`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a
`INTUS IQ),
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT
`LLLP, FISHER-ROSEMOUNT
`SYSTEMS, INC., ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`BP p.l.c., BP AMERICA, INC., and BP
`AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-cv-907
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Court is an Emergency Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Transfer (ECF 99)
`
`filed by Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and Rosemount Inc.
`
`Plaintiffs filed a response on July 8, 2016. Having considered the motion and response, the
`
`Court DENIES the motion to stay.
`
`
`
`Finding a likelihood of substantial overlap, the Court entered an Order on July 1, 2016
`
`granting Defendants’ motion to transfer the claims against them to the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Pursuant to Local
`
`Rule CV-83(b), absent an order to the contrary the Clerk may not transmit the case to the
`
`directed court until the twenty-first day after the transfer order is entered. Defendants assert that
`
`all upcoming deadlines in the case should be vacated pending the transfer. The parties’ P.R. 4-3
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement were due on July 7, 2016. To allow time for
`
`Defendants to respond to the motion to stay, the Court entered an Order on July 6, 2016 ordering
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 103 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 2
`
`that any response to the motion to stay be filed no later than July 8, 2016 and staying the current
`
`deadlines pending a ruling on the motion to stay.
`
`
`
`In their response, Plaintiffs state that this case and the pending action in the Northern
`
`District of Georgia are on similar claim construction and discovery tracks. The parties are
`
`conducting discovery in parallel to conserve resources. Plaintiffs assert that the feasibility of
`
`maintaining the cases on the same track will be affected if the deadlines in this case are stayed.
`
`Defendants’ motion recognizes that the Georgia court may consolidate the actions after the
`
`transfer is complete. Defendants do not show a compelling reason to vacate the deadlines in this
`
`case pending the transmission of the case to the transferee court.
`
`
`
`The first-to-file rule is invoked to avoid duplicative litigation, which avoids varying
`
`outcomes and promotes efficiency. Efficiency will be best served if the parties proceed with the
`
`current deadlines in this case until the transferee court receives the case. After due
`
`consideration, it is
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Emergency Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Transfer (ECF 99) is
`
`DENIED. The P.R. 4-3 deadline originally due on July 7, 2016, is extended to July 14, 2016.
`
`The July 21, 2016 deadline for responding to amended pleadings is extended to July 28, 2016.
`
`All other deadlines in the case remain in effect until the case is received in the Northern District
`
`of Georgia and that Court enters an amended Docket Control Order or otherwise alters the
`
`deadlines.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of July, 2016.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
