SFA Systems, LLC v. Infor Global Solutions

RESPONSE to 50 Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaim of SAS Institute, Inc.

E.D. Tex.May 17, 2007

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TRITON IP, LLC, v. SAGE GROUP, PLC, et al. 6:07-cv-00067-LED JURY PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS OF SAS INSTITUTE Plaintiff Triton IP, LLC (“Triton”) answers by paragraph the counterclaims of Defendant SAS Institute, Inc. (“SAS”) as follows: 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. 40. Triton admits that SAS has purported to file declaratory counterclaims arising under the Patent Act, and that this Court has jurisdiction over any properly pled counterclaims. Triton denies the merits of such counterclaims, and otherwise denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 41. Triton admits that it has consented to the venue of this Court, and that venue is proper over any properly pled counterclaims, but Triton denies the merits of such counterclaims. In addition, to the extent necessary, Triton denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 42. Triton admits to being the owner by assignment of the ‘525 patent. Triton admits to the filing and issuance dates on the face of the ‘525 patent. Triton admits to the inventors on the face of the ‘525 patent. 43. Paragraph 43 of the Counterclaim purports that it “realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-45 above as if fully set forth herein.” This allegation is improper, and is neither subject to being admitted or denied. Subject to the Case 6:07-cv-00067-LED Document 66 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 4 2 foregoing, Triton denies the merits of the defenses and affirmative defenses set forth in SAS’s answer/counterclaim, and Triton disputes SAS’s denials including relative to infringement, validity and damages. 44. As Triton has asserted infringement of the ‘525 patent and SAS purports to deny it, Triton admits that a dispute exists between SAS and Triton with respect to infringement of the ‘525 patent. Triton denies that it has wrongfully asserted the ‘525 patent against SAS, or that Triton has caused any wrongful injury or damage to SAS. In addition, to the extent necessary, Triton denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. 45. Denied. 46. Triton admits this is an exceptional case, but only as it relates to Triton’s entitlement to fees under 35 USC 285. Triton denies this is an exceptional case entitling SAS to an award of fees. 47. Paragraph 47 of the Counterclaim purports that it “realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-49 above as if fully set forth herein.” This allegation is improper, and is neither subject to being admitted or denied. Subject to the foregoing, Triton denies the merits of the defenses and affirmative defenses set forth in SAS’s answer/counterclaim, and Triton disputes SAS’s denials including relative to infringement, validity and damages. 48. As Triton has asserted validity of the ‘525 patent and SAS purports to deny it, Triton admits that a dispute exists between SAS and Triton with respect to validity of the ‘525 patent. Triton denies that it has wrongfully asserted the ‘525 patent against SAS, or that Triton has caused any wrongful injury or damage to SAS. In addition, to the extent necessary, Triton denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph. Case 6:07-cv-00067-LED Document 66 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 4 3 49. Denied. 50. Triton admits this is an exceptional case, but only as it relates to Triton’s entitlement to fees under 35 USC 285. Triton denies this is an exceptional case entitling SAS to an award of fees. 51. To the extent necessary, Triton denies the allegations in SAS’s prayer for relief. 52. To the extent necessary, Triton re-alleges infringement, validity and damages, and denies any allegations in the counterclaim adverse to same. Date: May 17, 2007 Respectfully submitted, TRITON IP, LLC /s/ John J. Edmonds Danny L. Williams – Lead Attorney Texas Bar No. 21518050 J. Mike Amerson Texas Bar No. 01150025 Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C. 10333 Richmond, Suite 1100 Houston, Texas 77042 Telephone: (713)934-4060 Facsimile: (713) 934-7011 danny@wma.law.com mike@wma.law.com David M. Pridham R.I. Bar No. 6625 Intellectual Property Navigation Group, LLC 207 C North Washington Avenue Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 938-7400 Facsimile: (903) 938-7404 david@ipnav.com Case 6:07-cv-00067-LED Document 66 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 4 4 John J. Edmonds Texas State Bar No. 00789758 THE EDMONDS LAW FIRM 709 Sabine Street Houston, Texas 77007 Telephone: (713) 858-3320 Facsimile: (832) 767-3111 johnedmonds@edmondslegal.com Eric M. Albritton Texas Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 ema@emafirm.com Thomas John Ward, Jr. Texas Bar No. 00794818 Law Office of T John Ward Jr., PC P O Box 1231 Longview, TX 75606-1231 Telephone: (903) 757-6400 Facsimile: (903) 757-2323 jw@jwfirm.com Kajeer Yar Texas Bar No. 24025838 2651 East 66th Street Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 292-8158 Facsimile: (918) 292-8158 kyar@yarlawfirm.com Counsel for Plaintiff TRITON IP, LLC On this date a copy of the foregoing is being filed electronically and thus served upon all counsel of record pursuant to Local Rule CV-5. Date: May 17, 2007 /s/ John J. Edmonds John J. Edmonds Case 6:07-cv-00067-LED Document 66 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 4