Defendant Answer and Affirmative Defenses

Case 1:23-cv-00840-JRS-MJD Document 23 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 145
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF )

EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Case No.: 1:23-cv-00840-JRS-MJD
v. )
)
TROY DULANEY, JACOB SUTTON, and )
ADAM BURK, )
)
Defendants. )
DEFENDANT TROY DULANEY’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant Troy Dulaney, by counsel, files his answer and affirmative defenses in
response to Plaintiff’s Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages (“Complaint”), repeating his
allegations in the Complaint and responding to those allegations as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Dulaney denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Dulaney denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is
required, but to the extent a response is required, Dulaney denies the same.
5. Dulaney lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
5 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.
6. Delaney admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

BACKGROUND FACTS
Page 2 of 13
20. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
NREMT’s Policies and Agreements
Page 3 of 13
Dulaney’s Misconduct
30. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
NREMT’s Discovery of Dulaney’s Misconduct
Page 4 of 13
Sutton and Burk’s Misconduct
Page 5 of 13
The Consequences of Defendants’ Actions
59. Paragraph 59 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required, but to
the extent a response is required, Dulaney denies the same.
Count I – Copyright Infringement

17 U.S.C. § 501, et. seq.
(Against All Defendants)
60. Dulaney incorporates and realleges his responses to paragraphs 1 through 59
above as if fully set forth in this paragraph.
Page 6 of 13
Dulaney denies the allegations contained in the WHEREFORE paragraph following
paragraph 73 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
Count II – Breach of Contract

Page 7 of 13
Count III
Violation of the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1, et. seq.
Page 8 of 13
Count IV
Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)
Page 9 of 13
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
Subject to reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, Dulaney
alleges the following additional defenses:
1. With respect to some or all of Plaintiff’s claims, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of
limitations.
3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver,
laches, estoppel, ratification, acquiescence, and/or unclean hands.
4. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Defendants’ right to recoupment.
5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of avoidable
consequences.
6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendants’ business
practices are not and were not “unlawful” in that they complied with all applicable statutes and
regulations.
7. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff consented to the
alleged conduct of Defendants.
8. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims should be reduced by the doctrines of rescission
and restitution.
Page 10 of 13
9. All actions taken by Dulaney with regard to Plaintiff were lawful and not in
violation of public policy.
10. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover equitable relief, Plaintiff is not entitled to
such relief because they have an adequate remedy at law.
11. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the doctrine of non-
infringement.
12. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the doctrine of non-
invalidity based on prior art.
13. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by Plaintiff’s failure to
meet all applicable statutory requirements.
14. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the doctrine of
inadequate conduct.
15. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred or offset by the doctrine of first sale.
16. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the repair doctrine.
17. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred or offset by the doctrine of misuse.
18. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the doctrine of patent
exhaustion.
19. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by estoppel.
20. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or offset by the doctrine of prior
commercial use and/or experimental use.
21. Pre-judgment interest may not be granted because the damages claimed by
Plaintiffs are not sufficiently certain to allow an award of pre-judgment interest.
Page 11 of 13
22. Defendant will rely on all defenses lawfully available to him at the time of trial
and reserve the right to amend his answer and affirmative defenses to include additional defenses
after the completion of discovery.
23. Dulaney denies every allegation whether express or implied, that is not
unequivocally and specifically admitted in the Answer.
24. Dulaney reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses and defenses
as may appear applicable during the course of this litigation.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Troy Dulaney requests that Plaintiff takes nothing by way of
this action and that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff on all claims.
Defendant further requests all other appropriate relief, including costs and attorneys’ fees.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________________
Christopher P. Jeter (#25905-49)
Alexandra M. Dowers (#37331-30)
MASSILLAMANY JETER & CARSON LLP
11650 Lantern Road, Suite 204
Fishers, Indiana 46038
Telephone: (317) 576-8580
Facsimile: (317) 203-1012
Email: Chris@mjcattorneys.com
Alexandra@mjcattorneys.com
Attorneys for Defendant Troy Dulaney
Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing has been served this 12th
day of July 2023, via E-Service through the Pacer E-Filing System to the following counsel:
Kandi Kilkelly Hidde

Cameron S. Trachtman
Frost Brown Todd LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 4500
P.O. Box 44961
Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961
James V. Garvey
Jonathon P. Reinisch
Vedder Price P.C.
222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Attorneys for The

National Registry of
Emergency Medical Technicians
_________________________________________
Christopher P. Jeter
Page 13 of 13

Defendant Answer and Affirmative Defenses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defendant Answer and Affirmative Defenses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00840-JRS-MJD Document 23 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 145

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE NATIONAL REGISTRY OF )

DEFENDANT TROY DULANEY’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

allegations in the Complaint and responding to those allegations as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Dulaney denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. Dulaney denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3. Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

4. Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

5. Dulaney lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph

5 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

6. Delaney admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7. Dulaney lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph

7 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

8. Dulaney lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph

8 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

12. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

14 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

15 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

17. Paragraph 17 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

19. Paragraph 19 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

20. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint.

21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

NREMT’s Policies and Agreements

22. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

23 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

24 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

25 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

26 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

27. Paragraph 27 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is

28 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

29 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

30. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint.

31. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

33. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

35. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

36. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.

NREMT’s Discovery of Dulaney’s Misconduct

37 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

38 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

39 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

40 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

41 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

42 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

43 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

44 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

45 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

46 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

47 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

48 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

49 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same.

50. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint.

51. Dulaney admits the allegations in paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

Sutton and Burk’s Misconduct

52. Dulaney denies the allegations in paragraph 52 of the Complaint.