`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No.
`) 1:16-cv-02690-AT
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE COUNTERCLAIMS
`AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
`Plaintiffs, SIPCO, LLC ("SIPCO") and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ) ("IP
`
`CO") (collectively, "SIPCO") respectfully move to dismiss and strike the
`
`counterclaims and affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct asserted by
`
`Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLLP, and
`
`Fisher- Rosemount Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Emerson”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 12(b)(6), 12(f) and 9(b). The charge of inequitable conduct in almost every patent
`
`infringement case is an absolute plague on the courts and entire patent system, and
`
`Emerson’s so-called inequitable conduct allegations are no different. For the reasons
`
`set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, SIPCO respectfully requests
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 116 Filed 07/28/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`that this Court dismiss Counts I and II of Emerson’s Counterclaims, strike
`
`Emerson’s Eleventh and Twelfth Affirmative Defenses and dismiss and strike any
`
`and all reference to inequitable conduct in association with the ‘062 and ‘511
`
`Patents.
`
`Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of July, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Christopher Fox II
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`Georgia Bar No. 272527
`Michael Coleman
`Georgia Bar No. 177635
`Thompson Hine LLP
`Two Alliance Center, Suite 1600
`3560 Lenox Road
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326
`Telephone: 404-541-2900
`Facsimile: 404-541-2905
`Chris.Fox@ThompsonHine.com
`Michael.Coleman@ThompsonHine.com
`
`Paul J. Cronin, Pro hac vice
`James C. Hall, Pro hac vice
`Timothy J. Reppucci, Pro hac vice
`Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2604
`Telephone: 617-439-2000
`Facsimile: 617-310-9000
`pcronin@nutter.com
`jhall@nutter.com
`treppucci@nutter.com
`Counsel for SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 116 Filed 07/28/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this filing was prepared using one of the
`
`
`
`font and point selections approved by this Court in Local Rule 5.1C. Specifically,
`
`Times New Roman font was used in 14 point.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`Georgia Bar No. 272527
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 116 Filed 07/28/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I have this day served all counsel of record with a copy
`
`of the within and foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF INEQUITABLE
`
`CONDUCT using the Court’s ECF filing system, which will automatically send
`
`a copy to all counsel of record registered to receive service thereby.
`
`
`
`
`
`3235340.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`Georgia Bar No. 272527
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
