Nokia hasn't filed an answer/counterclaim against EDIG. Only Sakar, Canon USA Inc. and VTech and it's all standard stuff. Here's a copy/paste of Canon's counterclaims:

----------

COUNTERCLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

For its Counterclaims against e.Digital Corporation (“e.Ditigal”), Canon U.S.A., Inc.

(“Canon USA”) demands a jury trial and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Counterclaim Plaintiff Canon USA is a New York corporation having its principal

place of business at One Canon Plaza, Lake Success, New York 11042.

2. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim Defendant e.Digital is a

Delaware corporation having its principal place of business located at 16770 West

Bernardo Drive, San Diego, California 92127.

JURISDICTION

3. Canon USA’s counterclaims are directed to invalidity and noninfringement

of U.S. patent No. 5,491,774 (“the ‘774 Patent”) by Defendant Canon USA.

Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Canon USA’s claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, as well as the Patent Act, 35

U.S.C. § 1, et seq.

4. e.Digital alleges, in the present lawsuit, that it owns all right, title and interest

in, and has standing to sue for infringement of, the ‘774 Patent.

5. e.Digital alleges, in the present lawsuit, that Canon USA infringes the ‘774 Patent.

Accordingly, a controversy between Canon USA and e.Digital exists and is of such immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

COUNTERCLAIM NO. 1

NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘774 PATENT

6. Canon USA repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-5, above,

as if set forth fully herein.

7. Canon USA does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or indirectly,

literally or pursuant to the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise, any claim of the ‘774

Patent.

8. The Court should issue a declaration that Canon USA does not infringe,

directly or indirectly, literally or pursuant to the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise,

any claim of the ‘774 Patent, so that Canon USA may ascertain its rights relevant to the

‘774 Patent.

COUNTERCLAIM NO. 2

INVALIDITY OF THE ‘774 PATENT

9. Canon USA repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-8, above,

as if set forth fully herein.

10. The claims of the ‘774 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions

of patentability or otherwise to comply with the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§

102, 103, and/or 112.

11. The Court should issue a declaration that the claims of the ‘774 Patent are invalid so that Canon USA may ascertain its rights relevant to the ‘774 Patent.