The company responded first to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in June but now filed an amended answer and counterclaim to the case alleging patent infringement, first brought to court by Canon in May this year.
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 a first response in which they said 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.”
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.”
LD Products filed the amended answer and counterclaims on 25 July elaborating on its defence.
