EL Counter

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:297
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
11
R. Joseph Trojan CA Bar No. 137,067

trojan@trojanlawoffices.com
Dylan C. Dang CA Bar No. 223,455
dang@trojanlawoffices.com
Hee Jae J. Yoon CA Bar No. 298,925
yoon@trojanlawoffices.com
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
9250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 325
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: 310-777-8399
Facsimile: 310-777-8348
Attorneys for Defendants,
RAMIRO MONTES DE OCA and
QUANTUM HEX LLC
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
EMAZING LIGHTS, LLC, a

California limited liability company,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff,
v.
RAMIRO MONTES DE OCA, an
individual; and QUANTUM HEX
LLC, a California limited liability
company,
Defendants.
CASE NO. SACV15-01561 AG (Ex)

DEFENDANTS RAMIRO MONTES DE
OCA AND QUANTUM HEX, LLCS
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF EMAZING
LIGHTS, LLCS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendants, Ramiro Montes de Oca (hereinafter Mr. Montes de Oca) and
Quantum Hex, LLC (Quantum Hex) (collectively Defendants), hereby answers
the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Emazing Lights, LLC (Emazing), as
follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
12
14
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES

1.
Paragraph 1 states no more than a legal conclusion to which no
response is required.
2.
Paragraph 2 states no more than a legal conclusion to which no
response is required.
3.
Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3, and on that basis, deny the same.
4.
Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca is an individual residing and
doing business in Los Angeles County, California.

5.
Defendants admit that Quantum Hex is a California limited liability
15
company with its principal place of business located within Los Angeles County,
16
California.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
6.
7.
8.
9.
Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 9.
24
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
25
Plaintiffs Intellectual Property
26
27
10.
Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the
allegations in Paragraph 10, and on that basis, deny the same.
28
-1-
Patent) is entitled Independently Programmable Lights For Use In Gloves and
that it issued on September 29, 2015. Defendants also admit that Exhibit 1 purports
to be true and correct copy of the 931 Patent. Defendants lack knowledge or
information as to the truth of the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 11, and on that
basis, deny the same.
8
9
10
11
12
13
BEVERLY HILLS
Defendants admit that United States Patent No. 9,148,931 (the 931
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
11.
14
15
16
17
18
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Plaintiffs Intellectual Property
19
20
18.
Defendants admit that on or about July 24, 2011, Emazing and Mr.
21
Montes de Oca entered into a written Independent Contractors Agreement.
22
Defendants also admit that under the agreement, Mr. Montes de Oca was to provide
23
light designer services relating to the development of gloving products. Defendants
24
admit that Exhibit 2 purports to be a true and correct copy of the Independent
25
Contractors Agreement. Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the
26
truth of the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 18, and on that basis, deny the same.
27
28
-2-
19.
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
Defendants admit that Emazing block quoted a portion of the
Independent Contractors Agreement. Defendants lack knowledge or information
as to the truth of the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 19, and on that basis, deny
the same.
20.
Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca continued the business
relationship for about three and a half years. Defendants deny the rest of the
allegations in Paragraph 20.
21.
Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21.
22.
Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca and Emazing terminated
10
their business relationship on or about January 2015. Defendants deny the rest of
11
the allegations in Paragraph 22.
12
23.
13
24.
Defendants admit that Defendants market and sell OSM-Classic,
14
OSM-xyz, and OSM II. Defendants deny that the products are Infringing
15
Products. Defendants deny the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 24.

25.
16
Defendants deny that they manufacture, market, use, sell, and/or offer
17
for sale infringing products anywhere in the United States. Defendants deny the
18
rest of the allegations in Paragraph 25.
19
26. Defendants admit that Defendants offered for sale its products to Rave
20
Ready, Orbit Light Show, and Kande Kreations. Defendants deny that the products
21
are Infringing Products. Defendants deny the rest of the allegations in Paragraph
22
26.
23
27.
24
28.
25
26
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
27
(Against The Quantum Defendants For Infringement of The Subject Patent)
28
-3-
1
2
Defendants incorporate its answer to Paragraph 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
10
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
(Against The Distributor Defendants For Infringement of The Subject Patent)
13
BEVERLY HILLS
In response to the allegations in Paragraph 29 of Emazings Complaint,
12
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
29.
14
37.
In response to the allegations in Paragraph 37 of Emazings Complaint,
Defendants incorporate its answer to Paragraph 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.
38.
Defendants deny that the OSM-Classsic, OSM-xyz, and the OSM II
15
are infringing products and Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the
16
truth of the allegations in Paragraph 38, and on that basis, deny the same.
17
18
39.
19
40.
20
41.
21
22

42.
23
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24
(Against The Quantum Defendants For Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Civil
25
Code 3426, et seq.)
26
27
43.
In response to the allegations in Paragraph 43 of Emazings
Complaint, Defendants incorporate its answer to Paragraph 1-28 as if fully set forth
28
-4-
1
2
3
BEVERLY HILLS
44.
45.
46.
47.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Montes de Oca For Breach of Written Contract)
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
herein.
48.
10
11
herein.
12
49.
Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49.
13
50.
14
51.
15
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
16
(Against Montes de Oca For Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
17
Fair Dealing)
18
52.
19
Complaint, Defendants incorporate its answer to Paragraph 1-28 and 49-51 as if
20
fully set forth herein.
21
53.
22
54.
23
55.
24
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
25
(Against All Defendants For an Accounting/Imposition of Constructive Trust
26
And/Or Equitable Lien)
27
56.
28
-5-
herein.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against All Defendants For Injunctive Relief)
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
10
62.
11
12
herein.
13
63.
14
64.
15
65.
16
66.
17
EIGTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
(Against All Defendants For Declaratory Relief)
19
67.
20
21
herein.
22
68.
Defendants admit that an actual controversy has arisen, and now exists
23
between Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of
24
Paragraph 68.
25
69.
26
70.
27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
28
-6-
1
2
Defendants deny that Emazing is entitled to any damages or relief as set out
in its prayer for relief.
GENERAL DENIAL
3
4
5
Defendants expressly deny any and all allegations set forth in Emazings
Complaint not expressly admitted above.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
6
7
8
Defendants demand a trial by jury on all of Emazings claims upon which a

jury trial is permitted.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10
11
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
12
Defendants further assert and allege the following affirmative defenses to

Emazings Complaint.
13
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(Failure to State a Claim)
15
As a separate and independent affirmative defense to Emazings Complaint,
16
and each and every claim therein, Defendants allege that each and every claim fails
17
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
18
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Invalidity)
20
As a separate and independent affirmative defense to Emazings claim for
21
patent infringement, on information and belief, Defendants allege that the 931
22
Patent is invalid because the purported inventions claimed therein do not meet the
23
requirement contained in 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, 112.
24
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Definiteness)
26
As a separate and independent affirmative defense to Emazings claim for
27
patent infringement, on information and belief, Defendants allege that the 931
28
-7-
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
Patent is invalid because it fails to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C.
112.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches, Waiver, Estoppel, and Unclean Hands)
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that on
information and belief, Emazings claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the
equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, and/or unclean hands.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Claim for Damages)
10
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that
11
Emazing has not sustained any damages as a consequence of the conduct alleged in
12
Emazings Complaint and can state no claim for damages based thereon.
13
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14
(Damages Too Speculative)
15
16
Emazings alleged damages as a consequence of the conduct alleged in his
17
counterclaim are too speculative to be proven and to be recovered.
18
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Lack of Causation)
20
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege that to
21
the extend Emazing has incurred any damages, which Defendants expressly denies,
22
such alleged damages were not proximately or legally caused by Defendants.
23
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24
(Federal Pre-Emption)
25
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, Defendants allege
26
Emazings state law claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent Emazings
27
trade secrets claim are pre-empted by federal legislation.
28
-8-
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Lack of Irreparable Harm)
Emazings claims for injunctive relief are barred because Plaintiff cannot show that
it will suffer irreparable harm from Defendants actions.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Duplicative claims)
As a separate and independent affirmative defense, without admitting that the
Complaint states a claim, any remedies are limited to the extent Plaintiff seeks
10
overlapping or duplicative recovery pursuant to various claims against Defendants
11
for any alleged single wrong.

RESERVATION OF ALL DEFENSES
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
12
13
Defendants reserve all defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
14
the Patent Laws of the United States and any defenses, at law or in equity, which
15
may not exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual
16
investigation in this case.

COUNTERCLAIMS
17
18
Counter-claimants Ramiro Montes de Oca (Mr. Montes de Oca) and
19
Quantum Hex, LLC (Quantum Hex) (collectively Counter-Claimants) hereby
20
claim against Counter-defendant Emazing Lights, LLC (Emazing), as follows:

PARTIES
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1.
Counter-Claimant Mr. Montes de Oca is an individual residing in
Pasadena, California.
2.
Counter-Claimant Quantum Hex is a California limited liability
company with a principal place of business in North Hollywood, California.

3.
On information and belief, Counter-defendant Emazing is a California
limited liability company with a principal place of business in Anaheim, California.
28
-9-
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1
2
4.
arises under federal law, namely 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal
question), and 28 U.S.C. 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act). The Court has
supplement jurisdiction over state counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6
7
8
9
10
BEVERLY HILLS
11
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court because this case
5.
An actual case or controversy exists between Emazing and Counter-
Claimants regarding Emazings allegations as set forth in Emazings Complaint.

6.
In early to mid 2011, Emazing and Mr. Montes de Oca discussed the
opportunity to develop microlights for Emazings gloving products.

7.
On or about July 24, 2011, after discussions had progressed, Emazing
12
offered Mr. Montes de Oca employment as Emazings engineer. Mr. Montes de
13
Oca did not accept the employment stating that he could only develop Emazings
14
microlight as an independent contractor. Mr. Montes de Oca states that his services
15
will be provided through Bumblebee Lab LLC and that any agreement regarding
16
his services to develop microlights for Emazing must be signed as a Contractor.
17
Attached as Exhibit 1, which is incorporated by reference, is a true and correct
18
copy of an email exchange between Mr. Montes de Oca and Emazing Lights
19
regarding possible employment agreement.
20
8.
On or about July 24, 2011, Emazing accepted Mr. Montes de Ocas
21
services as an independent contractor to design and develop microlights for use in
22
Emazings gloving products.
23
9.
Mr. Montes de Oca developed microlights for use in Emazings
24
gloving products, including the products marketed and sold under the names
25
Chroma, eLite Pro, Flow, OneMode and Oracle.
26
27
10.
In or about January 2015, Emazing and Mr. Montes de Oca terminated
their business relationship.
28
-10-
intentions to start a kickstarter campaign to release open source microlights
(OSM). The OSM allowed end users to completely control the functionality of
the microlight by reprogramming the microlights whenever the user wants.

12.
On or about April 30, 2015, through its prior counsel, Emazing sent
Mr. Montes de Oca a cease and desist letter claiming that Mr. Montes de Oca
misappropriated trade secrets he obtained as former employee of Emazing lights
and infringement of a patent application no 13/747,220 by Emazing that had not yet
issued. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the letter
10
Emazing served on Mr. Montes de Oca and attached purported employment
11
agreement.
12
BEVERLY HILLS
On or about April 29, 2015, Mr. Montes de Oca announced his
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
11.
13.
On or about May 5, 2015, Mr. Montes de Oca responded to Emazings
13
letter of April 30, 2015. Mr. Montes de Oca refuted that he entered into any
14
employment agreement with Emazing and provided evidence establishing the
15
purported employment agreement contained Mr. Montes de Ocas forged electronic
16
signature. Mr. Montes de Oca responded that the purported employment agreement
17
was created on September 25, 2014, more than three years after it was allegedly
18
signed.
19
signature was lifted from the Independent Contractors Agreement and pasted onto
20
the purported Employment Agreement.
21
14.
On information and belief, Mr. Montes de Ocas forged electronic
Mr. Montes de Oca refuted using any of Emazings alleged trade
22
secrets and responded that his new products were based on completely different
23
hardware and software. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
24
Mr. Montes de Ocas response letter to Emazing with attached documentation.
25
15.
On or about May 12, 2015, after a two week delay because of
26
Emazings false statements, Mr. Montes de Oca officially launched the kickstarter
27
campaign. Mr. Montes de Oca reached his minimum fundraising goals to begin
28
-11-
1
2
BEVERLY HILLS
16.
On August 20, 2015, based on an anonymous email that did not
originate from Mr. Montes de Oca or Quantum Hex, Electronic Dance Magazine
(EDM) published an article regarding accusations of forgery against Emazing
Lights CEO, Brian Lim. Attache hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy
EDM article.
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
production in under 12 hours.
17.
On September 8, 2015, LA Weekly published an article entitled How
a Controversial Company Is Turning the Rave Subculture Gloving into Big
Business. The article mentions that Emazing was embroiled in a nasty legal
10
battle with a former Emazing engineer, who released his own microlight that,
11
according to Lim and his attorneys, violates Emazings intellectual property. The
12
article then names Mr. Montes de Oca as the disgruntled former Emazing
13
engineer. On the note at the very bottom of the article, it states that the earlier
14
version of the article described Ramiro Montes de Oca as a former employee of
15
EmazingLights.
16
employee. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of the article on
17
laweekly.com website.
18
18.
It also states that according to Lim, he was a full-time
On September 29, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark
19
Office (USPTO) issued United States Patent No. 9,148,931 (the 931 Patent) to
20
Emazing.
21
19.
On the very same day, September 29, 2015, Emazing filed the instant
22
action for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of
23
contract.
24
20.
On or about October 12, 2015, on information and belief, Emazing
25
sent letters Quantum Hexs distributors and prospective distributors alleging
26
infringement of the 931 Patent. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct
27
copy of a letter Orbit Light Show.
28
-12-
21.
On information and belief, on or about November 12, 2015, upon not
receiving confidential corporate documents from Quantum Hexs distributors,
Emazing sent a second letter to Quantum Hexs distributors and prospective
distributors. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the follow-
up letter sent to Rave Ready, LLC.
6
7
22.
On February 5, 2016, Emazing filed its First Amended Complaint
joining Rave Ready, LLC, Orbit Light Show, and Kande Kreations as defendants.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: TRADE LIBEL
8
9
10
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
11
23.
Counter-claimants realleges paragraphs 1-22 herein as though fully set
forth herein.
24.
The elements for trade libel under California law are: (1) that
12
defendant made a statement that disparaged the quality of plaintiffs products; (2)
13
the statement was made to a person other than plaintiff; (3) the statements were
14
untrue; (4) defendants knew that the statement was untrue; (5) defendant knew that
15
someone else might act in reliance on the statement causing financial loss; (6)
16
plaintiff suffered direct financial harm because someone else acted in reliance on
17
the statement; (7) and that defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing
18
plaintiffs harm.
19
25.
Emazing made statements in the press disparaging the quality of
20
Quantum Hexs products alleging that they infringed Emazings intellectual
21
property rights. Emazing made statements that were untrue through media before
22
any patent issued. Emazing also knew that Mr. Montes de Oca designed Quantum
23
Hexs products using completely different hardware with software specifically
24
written for the that hardware configuration prior to make statements to the media,
25
such as to EDM and LA Weekly.
26
27
26.
Emazing claimed that Mr. Montes de Ocas products infringed its
patents to Quantum Hexs prospective distributors. Emazing made those claims
28
-13-
despite never fully explaining how any of Quantum Hexs products met every
limitation of any single claim.
3
4
5
press and to distributors, both current and prospective distributors.

28.
Emazings statements in regards to trade secrets misappropriation were
untrue because Quantum Hex did not use any of Emazings hardware configuration,
software associated with those hardware configuration.
9
10
11
BEVERLY HILLS
Emazing made statements regarding Quantum Hexs products to the
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
27.
29.
Emazing knew the statements were false because it was clearly
notified that Mr. Montes de Oca designed his microlights using different hardwares
and software to run on the different hardware.
30.
Emazing knew that potential distributors would rely on Emazings
12
false statements. Emazing wanted potential distributors to rely on its statements
13
and not conduct any business with Mr. Montes de Oca and Quantum Hex.
14
31.
Quantum Hex and Mr. Montes de Oca were financially harmed
15
because their distributors and potential distributors relied on Emazings false
16
statements. On information and belief, Rave Ready delayed purchasing the OSM
17
products. Orbit Light Show did not purchase OSM-classic or OSM-xyz. Kande
18
Kreations did not purchase OSM products based on Emazings false statements.
19
32.
Mr. Montes de Oca delayed launching his kickstarter campaign as a
20
result of Emazings false statements. On information and belief, Quantum Hex and
21
Mr. Montes de Oca lost investors because of Emazings false statements as a result
22
of the delay in launching the kickstarter campaign.
23
24
33.
Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing financial harm
to Quantum Hex and Mr. Montes de Oca.
25
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
26
PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
27
34.
28
-14-
1
2
BEVERLY HILLS
35.
The elements for intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage are: 1) economic relationship between plaintiff and third party with
probable future economic benefit; 2) defendant knew of the relationship; 3)
defendant engaged in wrongful conduct designed to interfere with the relationship;
4) defendant did so with intent to interfere with the relationship; 5) economic
relationship was actually interfered with; 6) wrongful conduct of defendant caused
damages to plaintiff.
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
forth herein.
36.
Quantum Hex was engaged in negotiation with Rave Ready, Orbit
10
Light Show, Kande Kreations, and other potential distributors for marketing the
11
OSM products.
12
consummate their relationship. On information and belief, Rave Ready delayed
13
purchasing the OSM products because of Emazings false allegations of
14
infringement. On information and belief, Orbit Light Show did not purchase the
15
OSM-classic or OSM-xyz because of Emazings false statements.
16
37.
Quantum Hex and the potential distributors were certain to
Emazing knew of Quantum Hexs relationships with the distributors.
17
In fact, Emazing wrote letters to Quantum Hexs potential distributors disparaging
18
Quantums products.
19
38.
On information and belief, Emazing falsely alleged that Mr. Montes de
20
Oca was a former employee and stole company secrets to develop Quantum Hexs
21
products. Emazing made these statements despite knowing that Quantum Hexs
22
products did not use any of Emazings hardware configurations and associated
23
software.
24
39.
Emazing made these false statements intending to disrupt Quantum
25
Hexs relationship with its potential distributors. Emazing asserted that it would
26
seek legal actions against the distributors if it did not cease conducting business
27
with Quantum Hex and turnover all documents related to Quantum Hexs products.
28
-15-
40.
1
2
Quantum Hexs products or declined to conduct business with Quantum Hex
because of Emazings threats.

41.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY RELIEF OF PATENT
INVALIDITY
42.
forth herein.
43.
The 931 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of
10
the prior art. During the prosecution history of the 931 Patent, the examiner
11
rejected most of the claims as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,616,140 to
12
Prescott (Prescott Patent).

44.
13
BEVERLY HILLS
Quantum Hex lost sales as a result of Emazings wrongful conduct.
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
On information and belief, distributors either delayed in purchasing
The 931 Patent which issued from application no. 13/747,220 was
14
filed on January 22, 2013, claiming a priority date of February 8, 2012 based on
15
provisional application no. 61596273.

45.
16
The examiner stated that claim 2, dependent claim to claim one would
17
be allowable if re-written in independent form. Emazing amended its claim one to
18
contain the additional limitation that the LED light is an RGB LED light.
19
46.
Claim 1 of the 931 Patent is the amended claim 1 to include the RGB
20
LED limitation.
21
47.
RGB LED lights were generally known in the art. In 2008, ThingM
22
was marketing a fully programmable RGB LED lights for a variety of uses.
23
Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of BlinkM datasheet from
24
2008.
25
48.
Claim 1 of the 931 patent is obvious in light of the Prescott Patent and
26
BlinkMs programmable RGB LED light, released more than three years before
27
Emazings effective filing date.
Emazings patent does not satisfy the non-
28
-16-
obviousness requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103 because a person of
ordinary skill in the art would find use of an RGB LED light in combination with
the invention in Prescott would be an obvious advancement in the technology.
49.
None of the dependent claims of the 931 patent is contains any
additional limitations that are non-obvious, such as using USB to communicate
with a circuit board, or other wired connection.
50.
Counter-claimants respectfully request that the Court declare the 931
Patent as invalid for not satisfying the non-obviousness requirement as set forth in
35 U.S.C. 103.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11
WHEREFORE, Mr. Montes de Oca and Quantum Hex prays for:
12
a.
Actual damages in a sum to be determined by proof suffered by

Quantum Hex and Mr. Montes de Oca for their state law claims;
13
BEVERLY HILLS
TROJAN LAW OFFICES
10
14
b.
A declaration that the 931 Patent is invalid;
15
c.
For Mr. Montes de Oca and Quantum Hexs attorneys fees and costs
incurred; and
16
17
d.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
18
19
20
Counter-Claimants Mr. Montes de Oca and Quantum Hex hereby demands a

trial by jury.
21
TROJAN LAW OFFICES

by
22
23
24
25
26
27
February 19, 2016
/s/ R. Joseph Trojan

R. Joseph Trojan
Attorney for Defendants,
RAMIRO MONTES DE OCA and
QUANTUM HEX LLC
28
-17-

EL Counter

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EL Counter

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:297

TROJAN LAW OFFICES

R. Joseph Trojan CA Bar No. 137,067

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMAZING LIGHTS, LLC, a

CASE NO. SACV15-01561 AG (Ex)

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:298

Defendants, Ramiro Montes de Oca (hereinafter Mr. Montes de Oca) and

Quantum Hex, LLC (Quantum Hex) (collectively Defendants), hereby answers

the First Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, Emazing Lights, LLC (Emazing), as

TROJAN LAW OFFICES

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PARTIES

Paragraph 1 states no more than a legal conclusion to which no

Paragraph 2 states no more than a legal conclusion to which no

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca is an individual residing and

doing business in Los Angeles County, California.

Defendants admit that Quantum Hex is a California limited liability

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 9.

Plaintiffs Intellectual Property

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 10, and on that basis, deny the same.

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:299

Patent) is entitled Independently Programmable Lights For Use In Gloves and

basis, deny the same.

TROJAN LAW OFFICES

allegations in Paragraph 12, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 13, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 14, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 15, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 16, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 17, and on that basis, deny the same.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

Montes de Oca entered into a written Independent Contractors Agreement.

light designer services relating to the development of gloving products. Defendants

Contractors Agreement. Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:300

TROJAN LAW OFFICES

Defendants admit that Emazing block quoted a portion of the

Independent Contractors Agreement. Defendants lack knowledge or information

Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca continued the business

allegations in Paragraph 20.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 21.

Defendants admit that Mr. Montes de Oca and Emazing terminated

the allegations in Paragraph 22.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23.

Defendants admit that Defendants market and sell OSM-Classic,

Products. Defendants deny the rest of the allegations in Paragraph 24.

rest of the allegations in Paragraph 25.

Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 27.

Defendants lack knowledge or information as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 28, and on that basis, deny the same.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Against The Quantum Defendants For Infringement of The Subject Patent)

Case 8:15-cv-01561-AG-E Document 32 Filed 02/19/16 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:301