`Case 1:11—cv-00797-RGA Document 78
`Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 3 Page|D #: 407
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`FastVDO LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc., et al.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 11-797-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF FASTVDO, LLC’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT FUJIFILM NORTH
`AMERICA CORP.’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff FastVDO, LLC (“FastVDO”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
`
`answers the counterclaims of Defendant Fujifilm North America Corp. (“Fujifilm”) by
`
`corresponding paragraph number as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`FastVDO admits that Fujifilm purports to state an action arising under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202, and that the Court has subject matterjurisdiction
`
`over Fujifilm’s counterclaims. FastVDO denies the merits of Fujifilm’s counterclaims
`
`and that Fujifilm is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`FastVDO admits that Venue is proper in this district.
`
`FastVDO admits that an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Fujifilm and FastVDO concerning the ‘081 Patent.
`
`6.
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 78 Filed 12/08/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 408
`Case 1:11—cv-00797-RGA Document 78
`Filed 12/08/11 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 408
`
`FIRST COIJNTERCLAIM — DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENI‘
`
`7.
`
`FastVDO incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-6 of this answer, above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`8.
`
`FastVDO admits that it contends that Fujifilm has infringed and is
`
`infringing the ‘O81 Patent. FastVDO denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`9.
`
`Denied.
`
`10.
`
`FastVDO admits that Fujifilm seeks a judicial declaration regarding its
`
`infringement of the ‘O81 Patent. FastVDO denies the merits of Fujifilm’s counterclaim
`
`and that Fujifilm is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM — DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY
`
`11.
`
`FastVDO incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-10 of this answer, above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`12.
`
`FastVDO admits that it has asserted the ‘O81 Patent against Fujifilm.
`
`FastVDO denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`13.
`
`Denied.
`
`14.
`
`FastVDO admits that Fujifilm seeks a judicial declaration that the claims
`
`of the ‘O81 Patent are invalid. FastVDO denies the merits of Fujif'1lm’s counterclaim and
`
`that Fujifilm is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`PRAYER FOR RlT.LlEl'<‘
`
`WHEREFORE, FastVDO prays for the following relief with regard to Fujifilm’s
`
`counterclaims:
`
`A.
`
`A dismissal with prejudice of Fujifilm’s counterclaims;
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 78 Filed 12/08/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 409
`Case 1:11—cv-00797-RGA Document 78
`Filed 12/08/11 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 409
`
`B.
`
`An adjudication that Fujifilm is not entitled to any relief on its
`
`counterclaims, including, without limitation, any fine or damages;
`
`C.
`
`Costs and further relief to which FastVDO is entitled, and which the Court
`
`deems just and equitable.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`FastVDO demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: December 8, 2011
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Brian I73. Fal':1a111
`
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (Bar No. 100245)
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza (admitted pro hac vice)
`Marc A. Fenster (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kevin P. Burke (admitted pro hac vice)
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
`(310) 826-7474
`agiza@raklaw.com
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`kburke@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintifi"FastVDO, LLC
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
