Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 5682
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-1127-LPS-CJB
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`DELL, INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`and its subsidiary EMC CORPORATION
`(AKA DELL EMC),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`RED HAT, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC and
`ELECTRONICS AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`RED HAT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
`BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-2027-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-2027-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-1127-LPS-CJB
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`DELL, INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`and its subsidiary EMC CORPORATION
`(AKA DELL EMC),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`RED HAT, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC and
`ELECTRONICS AND
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SEQUOIA TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`RED HAT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
`BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
`
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-2027-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 18-2027-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 5683
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`RESEARCH INSTITUTE’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (“ETRI”) hereby files
`
`its Answer to Plaintiff Red Hat, Inc’s (“Red Hat”) First Amended Complaint for Declaratory
`
`Judgment, as follows:
`
`I. ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Response to “NATURE OF THE ACTION”
`
`1.
`
`ETRI admits that Plaintiff purports to bring an action for declaratory judgment as
`
`described in Paragraph 1, and purports to assert the claims described in that paragraph. ETRI
`
`admits that a copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,718,436 was attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint for
`
`Declaratory Judgment as Exhibit A. ETRI denies the alleged claims.
`
`2.
`
`ETRI admits that Plaintiff purports to bring an action for declaratory relief,
`
`damages, and specific performance as described in Paragraph 2, and purports to assert the claims
`
`described in that paragraph. ETRI denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`ETRI admits that it is the record owner of the ’436 Patent. ETRI denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
`
`Response to “PARTIES”
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, ETRI admits that Plaintiff Red Hat, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of
`
`business at 101 East Davie Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.
`
`7.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny and on that basis denies the
`
`allegations in paragraph 7.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 5684
`
`
`
`8.
`
`ETRI admits that ETRI is a Korean research institute with its principal place of
`
`business in the Republic of South Korea at 218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34129.
`
`Response to “JURISDICTION AND VENUE”
`
`9.
`
`This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the
`
`extent a response is required, ETRI denies that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 2201, 1331, 1338(a) and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2201. ETRI
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations of Paragraph
`
`10 and on that basis denies them.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations of Paragraph 11.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations of Paragraph
`
`12 and on that basis denies them.
`
`13.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations of Paragraph 13.
`
`Response to “BACKGROUND”
`
`14.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`14 and on that basis denies them.
`
`15.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`15 and on that basis denies them.
`
`16.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`16 and on that basis denies them.
`
`17.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`17 and on that basis denies them.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 5685
`
`
`
`18.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`18 and on that basis denies them.
`
`19.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`19 and on that basis denies them.
`
`20.
`
`ETRI admits the allegations in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.
`
`21.
`
`ETRI admits the allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s First Amended
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.
`
`22.
`
`ETRI admits that ETRI was one of the developers of a Linux-based operating
`
`system titled QPlus. ETRI denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`ETRI admits that ETRI is a silver member of the Linux Foundation. ETRI has
`
`insufficient information to confirm or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 and on that
`
`basis denies them.
`
`24.
`
`ETRI admits that it has exclusively licensed the ’436 Patent to Sequoia and Sequoia
`
`has filed lawsuits against four companies. ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 and on that basis denies them.
`
`25.
`
`ETRI admits that Sequoia has alleged infringement of the ’436 Patent in litigation
`
`styled Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., No. 1-18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB (D. Del.), filed on July 31,
`
`2018; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Hitachi, Ltd., No: 1-18-cv-01129-LPS-CJB (D. Del.), filed on July
`
`31, 2018; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No: 1-18-cv-01307-LPSCJB (D.
`
`Del.), filed on August 23, 2018; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No: 1-
`
`18-cv-01128-LPS-CJB (D. Del.), filed on July 31, 2018 and the copies of the complaints are
`
`attached respectively as Exhibits B - E to Plaintiff’s Complaints. ETRI admits that each Defendant
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5686
`
`
`
`has moved to dismiss their respective case. ETRI denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`ETRI admits that Sequoia has alleged inter alia that the defendants in those cases
`
`infringe at least method claims 1 through 3 of the ’436 Patent by manufacturing, providing, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or distributing certain accused products, which include
`
`products (e.g., computers) with RHEL versions 4 and later. ETRI denies the remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`ETRI admits that Sequoia has alleged inter alia that Red Hat also infringes at least
`
`method claims 1 through 3 of the ’436 Patent by manufacturing, providing, using, selling, offering
`
`for sale, importing, and/or distributing certain accused products, which include products (e.g.,
`
`computers) with RHEL versions 4 and later. ETRI denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`28 and on that basis denies them.
`
`29.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`29 and on that basis denies them.
`
`30.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`30 and on that basis denies them.
`
`31.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`31 and on that basis denies them.
`
`32.
`
`ETRI admits that Sequoia’s complaints have included a “description of
`
`infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’436 Patent,” which supports Sequoia’s infringement
`
`theories under the ’436 Patent. ETRI admits that Sequoia’s complaints in these cases reference
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 5687
`
`
`
`certain aspects of RHEL, and include multiple excerpts from a Red Hat publication entitled “Red
`
`Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Logical Volume Manager Administration LVM Administrator’s Guide”
`
`(“Red Hat’s Administrator Guide”) and other Red Hat materials. ETRI denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`ETRI admits that in Sequoia’s aforementioned “description of infringement of
`
`exemplary claim 1 of the ’436 Patent,” Sequoia matches each element of claim 1 of the ’436 Patent
`
`with verbatim excerpt(s) of Red Hat’s Administrator Guide. ETRI admits that in each of the four
`
`Complaints, for example, Sequoia alleges “To the extent the preamble is limiting, the Accused
`
`Products, Systems and/or Services include a method for managing a logical volume in order to
`
`support dynamic online resizing and minimizing a size of metadata. See, e.g., Red Hat Enterprise
`
`Linux 5 Logical Volume Manager Administration LVM Administrator’s Guide Edition 1, at p. 12,
`
`reproduced below.” ETRI admits that Sequoia cites to Red Hat’s Administrator Guide and other
`
`Red Hat materials for each of the remaining elements of claim 1 in these complaints.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 34.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 35.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 36.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 37.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
`
`Response to “FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF”
`Response to “(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the ’436 Patent)”
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`ETRI incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 38.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 41.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 42.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 5688
`
`
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 43.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 44.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 45.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46.
`
`Response to “SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF”
`Response to “(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’436 Patent)”
`
`ETRI incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 46.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 48.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 49.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`50 and on that basis denies them.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`ETRI admits that Sequoia accuses HP-UX of infringement of the ’436 Patent.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`52 and on that basis denies them.
`
`53.
`
`ETRI has insufficient information to confirm or deny the allegations in Paragraph
`
`53 and on that basis denies them.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 54.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 55.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56.
`
`ETRI denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 57.
`
`Response to “REQUEST FOR RELIEF”
`
`ETRI denies all remaining allegations not specifically admitted herein and denies that Red
`
`Hat is entitled to any of the relief it has requested or to any other relief at all.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 5689
`
`
`
`ETRI’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Without assuming any burden other than that imposed by operation of law or admitting
`
`that it bears the burden of proof with respect to any of the following, ETRI asserts the following
`
`defenses and alleges as follows:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim)
`
`58.
`
`The First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, and each of the alleged
`
`claims, fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver)
`
`59.
`
`Red Hat is barred in whole or in part from asserting a declaratory judgment
`
`action on the ’436 Patent against ETRI under the equitable doctrine of waiver because Red Hat
`
`had knowledge that ETRI is the record patent owner at the time of filing its declaratory judgment
`
`Complaint against Sequoia. Red Hat, by not asserting ETRI in its original Complaint, has waived
`
`its right to do so in a later dated amendment.
`
`RESERVATION OF ALL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`INCLUDING ASSERTING COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`60.
`
`ETRI reserves the right to offer any other and additional defense that is now or may
`
`become available or appear during, or as a result of, discovery proceedings in this action.
`
`61.
`
`Sequoia as an exclusive licensee, not ETRI, has the right to assert infringement of
`
`the ’436 Patent. See D.I. 81. Red Hat and IBM have not alleged lack of standing against Sequoia
`
`and have waived their right to do so. In the alternative, to the extent this Court or the fact-finder
`
`determines that ETRI is a necessary party with Sequoia to sue for infringement of the ’436 Patent,
`
`ETRI expressly reserves its right to assert independently or join Sequoia’s counterclaim of
`
`infringement of the ’436 Patent against Red Hat.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:18-cv-01127-LPS-CJB Document 219 Filed 09/15/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 5690
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, ETRI seeks judgment in its favor against Plaintiff as follows: Entry of an
`
`order dismissing the Declaratory Judgment Complaint with prejudice; An award of reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs; and such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Electronics and Telecommunications
`Research Institute
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 15, 2020
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Chris Arledge
`Nate Dilger
`Joey Liu
`Deepali Brahmbhatt
`One LLP
`4000 MacArthur Blvd.
`East Tower, Suite 500
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`carledge@onellp.com
`jliu@onellp.com
`ndilger@onellp.com
`dbrahmbhatt@onellp.com
`
`John Lord
`Jonathan Ballard
`One LLP
`9301 Wilshire Blvd.
`Penthouse Suite
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`jlord@onellp.com
`jballard@onellp.com
`
`-8-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
