Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00853-SLR Document 17 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THALES AIRBORNE SYSTEMS S.A. AND )
THALES AVIONICS S.A., )
Plaintiffs, g
v. j C.A. No. 05-853-SLR
UNIVERSAL AVIONICS SYSTEMS g
CORPORATION, )
Defendant. g
REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIMS
Thales Airborne Systems S.A. and Thales Avionics S.A. (the "Thales Plaintiffs"), for
their answer to the counterclaims of Defendant Universal Avionics Systems Corporation
("Universal") and responding to like numbered paragraphs, state as follows:
l. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. The Thales Plaintiffs admit that defendant and counterclaimant Universal is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona. The Thales Plaintiffs
do not have sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 3.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. _ Admitted.
7. The Thales Plaintiffs admit that there is an actual case or controversy between
Universal and the Thales Plaintiffs concerning the invalidity and non—infringement of the patents
in suit, and that this Court has jurisdiction over the subj ect matter of this action and personal
jurisdiction over the parties and that venue is proper and, except as so admitted, denies the
allegations of paragraph 7.

Case 1:05-cv-00853-SLR Document 17 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 2 of 4
8. Denied.
9. Denied.
First Affirmative Defense
10. Defendant’s counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.
Second Affirmative Defense
1 1. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by the presumption of
validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
Third Affirmative Defense
12. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by the American rule
against recovery of litigants’ attorneys’ fees.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
13. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, under the principles
and doctrines of waiver, laches, acquiescence, and/or equitable estoppel due to Universal’s
actions or inactions that have resulted in prejudice to the Thales Plaintiffs.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
14. Defendant’s counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel.
WHEREFORE, the Thales Plaintiffs pray that the Court issue judgment:
A. Dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims with prejudice;
B. Awarding the Thales Plaintiffs its costs and reasonable att0rneys’ fees in
defending against Defendant’s counterclaims; and
C. Awarding the Thales Plaintiffs such other further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
2

Case 1:05-cv-00853-SLR Document 17 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 3 of 4
ASHZBY & GEDDES
/s/ John G. Day
Steven J. Balick (LD. #2114)
J ohn G. Day (I.D. #2403)
Tiffany Geyer Lydon (LD. #3950)
222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
sbalick@ ashby-geC1.d.es.con1
jdag-cz.1ashbv— geddesoom
tlydongczlasliby- geddescom
Attorney for Thales Airborne Systems S.A. and
Thales Avionics S.A.
Of Counsel:
Elliott E. Polebaum
Deneen J. Melander
Joseph J. LoBue
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,
SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 639-7000
Facsimile: (202) 639-7003
Dated: February 6, 2006
166383.1
3

Case 1 :05-cv-00853-SLR Document 17 Filed O2/06/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 6th day of February, 2006, the attached REPLY T O
COUNTERCLAIMS was served upon the below-named defendants at the address and in the
manner indicated:
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire HAND DELIVERY
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square
Wilmington, DE 19801
Scott J. Bomstein, Esquire VLA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Greenberg Trauri g LLP
Met Life Building
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
/s/ John G. Day
John G. Day
165219.1