Williamson v. Verizon Services Corp. et al

REPLY re: 19 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim,

S.D.N.Y.September 30, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ON BEHALF OF AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST, Plaintiff, vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON CORPORATE RESOURCES GROUP LLC, VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, VERIZON NEW YORK INC., AT&T INC., AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-Civ-4948 (LTS) (KNF) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO THE VERIZON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff Richard A. Williamson, on behalf of and as Trustee for At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust (“Plaintiff” or “At Home”), hereby replies to the Counterclaims of Defendants Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Corporate Resources Group LLC, Verizon Data Services LLC and Verizon New York Inc. (collectively, “Verizon”). The numbered paragraphs in the following Answer to Counterclaims correspond to the paragraph numbers of Verizon’s Counterclaims. Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 6 OBJECTIONS TO VERIZON’S COUNTERCLAIMS (AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES) At Home objects to Verizon’s Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Counterclaims (and Verizon’s Fifth Affirmative Defense) in that each is insufficient as a matter of law and fails to comply with the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). VERIZON’S COUNTERCLAIMS PARTIES 1. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 2. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 3. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 4. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 5. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 6. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. At Home admits the allegations of this paragraph. 8. At Home does not contest that this Court has personal jurisdiction over At Home for the Counterclaims asserted herein and otherwise denies the remainder of the allegations of this paragraph. 9. At Home admits that venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 10. At Home admits that it has sued Verizon for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,370,571 (“the ‘571 Patent”), 7,225,275 (“the ‘275 Patent”), 7,529,856 (“the ‘856 Patent”) and 7,873,749 (“the ‘749 Patent”) and that an actual controversy exists between the parties regarding infringement of those patents. At Home denies the remainder of the allegations of this paragraph. Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 6 FIRST COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘571 PATENT) 11. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 12. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. 13. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. SECOND COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘571 PATENT) 14. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 15. At Home objects to the allegations of this paragraph in that they are insufficient as a matter of law and fail to comply with the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). At Home otherwise denies the allegations of this paragraph. 16. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. THIRD COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘275 PATENT) 17. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 18. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. 19. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘275 PATENT) Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 6 20. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 21. At Home objects to the allegations of this paragraph in that they are insufficient as a matter of law and fail to comply with the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). At Home otherwise denies the allegations of this paragraph. 22. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘856 PATENT) 23. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 24. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. 25. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘856 PATENT) 26. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 27. At Home objects to the allegations of this paragraph in that they are insufficient as a matter of law and fail to comply with the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). At Home otherwise denies the allegations of this paragraph. 28. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘749 PATENT) Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 4 of 6 29. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 30. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. 31. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘749 PATENT) 32. There are no allegations contained in this paragraph that require either an admission or denial. 33. At Home objects to the allegations of this paragraph in that they are insufficient as a matter of law and fail to comply with the pleading requirements of FRCP 8(a). At Home otherwise denies the allegations of this paragraph. 34. At Home denies the allegations of this paragraph. WHEREFORE, At Home respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Verizon’s Counterclaims with prejudice and declare that this is not an exceptional case justifying an award of fees and/or costs against At Home. JURY DEMAND At Home requests a trial by jury on all issues related to Verizon’s Counterclaims. Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 5 of 6 Respectfully submitted, Date: September 30, 2011 By: /s/ Joshua L. Raskin / BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Chad Johnson (CJ-3395) Joshua L. Raskin (JR-4613) 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor New York, NY 10019 Chad@blbglaw.com Joshua@blbglaw.com Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 BEIRNE, MAYNARD & PARSONS, LLP William C. Norvell, Jr. (pro hac vice to be filed) Scott D. Marrs (pro hac vice to be filed) 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77056-3000 Phone: (713) 623-0887 Fax: (713) 960-1527 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF RICHARD A. WILLIAMSON, ON BEHALF OF AND AS TRUSTEE FOR AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST Case 1:11-cv-04948-LTS Document 39 Filed 09/30/11 Page 6 of 6