UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION 

XYZ CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff 

 v 

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIE ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

Defendant/ 

______________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

 The defendants, Def. No. 298, Rocita Home, Def. No. 290, LiuFJJMY, Def. No. 39, 

thomilliom, Def. No. 280, yunshanyun, Def. No. 299, KKRDH, Def. No. 19, FFSURE, Def. No. 

297, JINLITECH, Def. No. 281, BEBOORE, Def. No. 291, Gowgelit, Def. No. 300, Kondyfayo 

design, Def. No. 181, comm1a, (collectively “11 Defendants”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, hereby answers to the Complaint [DE 1] and states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

2. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

3. Denied. 

4. Denied. 

 Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-24013-RNS 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 1 of 9
5. No answer is required. If an answer is needed, denied. 

PARTIES 

6. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

7. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

8. Admitted. 

9. Admitted. 

10. Admitted. 

11.Denied. 

12.Denied. 

13.Denied. 

14. Admitted. 

15. Admitted. 

16. Admitted. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

17. No answer is required. If an answer is needed, denied. 

18. No answer is required. If an answer is needed, denied. 

19. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

20. No answer is required. 

 Page 2 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 2 of 9
21. Denied. 

22. Denied. 

23. Denied. 

24. Denied. 

25. Denied. 

26. Denied. 

27. Denied. 

28. Denied. 

29. Denied. 

30. Denied. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied. 

34. Denied. 

COUNT I 

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT 

35 U.S.C. § 271 

35. No answer is required. If an answer is needed, denied. 

36. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

37. No answer is required. Upon information and belief, admitted. 

 Page 3 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 3 of 9
38. Denied. 

39. Denied. 

40. Denied. 

41. Denied. 

42. Denied. 

43. Denied. 

44. Denied. 

45. Denied. 

46. Denied. 

47. Denied. 

48. Denied. 

49. Denied. 

AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSE 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ONE -PRIOR ART 

50. Plaintiff failed to disclose in its patent the prior art of US 5005526 (see Exhibit A), 

US 5551373 (see Exhibit B) and US 7383789 (see Exhibit C), all of which have similar designs to Plaintiff’s patent. 

51. Defendants’ products were based on the ideas of such prior arts. 

52. Thus, Defendants did not infringe Plaintiff’s patent. 

 Page 4 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 4 of 9
53. Defendants reserves the right to disclose more prior arts. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TWO - INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF NOVELTY 

54. Plaintiff’s patent at issue lacks novelty by making slight changes to the prior arts 

mentioned in Affirmative Defense One. Thus, it can be anticipated that the walls of the container as patented in Plaintiff’s patent will be raised. “However, the presumption would not 

protect the patent from affirmative defenses to infringement that North American might raise, 

including invalidity for lack of novelty or obviousness, if those affirmative defenses were 

proven by clear and convincing evidence.” North American Oil Company v. Star Brite Distributing, Civil Action No. 1:98-CV-1589-RWS, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2001), quoting 

Jervis B. Webb Co. v. Southern Sys., Inc., 742 F.2d 1388, 1392 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (noting 

that presumption remains intact throughout litigation and clear and convincing evidence 

standard applies). 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THREE - OBVIOUSNESS 

55. The differences between Plaintiff’s patent and the prior arts mentioned above are 

such that the Plaintiff’s patent as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention 

was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. 

Respectfully submitted on March 7, 2023. 

/s/Jianyin Liu 

FBN: 1007675 

Jianyin Liu, Esq. 

The Law Offices of James Liu, LLC 15750 

SW 92nd Ave Unit 20C 

Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 

Ph: (305) 209 6188

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 Page 5 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 5 of 9
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent via CM/ECF on this 

7th March, 2023. 

 /s/ Jianyin Liu 

 Jianyin Liu, Esq. 

 Page 6 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 6 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION 

Def. No. 298, Rocita Home, Def. No. 290, LiuFJJMY, Def. No. 39, thomilliom, Def. No. 280, 

yunshanyun, Def. No. 299, KKRDH, Def. No. 

19, FFSURE, Def. No. 297, JINLITECH, Def. 

No. 281, BEBOORE, Def. No. 291, Gowgelit, 

Def. No. 300, Kondyfayo design, Def. No. 181, 

comm1a, 

Counter-Plaintiffs 

 v 

XYZ CORPORATION, 

Counter- Defendant/ 

______________________________________/ 

COUNTER-CLAIM 

 The defendants, Def. No. 298, Rocita Home, Def. No. 290, LiuFJJMY, Def. No. 39, 

thomilliom, Def. No. 280, yunshanyun, Def. No. 299, KKRDH, Def. No. 19, FFSURE, Def. No. 

297, JINLITECH, Def. No. 281, BEBOORE, Def. No. 291, Gowgelit, Def. No. 300, Kondyfayo 

design, Def. No. 181, comm1a, (collectively “11 Defendants”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, hereby file this Counter-Claim against the Plaintiff in 

this case, and state as follows: 

COUNT I - OBVIOUSNESS

 Page 7 of 9

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-24013-RNS 

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 7 of 9
1. Plaintiff’s claim for its Patent US D955,644 S (“`644 Patent”) is invalid for failure to comply 

with one or more of the statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., including without limitation §§ 102, 103, and/or 112. 

2. More specifically and without limitation, the `644 Patent is invalid as anticipated pursuant to 

35 U.S.C. § 102 or as obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the prior arts US 

5005526, US5551373 and US738 3789, with little changes to the heights of the walls of the container and minor design changes. 

3. This case is only at the pleading stage, and Defendants' investigation of the prior art is ongoing. Defendants reserve the right to rely upon additional prior art, consistent with any Local 

Patent Rules of the Southern District of Florida. 

4. Due to Plaintiff’s suit, Defendants suffered loss of sales, freeze of funds and loss of reputation 

with the platforms they are selling. 

5. In addition, Counter-Plaintiffs have to hire the attorney herein to defend the lawsuit that incurred and will further incur attorney fees and court cost. 

6. Prayer of Relief: 

A. loss of sales, loss due to the freeze of fund; 

B. Attorney fees and court costs. 

Respectfully submitted on March 7, 2023. 

/s/Jianyin Liu 

FBN: 1007675 

 Page 8 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 8 of 9
Jianyin Liu, Esq. 

The Law Offices of James Liu, LLC 15750 

SW 92nd Ave Unit 20C 

Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 

Ph: (305) 209 6188

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent via CM/ECF on this 

7th March, 2023. 

 /s/ Jianyin Liu 

 Jianyin Liu, Esq.

 Page 9 of 9

Case 1:22-cv-24013-RNS Document 83 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 9 of 9