ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CARLSON PET PRODUCTS, INC. )

3200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 105 )

Burnsville

Plaintiff,           )

Vs. )

JOHN DOES 1-10; )

) Civil action No. ____________

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT CUMBOR 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Defendant Cumbor (“Cumbor”), acting on its own behalf, hereby Answers the Complaint filed by Carlson Pet Products, Inc as follows. This pleading is based upon Cumbor’s knowledge as to its own activities, and upon information and belief as to the activities of others. Cumbor denies all allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint except those specifically admitted below.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 
  2. Cumbor does not contest subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s infringement claims against Defendants as founded under Title 28, U.S.C§§ 1331 & 1338 (a) for purposes of this action
  3. Cumbor is without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the contents of paragraph 3 and therefore denies the same. Cumbor further avers that it is a company incorporated in China, which fact has not been disclosed by the Plaintiff in paragraph 3. 
  4. Paragraph 4 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required; Cumbor is without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the contents of the paragraph and therefore denies the same.
  5. Paragraph 5 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required; Cumbor is without sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to the contents of the paragraph and therefore denies the same.

THE PARTIES

  1. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6.
  2. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 7.
  3. The contents of paragraph 8 are admitted. 
  4. Cumbor does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff John Doe Entities 2-10 are additional entities assisting or working in concert with Cumbor in making, importing, using, selling and offering for sale the accused products. 
  5. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 10. 

 

THE ASSERTED PATENTS 

  1. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 11.
  2. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 12.
  3. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 13. 
  4. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 14.
  5. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 15. 
  6. Denied. Cumbor did not have knowledge of Plaintiff’s alleged patent and did not need to have such knowledge as Cumbor’s product is not related to the claimed Patents. 
  7.  Cumbor denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 and puts Plaintiff to strictest proof thereof. 
  8. Cumbor denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 and puts Plaintiff to strictest proof thereof. 

ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT BY CUMBOR 

  1. The contents of paragraph 19 are admitted. 
  2. The contents of paragraph 20 are admitted. 
  3. Cumbor denies the allegations in Paragraph 21. In response thereto, Cumbor avers that there is no relationship between Cumbor Pet Gate and Plaintiff’s alleged 381 and 668 patents.
  4.  The contents of paragraph 22 are admitted. 
  5. The contents of paragraph 23 are admitted. In further response, Cumbor avers that the basis upon which amazon.com declined to grant the orders sought by Plaintiff was because there was no sufficient evidence tendered to back the allegations of patent infringement. 
  6. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 24. 
  7. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 25. 
  8. Paragraph 26 is admitted. 
  9. Paragraph 27 contains presumptive and vague allegations and does not set out with clarity the so called “additional entities in the United States.” Cumbor is therefore without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in the said paragraph.
  10. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 28. 

CARLSON’S ALLEGED ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1-10

  1. Cumbor does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Plaintiff engaged in diligent efforts to obtain additional information about John Doe Entities 1-10. 
  2. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 30. 
  3. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 31. By way of further answer, Cumbor avers that Plaintiff could have been able to obtain information about Cumbor had it employed reasonable and diligent efforts. 
  4. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 30. 
  5. Green Li and Robert Smith are separate from the corporate identity of Cumbor. Cumbor is, therefore, at a loss as to the Defendant’s allegations in paragraph 33. 
  6. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 34. 
  7. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 35. 
  8. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 36.  
  9. Cumbor denies taking deliberate steps to hide its identity. 
  10. Cumbor reiterates paragraph 29 herein. By way of further answer, Cumbor is a stranger to the parties identified as John Does 2-10. 

COUNT ONE: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANTS OF US PATENT NO. 8,448,381

    1. Cumbor incorporates by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer as if set forth in full herein. 
    2. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 40.  The alleged acts of infringement have not been specified neither has any nexus between the alleged actions and Cumbor been established. 
    3. The allegations in paragraph 41 are admitted only to the extent that Cumbor manufactures and sells the Cumber Pet Gates product. Cumbor main place of business is not the United States as suggested by Plaintiff as Cumbor is organized in China.
  • Cumbor is infringing and has not infringed on any of ‘381 patent or at all. Plaintiff’s allegation appears to suggest that Cumbor had no right to invent its own independent products.  
  1. Paragraph 43 is denied and Plaintiff put to strictest proof of the allegations in the paragraph. By way of further answer, Cumbor did not have the legal obligation to know or make itself aware of the ‘381 patent because Cumbor’s products were not derived from the patent or any of the claims thereunder. 
  2. Paragraph 44 is denied in its totality. 
  3. Denied. Neither does Cumbor Pet Gates infringe on ‘381 patent nor is there any proof that Cumbor committed acts of contributory infringement of the claims of ‘381 patent as alleged. 
  4. Denied. Cumbor has not committed willful, deliberate and egregious infringement of Plaintiff’s ‘381 patent.
  5. Denied. Plaintiff’s alleged injury and loss of revenues has nothing to do with Cumbor’s lawful business. 
  6. Denied. Cumbor reiterates that it has not in any way infringed  on ‘381 patent and its activities are legal and exercised in terms of Cumbor’s economic rights to, inter alia, reap from the results of its creativity and diligence. 
  7. Paragraph 49 is denied. 

COUNT TWO: PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANTS OF US PATENT NO. 9,458,668

  1. Cumbor incorporates by reference all of the answers contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Answer as if set forth in full herein. 
  2. Cumbor is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 51. The allegations are overly vague and not attributed to Cumbor. 
  3. Paragraph 52 is denied. 
  4. Paragraph 53 is denied. 
  5. Paragraph 54 is denied. 
  6. Paragraph 55 is denied. 
  7. Paragraph 56 is denied. 
  8. Paragraph 57 is denied. 
  9. Paragraph 58 is denied. 
  10. Paragraph 59 is denied. 
  11. Paragraph 60 is denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

  • Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
  • Plaintiff fails to draw a nexus between Cumbor and the alleged patent infringement. 
  • Cumbor has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses, and reserves the right to assert and rely on such other applicable defenses as may later become available or apparent. Cumbor further reserve the right to amend its Answer and/or defense accordingly.

WHEREFORE, Defendants Cumbor respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s requests for relief, and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants. 

By:________________

xxxxx

Dated: March 20, 20109

 

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), HTC demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury. 

Dated: March 20, 20109

By:________________

xxxxx

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.