Bicameral LLC v. NXP USA, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00294

ANSWER to {{23}} Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim by Bicameral LLC.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION BICAMERAL LLC, Plaintiff Civil Action No.: 6:18-cv-00294 -against- Jury Trial Demanded NXP USA, INC., NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V., and NXP B.V., Defendants BICAMERAL LLC'S ANSWER TO NXP USA, INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Bicameral LLC ("Bicameral") answers the counterclaims of Defendant NXP USA, Inc. set forth in D.I. 23 ("NXP's Counterclaims") as follows: THE PARTIES 1. NXP USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 6501 William Cannon Drive West, Austin, Texas 78735. ANSWER: On information and belief, Bicameral admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of NXP's Counterclaims. 2. Bicameral alleges that it is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business at 17330 Preston Road, Suite 200D, Dallas, Texas 75252. ANSWER: Bicameral admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of NXP's Counterclaims. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these 1 counterclaims for declaratory judgment brought pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. ANSWER: Bicameral admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over NXP's Counterclaims relating to infringement and validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,008,727; 6,321,331; 6,639,538; 6,754,223; and RE42,092 ("the Patents-in-Suit"). Bicameral denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of NXP's Counterclaims. 4. By filing its Complaint for Patent Infringement ("Complaint"), Bicameral has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. ANSWER: Bicameral admis that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Bicameral. Bicameral denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 4 of NXP's counterclaims. 5. Venue for these counterclaims is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). ANSWER: Bicameral admits that venue as to NXP's counterclaims relating to infringement and validity of the Patents-in-Suit properly lies in this district. 6. Based on Bicameral's allegations of infringement in the Complaint, a justiciable and actual controversy exists between NXP USA, Inc. and Bicameral concerning the alleged infringement and validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,008,727; 6,321,331; 6,639,538; 6,754,223; and RE42,092 ("the Patents-in-Suit"). ANSWER: Bicameral admits that a justiciable and actual controversy exists between NXP USA, Inc. and Bicameral concerning the alleged infringement and validity of the Patents-in-Suit. Bicameral denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of NXP's Counterclaims. 2 FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (Declaratory Judgment of No Infringement) 7. NXP USA, Inc. incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 6 above as if fully set forth herein. ANSWER: Bicameral incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-6 of NXP's Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein. 8. NXP USA, Inc. has not infringed, and is not infringing, any claim of the Patents-in-Suit. ANSWER: Bicameral denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of NXP's Counterclaims. 9. Because there exists a real and justiciable controversy between the parties regarding infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, this Court should make declarations that NXP USA, Inc. does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. ANSWER: Bicameral denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of NXP's Counterclaims. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity) 10. NXP USA, Inc. incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 9 above as if fully set forth herein. ANSWER: Bicameral incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-9 of NXP's Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein. 11. One or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to comply with the conditions of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 251. ANSWER: Bicameral denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of NXP's Counterclaims. 12. Because there exists a real and justiciable controversy between the parties regarding the 3 validity of the Patents-in-Suit, this Court should make declarations that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid. ANSWER: Bicameral denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of NXP's Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NXP USA's PRAYER FOR RELIEF Bicameral denies all remaining allegations not specifically admitted herein and denies that NXP is entitled to any of the relief it has requested. Dated: January 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Dmitry Kheyfits Dmitry Kheyfits (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) California State Bar No. 321326 dkheyfits@kblit.com KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415-429-1739 Fax: 415-429-6347 Andrey Belenky (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) New York State Bar No. 4524898 abelenky@kblit.com Hanna G. Cohen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) hgcohen@kblit.com New York State Bar No. 4471421 KHEYFITS BELENKY LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas 9th Floor New York, New York 10036 Tel. (212) 203-5399 Fax. (212) 203-6445 Raymond W. Mort, III Texas State Bar No. 00791308 raymort@austinlaw.com THE MOST LAW FIRM, PLLC 4 106 E. Sixth Street, Suite 900 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel/Fax: (512) 865-7950 Attorneys for Plaintiff Bicameral LLC 5