer is required.
37. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IV and
therefore no answer is required.
38. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IV and
therefore no answer is required.
8
COUNT V
39. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 38 as if fully set forth herein.
40. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count V and
therefore no answer is required.
41. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count V and
therefore no answer is required.
42. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count V and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT VI
43. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 42 as if fully set forth herein.
44. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required.
45. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required
46. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required.
47. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required.
48. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required.
49. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VI and
therefore no answer is required.
9
COUNT VII
50. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein.
51. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
52. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
53. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
54. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
55. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
56. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VII and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT VIII
57. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 56 as if fully set forth herein.
58. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VIII and
therefore no answer is required.
59. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VIII and
therefore no answer is required.
60. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VIII and
therefore no answer is required.
10
61. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count VIII and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT IX
62. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully set forth herein.
63. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IX and
therefore no answer is required.
64. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count IX and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT X
65. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 64 as if fully set forth herein.
66. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required.
67. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required.
68. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required...
69. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required.
70. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required.
71. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no answer is required.
11
72. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count X and
therefore no ans wer is required.
COUNT XI
73. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully set forth herein.
74. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XI and
therefo re no answer is required.
75. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XI and
therefore no answer is required.
76. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XI and
therefore no answer is required.
77. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XI and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XII
78. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth herein.
79. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
80. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
81. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no ans wer is required.
82. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
12
83. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
84. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
85. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XII and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XIII
86. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully set forth herein.
87. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIII and
therefore no answer is required.
88. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIII and
therefore no answer is required.
89. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIII and
therefore no answer is required.
90. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIII and
therefore no answer is required.
91. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIII and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XIV
92. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 91 as if fully set forth herein.
93. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIV and
therefore no answer is required.
13
94. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIV and
therefore no answer is required.
95. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIV and
therefore no answer is required.
96. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIV and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XV
97. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully set forth herein.
98. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
99. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
100. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
101. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
102. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
103. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
104. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
14
105. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
106. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
107. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XV and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XVI
108. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 107 as if fully set forth herein.
109. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
110. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
111. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
112. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
113. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
114. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
115. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
15
116. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
117. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVI and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XVII
118. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 117 as if fully set forth herein.
119. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
120. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
121. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
122. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
123. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
124. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
125. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
126. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVII and
therefore no answer is required.
16
COUNT XVIII
127. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 126 as if fully set forth herein.
128. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVIII and
therefore no answer is required.
129. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVIII and
therefore no answer is required.
130. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVIII and
therefore no answer is required.
131. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVIII and
therefore no answer is required.
132. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XVIII and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XIX
133. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 132 as if fully set forth herein.
134. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIX and
therefore no answer is required.
135. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIX and
therefore no answer is required.
136. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIX and
therefore no answer is required.
137. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XIX and
therefore no answer is required.
17
COUNT XX
138. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference the ir
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 137 as if fully set forth herein.
139. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XX and
therefore no answer is required.
140. Defendants incorporate the Court’s Order dismissing Count XX and
therefore no answer is required.
COUNT XXI
141. To the extent not inconsistent, Defendants incorporate by reference their
answers to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 140 as if fully set forth herein.
142. Deny.
143. Because of the vagueness of the allegations, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 143. Defendants deny the remaining
allegations contained within Paragraph 143.
144. Deny.
145. Deny.
146. Deny.
147. To the extent not inconsistent and expressly admitted above, Defendants
deny the factual allegations contained within the Complaint.
JURY DEMAND
Defendants admit that Nokia has demanded a trial by jury.
18
III.
DEFENSES
1. Nokia has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
2. Nokia has waived any claim it may have had.
3. Nokia’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrine of laches.
4. Nokia’s claims are barred by equitable estoppel.
5. Nokia’s claims are barred by acquiescence.
6. Nokia’s claims are barred in whole and/or in part by the applicable statute
of limitations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that upon fina l trial a judgment be
entered and that the following relief be granted:
(1) Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
(2) Defendants be awarded their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;
and
(3) Defendants be granted such other and further relief, general and
special, at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.
19
Respectfully submitted,
OF COUNSEL:
D. Dudley Oldham
Linda L. Addison
Richard S. Zembek
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77010-3095
Tel: [phone]
Dan D. Davison
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
Dallas, Texas 75201-2784
Tel: [phone]
Dated: January 26, 2006
POTTER, ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
By: /s/ David E. Moore
Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
David E. Moore (#3983)
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
1313 N. Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Interdigital
Communications Corporation and Interdigital
Technology Corporation
716968
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David E. Moore, hereby certify that on January 26, 2006, the attached document
was hand delivered to the following person(s) and was electronically filed with the Clerk
of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following
and the document is available for viewing and downloading from CM/ECF:
Jack B. Blumenfeld
Julia Heaney
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
1201 N. Market Street
P. O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
I hereby certify that on January 26, 2006, I have Emailed Expressed the
documents to the following non-registered participants:
Peter Kontio
Patrick J. Flinn
Gardner S. Culpepper
Keith E. Broyles
Alston & Bird LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
By: /s/ David E. Moore
Richard L. Horwitz
David E. Moore
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
1313 N. Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0951
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
673950
Thanks Dave

xxx