  |
|||
| home > publications/news > by-lines | Careers | Contact Us | Site Map | ||
|
Appendix C for Managing Intellectual Property Litigationby Lee Carl Bromberg Protecting Intellectual Property Assets © 1997 Lee Carl Bromberg Appendix C United States District Court District of Massachusetts
________________________________
)
)
STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC. )
Plaintiff, )
)
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 95-CV-9964
)
)
PACEMAKER FURNITURE, INC., )
Defendant. )
)
________________________________)
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT Defendant Pacemaker Furniture, Inc. ("Pacemaker") for its answer to the complaint herein: 1. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Admits that plaintiff seeks relief under Title 35 United States Code and that jurisdiction and venue are proper, and denies each and every remaining allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. Denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. Upon information and belief, Pacemaker has not infringed any valid claim of United States Patent No. 5,001,783 (the "'783 patent"). SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. Upon information and belief, the '783 patent is invalid on grounds specified in Part II of Title 35 United States Code as a condition of patentability. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. Upon information and belief, the '783 patent is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35 United States Code Section 112. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9. The claims of the '783 patent and each of them, are not directed to patentable combinations, but are directed to mere aggregations of parts, steps, means or elements which were matters of common knowledge in the art to which said patent relates before the alleged invention and more than one year prior to the date of the application for the patent. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10. In light of the prior art at the time the alleged invention of the '783 patent was made, the subject matter as claimed in the '783 patent would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to which the alleged invention relates and does not constitute a patentable invention. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11. Upon information and belief, plaintiff has so misused its '783 patent and has so used it in violation of the antitrust laws as to render it unenforceable. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12. Any claims of the '783 patent which may be held to be valid are so restricted in scope that defendants have not infringed said claims. COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 13. This is a claim for a declaratory judgement of patent invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201. 14. Upon information and belief, plaintiff Storage Systems, Inc. ("Storage") is the owner of the '783 patent. 15. As evidenced by the Complaint herein and defendant's answer thereto, there exists a real and actual controversy between Storage, on the one hand, and Pacemaker, on the other hand, concerning the validity, enforceability and alleged infringement of the '783 patent. 16. Defendant repeats and realleges paragraphs 6 through 12 hereof as if fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, defendant Pacemaker prays that: 1. The Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. 2. This Court declare that defendant Pacemaker has not infringed the '783 patent. 3. This Court declare that the '783 patent is invalid and unenforceable. 4. Defendant Pacemaker recover its costs and attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285. 5. This Court grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper. Dated: Boston, Massachusetts Defendant, PACEMAKER Alexander Turnwell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the attorney of record for each other party by first class mail on April 14, 1997. _______________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________
)
)
STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC. )
Plaintiff, )
)
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 95-CV-9964
)
)
PACEMAKER FURNITURE, INC., )
Defendant. )
)
________________________________)
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM For its Reply to the counterclaim of defendant Pacemaker Furniture, Inc. ("Pacemaker") and responding to like-numbered paragraphs, plaintiff Storage Systems, Inc. ("Storage") states the following: 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. The allegations of paragraphs 6-12 of defendant's Answer are denied in their entirety. As an additional response, Storage asserts that defendant's request for declaratory judgment fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE, Storage Systems, Inc. demands judgment dismissing defendant's counterclaim, together with reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 14, 1997 Plaintiff, STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC., _______________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served upon the attorney of record for each other party by first class mail on May 14, 1997. _______________________ Return to "Managing Intellectual Property Litigation" © 2005 Bromberg & Sunstein LLP |
