Case 2:12-cv-00100-GMN -RJJ Document 11

Filed 06/29/12 Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. PowerTac and Jian Li (collectively, Defendant) answers the Complaint filed by SureFire LLC (SureFire) as follows: Parties Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the v. POWERTAC; a company operating in North Carolina; and JIAN LI, an individual, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SUREFIRE LLC, a California company, Plaintiff, ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Case No: 2:12-cv-00100-GMN-RJJ ANDREW P. GORDON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 3421 McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1000 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 873.4100 Facsimile: (702) 873.9966 agordon@mcdonaldcarano.com Daniel S. Mount, Esq. (CA Bar # 77517) Daniel H. Fingerman, Esq. (CA Bar # 229683) On Lu, Esq. (CA Bar #242693) Mount, Spelman & Fingerman, P.C. RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650 333 W. San Carlos Street San Jose, CA 95110-2740 Telephone: (408) 279-7000 Facsimile: (408) 998-1473 dmount@mount.com dfingerman@mount.com olu@mount.com
Attorneys for Defendants PowerTac and Jian Li

truth of the allegations in this paragraph.

Case 2:12-cv-00100-GMN -RJJ Document 11

Filed 06/29/12 Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Defendant admits that PowerTac has an office at 620 Valley Forge Road in

Hillsborough, North Carolina. 3. Defendant admits that Jian Li is an individual and is employed by PowerTac.

Defendant denies all other allegations in this paragraph. Jurisdiction and Venue 4. infringement. 5. 6. 7. Defendant admits that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. Denied. Defendant admits that it has exhibited certain products at a trade show called the Defendant admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent

SHOT Show. Defendant denies all other allegations in this paragraph. 8. Denied. Background 9. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 10. Defendant admits that face of U.S. Patent 6,222,138 (the 138 patent) shows the

title and issue date alleged in the complaint. Defendant denies all other allegations in this paragraph. 11. Defendant admits that the face of U.S. Patent RE40,125 (the 125 patent) shows

the title and issue date alleged in the complaint and states that the 125 patent is a reissue of the 138 patent. Defendant denies all other allegations in this paragraph. 12. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the

truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 13. this paragraph. /// /// Defendant admits that it sells flashlights. Defendant denies all other allegations in

Page 2

Case 2:12-cv-00100-GMN -RJJ Document 11

Filed 06/29/12 Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 here. 15. 16. 17. 18. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. 14.

Count 1 (Infringement of the 125 Patent) Defendant incorporates by reference all above statements as though fully set forth

SureFires Prayer For Relief Defendant denies that SureFire is entitled to any relief. Affirmative Defenses Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses. Defendant asserts these defenses based upon an investigation that is not complete and without the benefit of complete discovery. Defendants investigation of its defenses, including without limitation, identification of prior art, is continuing; and Defendant reserves all affirmative and other defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the United States, and any other defenses at law or in equity that may now exist or in the future be available based upon discovery and further investigation. 1. patents. 2. Defendant has not induced or contributed to infringement of any valid and Defendant has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the asserted

enforceable claim of the asserted patents. 3. 4. Each asserted claim of the asserted patents is invalid. The asserted patents have been misused. The patentee has attempted to broaden the

scope of the claimed inventions with an anti-competitive effect. 5. 6. 7. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Venue is improper in this district. Defendant is not subject to this courts personal jurisdiction. Page 3

Case 2:12-cv-00100-GMN -RJJ Document 11

Filed 06/29/12 Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8. 9. 10.

SureFires claims are barred in whole or in part by laches. SureFires claims are barred in whole or in part by estoppel. SureFires claims are barred in whole or in party by unclean hands. Prayer For Relief

Defendant requests the following relief: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. That SureFire take nothing by way of its Complaint. That this case be declared exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. That Defendant be awarded its costs, including attorney fees. All other relief that the court deems just and proper. Demand For Jury Trial Defendant demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated this 29th day of June, 2012. McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP /s/ Andrew P. Gordon ANDREW P. GORDON, ESQ. (#3421) 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1000 Las Vegas, NV 89102 agordon@mcdonaldcarano.com Daniel S. Mount, Esq. (CA Bar # 77517) Daniel H. Fingerman, Esq. (CA Bar # 229683) On Lu, Esq. (CA Bar #242693) Mount, Spelman & Fingerman, P.C. RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650 333 W. San Carlos Street San Jose, CA 95110-2740 dmount@mount.com dfingerman@mount.com olu@mount.com
Attorneys for Defendants PowerTac and Jian Li

Page 4

Case 2:12-cv-00100-GMN -RJJ Document 11

Filed 06/29/12 Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am employee of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, and that on this 29th day of June, 2012, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT to be served via the U.S. District Courts Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) in the above-captioned case. /s/ Cathy Stuchell An Employee of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP

Page 5