throbber
Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 470
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 11-797 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.; CANON U.S.A., INC.; CASIO
`AMERICA, INC.; CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.;
`DXG TECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.) INC.;
`EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY;
`FUJIFILM NORTH AMERICA
`CORPORATION; HEWLETT PACKARD
`COMPANY; JVC AMERICAS
`CORPORATION; LITE-ON SALES AND
`DISTRIBUTION, INC.; NIKON
`AMERICAS, INC.; NIKON, INC.;
`OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.; PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.; SANYO NORTH AMERICA
`CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION
`OF AMERICA, INC,; SONY
`ELECTRONICS, INC. AND TOSHIBA
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`LITE-ON SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF FASTVDO LLC’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Lite-On Sales and Distribution, Inc. (“Lite-On”) hereby sets forth its
`
`Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to Plaintiff FastVDO LLC’s (“FastVDO”)
`
`First Amended Complaint, filed on October 31, 2011 (D.I. 34), as follows:
`
`ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Lite-On responds to the allegations of FastVDO’s First Amended Complaint
`
`(“FAC”) as follows:
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 471
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`2.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`4.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`5.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`6.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`9.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`10.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 472
`
`
`11.
`
`Lite-On admits that it is a California corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 42000 Christy Street, Fremont, California 94538 (not 4200 Christy Street, as alleged
`
`in the FAC).
`
`12.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`13.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`14.
`
`Lite-On lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`15.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`16.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`17.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 473
`
`
`18.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`19.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`20.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`Lite-On admits that FastVDO has filed an action for alleged patent
`
`infringement and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent infringement actions
`
`under 28 USC §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Lite-On denies that the action has any merit as to Lite-On
`
`and otherwise denies each and every remaining allegation in Paragraph 21 of the FAC.
`
`22.
`
`Lite-On denies that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Lite-On.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the FAC as to defendants other than Lite-On. Lite-On
`
`denies each and every remaining allegation in Paragraph 22 of the FAC, including but not
`
`limited to the allegations that Lite-On has committed acts of patent infringement and has caused
`
`harm to FastVDO.
`
`23.
`
`Lite-On denies that venue in this District is proper under 28 USC §§
`
`1391(c) and 1400(b) as it applies to Lite-On. Lite-On further denies that this forum is the most
`
`convenient forum for the parties and witnesses or the interests of justice. Lite-On lacks
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 474
`
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in
`
`Paragraph 23 of the FAC as to defendants other than Lite-On. Lite-On denies each and every
`
`remaining allegation in Paragraph 23, including but not limited to the allegations that Lite-On
`
`has used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing products in this District.
`
`COUNT 1
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,081)
`
`24.
`
`Lite-On admits that the face of United States Patent No. RE 40,081 (the
`
`“’081 patent”), entitled “Fast Signal Transforms With Lifting Steps,” indicates that the ‘081
`
`patent reissued on February 19, 2008. Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of each and every remaining allegation set forth in Paragraph 24 of the
`
`FAC, and on that basis denies the same.
`
`25.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`26.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`27.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`28.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 475
`
`
`29.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`30.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`31.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`32.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`33.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`36.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 476
`
`
`37.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`38.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`39.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`40.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`41.
`
`Lite-On lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the FAC, and on that basis denies the
`
`same.
`
`RESPONSE TO FASTVDO’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`In response to FastVDO’s Prayer for Relief, Lite-On denies that FastVDO is
`
`entitled to the relief sought by FastVDO against Lite-On, and Lite-On asks that the Court deny
`
`FastVDO’s request for relief in its entirety. Lite-On further asks that the Court enter judgment in
`
`favor of Lite-On and against FastVDO, and that the Court find that this action is an exceptional
`
`case pursuant to 35 USC § 285, thereby entitling Lite-On to be awarded its reasonable attorney’s
`
`fees in this action, along with such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 477
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`(Patent Non-Infringement)
`
`Lite-On does not infringe and has not infringed (either directly, jointly,
`
`contributorily, by inducement, or under the doctrine of equivalents) the claims of the ’081 Patent.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`
`(Patent Invalidity)
`
`The claims of the ’081 Patent are invalid because they fail to comply with one or
`
`more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., including, without limitation, sections 101,
`
`102, 103, and 112.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based
`
`on statements, representations, and admissions made during prosecution of the patent
`
`applications resulting in the ’081 Patent.
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`
` (Equitable Defenses)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
`
`abandonment, laches, unclean hands, estoppel, and/or waiver.
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense
`
`(Statutory Damages Limitation)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for damages are statutorily limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and/or
`
`287.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 478
`
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted.
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense
`
`(Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)
`
`This Court may not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Lite-On.
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense
`
`(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by its failure to mitigate its own damages.
`
`Ninth Affirmative Defense
`
`(Statutes of Limitations)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by any and all applicable statutes of limitations.
`
`Tenth Affirmative Defense
`
`(License/Implied License/Patent Exhaustion)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part pursuant to the doctrines
`
`of express license, implied licensed, and/or patent exhaustion.
`
`Eleventh Affirmative Defense
`
`(Lack of Personal Jurisdiction/Improper Venue)
`
`Plaintiff cannot obtain the relief sought against Lite-On, as this Court lacks
`
`personal jurisdiction over Lite-On, and venue is not proper in this District.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 479
`
`
`LITE-ON’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST FASTVDO
`
`Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lite-On Sales and
`
`Distribution, Inc. (“Lite-On”), for its Counterclaims against FastVDO LLC (“FastVDO”), hereby
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`Lite-On is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`California, having a principal place of business at 42000 Christy Street, Fremont, California
`
`94538.
`
`Upon information and belief, and based on the allegations of the FAC, FastVDO
`
`is a Florida limited liability corporation with a principal place of business at 750 N. Atlantic
`
`Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`These counterclaims arise under federal law, and this Court has
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act
`
`(28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202), the Patent Laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.),
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`2.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over FastVDO because FastVDO has
`
`consented to jurisdiction in the State of Delaware by bringing the present action.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that venue for the claims set forth in FastVDO’s First
`
`Amended Complaint is found to be proper, venue is proper in this district for these counterclaims
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400, and by virtue of FastVDO’s admissions in its First
`
`Amended Complaint that venue is proper in this district.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 480
`
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement)
`
`4.
`
`Lite-On incorporates Paragraphs 1-5 of its Counterclaims as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`5.
`
`FastVDO claims to be the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,081 (“the
`
`’081 Patent”).
`
`6.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Lite-On and
`
`FastVDO with respect to the non-infringement of the ’081 Patent because FastVDO has brought
`
`this action against Lite-On alleging that Lite-On has infringed FastVDO’s rights in the ’081
`
`Patent, and Lite-On denies these allegations. Absent a declaration of non-infringement,
`
`FastVDO will continue to wrongfully assert its purported rights in the ’081 Patent against Lite-
`
`On, and thereby cause Lite-On irreparable injury and damage.
`
`7.
`
`Lite-On has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’081
`
`Patent.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity)
`
`8.
`
`Lite-On incorporates Paragraphs 1-7 of its Counterclaims as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`9.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Lite-On and
`
`FastVDO with respect to the validity of the ’081 Patent because FastVDO has brought this action
`
`against Lite-On alleging that Lite-On has infringed the ’081 Patent, and Lite-On denies that the
`
`’081 Patent is valid. Absent a declaration of invalidity, FastVDO will continue to wrongfully
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 481
`
`
`assert the ’081 Patent against the Lite-On, and thereby cause Lite-On irreparable injury and
`
`damage.
`
`10.
`
`The ’081 Patent is invalid under on or more provisions of Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ON LITE-ON’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant and Counterclaimant Lite-On prays for relief as
`
`follows:
`
`(a)
`
`a judgment in favor of Lite-On denying FastVDO all relief requested in
`
`this action and dismissing FastVDO’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice;
`
`(b)
`
`a judgment declaring that Lite-On has not infringed and is not infringing
`
`(either directly, jointly, contributorily, by inducement, or under the doctrine of equivalents) U.S.
`
`Patent No. RE 40,081;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`a judgment declaring U.S. Patent No. RE 40,081 to be invalid;
`
`an award to Lite-On for its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules, and common law; and
`
`(e)
`
`such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant and
`
`Counterclaimant Lite-On Sales and Distribution, Inc. hereby demands trial by jury of all issues
`
`triable to a jury, from both Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Lite-On’s Counterclaims.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 482
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs Louden
`
`
`
`
`
`Karen Jacobs Louden (#3881)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`klouden@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Lite-On Sales and Distribution, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Dariush G. Adli
`Andrew Shupe
`ADLI LAW GROUP P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6900
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 623-6546
`
`December 19, 2011
`4753901.3
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 483
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 19, 2011, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`December 19, 2011, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., Esquire
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Marc A. Fenster, Esquire
`Kevin P. Burke, Esquire
`Alexander C.D. Giza, Esquire
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire
`David E. Moore, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street
`6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Casio America, Inc. and Sanyo
`North America Corporation
`
`Scott D. Stimpson, Esquire
`David C. Lee, Esquire
`Katherine M. Lieb, Esquire
`SILLS CIMMINS & GROSS P.C.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112
`Attorneys for Casio America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 484
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Dennis C. Lee, Esquire
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`525 W. Monroe Street
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Attorneys for Sanyo North America
`Corporation
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire
`Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Canon U.S.A. Inc.
`
`Joseph A. Calvaruso, Esquire
`Richard F. Martinelli, Esquire
`Rodger A. Sadler, Esquire
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 W. 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019-6142
`Attorneys for Canon U.S.A., Inc.
`
`Denise S. Kraft, Esquire
`Aleine M. Porterfield, Esquire
`DLA PIPER (US) LLP
`919 North Market Street
`Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Eastman Kodak Company
`
`Sean C. Cunningham, Esquire
`John D. Kinton, Esquire
`David R. Knudson, Esquire
`DLA PIPER (US) LLP
`401 B Street – Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Attorneys for Eastman Kodak Company
`
`Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esquire
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue
`Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for JVC Americas Corporation
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 485
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MIL
`
`Michael J. Kasdan, Esquire
`Abraham Kasdan, Ph.D., Esquire
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero, Esquire
`Samuel Lo, Esquire
`AMSTER ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue – 21st Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Attorneys for JVC Americas Corporation
`
`Colm F. Connolly, Esquire
`Ramy E. Hanna, Esquire
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1007 North Orange Street
`Suite 501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Hewlett-Packard Company
`
`Mark W. Taylor, Esquire
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Attorneys for Hewlett-Packard Company
`
`John G. Day, Esquire
`Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esquire
`Andrew C. Mayo, Esquire
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`500 Delaware Avenue
`8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, Nikon Americas, Inc., Nikon,
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation of North America
`and DXG Technology (U.S.A.) Inc.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 486
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Steven J. Routh, Esquire
`Sten A. Jensen, Esquire
`John R. Inge, Esquire
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr., Esquire
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`Attorneys for Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, Nikon Americas Inc., Nikon Inc.
`and Panasonic Corporation of North America
`
`William H. Wright, Esquire
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`777 S. Figueroa
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Attorneys for Fujifilm North America
`Corporation, Nikon Americas Inc., Nikon Inc.
`and Panasonic Corporation of North America
`
`Brian E. Mitchell, Esquire
`Jigang Jin, Esquire
`MITCHELL + COMPANY, LAW OFFICES
`4 Embarcadero Center
`Suite 1400
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Attorneys for DXG Technology (U.S.A.) Inc.
`
`Adam W. Poff, Esquire
`Pilar G. Kraman, Esquire
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`1000 West Street
`17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Olympus America Inc.
`
`J. Steven Baughman, Esquire
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`One Metro Center
`700 12th Street, NW – Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorneys for Olympus America Inc.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 90 Filed 12/19/11 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 487
`
`
`Eric T. Syu, Esquire
`Deborah S. Katz, Esquire
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Olympus America Inc.
`
`Hiroyuki Kagiwara, Esquire
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Yusen Building 2F 3-2 Marunoucki 2-Chome
`Chiyoda-ku
`Tokyo, Japan 100-0005
`Attorneys for Olympus America Inc.
`
`Thomas Halkowski, Esquire
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue – 17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Toshiba America, Inc.
`
`Jeffry H. Nelson, Esquire
`Michael J. Shea, Esquire
`Jonathan T. Reavill, Esquire
`NIXON VANDERHYE P.C.
`901 North Glebe Road
`11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203
`Attorneys for Toshiba America, Inc.
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Karen Jacobs Louden
`
`
`
`
`
`Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)
`
`
`
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket