`Case 1:11—cv—OO797—RGA Document 80 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 3 Page|D #: 413
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`FastVDO, LLC,
`
`V_
`
`Apple Inc., et. al,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 11-cv-00797-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF FASTVDO LLC’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff FastVDO, LLC (“FastVDO”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
`
`answers the counterclaims of Defendant Apple,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) by corresponding
`
`paragraph number as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Admitted.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`FastVDO admits that Apple purports to state an action arising under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, and that
`
`the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. FastVDO denies the merits of Apple’s
`
`counterclaims and that Apple is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`FastVDO admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it.
`
`FastVDO admits that Venue is proper in this district.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 80 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 414
`Case 1:11—cv—OO797—RGA Document 80 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 3 Page|D #: 414
`
`6.
`
`The First Amended Complaint speaks for itself. FastVDO admits that an
`
`actual case or controversy exists between FastVDO and Apple regarding Apple’s
`
`infringement of the ‘O81 Patent.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`
`Declarato
`
`Jud ment of Non-Infrin ement
`
`7.
`
`FastVDO admits that an actual case or controversy exists between
`
`FastVDO and Apple regarding Apple’s infringement of the ‘O81 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`FastVDO admits that Apple requests a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that it does not and has not infringed the ‘081 Patent. FastVDO denies the
`
`merits of Apple’s counterclaim and that Apple is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`gDeclarat0r_'y Judgment of Invalidity)
`
`9.
`
`FastVDO admits that an actual case or controversy exists between
`
`FastVDO and Apple regarding the validity of the ‘O81 Patent.
`
`10.
`
`FastVDO admits that Apple requests a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that the ‘081 Patent is invalid. FastVDO denies the merits of Apple’s
`
`counterclaim and that Apple is entitled to its requested relief.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, FastVDO prays for the following relief with regard to Apple’s
`
`counterclaims:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A dismissal with prejudice of Apple’s counterclaims;
`
`An adjudication that Apple is not entitled to any relief on its counterclaims,
`
`including, without limitation, any fine or damages;
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 80 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 415
`Case 1:11—cv—OO797—RGA Document 80 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 3 Page|D #: 415
`
`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.
`
`Date: December 12, 2011
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian I3.
`
`I-7a1'11:11i
`
`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 PlairitiflFastVDO, 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
