Upper Deck Responds to Topps Copyright Suit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKTHE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.,Plaintiff,-against-THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, INC.,Defendant.09-cv-3780 (RMB)ECF Case

ANSWER TOSECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant The Upper Deck Company, Inc., (“Upper Deck” or “Defendant”) by itsattorneys Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, hereby submits its answer to theSecond Amended Complaint of Plaintiff The Topps Company, Inc., (“Topps” or “Plaintiff”).

Jurisdiction

1.

Upper Deck admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this actionas pled in Paragraph 1 of the Second Amended Complaint for products that are validly registeredwith the United States Register of Copyrights. Upper Deck admits that this Court hassupplemental jurisdiction over the related common law claims as pled in Paragraph 1 of theSecond Amended Complaint. Upper Deck denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of theSecond Amended Complaint.2.

In response to Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint and solely for thepurposes of this action, Upper Deck does not contest that it is subject to personal jurisdiction inthis district. Upper Deck admits that it has conducted business in this district, but denies that ithas committed a tort in this or any other district. Upper Deck denies any remaining allegationsin Paragraph 2 of the Second Amended Complaint.

Case 1:09-cv-03780-RMB Document 35 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 1 of 37

The Parties

3.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.4.

Upper Deck admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Nevadawith a place of business at 5909 Sea Otter Place, Carlsbad, California 92010. Upper Deck further admits that it conducts business in New York and elsewhere in the country, and onwww.upperdeck.com, and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the SecondAmended Complaint.

Factual Background

5.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.6.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.7.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.8.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.

Case 1:09-cv-03780-RMB Document 35 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 2 of 37

9.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Complaint and thereforedenies them.10.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Second Amended Complaint andtherefore denies them.11.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Second Amended Complaint andtherefore denies them.12.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Complaint andtherefore denies them.13.

Upper Deck states that the allegation in Paragraph 13 regarding 17 U.S.C. §410(c) states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response isrequired, Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth orfalsity of this allegation in Paragraph 13 of the Second Amended Complaint and therefore deniesit. Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth orfalsity of any other remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Second Amended Complaintand therefore denies them.14.

Upper Deck lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to thetruth or falsity of the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint andtherefore denies them.

Case 1:09-cv-03780-RMB Document 35 Filed 09/08/2009 Page 3 of 37