LD Products files defence
June 26, 2019
The company has responded to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging patent infringement that was filed by Canon in May and also files counterclaims.
On 20 March 2019 Canon filed a complaint against LD Products alleging patent infringement of the OEM’s ‘646 patent. On 29 April 2019 Canon amended the complaint alleging that LD Products also infringe the OEM’s ‘740, ‘494, ‘760, ‘916, ‘736 and ‘304 patents.
In LD Products filed response they say that the company does not infringe of the OEM’s ‘646, ‘740, ‘494, ‘760, ‘916, ‘736 and ‘304 patents and contends that the above-mentioned patents are “invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to meet the conditions of patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116.”
The document goes on to say that Canon’s “First Amended Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
At the same time LD Products filed two counterclaims against Canon Inc alleging “An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists between LD Products and Canon,” explicitly “the controversy concerns the invalidity and non-infringement of the ’646, ’740, ’494, ’760, ’916, ’763, and ’304 patents and the right of Canon to maintain suit for alleged infringement of the ’646, ’740, ’494, ’760, ’916, ’763, and ’304 patents.”
LD Products, in its counterclaim says it “has not directly or indirectly infringed (either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents), contributed to or induced infringement of any valid or enforceable claim of the ’646, ’740, ’494, ’760, ’916, ’763, and ’304 patents and has not otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.”
Additionally, it counterclaims that the company “has been injured and damaged by Canon filing its Complaint and FAC alleging patents that Defendant does not infringe.”
LD Products is seeking a “declaration that it has not infringed, and does not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly,” any of the concerned patents and that Canon’s patents are “are invalid failing to meet the conditions for patentability as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116.”
LD Products is seeking relief for any fees and costs incurred.
Categories : Around the Industry
Tags : Canon Legal Tags: LD Products
