Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cv-00343-SLR Document 1 1 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 1 of 4 I
l
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Plaintiff, j
V- l C.A. N0. 08-343-SLR
EXSTREAM SOFTWARE, LLC and j
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, ) JURY TRIAL DEM ANDED
Defendants. j
PLAIN TIFF STREAMSERVE AB’S ANSWER
TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM
StreamServe AB ("StreamServe") answers to Defendants Exstream Software, LLC
("Exstream") and Hewlett-Packard Company’s ("HP") Answer and Counterclaim (D.I. 10) as
follows:
1. StreamSe1ve admits the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Counterclaim.
2. StreamServe admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Counterclaim.
3. StreamServe admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the Counterclaim.
J URISDICTION AND VENUE
4. StreamSe1ve admits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case
because an actual controversy exists between StreamServe, Exstream, and HP. The remainder of
:1
paragraph 4 of the Counterclaim states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
5. StreamServe admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over StreamServe and
that StreamSe1ve filed a complaint for patent infringement against Exstream and HP in this
judicial district. The remainder of paragraph 5 of the Counterclaim states legal conclusions to
which no response is required.
DB02:7l48932.l 067370.100l ?

Case 1:08-cv-00343-SLR Document 11 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 2 of 4 }
6. StreamServe admits that it alleges that Exstream and HP infringe U.S. Patent No.
7,127,520 and that an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
StreamServe, Exstream, and HP regarding defendants’ infringement of the patent-in-suit and the
validity of the patent-in-suit.
7. Defendants} Counterclaim does not include a paragraph 7.
8. StreamServe admits that venue is proper in this judicial district.
COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT
9. StreamServe incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-8 as though
fully set forth herein.
10. StreamServe denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Counterclaim.
COUNT II: DE CLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING INVALIDITY i
11. StreamServe incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs l-10 as though .
fully set forth herein.
12. StreamServe denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Counterclaim.
13. StreamServe denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Counterclaim.
14. StreamServe denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Counterclaim.
15. StreamServe denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim. I
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Without assuming any burden of proof that it would otherwise not bear under applicable
law, StreamServe asserts the following affirmative defense:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
StreamServe alleges that the Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
DB02;714a9s2.1 0673701001
2
1
R

Case 1 :08-cv-00343-SLR Document 1 1 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 3 of 4 P
WHEREFORE, StreamSe1ve demands judgment on the Counterclaim as follows:
A. Judgment on the Counterclaim in favor of StreamServe;
B. Dismissal of the Counterclaim with prejudice;
C. A declaration that this is an "exceptional" case within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling StreamServe to an award of its
attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs; 1;
1
l
D. A judgment and order requiring defendants to pay StreamServe the
costs incurred in defending itself from this Counterclaim
(including all disbursements), as well as attorneys’ fees as
provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
E. Such other and further relief in law or in equity to which
StreamServe may be justly entitled.
li
DEMAND FOR J URY TRIAL
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant StreamServe AB hereby demands a trial by jury on ij
all issues so triable.
Respectfully sub itted,
John W. haw (No. 3362)
Monte T. Squire (No. 4764)
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
The Brandywine Building l
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 571-6600
[email protected]
Of Counsel:
il
Robert M. Isackson (admitted pro hac vice)
Rodger A. Sadler (admitted pro hac vice)
Joseph A. Sherinsky 1
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
666 Fifth Avenue 1
New York, New York 10103
(212) 506-5000
Dated: August 20, 2008
3 5*
nB02;71489s2.1 0673701001 7

Case 1 :08-cv-00343-SLR Document 1 1 Filed 08/20/2008 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A
1
I, Monté T. Squire, Esquire hereby certify that on August 20, 2008, I caused to be I
electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court
using CM/ECF, which wills send notification that such filing is available for viewing and
downloading to the following counsel of record:
Philip A. Rovner
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr. 1;
P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
I further certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by email on
the above—listed counsel of record and on the following non-registered participants in the manner E
indicated:
BY EMAIL
tj
Robert Isackson
Rodger A. Sadler
Joseph A. Sherinsky
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10103
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR
1
/s/ Monté T. S uire
Monté T. Squire (N o. 4764)
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
(302) 571-5029 {
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants sl
Dated: August 20, 2008 gi
nBoz;7rsa461.1 0657704001

Case 1:08-cv-00343-SLR

Document 11

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00343-SLR

Document 11

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00343-SLR

Document 11

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00343-SLR

Document 11

Filed 08/20/2008

Page 4 of 4