Free Answer to Amended Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP., Plaintiff, v. DELL, INC., ET AL. Defendants. C.A. 05-27-SLR Jury Trial Demanded

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") hereby responds to Plaintiff Guardian Industries Corporation's ("Guardian"'First Amended Complaint for Patent ) Infringement ("First Amended Complaint") and sets forth HP's affirmative defenses as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. HP admits that this is an action alleging patent infringement by

Defendants, but HP denies any liability for the alleged infringement. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 2. HP admits that the technology at issue involves the design and

manufacture of Liquid Crystal Displays ("LCDs") and related products (collectively, "LCD products"). HP further admits that an LCD is a type of flat panel display that may be used in products such as computer monitors. 1

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 2 of 24

3.

HP admits that United States Patent No. 5,570,214 (" the `214 patent" ) is

entitled NORMALLY WHITE TWISTED NEMATIC LCD WITH RETARDATION FILMS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF LIQUID CRYSTAL MATERIAL FOR IMPROVED VIEWING ZONE. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegation in paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies it. 4. HP admits that United States Patent No. 5,694,187 (" the `187 patent" ) is

entitled LCD INCLUDING A NEGATIVE BIAXIAL RETARDED ON EACH SIDE OF THE LIQUID CRYSTAL LAYER. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegation in paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies it. 5. HP admits that United States Patent No. 6,226,065 (" the `065 patent" ) is

entitled LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY HAVING HIGH CONTRAST VIEWING ZONE CENTERED IN POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE VERTICAL REGION. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegation in paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies it. 6. HP admits that United States Patent No. 6,229,588 (" the `588 patent" ) is

entitled NORMALLY WHITE LCD INCLUDING FIRST AND SECOND BIAXIAL RETARDERS. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegation in paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies it. 7. HP admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to state a cause of

civil action for the alleged infringement of the `214 Patent, the `187 Patent, the `065

2

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 3 of 24

Patent, and the `588 Patent (collectively the " patents-in-suit" ), but HP denies any liability for the alleged infringement. HP also admits that copies of the patents-in-suit were attached to the First Amended Complaint. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 8. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. THE PARTIES 9. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 10. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 11. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 12. HP admits that Hewlett-Packard Company is a corporation organized

under the laws of the state of Delaware with an office and principal place of business located at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304.

3

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 4 of 24

13.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 14. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 15. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 16. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 17. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 18. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 19. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

4

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 5 of 24

20.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 21. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 22. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 23. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 24. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 25. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 26. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

5

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 6 of 24

27.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 28. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 29. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 30. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 31. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 32. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 33. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

6

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 7 of 24

34.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 35. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 36. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 37. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 38. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 39. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 40. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

7

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 8 of 24

41.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 42. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 43. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 44. HP admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases filed

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 45. HP admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over HP. With respect

to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 46. HP admits that venue is proper in this Judicial District with respect to HP.

With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 46 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

8

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 9 of 24

COUNT I ­ INFRINGEMENT OF THE `214 PATENT 47. Responsive to paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint, HP realleges

the answers previously set forth regarding paragraphs 1 through 46 as though fully set forth herein. 48. HP admits that the `214 Patent was issued on October 29, 1996, and that a

copy of the `214 Patent was attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 1. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 49. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 50. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 51. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

9

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 10 of 24

52.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 53. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 54. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 55. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 56. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 57. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 58. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 58 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

10

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 11 of 24

59.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 59 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 60. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 60 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 61. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 61 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. COUNT II ­ INFRINGEMENT OF THE `187 PATENT 62. Responsive to paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint, HP realleges

the answers previously set forth regarding paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein. 63. HP admits that the `187 Patent was issued on December 2, 1997, and that

a copy of the `187 Patent was attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 2. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 63 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 64. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

11

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 12 of 24

65.

HP denies the allegations in paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 66. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 66 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 66 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 67. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 67 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 68. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 68 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 69. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 69 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 70. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 70 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 71. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 71 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

12

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 13 of 24

72.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 72 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 73. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 73 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 74. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 74 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 75. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 75 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 76. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 76 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. COUNT III ­ INFRINGEMENT OF THE `065 PATENT 77. Responsive to paragraph 77 of the First Amended Complaint, HP realleges

the answers previously set forth regarding paragraphs 1 through 76 as though fully set forth herein. 78. HP admits that the `065 Patent was issued on May 1, 2001, and that a copy

of the `065 Patent was attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 3. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

13

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 14 of 24

remaining allegations in paragraph 78 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 79. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 79 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 79 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 80. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 80 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 80 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 81. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 81 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 81 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 82. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 82 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 83. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 83 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 84. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 84 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

14

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 15 of 24

85.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 85 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 86. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 86 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 87. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 87 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 88. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 88 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 89. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 89 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 90. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 90 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 91. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 91 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

15

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 16 of 24

COUNT IV ­ INFRINGEMENT OF THE `588 PATENT 92. Responsive to paragraph 92 of the First Amended Complaint, HP realleges

the answers previously set forth regarding paragraphs 1 through 91 as though fully set forth herein. 93. HP admits that the `588 Patent was issued on May 8, 2001, and that a copy

of the `588 Patent was attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 4. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 93 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 94. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 94 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 94 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 95. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 95 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 95 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 96. HP denies the allegations in paragraph 96 of the First Amended Complaint

with respect to HP. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 96 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

16

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 17 of 24

97.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 97 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 98. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 98 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 99. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 99 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 100. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 100 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 101. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 101 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 102. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 102 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 103. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 103 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them.

17

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 18 of 24

104.

HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 104 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 105. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 105 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. 106. HP is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations in paragraph 106 of the First Amended Complaint and on that basis denies them. HP'S RESPONSE TO GUARDIAN'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF As it pertains to HP, HP denies that Guardian is entitled to the relief sought in Guardian' s prayer or any relief whatsoever. With respect to the other Defendants, HP is without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny that Guardian is entitled to the relief sought in the prayer or any relief whatsoever and on that basis denies the same. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES HP asserts the following affirmative defenses to Guardian' s First Amended Complaint: AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 107. Guardian has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ NON-INFRINGEMENT 108. HP has not infringed (literally or by equivalents), contributed to the

infringement of, or induced infringement of any of United States Patents Nos. 5,570,214

18

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 19 of 24

(" the `214 Patent" ), 5,694,187 (" the `187 Patent" ), 6,226,065 (" the `065 Patent" ), or 6,229,588 (" the `588 Patent" ). AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ INVALIDITY 109. The claims in the ' 214 Patent are invalid because they fail to satisfy one or

more of the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, inter alia, §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 110. The claims in ' 187 Patent are invalid because they fail to satisfy one or

more of the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, inter alia, §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 111. The claims in the `065 Patent are invalid because they fail to satisfy one or

more of the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, inter alia, §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 112. The claims in the `588 Patent are invalid because they fail to satisfy one or

more of the conditions for patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, inter alia, §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ LACHES, WAIVER, ACQUIESCENCE, ESTOPPEL 113. Upon information and belief, Guardian' s claims may be barred, in whole

or in part, by the doctrines of laches, waiver, acquiescence and/or estoppel. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ UNCLEAN HANDS 114. Upon information and belief, Guardian' s claims may be barred, in whole

or in part, because of unclean hands. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ PATENT MISUSE 115. Upon information and belief, Guardian' s claims may be barred, in whole

or in part, because of patent misuse.

19

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 20 of 24

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ PATENT EXHAUSTION 116. Upon information and belief, Guardian' s claims may be barred, in whole

or in part, because of patent exhaustion and/or release. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ LICENSE 117. Upon information and belief, Guardian' s claims may be barred, in whole

or in part, because HP is licensed under an express and/or implied license to the patentsin-suit. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ LACK OF MARKING 118. Upon information and belief, Guardian and/or its licensees failed to follow

the marking and/or notice requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 287 and therefore Guardian is precluded from recovering any damages for any period prior to the filing of Guardian' s complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ­ LIMITATION OF DAMAGES 119. Guardian' s recovery of any damages is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 286.

Similarly, Guardian' s recovery of any costs is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 288. ADDITIONAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 120. There may be additional affirmative defenses to the causes of action

alleged by Guardian that are currently unknown to HP. Therefore, HP reserves the right to amend this answer to allege additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery of other information indicates they are appropriate. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, HP prays for judgment as follows: (a) That all of the relief requested by Guardian in its First Amended

Complaint with respect to HP be denied with prejudice; (b) respect to HP; 20 That the First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice with

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 21 of 24

(c)

That this Court declare that HP has not infringed (directly or indirectly)

U.S. Patent No. 5,570,214; (d) That this Court declare that HP has not infringed (directly or indirectly)

U.S. Patent No. 5,694,187; (e) That this Court declare that HP has not infringed (directly or indirectly)

U.S. Patent No. 6,226,065; (f) That this Court declare that HP has not infringed (directly or indirectly)

U.S. Patent No. 6,229,588; (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) That this Court declare the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,570,214 invalid; That this Court declare the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,694,187 invalid; That this Court declare the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,226,065 invalid; That this Court declare the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,229,588 invalid; That this Court declare U.S. Patent No. No. 5,570,214 unenforceable; That this Court declare U.S. Patent No. No. 5,694,187 unenforceable; That this Court declare U.S. Patent No. No. 6,226,065 unenforceable; That this Court declare U.S. Patent No. No. 6,229,588 unenforceable; That this Court declare that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. §

285 and that HP be awarded its attorney fees and costs in this action; and (p) That HP be awarded such further necessary and proper relief as this Court

may deem just and reasonable. Jury Demand HP demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable by a jury.

21

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 22 of 24

Dated: May 16, 2005

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By:

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr. (#2247) Sean P. Hayes (#4413) 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 (302) 652-5070 Michael J. McKeon Tina M. Chappell 1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005-2500 (202) 783-5070 Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Corporation

22

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 23 of 24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2005, I electronically filed the Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company to First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following: Richard L. Horwitz, Esq. David E. Moore, Esq. Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP 1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Robert W. Whetzel, Esq. Rosenthal Monhait Gross & Goddess, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Richard K.Herrmann, Esq. Morris James Hitchens & Williams 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Gerard M. O' Rourke Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Josy Ingersoll, Esq. Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 17th Wilmington, DE 19801 Steven Balick, Esq. John G. Day Ashby & Geddes 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899

I hereby certify that on May 16, 2005, the foregoing document was mailed to the following non-registered participants: Teresa M. Corbin, Esq. Howrey LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] York M. Faulkner, Esq. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190-5675 [email protected] Peter J. Weild, Esq. Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP 1620 26th Street, 4th Floor, N Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 [email protected]

Roderick B. Williams, Esq. Avelyn M. Ross, Esq. Vinson & Elkins 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-6568 [email protected] [email protected]

23

Case 1:05-cv-00027-SLR

Document 86

Filed 05/16/2005

Page 24 of 24

Robert J. Gunther, Jr., Esq. Kurt M. Rogers Latham & Watkins 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 [email protected] [email protected] E. Robert Yoches, Esq. Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 [email protected] Bryan S. Hales Craig D. Leavell Meredith Zinanni Eric Hayes Kirkland & Ellis LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 [email protected]

Robert C. Weems, Esq. Baum & Weems 58 Katrina Lane San Anselmo, CA 94960 [email protected]

Jeffrey A. Snyder, Esq. Thoits, Love, Hershberger & McLean 245 Lytton Avenue, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94301 [email protected]

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr. [email protected]

24