IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LEFT WING, LLC

Plaintiff,
v.
RIGHT WING, INC. AND
MODERATE STANCE, LLP
Defendants.

Docket No. 2:15-cv-2222

HON. BILLY BOB BROWN

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,

AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS
Defendants RIGHT WING, INC. and MODERATE STANCE, LLP (collectively
Right), by and through their attorneys, Field and Stream, LLP, respond to each of the
numbered paragraphs in the Complaint by Plaintiff Left Wing, LLC (Wrong) as follows:
PARTIES
1.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
2.

Right admits that the 123 patent as issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) is titled Voting Apparatus. Right is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2
of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
3.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

26297761

4.

Right admits that Right Wing, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of

New York having a principal place of business at 1234 West 5th Street, Suite 6, New York, New
York 10001. Right denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5.

Right admits that Right Wing, Inc.s CEO is Ann Anderson and she is its majority

shareholder. Right denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6.

Right admits that Moderate Stance, LLP (Moderate Stance) is a corporation

organized under the laws of New York having a principal place of business at 7890 East 11th
Street, New York, New York 10001. Right denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 6 of
the Complaint.
7.

Right admits that Right, Inc. is the parent company of Moderate Stance, LLP.

Right denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

8.

Right admits that Moderate Stance, LLP is wholly-owned by Right, Inc. Right

denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9.

The assertions in paragraph 10 comprise legal conclusions to which no answer is

required. To the extent an answer to any factual allegations not otherwise addressed herein is
required, Right denies said allegation.
10.

There are no counterclaims by Plaintiff; therefore, Right denies the allegations in

paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

11.

There are no counterclaims by Plaintiff; therefore, Right denies the allegations in

paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

12.

The assertions in paragraph 13 comprise legal conclusions to which no answer is

required. To the extent the factual allegations re-allege paragraphs 57 above, Right responses

are similarly reasserted. To the extent an answer to any factual allegations not otherwise
addressed herein is required, Right denies said allegation.
THE 123 PATENT
13.

Right admits the 123 patent was issued by the USPTO on February 29, 2015 and

what purports to be a copy of the 123 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Right is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
14.

To the extent an answer to any factual allegations not otherwise addressed herein

is required, Right denies said allegation.

15.

The assertions in paragraph 16 comprise legal conclusions to which no answer is

required. To the extent an answer to any factual allegations not otherwise addressed herein is
required, Right denies said allegation.

ALLEGED NOTIFICATION
16.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

17.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

18.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

19.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

20.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
21.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

22.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
COUNT ONE
(Infringement of the 123 Patent)
23.

Right incorporates by reference its responses to paragraph 123 of the Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

24.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.

25.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
26.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
27.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
28.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
29.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

30.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

31.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

32.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
33.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.

34.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
35.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
36.

Right is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies them.
37.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

38.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

39.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.

40.

The assertions in paragraph 41 are denied as factually incorrect and otherwise

incomprehensible.
41.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.

42.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Complaint.

43.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Complaint.

44.

Right denies the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Right denies all allegations not specifically admitted herein, and further denies

that Plaintiff is entitled to the judgment and relief requested in the Prayer for Relief set forth in
the Complaint or to any other relief.
AFFIRMATIVE AND SEPARATE DEFENSES
Without prejudice to the denials set forth in its response to paragraph 1 through 45
of the Complaint, Right alleges the following Affirmative and Separate Defenses to the
Complaint. Right expressly reserves the right to allege additional defenses as they become

known through the course of discovery. Right does not intend to hereby assume the burden of
proof with respect to those matters as to which, pursuant to law, Plaintiff bears the burden of
proof.
First Defense
(Invalidity of the 123 Patent)
45.

The 123 patent, and each of the claims 1 through 16, is invalid for failure to

satisfy one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, 103 and/or 112.
Second Defense
(Patent Misuse)
46.

The 123 patent is unenforceable by reason of Plaintiffs unclean hands and/or

patent misuse based upon Plaintiffs conduct with the patent in suit.
Third Defense
(Lack of Standing)
47.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this

lawsuit, as Plaintiff does not hold full title and right to sue for recovery for infringement of the
patent in suit.
COUNTERCLAIMS
1.

Right, Inc. brings the following Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim-

Defendant Wrong for a declaratory judgment that the 123 patent is invalid and/or not infringed
by Right, Inc. and Moderate Stance, LLP.
The Parties
2.

Right, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

New York with a principal place of business 1234 West 5th Street, Suite 6, New York, New
York 10001.

3.

Upon information and belief, Left Wing, LLC (Wrong) is a limited liability

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, with its principal place
of business at 666 Brimstone Way, Amarillo, Texas 79101.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4.

These counterclaims seek declaratory judgment relief arising under 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202 and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et. seq.
5.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims under 28

U.S.C. 1331, 1338, and/or 1367.

6.

Through their Complaint, Plaintiff charges Right with the alleged infringement of

the alleged claims of the 123 patent and have thus created an actual controversy between the
parties. Plaintiff has thus submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court and has asserted
that venue is proper in this Court.
7.

Assuming that venue is proper for the claims asserted in Plaintiffs Complaint,

then venue is proper for these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and/or 1400.

First Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the 123 Patent)
8.

Right, Inc. incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 17 of

its Counterclaim as if set forth fully herein.

9.

On or about July __, 2015, Counterclaim-Defendant Wrong filed a civil action in

this judicial district alleging infringement of the 123 patent.

10.

There is an actual case or controversy between Right Wing, Inc. and

Counterclaim-Defendant Wrong concerning the alleged infringement of the 123 patent.

11.

Right Wing, Inc. does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 123

12.

Right Wing, Inc. is entitled to a judicial declaration that Right Wing, Inc. does not

patent.

infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the 123 patent.

Second Counterclaim
(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 123 Patent)
13. Right, Inc. incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 112 of its
Counterclaim as if set forth fully herein.
14. There is an actual case or controversy between Right Wing, Inc. and CounterclaimDefendant Wrong concerning the validity of the 123 patent.
15. The 123 patent, including all claims thereof, is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more
the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and/or 112.
16. Right, Inc. is entitled to a judicial declaration that the claims of the 123 patent are
invalid.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Right respectfully requests the following relief:
a)

An order dismissing Wrongs claims with prejudice, a judgment that Wrong is not

entitled to the relief sought, or to any other relief on their claims;

b)

And order entering judgment in favor of Right;

c)

An order declaring that Right Wing, Inc. does not infringe any valid and

enforceable claim of the 123 patent;

d)

An order that the claims of the 123 patent are invalid;

e)

An award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, to Right in defending

the claims; and

f)

Any and all other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
RIGHT WING, INC.,
MODERATE STANCE, LLP
By their attorneys;
Dated: July __, 2015

______/s/__________________________
Jack Rabbit
FIELD AND STREAM, LLP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the above document was served on all parties of record by ECF filing
on July ____, 2015.
___________________________

10