1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

DECURTIS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION

Plaintiff,

v.

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-22945-Civ-Scola

DECURTIS ANSWER TO CARNIVAL CORPORATION’S SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE 

DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1832 et seq.; (3) VIOLATIONS OF 

THE FLORIDA UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et seq.;

AND (4) PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 1 of 58
2

DeCurtis Corporation and DeCurtis LLC (collectively “DeCurtis”) file this Answer to 

Carnival Corporation’s Second Amended Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Violation of 

the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832 et seq.; (3) Violations of the Florida Uniform 

Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et seq.; and (4) Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 88, 

“Complaint”) as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. DeCurtis denies that Carnival is the creator and owner of at least some aspects of 

the One Cruise Experience Access Network®, also referred to as the O.C.E.A.N.TM or OCEAN®

Platform, including technology and intellectual property developed by others, such as David 

DeCurtis, and improperly claimed by Carnival. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1, 

and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein. 

2. DeCurtis admits that Carnival and its related entities have engaged DeCurtis

Corporation to perform services including but not limited to services related to the project that 

ultimately became the OCEAN® Platform, and that DeCurtis Corporation and Carnival signed a 

Master Services Agreement (“MSA”). The remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 contain legal 

conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is necessary. To the extent a response is 

required, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 2. 

3. DeCurtis admits that Carnival sent a letter to DeCurtis requesting an audit of 

certain DeCurtis records, which DeCurtis declined as being outside of the scope of the pertinent 

provisions of the MSA. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations 

of Paragraph 3. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 2 of 58
3

4. DeCurtis admits that on April 8, 2020 DeCurtis LLC filed a civil action in the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the enforceability of

Carnival’s patents. DeCurtis admits that on July 15, 2020, the District Court for the Middle 

District of Florida granted Carnival’s motion to transfer DeCurtis’ action to the Southern District 

of Florida, and that case was ultimately consolidated with the present one. Except as expressly 

admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. Paragraph 5 of Carnival’s Complaint contains legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required.

PARTIES

6. On information and belief, DeCurtis admits the allegations set forth in 

Paragraph 6. 

7. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

8. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis Corporation is an inactive corporation that was 

organized under the laws of the State of Florida, and had its principal place of business in 

Orlando, Florida. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation 

headquartered in Orlando, Florida. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis LLC provides technology 

relating to guest engagement systems, including for cruise ships. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 8. 

9. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis LLC was formed in April 2019. Except as 

expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 9. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 3 of 58
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The allegations in paragraph 10 of Carnival’s Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is required.

11. The allegations in paragraph 11 of Carnival’s Complaint constitute legal 

conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is required. 

12. DeCurtis does not contest that personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in this 

action. 

13. DeCurtis does not contest that personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in this 

action. 

14. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 14. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Carnival’s Breakthrough Technology in Guest Experience: the OCEAN® Platform1

15. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

16. To the extent Carnival alleges that it was the first in the cruise industry to develop 

wearable technology, with wireless communication, for guest engagement, DeCurtis denies this 

allegation. Disney Cruise Lines, for example, developed wearable technology, with wireless 

communications, for guest engagement systems long before Carnival. DeCurtis lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 16, and on that basis denies such remaining allegation contained therein. 

 1

 The headings in this Answer are reproduced from Carnival’s Complaint for the sake of 

clarity. To the extent the headings contain any factual allegations requiring an admission or 

denial, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 4 of 58
5

17. DeCurtis admits that Carnival worked on a guest engagement system involving 

guest wearable devices under the name “Project Trident” in the 2014-2015 time frame. DeCurtis 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and on that basis denies the remaining allegations

contained therein. 

18. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

19. DeCurtis admits that Project Trident work was carried out at location called the 

Carnival Experience Innovation Center (“XIC”). DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19, 

and on that basis denies the remaining allegations contained therein. 

20. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

21. DeCurtis denies that Project Trident “was not following an obvious or predictable 

path.” DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and on that basis denies such remaining

allegation contained therein. 

22. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 5 of 58
6

DeCurtis Becomes a Contractor Subject to the Parties’ MSA

23. DeCurtis admits that Carnival contracted DeCurtis Corporation for work related 

to the OCEAN® Platform. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and on that basis denies 

each and every allegation contained therein. 

24. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis Corporation and Carnival signed a mutual nondisclosure agreement dated on or about July 1, 2014. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis Corporation

and Carnival subsequently signed a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”). The remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 24 contain legal conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is 

necessary. To the extent a response is required, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 24. 

25. Paragraph 25 either contains factual allegations for which DeCurtis lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth, or contains legal 

conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is necessary. To the extent a response is 

required, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 

25. 

26. DeCurtis responds that MSA agreement between DeCurtis Corporation and 

Carnival speaks for itself and refers to that agreement for a complete statement of its terms. 

Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 26. 

27. DeCurtis responds that MSA agreement between DeCurtis Corporation and 

Carnival speaks for itself and refers to that agreement for a complete statement of its terms. 

Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 27. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 6 of 58
7

28. The allegations in Paragraph 28 contain legal conclusions for which neither 

admission nor denial is necessary. To the extent a response is required, except as expressly 

admitted, DeCurtis denies each and every allegation of Paragraph 28. 

29. DeCurtis responds that MSA agreement between DeCurtis Corporation and 

Carnival speaks for itself and refers to that agreement for a complete statement of its terms. 

Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 29. 

30. DeCurtis responds that MSA agreement between DeCurtis Corporation and 

Carnival speaks for itself and refers to that agreement for a complete statement of its terms. 

Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 30. 

31. DeCurtis admits that Carnival and DeCurtis Corporation entered into SOWs 

defining some of the services DeCurtis Corporation would provide for Carnival and some of the 

work product and deliverables DeCurtis Corporation would create for Carnival. To the extent 

Carnival alleges that the SOWs are the exclusive definition of services and work product 

DeCurtis Corporation was asked to deliver to Carnival, DeCurtis denies the allegation. 

Regarding the content of the SOW agreements between DeCurtis Corporation and Carnival, 

DeCurtis responds that the SOW agreements speak for themselves and refers to those agreements

for a complete statement of their terms. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 31. 

32. DeCurtis admits that Carnival worked with DeCurtis Corporation for over a year. 

The remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 either contain factual allegations for which DeCurtis 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth, or contains legal 

conclusions for which neither admission nor denial is necessary. To the extent a response is 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 7 of 58
8

required, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 

32. 

33. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis Corporation personnel worked at Carnival’s XIC 

and were provided documents and information necessary for such personnel to perform their 

work. Regarding Carnival’s investment in creating such information, DeCurtis lacks information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 33. 

34. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis Corporation personnel were provided documents 

and information necessary for such personnel to perform their work. DeCurtis denies that the 

information recited in paragraph 34 qualifies as a trade secret or as confidential information 

under the MSA. Regarding Carnival’s investment in creating such information, DeCurtis lacks 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations. Except as expressly 

admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 34. 

35. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

Carnival’s Successful Introduction of the OCEAN® Platform 

36. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

37. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 37, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 8 of 58
9

38. To the extent Carnival alleges that only Carnival’s work, investment, and 

ingenuity are reflected in the results of Project Trident, DeCurtis denies the allegation. DeCurtis 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 38, and on that basis denies the remaining allegation 

contained therein. 

39. To the extent Carnival alleges that an innovation of the OCEAN Platform is the 

use of portable wearable devices as BLE-emitting beacon devices in a guest engagement system, 

DeCurtis denies the allegation. This feature is discussed extensively in the prior art. DeCurtis 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 39, and on that basis denies the remaining allegation 

contained therein. 

40. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 40, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

41. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 41, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

42. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 42, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

Carnival’s Patent Protection for Innovations from Project Trident

43. DeCurtis admits that Carnival has applied for and obtained patents relating to 

work on Project Trident. DeCurtis denies that such patents are valid, enforceable, or valuable. 

DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 9 of 58
10

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 43, and on that basis denies the remaining

allegations contained therein. 

44. DeCurtis admits that Carnival has applied for and obtained patents relating to 

work on Project Trident. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 44, and on that basis denies such 

remaiing allegation contained therein. 

45. DeCurtis admits that United States Patent Numbers 10,045,184 (the “’184

Patent”); 10,049,516 (the “’516 Patent”); and 10,157,514 (the “’514 Patent”) have issued with 

Carnival as assignee, and are asserted in this lawsuit. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 45, 

and on that basis denies such allegations. 

46. DeCurtis admits that the ’184 Patent reflects a filing date of March 15, 2017, 

claims priority to certain provisional patent applications, and reflects an issuance date of August 

7, 2018. DeCurtis admits that the ’514 and ’516 Patents reflect a filing date of March 16, 2017, 

claim priority to certain provisional patent applications, and reflect an issuance date of December 

18, 2018 and August 14, 2018, respectively. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 46, and on 

that basis denies the remaining allegation contained therein. 

47. DeCurtis admits paragraph 47 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 47. 

48. DeCurtis admits that the ’184 Patent describes “individual guest devices.” Except 

as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 48. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 10 of 58
11

49. DeCurtis admits paragraph 49 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 49. 

50. The allegations in paragraph 50 regarding what the claims of Carnival’s patents 

cover state legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is required. To the extent a 

response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 50. 

51. DeCurtis admits paragraph 51 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. The allegations in paragraph 51 regarding what the claims of Carnival’s 

patents cover state legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is required. To the extent a 

response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such allegations. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 51. 

52. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 52. 

53. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 53. 

54. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 54.

55. DeCurtis admits paragraph 55 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. The allegations in paragraph 55 regarding what the claims of Carnival’s 

patents cover state legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is required. Except as 

expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 55. 

56. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 56.

57. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 57.

58. The allegations in paragraph 58 regarding what the claims of Carnival’s patents 

cover state legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is required. To the extent a 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 11 of 58
12

response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such allegations. DeCurtis also denies the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 58. 

59. The allegations in paragraph 59 regarding what the claims of Carnival’s patents 

cover state legal conclusions to which no admission or denial is required. To the extent a 

response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such allegations. DeCurtis also denies the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 59.

60. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 60.

61. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 61.

62. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 62.

63. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 63.

64. DeCurtis admits paragraph 64 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 64. 

65. DeCurtis admits paragraph 65 contains partial quotations from the specification of 

the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 65. 

66. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 66.

67. DeCurtis admits paragraph 67 contains partial quotations from the specification of 

the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 67. 

68. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 68.

69. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 69.

70. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 70.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 12 of 58
13

71. DeCurtis admits that DeCurtis LLC’s markets a DeCurtis Location Solution. 

DeCurtis denies that this system infringes any of the Asserted Patents, either directly or 

indirectly. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 

71. 

72. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 72.

73. The allegations in paragraph 73 regarding what Carnival’s patent claims cover 

(i.e., the scope of the claimed “portable device”) state legal conclusions to which no admission or 

denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such 

allegations. DeCurtis also denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 73. 

74. The allegations in paragraph 74 regarding what Carnival’s patent claims cover 

(i.e., the scope of the claimed “portable device”) state legal conclusions to which no admission or 

denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such 

allegations. DeCurtis also denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 74. 

75. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 75.

76. The allegations in paragraph 76 regarding what Carnival’s patent claims cover 

(i.e., the scope of the claimed “portable device”) state legal conclusions to which no admission or 

denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies such 

allegations. DeCurtis also denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 76. 

77. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 77.

78. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 78.

79. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 79. 

80. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 80. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 13 of 58
14

81. DeCurtis admits paragraph 81 contains a partial quotation from the specification 

of the ’184 Patent. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 81. 

82. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 82.

83. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 83.

84. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 84.

85. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 85.

DeCurtis’ Misappropriation of Carnival’s Technology

86. DeCurtis admits that it contracted with Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”) to work 

on development of NCL’s Cruise Freedom platform. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding statements made by NCL 

contained in Paragraph 86, and on that basis denies such allegations contained therein. Except as 

expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 86. 

87. DeCurtis admits that it marketed technology using Bluetooth Low Energy readers. 

Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 87. 

88. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 88.

89. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 89.

90. Carnival provides no citation for the statements quoted in paragraph 90, and these 

quotations appear to have been pieced together from multiple sources without context. Although 

not clear, it appears that these quotations relate specifically to DeCurtis’ development of its BLE 

reader, and not the development of its DXP platform. DeCurtis denies that it “leveraged” any 

experience from its work at Carnival in developing its BLE reader. Also, because it is unclear 

what “publications, interviews, and marketing materials” Carnival is referring to in Paragraph 

90, DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 90 as well.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 14 of 58
15

91. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 91.

92. DeCurtis admits that Carnival sent it correspondence in January 2020 threatening 

to assert its patents to keep DeCurtis from using its competing technology. DeCurtis responds 

that the letter speaks for itself and refers to that document for a complete statement of its 

contents. DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 92.

93. DeCurtis admits that Carnival sent a letter to Virgin Voyages regarding Carnival’s 

patent portfolio in approximately early February 2020. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 93, and on that 

basis denies each and every allegation contained therein. 

94. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 94, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

95. DeCurtis admits that it contracted with Virgin Voyages (“Virgin”) to work on 

technology relating to guest engagement systems on Virgin cruise ships. DeCurtis lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding 

when Virgin began building its first cruise ship contained in Paragraph 95, and on that basis 

denies such allegations contained therein. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 95. 

96. DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 96. 

DeCurtis’ Breaches of Audit Requirements of the MSA to Conceal its Misconduct

97. DeCurtis admits that Carnival sent a letter to DeCurtis requesting an audit of 

certain DeCurtis records. DeCurtis responds that the letter speaks for itself and refers to that 

document for a complete statement of its contents. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis 

denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 97. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 15 of 58
16

98. DeCurtis admits that it sent a letter, dated February 24, 2020, to Carnival denying 

Carnival’s audit request as being outside of the scope of the pertinent provisions of the MSA. 

DeCurtis responds that the letter speaks for itself and refers to that document for a complete 

statement of its contents. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 98. 

99. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 99.

100. DeCurtis admits that it refused Carnival’s request for documents outside the scope 

of its audit rights under the MSA. To the extent Carnival alleges that it was entitled under the 

MSA to audit these documents, DeCurtis denies the allegation. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 100.

101. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 101.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract) 

102. DeCurtis incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 

1-42 and 86-101.

103. Paragraph 103 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 103.

104. Paragraph 104 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 104.

105. Paragraph 105 contains a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial 

is required. Further, Paragraph 105 recites alleged use of Carnival trade secrets and confidential 

information, which claims have been dismissed by the Court (see Dkt. 144). DeCurtis denies 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 16 of 58
17

that it breached its obligations under the MSA. To the extent any further response is deemed 

required, DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 105.

106. Paragraph 106 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

appropriate. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 106.

107. Paragraph 107 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

appropriate. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 107.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832 et seq.) 

108. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 108.

109. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 109.

110. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 110.

111. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 111.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 17 of 58
18

112. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 112.

113. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 113.

114. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 114.

115. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 115.

116. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 116.

117. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 117.

118. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Second Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 118.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 18 of 58
19

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et seq.) 

119. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 119.

120. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 120.

121. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 121.

122. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 122.

123. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 123.

124. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 124.

125. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 125.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 19 of 58
20

126. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 126.

127. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 127.

128. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 128.

129. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s Third Claim for Relief has been dismissed 

(Dkt. 144) by the Court with prejudice and therefore no response to this paragraph is required. 

To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 129.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,045,184) 

130. DeCurtis incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 

1-97.

131. DeCurtis admits that Exhibit A purports to be a copy of the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis 

admits that the document purports to have a issuance date of August 7, 2018 and lists as 

inventors John Padgett, Michael G. Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, Richard J. 

Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, Sander Lam 

and lists as assignee Carnival Corporation. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 131. 

132. DeCurtis admits that Carnival is listed as the assignee of the ’184 Patent. 

DeCurtis denies that Carnival owns all substantial rights in the ’184 Patent, because DeCurtis is 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 20 of 58
21

an omitted inventor and has not assigned legal title to such rights. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 132. 

133. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 133. 

134. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 134. 

135. DeCurtis admits that Paragraph 135 recites claim 11 of the ’184 Patent.

136. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 136. 

137. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 137. 

138. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 138 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 138 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

139. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 139 alleges that certain technology is within the scope

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 139 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

140. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 21 of 58
22

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 140 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 140 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

141. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 141 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 141 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

142. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 142 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 142 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

143. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 143, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 22 of 58
23

144. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 144, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

145. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 145 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 145 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

146. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in Paragraph 146, and on that basis denies each and every allegation 

contained therein. 

147. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 147 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 147 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

148. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 148 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 23 of 58
24

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 148 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

149. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 149 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 149 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

150. Paragraph 150 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

required. DeCurtis denies that it has made, used, offered for sale, and sold systems in the United 

States that infringe the ’184 Patent. To the extent any further response is deemed required, 

DeCurtis denies the additional allegations of Paragraph 150.

151. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 151. 

152. DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 152.

153. DeCurtis denies the allegations in Paragraph 153. 

154. DeCurtis admits that it has had knowledge of the ’184 Patent since no later than 

January 29, 2020. The remaining allegations in paragraph 154 contain legal conclusions for 

which neither admission nor denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 154.

155. DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 155. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 24 of 58
25

156. DeCurtis denies the allegations in paragraph 156. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,049,516) 

157. DeCurtis incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 

1-97.

158. DeCurtis admits that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of the ’516 Patent. DeCurtis 

admits that the document purports to have a issuance date of August 14, 2018 and lists as 

inventors John Padgett, Michael G. Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, Richard J. 

Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, Sander Lam 

and lists as assignee Carnival Corporation. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 158. 

159. DeCurtis admits that Carnival is listed as the assignee of the ’516 Patent. 

DeCurtis denies that Carnival owns all substantial rights in the ’516 Patent, because DeCurtis is 

an omitted inventor and has not assigned legal title to such rights. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 159. 

160. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 160. 

161. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 161. 

162. DeCurtis admits that Paragraph 162 recites claim 13 of the ’516 Patent. 

163. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 163.

164. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 164 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 25 of 58
26

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 164 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

165. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 165 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 165 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

166. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 166 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 166 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

167. DeCurtis understands that Carnival’s contributory infringement claims pertaining 

to the ’516 Patent have been dismissed by the Court with prejudice (Dkt. 144) and therefore no 

response to this paragraph is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, DeCurtis 

denies the allegations in paragraph 167.

168. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 168.

169. DeCurtis admits that it has had knowledge of the ’516 Patent since no later than 

January 29, 2020. The remaining allegations in paragraph 169 contain legal conclusions for 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 26 of 58
27

which neither admission nor denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 169.

170. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 170.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,157,514) 

171. DeCurtis incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in paragraphs 

1-97.

172. DeCurtis admits that Exhibit C purports to be a copy of the ’514 Patent. DeCurtis 

admits that the document purports to have a issuance date of December 18, 2018 and lists as 

inventors John Padgett, Michael G. Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, Richard J. 

Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, Sander Lam 

and lists as assignee Carnival Corporation. Except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 172. 

173. DeCurtis admits that Carnival is listed as the assignee of the ’514 Patent. 

DeCurtis denies that Carnival owns all substantial rights in the ’514 Patent, because DeCurtis is 

an omitted inventor and has not assigned legal title to such rights. Except as expressly admitted, 

DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 173. 

174. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 174. 

175. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 175. 

176. DeCurtis admits that Paragraph 176 recites claim 11 of the ’514 Patent. 

177. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 177.

178. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 178 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 27 of 58
28

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 178 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

179. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 179 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 179 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

180. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 180 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 180 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

181. DeCurtis lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations pertaining to any technology that Virgin, or any Virgin passengers, are 

presently using. To the extent Paragraph 181 alleges that certain technology is within the scope 

of certain specific asserted patent claim elements, it calls for a legal conclusion for which neither 

admission nor denial is required. DeCurtis denies that has infringed, directly or indirectly, any 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 28 of 58
29

asserted patent claim. To the extent any further response to the allegations in Paragraph 181 are 

deemed necessary, except as expressly admitted, DeCurtis denies such allegations.

182. Paragraph 182 is a legal conclusion for which neither admission nor denial is 

appropriate. DeCurtis denies that it has made, used, offered for sale, and sold systems in the 

United States that infringe the ’514 Patent. To the extent any further response is deemed 

required, DeCurtis denies the additional allegations of Paragraph 182.

183. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 183.

184. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 184. 

185. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 185.

186. DeCurtis admits that it has had knowledge of the ’514 Patent since no later than 

January 29, 2020. The remaining allegations in paragraph 186 contain legal conclusions for 

which neither admission nor denial is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, 

DeCurtis denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 186.

187. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 187.

188. DeCurtis denies the allegations of Paragraph 188.

RESPONSE TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

DeCurtis incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Answer as if fully set 

forth herein. DeCurtis denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing alleged in the Complaint. 

DeCurtis denies all allegations that Carnival is entitled to any relief requested in paragraphs “A” 

to “N” of the Complaint’s Prayer for relief, or any other relief.

RESPONSE TO DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

DeCurtis avers that Carnival’s demand for trial by jury purports to state a legal 

conclusion that does not require a response. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 29 of 58
30

DEFENSES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), and without altering any applicable 

burdens of proof, DeCurtis asserts the following defenses to the Complaint and reserves the 

rights to assert additional defenses.

FIRST DEFENSE 

(Failure to State a Claim for Relief – All Claims)

The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE 

(Statute of limitations – Breach of Contract)

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred in whole or in part by the applicable 

statute of limitations.

THIRD DEFENSE 

(Lack of Standing – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Carnival’s lack of standing.

FOURTH DEFENSE 

(Wrong Party – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred to the extent it seeks to enforce 

contractual provisions against a non-party to the contract.

FIFTH DEFENSE 

(No Breach of Enforceable Contract – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred because there has been no breach of 

any enforceable contract between DeCurtis and Carnival

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 30 of 58
31

SIXTH DEFENSE 

(Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred for failure to satisfy conditions 

precedent to relief.

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

(Indefiniteness – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred because material terms of the contract 

are too incomplete and uncertain to give rise to an enforceable cause of action. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

(No Damages – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for breach of contract are barred because it has not suffered any 

damages as a result of DeCurtis’ alleged conduct.

NINTH DEFENSE 

(Speculative Damages – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s alleged breach of contract damages, if any, are speculative and not

recoverable.

TENTH DEFENSE 

(Failure to Mitigate Damages – Breach of Contract)

Carnival failed to mitigate its alleged damages for breach of contract and, to the extent of 

such failure to mitigate, any damages awarded to Carnival should be reduced accordingly.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 31 of 58
32

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

(No Irreparable Harm – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival is not entitled to equitable relief (injunction or specific performance) because 

any alleged injury to Carnival is not immediate or irreparable.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

(No Right to Injunctive Relief or Specific Performance) 

Carnival is not entitled to recover injunctive relief or specific performance on its breach 

of contract claims. 

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Equitable Defenses – Breach of Contract) 

Carnival’s claims for relief, in whole or in part, are barred by the doctrines of waiver, 

laches, unclean hands, implied license, and/or estoppel.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Lack of Standing – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival lacks all substantial rights in the ’184, ’514, and/or ’516 Patents and therefore 

lacks standing to assert these patents.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Equitable Defenses – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival’s patent infringement claims are barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel, 

acquiescence, waiver, unclean hands, and/or other equitable defenses.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Express or Implied License – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival’s patent infringement claims are barred, in whole or in part, by express licenses 

agreements and/or under the doctrine of implied license.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 32 of 58
33

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Exhaustion/First Sale Doctrine – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival’s patent infringement claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of 

patent exhaustion and/or the first sale doctrine.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE 

(Failure to Mark – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival is barred from recovering damages for any alleged patent infringement because 

it has made, offered for sale, or sold within the United States, a patented article without giving 

proper notice to the public that the same is patented under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE 

(No Irreparable Harm – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to Carnival is not 

immediate or irreparable.

TWENTIETH DEFENSE 

(No Entitlement To Costs – Patent Infringement) 

Carnival is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering any costs associated with its 

patent infringement claims in this suit.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE 

(No Willful Infringement / Exceptional Case) 

The Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against DeCurtis for willful infringement 

that would qualify for treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and fails to state a claim for relief 

against Defendants that would qualify this as an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 33 of 58
34

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE 

(Non-Infringement of the ’184 Patent) 

DeCurtis does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of 

the ’184 Patent. This is because Carnival cannot demonstrate infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 

271, and/or any use of any claimed invention in the United States meets the “temporary 

presence” exception of 35 U.S.C. § 272.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE 

(Invalidity of the ’184 Patent) 

All asserted claims of the ’184 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of 

patentability in 35 U.S. C. §§ 101 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 

112.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE 

(Unenforceability of the ’184 Patent) 

All asserted claims of the ’184 Patent are unenforceable for inequitable conduct during 

prosecution of the ’184 Patent. In support of this defense, DeCurtis hereby incorporates all 

general allegations (paragraphs 12-39) in its Counterclaims set forth below, as well as all 

allegations pertaining to Counterclaim Count Two (paragraphs 49-54) set forth below.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE 

(Non-Infringement of the ’516 Patent) 

DeCurtis does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of 

the ’516 Patent. This is because Carnival cannot demonstrate infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 

271, and/or any use of any claimed invention in the United States meets the “temporary 

presence” exception of 35 U.S.C. § 272.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 34 of 58
35

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE 

(Invalidity of the ’516 Patent) 

All asserted claims of the ’516 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of 

patentability in 35 U.S. C. §§ 101 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 

112.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE 

(Unenforceability of the ’516 Patent) 

All asserted claims of the ’516 Patent are unenforceable for inequitable conduct during 

prosecution of the ’516 Patent. In support of this defense, DeCurtis hereby incorporates all 

general allegations (paragraphs 12-39) in its Counterclaims set forth below, as well as all 

allegations pertaining to Counterclaim Count Seven (paragraphs 90-96) set forth belo.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE 

(Non-Infringement of the ’514 Patent) 

DeCurtis does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of 

the ’514 Patent. This is because Carnival cannot demonstrate infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 

271, and/or any use of any claimed invention in the United States meets the “temporary 

presence” exception of 35 U.S.C. § 272.

TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE 

(Invalidity of the ’514 Patent) 

All asserted claims of the ’514 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of 

patentability in 35 U.S. C. §§ 101 et seq., including, but not limited to §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 

112.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 35 of 58
36

THIRTIETH DEFENSE 

(Unenforceability of the ’514 Patent)

All asserted claims of the ’514 Patent are unenforceable for inequitable conduct during 

prosecution of the ’514 Patent. In support of this defense, DeCurtis hereby incorporates all 

general allegations (paragraphs 12-39) in its Counterclaims set forth below, as well as all 

allegations pertaining to Counterclaim Count Four (paragraphs 64-70) set forth below.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 36 of 58
37

COUNTERCLAIMS

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13, DeCurtis LLC alleges the following 

against Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”):

PARTIES

1. DeCurtis LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation headquartered in 

Orlando, Florida. DeCurtis LLC provides technology relating to guest engagement systems, 

including for cruise ships.

2. Carnival Corporation is a Panamanian corporation with its principal place of 

business in Miami, Florida. Among other businesses, Carnival operates cruise lines for use by 

the public. Carnival is listed as the assignee of the ’184, ’516, and ’514 Patents

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Subject to the affirmative defenses and denials set forth above, this Court has 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of these Counterclaims under, without limitation, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1338, 1367, 2201 and 2202, based on an actual controversy between DeCurtis LLC, on 

one hand, and Carnival, on the other hand, arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 

Title 35, United States Code.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Carnival has 

consented to venue by filing suit against DeCurtis LLC in this district. 

5. Carnival has submitted to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by bringing the 

present action alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 10,045,184 (the “’184 Patent”); 

10,049,516 (the “’516 Patent”); and 10,157,514 (the “’514 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted 

Patents”).

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 37 of 58
38

PATENTS AT ISSUE

6. This is an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and 

unenforceability of one or more claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,045,184 ; one or more claim of U.S. 

Patent No. 10,049,516; and one or more claim of U.S. Patent No. 10,157,514 under the Patent 

Laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

7. These Counterclaims arise out of Carnival’s attempt to enforce the Asserted 

Patents against DeCurtis LLC.

8. Carnival alleges that it owns the ’184 Patent, the ’516 Patent, and the ’514 Patent.

9. Carnival has alleged in the present action that DeCurtis LLC infringes the ’184 

Patent, the ’516 Patent, and the ’514 Patent.

10. Carnival further alleges that the DeCurtis Experience Platform and associated 

technology that DeCurtis LLC has implemented for its customers Virgin Voyages (“Virgin”) and 

Norwegian Cruise Line (“NCL”) (the “DXP System”) infringes or causes infringement of one or 

more claims of the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, and the ’516 Patent.

11. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Carnival and DeCurtis LLC 

as to whether DeCurtis LLC and the accused DXP System and associated technology infringes 

any valid claim of the Asserted Patents. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO INEQUITABLE CONDUCT COUNTS

12. The claims of the ’184 Patent, ’516 Patent, and ’514 Patent are unenforceable 

against DeCurtis due to, at least, Carnival’s inequitable conduct. For example, the extent that the 

Carnival’s asserted patents are based on patentable inventions, they are unenforceable for 

fraudulently failing to name at least one rightful inventor, including David DeCurtis, as an 

inventor.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 38 of 58
39

13. Where an application does not name the correct inventor(s), and the applicant has 

not filed a request to correct inventorship, USPTO personnel are directed to reject the claims 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 115. Additionally, at all relevant times, the patent 

regulations have provided that “[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a

patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the [USPTO], which 

includes a duty to disclose to the [USPTO] all information known to that individual to be 

material to patentability,” as defined under the regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a). 

14. Under the patent regulations, the duty of candor and good faith applies to 

“individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application,” including not only 

the inventors and attorneys, but “[e]very other person who is substantively involved in the 

preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the 

applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.” 37 

C.F.R. § 1.56(c). This duty includes the correct identification of all inventors. 

15. On the applications for the ’184 Patent, ’516 Patent, and ’514 Patent, John Padgett 

and Michael Jungen, both of them Carnival employees at the time, are named as inventors. But 

these patents omit David DeCurtis as an inventor despite his material contributions to the 

conception of at least one aspect in one or more claims in each of these patents. David DeCurtis 

contributed to the ideas in these patents during his work on the Experience Innovation Center 

(“XIC”) or (“EIC”) project at Carnival between 2014 and 2015.

16. Before filing the applications for the ’184 Patent, ’516 Patent, and ’514 Patent, 

Carnival and its agents recognized David DeCurtis as the inventor on a number of the patent 

ideas included in these applications. Upon information and belief, corroborating evidence exists 

at Carnival demonstrating DeCurtis’s role as an inventor. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 39 of 58
40

17. For example, DeCurtis did, in fact, conceive of the idea for guest device 

wearables that could be mounted in a variety of accessory form factors. DeCurtis conceived of 

this idea as an improvement to previous work on the Disney “MagicBand” concept (discussed 

further below), which was restricted to a single wearable band. DeCurtis’s idea was that guests 

on extended cruise voyages would wear the guest devices in a variety of different social 

situations and that it would be desirable to have the guest device easily interface with a number 

of different wearable accessories (e.g., wristband, necklace, lapel pin, etc.).

18. DeCurtis first conveyed this idea to Padgett in approximately July 2014 during a 

meeting in Padgett’s office at Carnival. Padgett had wanted to use a version of the MagicBand 

guest device but DeCurtis explained that a plastic wrist device would not work for cruise ship 

passengers, especially those dressed for dinner in formal wear. DeCurtis proposed using a gold 

coin (like a pirate coin) and explained that the device should fit into a pocket, on a belt, or as part 

of a necklace. Padgett accepted DeCurtis’s idea, which became embodied in the “Ocean Coin” 

concept (later renamed “OceanMedallion”). DeCurtis then worked with Adam Leonards and 

Glenn Curtis to develop DeCurtis’s idea, which existed before Leonards began work on the idea 

or Curtis joined the “OceanMedallion” project. DeCurtis’s ideas related to wearable guest 

devices are now reflected in at least claim 20 of the ’514 Patent, specifically elements relating to 

the shape, size, and design of portable guest devices and the ability of these portable guest 

devices to interact with accessories.

19. Additionally, Carnival and Padgett knew that DeCurtis was among a group of 

inventors for techniques related to unlocking doors using low power BLE technologies. David 

DeCurtis in fact, contributed to the conception of the overall door unlocking concept during his 

work on the Carnival EIC program. This work built upon the BLE- door lock concepts that 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 40 of 58
41

Padgett and his team experimented with at Disney. For example, in approximately the summer 

of 2014, DeCurtis told Padgett that guest wearable devices must have both BLE and NFC 

capabilities to ensure the ability to unlock doors even when a BLE battery was exhausted. This 

idea is now reflected in at least claim 10 of the ’514 Patent.

20. Moreover, in January and February of 2015, DeCurtis helped to conceive of 

techniques for communicatively coupling door access panels via power efficient networks to a 

centralized reservation and logging system. These ideas are reflected in at least the claims of the 

’184 Patent. Also in January and February 2015, DeCurtis helped to conceive of techniques for 

efficiently leveraging BLE communications in both a low-power beacon state, as well as a more 

power-intensive bi-directional state. These ideas are reflected in at least the claim 11 of the ’184 

Patent.

21. Finally, in early 2015 DeCurtis conceived and communicated to others on the EIC 

project the idea for using capacitive touch door handles that would only trigger the latch upon a 

user touching the door handle to improve safety. Carnival and its agents recognized DeCurtis’s

sole conception of this idea. This idea is now reflected in at least the claims of the ’516 Patent.

22. Based on standard practices and procedures at the USPTO, Padgett and Jungen 

would have had to disclose the inventors on each of the inventions for which they sought patents. 

The Carnival Patents do not identify David DeCurtis as an inventor. To this date, none of the 

’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, or the ’516 Patent have been amended to include David DeCurtis as 

an inventor.

23. More than half of the persons named as inventors on the Carnival Patents, 

including Padgett and Jungen, were familiar with the filing requirements of the USPTO from 

filing other, unrelated patents. Several of the named inventors on the Carnival Patents have 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 41 of 58
42

applied for more than 10 patents. Among the most frequent fliers were Padgett, Jungen, and 

Leonards. Despite a duty to disclose it, Padgett and Jungen each knowingly and intentionally 

concealed from the USPTO that David DeCurtis was an inventor on many of the patent ideas 

presented as purported inventions claimed in the applications for the Carnival Patents. The 

failure to identify DeCurtis as an inventor was not inadvertent; it was repeated over the course of 

multiple patent applications filed at different times over a period of three years.

24. Upon information and belief, other employees and representatives of Carnival 

who were associated with the filing or prosecution of the patent family were also (1) then aware 

that David DeCurtis was an inventor of many of the patent ideas asserted as claims in the family 

of Carnival Patents, (2) had a duty to disclose David DeCurtis’s involvement with these ideas, 

and (3) intentionally concealed this fact from the USPTO.

25. Carnival and its agents had a motive to omit David DeCurtis as a named inventor 

from the Asserted Patents. Carnival and its agents knew that had David DeCurtis been named as 

an inventor on the Carnival Patents, DeCurtis would have been under an obligation to explain to 

the USPTO examiner that certain other of the inventions that Carnival was trying to patent, 

including aspects of the invention that is the subject of the Asserted Patents, were taught and/or 

suggested by prior art systems that David DeCurtis and the other named inventors were 

previously involved with. 

26. For example, prior to working at Carnival, John Padgett and many other of the 

named inventors worked on guest engagement systems for cruise lines and theme parks while 

employed by the Walt Disney Corporation and its subsidiaries (“Disney”). David DeCurtis was 

contracted by Padgett for work on the Disney systems while Padgett was a Disney executive. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 42 of 58
43

Both Padgett and David DeCurtis had knowledge of these systems and their status as material 

prior art to the inventions that the named inventors sought to patent at Carnival. 

27. One of the systems that the named Carnival inventors and DeCurtis worked 

together on at Disney was the Disney “Magic Band” System. The MagicBand System made use 

of wearable guest devices in the form of a wristband that used BLE-like and NFC protocols to 

communicate wirelessly with sensors positioned around Disney theme parks. The “MagicBand” 

devices worn by guests operated as “portable beacon” devices that continuously emitted a 

beacon signal capable of detection by sensors positioned throughout a theme-park environment. 

The sensors of the MagicBand system were communicatively coupled to a back-end, central 

server capable of tracking guest location and interactions with sensors throughout the theme 

park. Using the MagicBand systems, guests were able to seamlessly interface with devices 

throughout Disney’s theme park. The MagicBand could further be used to gain admission to the 

park and to unlock guest hotel room guest doors. These features render the MagicBand system 

material prior art to at least the independent claims of the ’184 Patent.

28. Similarly, the named Carnival inventors and DeCurtis worked on a Disney 

restaurant concept called the “Be Our Guest” System. The “Be Our Guest” System leveraged the 

MagicBand technology discussed above to provide seamless guest service in a restaurant 

environment. The “Be Our Guest” System involved the use of stationary sensors positioned in 

restaurant tables, which were capable of receiving wireless BLE beacon signals from MagicBand 

devices worn by guests in order to determine guest location for delivery of orders. The Be Our 

Guest System further involved the use of kiosk terminals and wireless point of sale terminals 

utilizing NFC communications that allowed guests to use their MagicBand devices to place and 

pay for orders. These features are material prior art to, for example, claim 19 of the ’184 Patent. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 43 of 58
44

29. Finally, the Disney CDA System involved the use of wearable bands, capable of 

wireless communication leveraging both NFC and BLE communications, in order to track 

children on Diseny’s cruise ships. The system used stationary sensors positioned throughout 

designated areas, and beacon signals emitted from the portable, wearable bracelets in order to 

track and log the location of children at a back-end server through a communication network. 

Further, near-field communication (“NFC”) communication was used for child check-in and rollcall at designated locations. These features are material prior art to at least the independent 

claims of the ’184 Patent. 

30. Each of the Disney “MagicBand,” “Be Our Guest,” and “CDA” systems were in 

public use in the United States as early as 2012—more than one-year before the earliest 

purported priority date of any of the Carnival Patents. Any person skilled in the art of designing 

guest engagement systems would understand the technology, systems, and methods involved in 

the “MagicBand,” “Be Our Guest,” and CDA guest engagement system. Thus, as known to 

Carnival and its agents, these systems, including their use of portable user devices acting as 

beacons, were in “public use” and “available to the public,” qualifying it as prior art under AIA 

35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Yet, Carnival did not disclose any of these Disney Systems as prior art 

during prosecution. 

31. Carnival and its agents knew that these Disney systems were material prior art to

the patents it was filing, knew that David DeCurtis had knowledge of the systems, and knew that 

if they named David DeCurtis as an inventor on the Carnival patents, Mr. DeCurtis would 

disclose the existence of these prior art Disney Systems to the Patent Office, resulting in Patent 

Office rejecting the patents. For example, each of these systems made use of portable devices as 

“beacon” devices, which is a feature that Carnival has repeatedly touted as a key “inventive” 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 44 of 58
45

feature of its Asserted Patents. Thus, the Disney Systems support the inference that Carnival 

intentionally omitted Mr. DeCurtis as an inventor. 

32. Carnival and its agents were further motivated to fraudulently omit David 

DeCurtis as a named inventor from the Carnival patents to prevent Mr. DeCurtis from informing 

the patent office of a known, prior art systems for wirelessly controlling an electronic door lock 

mechanism. One such electronic door locking solution was the solution provided by third-party

Assa Abloy, a global leader in the design and development of wireless electronic door lock 

technology for the hospitality industry. Carnival and its agents knew of Assa Abloy’s door lock 

technology because, upon information and belief, they considered sourcing this technology for 

implementation in their own Ocean Medallion System (i.e., the system Carnival now contends 

practices all of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents in this case). 

33. One of Assa Abloy’s signature products known to Carnival and its agents is the 

“Allure” system, which involves the use of an “access panel” that is mounted separately from an 

electronically controlled door. The “access panel” interacts wirelessly with a guest device 

(using, for example, Bluetooth Low Energy or NFC communications) to determine whether 

access is authorized. Then, in turn, the access panel interacts wireless with the door lock 

communication module to selectively unlock the door. This “separate access panel” architecture 

provides an elegant design, and also avoids the cost and complexity of installing access related 

electronics directly onto a door. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 45 of 58
46

34. The “Allure” electronic lock system provides further capability when combined 

with Assa Abloy’s Access Management System, which allows for integration of the access 

panels with communication networks and back-end servers in order to log and track guest access. 

This architecture further enables secure access and authorization protocols, using encrypted 

channels, in order to ensure guest safety and security. 

35. The Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock system was in public use in the United 

States as early as 2013. Any person skilled in the art of designing electronic locks would 

understand the technology, systems, and methods involved in Assa Abloy’s “Allure” electronic 

lock systems. As known to Carnival and its agents, Assa Abloy’s “Allure” electronic locks were 

therefore in “public use” and “available to the public,” qualifying it as prior art under AIA 35

U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

36. Upon information and belief, Carnival personnel involved in the prosecution of 

the Carnival Patents, including Padgett and Jungen were aware of the Assa Abloy Allure System 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 46 of 58
47

and its features, including the separate access panel feature, the back-end communication feature, 

and the available security and authorization features provided by Assa Abloy. Documents 

produced by Carnival in this litigation show that Carnival had prior knowledge of Assa Abloy 

“Allure” electronic lock system. See CARNIVAL00000730-741. Upon information and belief, 

Carnival sought to source Assa Abloy Allure access panels for its OceanMedallion System—the 

same system Carnival now claims is covered by the Carnival Patents at issue. Yet, Carnival did 

not disclose the Assa Abloy Allure System as prior art during prosecution. 

37. Upon information and belief, Carnival and its agents, including the named 

inventors, knew that if they named David DeCurtis as an inventor on the Carnival patents, Mr. 

DeCurtis would alert the U.S. Patent Office to the existence of the Assa Abloy Allure System, 

which would result in the Patent Office refusing to allow the Carnival Patent claims to issue. 

Thus, the Assa Abloy System supports the inference that Carnival intentionally and fraudulently 

omitted David DeCurtis as an inventor of the Carnival Patents.

38. The USPTO would not have issued the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, or the ’516 

Patent if it had known that the applicants had misrepresented inventorship by failing to disclose 

the true origin of these purported inventions.

39. Padgett, Jungen, and, upon information and belief, other Carnival employees and 

representatives, fraudulently procured the Carnival Patents knowing that DeCurtis LLC and its 

customers would be forced to engage in the expensive and time-consuming process of designing 

alternatives to the fraudulently-obtained and otherwise unenforceable patents to avoid the 

expense and risk of patent infringement litigation.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 47 of 58
48

COUNT ONE

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’184 Patent)

40. DeCurtis LLC re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

41. Carnival has sued DeCurtis LLC in the present action, alleging infringement of 

the ’184 Patent, and that the ’184 Patent is valid.

42. The claims of the ’184 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the 

requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, Section 101, 

102, 103, and/or 112. 

43. The ’184 Patent claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter in violation of § 

101 because they are directed to an abstract idea and because they lack an inventive concept 

sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible invention. For example, the claims are 

directed to the abstract idea of wirelessly communicating and logging guest information and 

recite nothing more than conventional and commonly known components to carry out the 

abstract idea.

44. The claims are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.

45. The claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they lack written 

description, are not enabled, and/or are not sufficiently definite.

46. DeCurtis LLC is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’184 

Patent are invalid. 

47. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding the validity of the ’184 Patent.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 48 of 58
49

48. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action.

COUNT TWO

(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of the ’184 Patent)

49. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 39 as if fully set forth herein.

50. David DeCurtis made material contributions to the conception of the invention 

embodied in one or more claims of the ’184 Patent.

51. Carnival and its agents, including the named inventors of the ’184 Patent, knew of 

Mr. DeCurtis’ material contributions to conception, yet knowingly and fraudulently omitted Mr. 

DeCurtis as an inventor. Carnival and its agents omitted Mr. DeCurtis, in part, to avoid Mr. 

DeCurtis of informing the Patent Office of material prior art in the form of the Disney 

MagicBand, Be Our Guest, and CDA Systems, as well as the Assa Abloy Allure System.

52. Carnival and its agents fraudulent omission of Mr. DeCurtis as an inventor was 

material. 

53. Accordingly, the ’184 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

54. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action. 

COUNT THREE

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’514 Patent)

55. DeCurtis LLC re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 49 of 58
50

56. Carnival has sued DeCurtis LLC in the present action, alleging infringement of 

the ’514 Patent, and that the ’514 Patent is valid.

57. The claims of the ’514 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the 

requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, Section 101, 

102, 103, and/or 112. 

58. The ’514 Patent claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter in violation of § 

101 because they are directed to an abstract idea and because they lack an inventive concept 

sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible invention. For example, the claims are 

directed to the abstract idea of wirelessly communicating and logging guest information and 

recite nothing more than conventional and commonly known components to carry out the 

abstract idea.

59. The claims are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.

60. The claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they lack written 

description, are not enabled, and/or are not sufficiently definite.

61. DeCurtis LLC is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’514 

Patent are invalid. 

62. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding the validity of the ’514 Patent.

63. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 50 of 58
51

COUNT FOUR

(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of the ’514 Patent)

64. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 39 as if fully set forth herein.

65. David DeCurtis made material contributions to the conception of the invention 

embodied in one or more claims of the ’514 Patent.

66. Carnival and its agents, including the named inventors of the ’514 Patent, knew of 

Mr. DeCurtis’ material contributions to conception, yet knowingly and fraudulently omitted Mr. 

DeCurtis as an inventor. Carnival and its agents omitted Mr. DeCurtis, in part, to avoid Mr. 

DeCurtis of informing the Patent Office of material prior art in the form of the Disney 

MagicBand, Be Our Guest, and CDA Systems, as well as the Assa Abloy Allure System.

67. Carnival and its agents fraudulent omission of Mr. DeCurtis as an inventor was 

material. 

68. Accordingly, the ’514 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

69. Additionally, the ’514 Patent shares a substantially similar specification to the 

’184 Patent. The inventions disclosed in the Carnival Patents are all directed to guest 

engagement systems, and they all stem from related developmental work on the Project Trident. 

Carnival and its agents omitted David DeCurtis from each of the Carnival Patents with the 

similar motive of avoiding the possibility that DeCurtis would identify certain material prior art 

that would impact the prosecution of the entire Carnival Patent family. As such, the inequitable 

conduct on the ’184 Patent similarly infects the ’514 Patent rendering it unenforceable for this 

separate reason. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 51 of 58
52

70. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action. 

COUNT FIVE

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’516 Patent)

71. DeCurtis LLC re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

72. Carnival has sued DeCurtis LLC in the present action, alleging infringement of 

the ’516 Patent, and that the ’516 Patent is valid.

73. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’516 Patent.

74. The ’516 Patent has two independent claims, claims 1 and 13.

75. Claim 1 of the ’516 Patent recites: 

A door latch assembly comprising: 

a door knob;

a latch selectively operated by operation of the door knob;

an electrical isolation sleeve mounted on a spindle of the door latch assembly and 

configured to electrically isolate the door knob from other portions of the door 

latch assembly;

an electronically controlled locking mechanism operative to selectively unlock the 

latch;

a proximity sensor operative to sense contact or proximity of a user with the door 

knob; and

an access panel separate from the door knob and the latch, and including a radio 

configured for wireless communication with the electronically controlled locking 

mechanism, a first transceiver configured for wireless communication with a 

portable user device, and a second transceiver for communication with a 

reservation server,

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 52 of 58
53

wherein the electronically controlled locking mechanism is operative to 

selectively unlock the latch based on the contact or proximity of the user with the 

door knob sensed by the proximity sensor,

the door knob is electrically isolated from a ground potential,

the proximity sensor is a capacitive touch sensor electrically connected to the 

electrically isolated door knob and operative to sense contact or proximity of the 

user with the electrically isolated door knob, and

the access panel is configured to receive door access information from the 

reservation server via the second transceiver, determine whether the latch should 

be unlocked based on the door access information received from the reservation 

server, and transmit an instruction to unlock the latch to the electronically 

controlled locking mechanism via the radio based on the determination.

76. Claim 13 of the ’516 Patent recites: 

A door latch assembly comprising: 

a latch assembly including a latch and an electronically controlled locking 

mechanism operative to selectively unlock a door;

a door lock communication module electrically connected to the electronically 

controlled locking mechanism of the latch assembly, and including a radio 

configured for wireless communication; and

an access panel separate from and fixedly mounted proximate to the door lock 

communication module and latch assembly, and including a radio configured for 

wireless communication with the door lock communication module, a first 

transceiver configured for wireless communication with a portable user device, 

and a second transceiver for communication with a reservation server,

wherein the access panel separate from and fixedly mounted proximate to the 

door lock communication module is configured to receive door access 

information from the reservation server via the second transceiver, determine 

whether the door should be unlocked based on the door access information 

received from the reservation server, and transmit an instruction to unlock the 

door to the door lock communication module via the radio based on the 

determination.

77. DeCurtis is not infringing, and has not infringed, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, directly, by inducement, contributorily, or in any way, any valid, 

enforceable claim of the ’516 Patent. For example, with the with respect to the ’516 patent, 

there can be no literal infringement of any claim requiring an “access panel” that communicates 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 53 of 58
54

via a “second transceiver” with a “reservation server” (e.g., claims 1, 13, 15, and 18 of the ’516 

patent) at least because Carnival clearly and unambiguously limited this claim to a “wireless” 

second transceiver during prosecution of the ’516 patent. See 4/23/2018 Remarks at 10 (“The 

[prior art] is notably not described as having multiple wireless communication interfaces 

including ‘a radio [...], a first transceiver [...], and a second transceiver [...],’ in accordance with 

those detailed in claim 71.”) (Emphasis added). Moreover, DeCurtis does not provide hardware 

or software relating to numerous claim limitation of the ’516 patent, including a “door knob,” “a 

latch,” “an electronically controlled locking mechanism,” a “proximity sensor,” an “access 

panel,” or a “reservation server,” and DeCurtis’ DXP system and associated technology therefore 

does not infringe the claims of the ’516 Patent. 

78. DeCurtis LLC is entitled to a declaratory judgment that at least one claim of the 

’516 Patent is not infringed.

79. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding the alleged infringement of the ’516 Patent.

80. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action. 

COUNT SIX

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’516 Patent)

81. DeCurtis LLC re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11 as if 

fully set forth herein. 

82. Carnival has sued DeCurtis LLC in the present action, alleging infringement of 

the ’516 Patent, and that the ’516 Patent is valid.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 54 of 58
55

83. The claims of the ’516 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the 

requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, Section 101, 

102, 103, and/or 112. 

84. The ’516 Patent claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter in violation of § 

101 because they are directed to an abstract idea and because they lack an inventive concept 

sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible invention. For example, the claims are 

directed to the abstract idea of wirelessly communicating and logging guest information and 

recite nothing more than conventional and commonly known components to carry out the 

abstract idea.

85. The claims are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the prior art.

86. The claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they lack written 

description, are not enabled, and/or are not sufficiently definite.

87. DeCurtis LLC is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’516 

Patent are invalid. 

88. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding the validity of the ’516 Patent.

89. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action.

COUNT SEVEN

(Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability of the ’516 Patent)

90. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 39 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 55 of 58
56

91. David DeCurtis made material contributions to the conception of the invention 

embodied in one or more claims of the ’516 Patent.

92. Carnival and its agents, including the named inventors of the ’516 Patent, knew of 

Mr. DeCurtis’ material contributions to conception, yet knowingly and fraudulently omitted Mr. 

DeCurtis as an inventor. Carnival and its agents omitted Mr. DeCurtis, in part, to avoid Mr. 

DeCurtis of informing the Patent Office of material prior art in the form of the Disney 

MagicBand, Be Our Guest, and CDA Systems, as well as the Assa Abloy Allure System.

93. Carnival and its agents fraudulent omission of Mr. DeCurtis as an inventor was 

material. 

94. Accordingly, the ’516 Patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

95. Additionally, the ’516 Patent shares a substantially similar specification to the 

’184 Patent. The inventions disclosed in the Carnival Patents are all directed to guest 

engagement systems, and they all stem from related developmental work on the Project Trident. 

Carnival and its agents omitted David DeCurtis from each of the Carnival Patents with the 

similar motive of avoiding the possibility that DeCurtis would identify certain material prior art 

that would impact the prosecution of the entire Carnival Patent family. As such, the inequitable 

conduct on the ’184 Patent similarly infects the ’516 Patent rendering it unenforceable for this 

separate reason. 

96. Carnival has also filed this action without a good faith basis, making this an 

exceptional case. Consequently, Carnival is liable for any and all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and 

costs incurred by DeCurtis in connection with this action. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DeCurtis prays that this Court enter judgment.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 56 of 58
57

A. In favor of DeCurtis, and against Carnival, thereby dismissing Carnival’s 

Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, with Carnival taking nothing by way of its claims;

B. Declaring and adjudging that DeCurtis has not infringed, and are not now 

infringing any valid claim of the ’516 Patent, under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271;

C. Declaring and adjudging that all asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are 

invalid;

D. Declaring and adjudging that all claims of the Asserted Patents are unenforceable 

for inequitable conduct;

E. That this case stands out from others and as such is an exceptional case pursuant 

to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and ordering Carnival to pay DeCurtis’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in 

this action;

F. A judgment and order requiring Carnival to pay DeCurtis pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on any amounts awarded.

G. That Carnival pay all costs incurred by DeCurtis in this action; and awarding 

DeCurtis all other relief that the court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY

DeCurtis respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: May 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

DECURTIS LLC

/s/ Jason P. Stearns 

By: /s/ Jason P. Stearns

One of its attorneys

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 57 of 58
58

David C. Gustman (Pro Hac Vice)

Jeffery M. Cross (Pro Hac Vice)

Jill C. Anderson (Pro Hac Vice)

Jennifer L. Fitzgerald (Pro Hac Vice)

FREEBORN & PETERS LLP

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel. (312) 360-6000

Email: dgustman@freeborn.com

 jcross@freeborn.com

 janderson@freeborn.com

 jfitzgerald@freeborn.com

Scott L. Watson (Pro Hac Vice)

Justin C. Griffin (Pro Hac Vice) 

Patrick T. Schmidt (Pro Hac Vice)

Zachary A. Schenkkan (Pro Hac Vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel. (213) 443-3000

Email: swatson@quinnemanuel.com

 justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com

 patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com

 zackschenkkan@quinnemanuel.com

Jason P. Stearns

Florida Bar No. 059550

FREEBORN & PETERS LLP

201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3550

Tampa, FL 33602

Tel. (813) 488-2920 

Email: jstearns@freeborn.com

 ckitchell@freeborn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DeCurtis LLC and 

DeCurtis Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2021 Page 58 of 58