IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE 

ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,

v.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION, INC.,

Defendant-Counterclaimant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00963

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF-COUNTERDEFENDANT GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE 

ENTERTAINMENT LTD.’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT 

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIMS

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. (“Guest-Tek”) 

answers Defendant-Counterclaimant Exceptional Innovation, Inc. (“Exceptional Innovation”)’s 

counterclaims (Doc. 16 at 9-14) as follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 1.

2. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 2.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Paragraph 3 is a request for relief to which no response is required. If a response is 

required, then Guest-Tek admits that Exceptional Innovation requests a declaratory judgment but 

denies that Exceptional Innovation is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

4. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 4.

5. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 5.

6. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 6.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 214
2

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS

7. Guest-Tek admits that it owns the ’281 Patent and the ’172 Patent, but denies any 

remaining allegations in paragraph 7.

8. Guest-Tek admits that it has asserted that Exceptional Innovation has infringed one 

or more claims of the ’281 and ’172 Patents, but denies that its assertion is “incorrect[]” and denies 

any remaining allegations in paragraph 8.

9. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 9.

10. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 10.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION’S FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

11. Guest-Tek incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if 

fully restated.

12. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 12.

13. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 13.

14. Paragraph 14 is a request for relief to which no response is required. If a response 

is required, then Guest-Tek admits that Exceptional Innovation requests a declaratory judgment 

but denies that Exceptional Innovation is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION’S SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

15. Guest-Tek incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if 

fully restated.

16. Guest-Tek admits the allegations in paragraph 16.

17. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 17.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 215
3

18. Paragraph 18 is a request for relief to which no response is required. If a response 

is required, then Guest-Tek admits that Exceptional Innovation requests a declaratory judgment 

but denies that Exceptional Innovation is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION’S THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

19. Guest-Tek incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if 

fully restated.

20. Guest-Tek admits that an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists, but 

denies that any claim of the ’281 Patent is invalid and denies any remaining allegations in 

paragraph 20.

21. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 21.

22. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 22.

23. Paragraph 23 is a request for relief to which no response is required. If a response 

is required, then Guest-Tek admits that Exceptional Innovation requests a declaratory judgment 

but denies that Exceptional Innovation is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION’S FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM

24. Guest-Tek incorporates by reference its answers to the preceding paragraphs as if 

fully restated.

25. Guest-Tek admits that an immediate, real and justiciable controversy exists, but 

denies that any claim of the ’172 Patent is invalid and denies any remaining allegations in 

paragraph 25.

26. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 26.

27. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 27.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 216
4

28. Paragraph 28 is a request for relief to which no response is required. If a response 

is required, then Guest-Tek admits that Exceptional Innovation requests a declaratory judgment 

but denies that Exceptional Innovation is entitled to a declaratory judgment.

EXCEPTIONAL INNOVATION’S EXCEPTIONAL CASE ALLEGATION

29. Guest-Tek denies the allegations in paragraph 29.

30. Guest-Tek denies every allegation not expressly admitted herein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By alleging the following separate and affirmative defenses below, Guest-Tek does not 

agree or concede that it bears the burden of proof or the burden of persuasion on any of these 

issues, in whole or in part. For its separate and affirmative defenses to Exceptional Innovation’s 

counterclaims, Guest-Tek alleges as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Claim)

1. Exceptional Innovation’s counterclaims fail to state a claim against Guest-Tek upon 

which any of the requested relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief)

2. Exceptional Innovation is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury 

to Exceptional Innovation is not immediate or irreparable and Exceptional Innovation would have 

an adequate remedy at law.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Equitable Defenses)

3. Exceptional Innovation’s counterclaims are barred, in whole or in part, under the 

principles of equity, including laches, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, or acquiescence.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 217
5

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Entitlement to Attorney Fees)

4. Exceptional Innovation cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying an 

award of attorney fees to Exceptional Innovation under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Guest-Tek requests the following relief:

a. Judgment that Exceptional Innovation has infringed the ’281 Patent;

b. Judgment that Exceptional Innovation has infringed the ’172 Patent;

c. Judgment that the ’281 Patent is valid;

d. Judgment that the ’172 Patent is valid; and

e. All relief requested in Guest-Tek’s original prayer for relief (Doc. 1 at 20).

Dated: January 4, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Andrew E. Samuels

Lauren M. Hilsheimer (85389)

lhilsheimer@bakerlaw.com

Andrew E. Samuels (90189)

asamuels@bakerlaw.com

Baker & Hostetler LLP

200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200

Columbus, OH 43215-4138

Telephone: 614.228.1541

Facsimile: 614.462.2616

Steven J. Rocci (pro hac vice)

srocci@bakerlaw.com

Baker & Hostetler LLP

2929 Arch Street

Cira Centre, 12th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891

Telephone: 215.568.3100

Facsimile: 215.568.3439

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 218
6

Michael J. Swope (pro hac vice)

mswope@bakerlaw.com

Baker & Hostetler LLP

999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600

Seattle, WA 98104-4040

Telephone: 206.332.1380

Facsimile: 206.624.7317

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterdefendant

Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 219
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 4, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio through the CM/ECF system, thereby 

automatically serving all registered parties.

/s/ Andrew E. Samuels

Attorney for Plaintiff-Counterdefendant

Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.

Case: 2:17-cv-00963-ALM-CMV Doc #: 21 Filed: 01/04/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 220