Free Answer to Crossclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et. al. ) ) Defendants; ) __________________________________________) ) KYOCERA WIRELESS CORP., ) ) Counterclaim Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., et. al. ) ) Counterclaim Defendants; ) __________________________________________) ) KYOCERA WIRELESS CORP., ) ) Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA ) CORPORATION, et. al. ) ) Third Party Defendants. ) __________________________________________) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., et al.

C.A. No. 04-1338 (KAJ)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

HONEYWELL'S REPLY TO THE CROSS-CLAIM OF THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION Plaintiffs Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell International") and Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. ("HIPI") (collectively, "Honeywell") hereby reply to the Declaratory

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 11

Judgment cross-claim alleged in paragraphs 22-43 of Philips' Answer to Kyocera's Third Party Complaint and Declaratory Judgment Cross-Claim Against Honeywell ("Philips' cross-claim") filed with this Court by Third Party Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("Philips") on or about April 25, 2005. PARTIES 1. 2. Honeywell admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of Philips' cross-claim. As to the allegations set forth in paragraph 24, Honeywell admits that Philips'

cross-claim purports to be a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the `371 patent, and for other relief, but denies all remaining allegations set forth therein. 3. 4. 5. Honeywell admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 25 of Philips' cross-claim. Honeywell admits the allegations set forth in paragraph 26 of Philips' cross-claim. As to the allegations set forth in paragraph 27, Honeywell admits that it has filed

actions alleging infringement of the `371 patent against Kyocera Wireless Corporation ("Kyocera"), Nokia Corporation, and Nokia Inc. Further, Honeywell admits that Kyocera has filed a third party complaint and admits that Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. have moved for leave to file a Third Party Complaint against Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Honeywell lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Philips' cross-claim, and therefore denies them. 6. As to the allegations set forth in paragraph 28, Honeywell denies that it has

interfered with and disrupted Philips' important existing and commercial relationships with its customers. As to the remaining allegations of paragraph 28, Honeywell lacks sufficient

2

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 11

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations and therefore denies them. 7. Honeywell lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the

truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Philips' cross-claim, and therefore denies them. 8. As to the allegations set forth in paragraph 30, Honeywell admits that Kyocera

Wireless Corporation has filed a Third Party Complaint against Philips. Honeywell further admits that Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. have moved for leave to file a Third Party Complaint against Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Honeywell lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations and therefore denies them. 9. Paragraph 31 of Philips' cross-claim contains conclusions of law to which

Honeywell is not required to plead. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 31 which are not conclusions of law, Honeywell denies each and every one. 10. Paragraph 32 of Philips' cross-claim contains conclusions of law to which

Honeywell is not required to respond. To the extent that paragraph 32 of Philips' cross-claim contains allegations that are not conclusions of law, Honeywell denies them. 11. Paragraph 33 of Philips' cross-claim contains conclusions of law to which

Honeywell is not required to respond. To the extent that paragraph 33 of Philips' cross-claim contains allegations that are not conclusions of law, Honeywell denies them. 12. As to the allegations set forth in paragraph 34, Honeywell admits that an actual

and justiciable controversy exists between Honeywell and Philips with respect to the

3

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 4 of 11

infringement of the `371 patent as it relates to Philips' products and the validity of the `371 patent, but denies all remaining allegations set forth therein. 13. Honeywell admits that jurisdiction is proper. To the extent paragraph 35

incorporates averments of non-infringement and invalidity, Honeywell denies those allegations. 14. Honeywell admits that venue is proper, but denies the remaining allegations set

forth in paragraph 36 of Philips' cross-claim. COUNTS COUNT 1 ­ INVALIDITY OF THE `371 PATENT 15. Honeywell responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 37 of Philips' cross-

claim by incorporating herein by reference paragraphs 1-14 of this Reply To The Cross-Claim Of Third Party Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation. 16. claim. 17. claim. COUNT II ­ NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE `371 PATENT 18. Honeywell responds to the allegations set forth in paragraph 40 of Philips' crossHoneywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Philips' crossHoneywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of Philips' cross-

claim by incorporating herein by reference paragraphs 1-17 of this Reply To The Cross-Claim Of Third Party Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corporation. 19. claim. 20. claim. Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of Philips' crossHoneywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of Philips' cross-

4

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 5 of 11

21. claim.

Honeywell denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of Philips' cross-

COUNTERCLAIMS The Parties 22. Counterclaimant Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell International") is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principle place of business in Morristown, New Jersey. 23. Counterclaimant Honeywell Intellectual Properties Inc. ("HIPI") is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Tempe, Arizona. (Honeywell International and HIPI will be referred to collectively as "Honeywell"). Jurisdiction 24. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these counterclaims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a). 25. Personal jurisdiction over the counterclaim defendant comports with the United

States Constitution and § 3104 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code because the counterclaim defendant has committed and continues to commit, has contributed and continues to contribute to, and has induced and continues to induce acts of patent infringement in this district as alleged in these counterclaims. Moreover, by filing its declaratory judgment cross-claim in this judicial district, Philips has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. 26. and 1400(b). Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c)

5

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 6 of 11

Background to the Counterclaims 27. In the 1980s, years before LCD screen-containing products such as cellular

phones, digital cameras, PDAs, and portable DVD players became ubiquitous in the consumer electronics market, the aviation and aerospace industry became interested in replacing traditional cockpit displays with LCD displays. Honeywell invested heavily in developing the technology necessary to provide LCD displays that would meet this need. 28. Among Honeywell's LCD display inventions was technology that enables a

display to produce a brighter image (making the screen easier to see) without requiring additional power, while helping to reduce the appearance of an undesirable interference pattern called the "Moire effect" on the screen. Honeywell protected this invention by obtaining United States Patent No. 5,280,371 (the "`371 Patent"), which was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 18, 1994. A copy of the `371 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 29. Honeywell possesses the right to sue infringers of the `371 patent. First Counterclaim 30. Philips has been and is engaged in the manufacture, importation, offer for sale,

and/or sale of modules that contain liquid crystal displays ("LCDs") in the United States with the knowledge and intention that such LCD modules would be incorporated into products that would be sold throughout the United States, including this judicial district. Such LCD modules are incorporated into products which include at least one of the following: laptop computers, cellular phones, PDAs, digital still cameras, video cameras, portable DVD players, portable televisions and/or portable entertainment systems.

6

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 7 of 11

31.

At least some of the LCD modules manufactured, imported, offered for sale,

and/or sold by Philips infringe the `371 patent literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, making Philips liable for direct and/or indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Second Counterclaim 32. The manufacture, importation, offer for sale, or sale of these infringing LCD

modules, and/or the continued manufacture, importation, offer for sale, or sale of them in the future by Philips is and/or will be willful, warranting a finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling Honeywell to an award of treble damages and attorneys' fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Honeywell respectfully requests the following relief: a. The entry of judgment that Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the relief requested in

the prayer for relief asserted in connection with its Declaratory Judgment Cross-Claim and Demand for a Jury Trial; b. c. The entry of judgment that Philips has infringed the `371 Patent; That Philips, and its respective agents, servants, officers, directors, employees and

all persons acting with it, directly or indirectly, be permanently enjoined from infringing, inducing others to infringe, or contributing to the infringement of the `371 Patent; d. The entry of judgment that Philips must account for and pay to Honeywell

damages adequate to compensate Honeywell for its infringement, in the amount proven at trial, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court; e. The entry of judgment finding that Philips' infringement has been willful and

trebling the award of damages;

7

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 8 of 11

f.

The entry of judgment declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding

Honeywell its costs and attorneys' fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and, g. and equitable. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL Honeywell demands a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury. That Honeywell be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL

/s/ Thomas C. Grimm Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) Leslie A. Polizoti (#4299) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL: Martin R. Lueck Matthew L. Woods Stacie E. Oberts Denise S. Rahne ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 (612) 349-8500 Anthony A. Froio Marc N. Henschke ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. 800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02199-7610 (617) 267-2300 October 17, 2005
488214

8

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 9 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 17, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to the following:

Frederick L. Cottrell, III Chad M. Shandler RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899-0551 [[email protected]] [[email protected]] Attorneys for Eastman Kodak Company Thomas L. Halkowski FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Apple Computer, Inc., Casio Computer Co., Ltd., and Casio, Inc.

William J. Wade RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899-0551 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. and Matsushita Electrical Corporation of America John W. Shaw YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Olympus Corporation, Olympus America, Inc., Sony Corporation and Sony Corporation of America Adam Wyatt Poff YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Pentax Corporation and Pentax U.S.A., Inc.

Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Concord Cameras, Dell Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Fujitsu America, Inc., Fujitsu Computer Products of America, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corp. and Wintek Electro-Optics Corporation

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 10 of 11

Philip A. Rovner POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Fuji Photo Film Co.. Ltd. and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

Francis DiGiovanni James M. Olson CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ LLP The Nemours Building, 8th Floor 1007 N. Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 [[email protected]] [[email protected]] Attorneys for Sony Ericcson Mobile Communications AB and Sony Ericcson Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. Amy Evans CROSS & SIMON 913 N. Market Street, Suite 1001 P.O. Box 1380 Wilmington, DE 19899-1380 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Argus a/k/a Hartford Computer Group, Inc.

Arthur G. Connolly, III Brian M. Gottesman CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ LLP The Nemours Building, 8th Floor 1007 N. Orange Street, P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 [[email protected]] [[email protected] Attorneys for Navman NZ Limited and Navman U.S.A. Inc. Robert J. Katzenstein Joelle E. Polesky SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & FURLOW LLP 800 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor P.O. Box 410 Wilmington, DE 19899 [[email protected]] Attorneys for Kyocera Wireless Corp. and Seiko Epson Corporation

Andre G. Bouchard Karen L. Pascale BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 [[email protected]] [[email protected]] Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Optrex America, Inc.

10

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF

Document 238

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 11 of 11

I further certify that on October 17, 2005, I caused to be served copies of the foregoing document upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 N. Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Philips Electronics North America Corp

/s/ Thomas C. Grimm Thomas C. Grimm (#1098) [email protected]
488214

11