Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02141/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02141-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Soilworks, LLC, an Arizona corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., an Ohio

corporation authorized to do business in

Arizona, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2141-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant has filed a motion to strike the counterclaim asserted by Plaintiff in its

reply to Defendant’s counterclaims. Dkt. #26. The Court will deny the motion.

A. Background.

Plaintiff distributes environmentally-safe dust and erosion control agents throughout

the United States. Defendant also provides dust and erosion control products, for several of

which it recently was issued U.S. Patents numbered 7,074,266 and 7,081,270. Upon receipt

of these patents, Defendant sent letters to Plaintiff and one of Plaintiff’s customers regarding

Plaintiff’s possible infringement of the patents.

In response, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking an injunction and damages under the

Declaratory Judgment Act, the Lanham Act, and state law. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff seeks a

declaration that it is not infringing the ‘270 Patent and an end to Defendant’s accusations of

infringement. Id. at 4-6. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaims on March 26, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02141-DGC Document 34 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Dkt. #16. Defendant also asserts claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Lanham

Act, and state law. Id. at 7-10. Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendant’s counterclaims on

April 16, 2007. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff asserts in the reply a counterclaim for a declaration as

to the invalidity and non-infringement of Defendant’s patents. Id. at 7.

B. Discussion.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counterclaim must be stricken because a

“counterclaim to a counterclaim” is not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dkt. #26-2 at 2. Defendant cites no legal authority in support of this contention.

Most courts that have addressed this issue have concluded that a counterclaim may

be asserted in a reply to a counterclaim. See, e.g., Power Tools & Supply, Inc. v. Cooper

Power Tools, Inc., No. 05-CV-73615-DT, 2007 WL 1218701, at *1-3 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 20,

2007); United Magazine Co. v. Murdoch Magazines Distrib., Inc., No. 00 Civ. 3367 (AGS),

2003 WL 223462, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2003); Electroglas, Inc. v. Dynatex Corp., 473 F.

Supp. 1167, 1171 (N.D. Cal. 1979); S.E. Indus. Tire Co. v. Duraprene Corp., 70 F.R.D. 585,

586 (E.D. Pa. 1976); Evans v. S.S. Kresge Co., 54 F.R.D. 536, 539 (W.D. Pa. 1972); Joseph

Bancroft & Sons Co. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., 50 F.R.D. 415, 418 (D. Del. 1970);

Warren v. Indian Refining Co., 30 F. Supp. 281, 282 (N.D. Ind. 1939). As explained in

Power Tools & Supply:

[A] counterclaim is not itself a pleading, but is a claim included in some other

pleading. [Fed. R. Civ. P. 13]. “Pleading” is defined by Rule 7(a), which

permits several types of pleadings. Included amongst the permissible

pleadings is “a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

7(a). In other words, by the plain language of the rules, a counterclaim may

be raised in a pleading, and a reply to a counterclaim is a permissible pleading;

hence, a counterclaim may be asserted in a reply to a counterclaim.

2007 WL 1218701 at *2 (citing S.E. Indus. Tire Co., 70 F.R.D. at 586). The Court concludes

that the plain language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit Plaintiff’s

counterclaim in reply, and thus that the counterclaim should stand as a properly pleaded

claim in this suit. Id. at *1.

Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s counterclaim should be stricken under

Rule 12(f) because it is redundant of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint and “will

Case 2:06-cv-02141-DGC Document 34 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

engender both confusion and further pleadings by the parties[.]” Dkt. #26-2 at 3-4. The

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s counterclaim is neither confusing nor redundant. See Dkt.

#22 at 7. The counterclaim complies with Rule 8’s directive that a pleading shall set forth

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.’s motion to strike

counterclaim (Dkt. #26) is denied.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02141-DGC Document 34 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3