Free Answer to Counterclaim - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

B B I B B Case 1:0S-cv-00063-SLR Document 12 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE .
BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
BELDEN CDT (CANADA) INC.,
Plaintiffs B Civil Action No.: 08-063-SLR I
V.
sUi>E1uoR Essex INC. and
SUPERIOR ESSEX COMMUNICATIONS LP,
Defendants.
3
li
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
Plaintiffs Belden Technologies, Inc. and Belden CDT (Canada) Inc. (collectively and/or
individually, "Belden") hereby answer the numbered paragraphs of the "Counterclai1ns" filed by
a
Defendants (collectively, "Superior Essex") as follows.
IURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Paragraph 1 does not state a factual allegation that Belden could either admit or
deny. p
2. Belden admits that it filed the Complaint in this case, in this Court. Belden does I
not contest venue in this Court. Paragraph 2 does not otherwise state a factual allegation that
Belden could either admit or deny.
THE PARTIES I
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted. I
5. Admitted. 1
DB02:6892152.1 - 1 - 067051.100l

A 0 A 2 Case 1 :08-cv-00063-SLR Document 12 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 2 of 4 (
6. Admitted.
PLAlNTIFFS’ ANSWER TO FIRST COUNTERCLATM
(F or "Declaration Of Patent Non-Infringement")
7. Belden restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 6, above.
8. Admitted. Y
9. Denied.
10. Belden admits that it filed a Complaint against Superior Essex for infringement of
the identified patents. Otherwise, Paragraph 10 recites legal conclusions that Belden could
neither admit nor deny.
1 1. Denied. ‘
PLAIN TIFFS’ ANSWER TO SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
(For "Declaration of Patent Invalidity")
12. Belden restates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11, above.
13. Belden is not in a position to admit or deny precisely what it is that Superior
Essex alleges. To the extent this paragraph alleges that any of the identified patents are invalid,
it is denied.
14. Belden admits that it filed a Complaint against Superior Essex for infringement of
the identified patents. Otherwise, Paragraph 14 recites legal conclusions that Belden could V
neither admit nor deny.
1 5. Denied.
l
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWER TO THE COUNTERCLAIM’S "PRAYER FOR RELIEP"
Belden denies that Superior Essex is entitled to dismissal, judgment, fees, expenses, costs
or any other form of relief requested in its "Prayer for ReliefZ" » l
§
DBO2:6892l52.l - 2 - O67051.100l i

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR Document 12 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 3 of 4
JURY DEMAND n
Belden demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
YouNG CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLoR, LLP
(Q 1
Jo W. Shaw (#3362) `
Ka en E. Keller (#4489)
The Brandywine Building, 17th Floor
1000 West Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
j [email protected]
(302) 571-6500
Attorneys for Plaintyfv Belden Technologies, Inc.
and Belden CDT (Canada) Inc.
Of Counsel:
Matthew B. Lowrie
Robert J. Silverman
LowR1E, LANoo & ANAsTAs1, LLP 1
Riverfront Office Park a
One Main Street — 11th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
(617) 395-7000
Dated: June 12, 2008 ‘
DB02:6892l52.l — 3 — 06705l.l001

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR Document 12 Filed 06/12/2008 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John W. Shaw, Esquire, hereby certify that on June 12, 2008, I caused a copy° of the l
foregoing document to be served on the following in the manner indicated:
I 1
BY E-MAIL
W. Scott Petty, Esquire A
King & Spalding LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. y
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 ,
spetzy@/cslaw. com
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
& TAYLoR, P
KQ 4 1
. Jo W. Shaw (No. 3362) 1
[email protected]
Karen E. Keller (No. 4489)
l 1<1 The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
(302) 571-6600 1
11
1
I 1
I 1
DBoz;6v7v424.1 067051.100l g

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR

Document 12

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR

Document 12

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR

Document 12

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:08-cv-00063-SLR

Document 12

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 4