`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to PR 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order dated April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs
`
`and Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.,
`
`Rosemount Inc., BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company
`
`(“Defendants”) hereby jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,516, 8,000,314, 8,233,471, 8,625,496, 6,437,692,
`
`6,914,893, 7,468,661, 7,697,492, 8,013,732, 8,754,780, and 8,908,842. BP, p.l.c appears
`
`specially and only for the limited purpose of preserving its rights, notwithstanding and without
`
`waiving its rights to answer, obtain resolution of any Rule 12 motion, or otherwise plead in
`
`response to the Amended Complaint served on April 4, 2016.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)
`
`Exhibit A, attached hereto, identifies the claim terms and proposed constructions that the
`
`parties have agreed upon for this proceeding. The parties will continue to meet and confer in an
`
`effort to narrow the issues in advance of Markman briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 5
`
`P.R. 4-3(b)
`
`With respect to the terms that are in dispute, the chart attached as Exhibit B identifies the
`
`10 terms that the parties have agreed are the most important disputed terms, or the most
`
`important terms identified by Plaintiffs and Defendants that the parties were unable to agree
`
`upon, divided evenly between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and includes the identification of the
`
`parties’ intrinsic and extrinsic support for those disputed claim terms, and which terms are
`
`considered by one or both parties to be case or claim dispositive. Each party reserves the right to
`
`rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by the other party.
`
`Exhibit C, also attached hereto, identify the remaining claim terms for which the parties
`
`could not reach agreement. Exhibit C provides an identification of the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence upon which each party intends to rely to support its proposed constructions, and which
`
`terms are considered by one or both parties to be case or claim dispositive. Each party reserves
`
`the right to rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by the other party.
`
`P.R. 4-3(c) and P.R. 4-3(d)
`
`As to the Claim Construction Hearing, Plaintiffs propose a three-hour hearing, and
`
`anticipate calling their technical expert, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, as a witness at that hearing only if
`
`expert testimony is requested by the Court. A summary of Dr. Almeroth’s expected testimony,
`
`including expected testimony regarding Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges, is attached as
`
`Exhibit D hereto.
`
`Defendants propose a seven-hour hearing, including an appropriate technology tutorial,
`
`and anticipate calling as a witness at that hearing one or more of their technical experts, Dr.
`
`Robert Akl or Stephen Heppe. A summary of Dr. Akl’s and/or Heppe’s expected evidence,
`
`including expected testimony regarding Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges, is included in
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 5
`
`Defendants’ citations of extrinsic evidence. Defendants’ object to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D to the
`
`extent inconsistent with Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-2(b) submission. Dr. Akl’s CV is attached as Exhibit
`
`E, and Dr. Heppe’s CV is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`P.R. 4-3 (e)
`
`Defendants request that a pre-hearing conference be scheduled prior to the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing to address outstanding issues, including the complexity of the case given
`
`the large number of patents (11) and asserted claims (180). In particular, Defendants believe that
`
`the Court’s assistance may be necessary to achieve a meaningful reduction in the number of
`
`claim terms in dispute. In the absence of a meaningful reduction of the issues in this case,
`
`Defendants may ask the Court to expand the briefing limitations set forth in the Docket Control
`
`Order to allow for construction of additional terms.
`
`Further, Plaintiffs and Defendants would be willing to participate in a pre-hearing
`
`conference, if the Court deems one appropriate, to address issues such as whether the Court
`
`wishes to hear a live technology tutorial prior to the Markman hearing and whether the Court
`
`wishes to hear live expert testimony.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 5
`
`DATED: July 14, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James C. Hall
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`Email: claire@wsfirm.com
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Road, Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`
`Paul J. Cronin, Admitted July 16, 2012
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`(MA Bar No. 641230)
`James C. Hall, Admitted April 9, 2012
`(MA Bar No. 656019)
`NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Telephone: (617) 439-2000
`Facsimile: (617) 310-9000
`Email: pcronin@nutter.com
`Email: jhall@nutter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
`
`
`
`Donald L. Jackson
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Donald L. Jackson (pro hac vice)
`James D. Berquist (pro hac vice)
`J. Scott Davidson (pro hac vice)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 400
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`This document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d)
`and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were
`served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email on this the 14th day of July, 2016
`
`
`
`
`3215185.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`