Free Answer to to CounterClaim - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-05707-RMW

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WANG, HARTMANN, GIBBS, & CAULEY A Professional Law Corporation Richard F. Cauley (SBN: 109194) Franklin E. Gibbs (SBN: 189015) Erick P. Wolf (SBN: 224906) 1301 Dove Street, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 833-8483 Facsimile: (949) 833-2281 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Complaint-in-Intervention Defendant Magic Control Technologies UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

MAGIC CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, a Taiwan corporation Plaintiff, vs. KENSINGTON COMPUTER PRODUCTS GROUP, a division of ACCO Brands Corporation, a Delaware corporation; GWC TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California corporation; GOOD WAY TECH. CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation; and GOOD WAY ELECTRONICS, a China corporation. Defendants. DISPLAYLINK CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Intervenor.

CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW RELATED CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-01998RMW ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS Jury Trial Demanded

-1ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW

Case 5:07-cv-05707-RMW

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Magic Control Technologies ("MCT"), for its Answer to Defendant GWC Technology Inc.'s Counterclaims brought by GWC Technology, Inc. ("GWC"), alleges and states as follows: THE PARTIES 1. As to this paragraph, and based on the wording of this paragraph, MCT lacks

sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in this paragraph, and upon that basis denies such allegations. 2. Admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. 4. MCT admits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. MCT admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over MCT by virtue of

MCT's complaint against GWC that is pending before this Court. 5. MCT admits that venue is proper in this District. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 6. MCT admits that intradistrict assignment to the San Jose Division is proper.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaration of Invalidity and Non-Infringement of the `788 Patent) 7. MCT repeats and realleges its responses to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

6 in their entirety. 8. MCT admits GWC asserts its declaratory judgment counterclaim pursuant to the

patent laws, Title 35, United States Code and under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 1338(a). Denied as to whether GWC's position is correct. 9. MCT admits that MCT has averred that the `788 patent was duly and legally

issued, it is the lawful owner, having the right to sue and to recover for any and all infringement of the `788 Patent, and that GWC infringes the `788 patent. 10. Admitted, to the extent that GWC is denying that it is infringing directly,

indirectly, contributorily, by inducement or by equivalents and valid and/or enforceable claim of the `788 patent. Denied as to whether GWC's position is correct.
-2ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW

Case 5:07-cv-05707-RMW

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
i. ii.

11. 12. 13.

Denied. Admitted that there is an actual controversy between GWC and MCT. Admitted to the extent that GWC is requesting a declaration from the Court that

its products do not infringe any claim of the `788 patent directly, indirectly, contributorily, by inducement, by equivalents, or otherwise. Denied as to whether GWC's position is correct.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaration of Unenforceability of the `788 Patent) 14. MCT repeats and alleges its responses to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

13 in their entirety. 15. MCT admits GWC asserts its declaratory judgment counterclaim pursuant to the

patent laws, Title 35, United States Code and under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 1338(a). Denied as to whether GWC's position is correct. 16. MCT admits that it has averred that the `788 patent was duly and legally issued, it

is the lawful owner, having the right to sue and to recover for any and all infringement of the `788 Patent, and that GWC infringes the `788 patent. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted that there is an actual controversy between GWC and MCT. Admitted to the extent that GWC is requesting a declaration from the Court that

the `788 patent and any patents that claim priority to the `788 patent are unenforceable. Denied as to whether GWC's position is correct

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, MCT prays for judgment as follows: That the Court dismiss GWC's Counterclaims with prejudice; That the Court declares that the `788 patent is valid and enforceable;
-3ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW

Case 5:07-cv-05707-RMW

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

iii.

That the Court declares that the `788 patent has been infringed and/or willfully infringed

by DisplayLink and the Defendants; iv. v. That MCT be awarded costs of suit incurred in defense of this action; The Court determines that this is an exceptional case that justifies MCT being awarded

reasonable attorney fees and costs; and vi. That the Court awards to the MCT such other and further relief that the Court may deem

just and proper.

Dated: August 25, 2008

WANG, HARTMANN, GIBBS & CAULEY A Professional Law Corporation By: /s/ Richard F. Cauley Richard F. Cauley Franklin E. Gibbs Erick P. Wolf Attorneys for Plaintiff and Complaint-in Intervention Defendant

-4ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW

Case 5:07-cv-05707-RMW

Document 37

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dated: August 25, 2008

JURY DEMAND MCT hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. WANG, HARTMANN, GIBBS & CAULEY A Professional Law Corporation By: /s/ Richard F. Cauley Richard F. Cauley Franklin E. Gibbs Erick P. Wolf Attorneys for Plaintiff and Complaint-in Intervention Defendant

-5ANSWER TO DEFENDANT GWC TECHNOLOGY INC.'S COUNTERCLAIMS CASE NO.: 5:07-CV-05707-RMW