Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 21
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. ______________
`
`Declaratory Judgment
`Patent
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and
`
`Rosemount Inc. (collectively, “Emerson” or “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against
`
`Defendants SIPCO LLC (“SIPCO”) and IP CO., LLC d/b/a Intus IQ (“IPCO”)
`
`(collectively “Defendants”) seeking a declaratory judgment that the claims
`
`identified below from United States Patent Nos. 7,103,511 (“the ‘511 Patent”)
`
`(“the SIPCO Patent”); and 6,044,062 (“the ‘062 Patent”) (“the IPCO Patent”) are
`
`invalid and not infringed by Emerson.
`
`6406736.1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Emerson Electric Co. is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Missouri, having its principal place of business at
`
`8000 W. Florissant Ave., St. Louis, Missouri 63136.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co. and is a corporation incorporated under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 1100 W.
`
`Louis Henna Blvd., Bldg. 1, Round Rock, Texas 78681.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Rosemount Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Emerson Electric Co. and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Minnesota, having its principal place of business at 8200 Market Blvd.,
`
`Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant SIPCO is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, having its
`
`principal office at 8215 Roswell Road, Building 900, Suite 950, Atlanta, Georgia
`
`30350.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant IPCO is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia, having its
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`principal office at 8215 Roswell Road, Building 900, Suite 950, Atlanta, Georgia
`
`30350.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`The claims asserted in this Complaint arise under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., and under the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and are brought for a declaration by this Court
`
`that the claims identified below from the SIPCO Patent and the IPCO Patent
`
`(collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”) are invalid and not infringed by Emerson.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this Complaint
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201 and 2202. An actual and justiciable
`
`controversy exists between Emerson and Defendants concerning the alleged
`
`infringement and validity of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Defendant
`
`SIPCO, a Georgia company, maintains a principal place of business in this judicial
`
`district, conducts business licensing and enforcing its patent portfolio from such
`
`place of business, and has purposefully directed activities related to the
`
`enforcement and defense of the SIPCO Patent in this judicial district. SIPCO has
`
`previously asserted the ‘511 Patent, and other related patents, including U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,437,692 (“the ‘692 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 (“the ‘492
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Patent”)), in this judicial district. SIPCO has continuous and systematic contacts
`
`with Georgia and this judicial district. Defendant SIPCO may be served with
`
`process on its registered agent, Michael Coleman, 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600,
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326.
`
`10. Defendant IPCO, a Georgia company, maintains a principal place of
`
`business in this judicial district, conducts business licensing and enforcing its
`
`patent portfolio from such place of business, and has purposefully directed
`
`activities related to the enforcement and defense of the IPCO Patent in this judicial
`
`district. IPCO has previously asserted the ‘062 Patent, and a related patent (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,249,516 (“the ‘516 Patent”)), in this judicial district. IPCO has
`
`continuous and systematic contacts with Georgia and this judicial district.
`
`Defendant IPCO may be served with process on its registered agent, Andrea Marie
`
`Booher, at 945 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2700, Atlanta, Georgia 30326.
`
`11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`
`(c), and (d).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`12. The ‘511 Patent, entitled “Wireless communication networks for
`
`providing remote monitoring of devices,” issued on September 5, 2006.
`
`13. SIPCO has represented that the ‘511 Patent is currently assigned to it.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`14. The ‘692 Patent, the ‘893 Patent, and the ‘492 Patent are related to
`
`each other because they are part of the same patent family.
`
`15. The ‘062 Patent, entitled “Wireless network system and method for
`
`providing same,” issued on March 28, 2000.
`
`16.
`
`IPCO has represented that the ‘062 Patent is currently assigned to it.
`
`17. The ‘062 Patent and the ‘516 Patent are related to each other because
`
`they are part of the same patent family.
`
`18. On or about February 5, 2007, Emerson received a letter dated
`
`January 31, 2007, from John C. Herman of Duane Morris, counsel for IPCO, LLC
`
`(“the IPCO Letter”).
`
`19. Upon information and belief, IPCO is an entity closely related to
`
`SIPCO. Both entities share the same principal place of business and largely the
`
`same management team, including common founder T. David Petite.
`
`20. The IPCO Letter alleges that “Emerson is currently manufacturing,
`
`using, selling and/or offering for sale a mesh network system” and encloses four
`
`patents, including the ‘516 Patent, the ‘062 Patent, and the ‘511 Patent. The IPCO
`
`Letter states that its purpose was “to put your company on notice of IPCO’s
`
`intellectual property rights.”
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`21. On or about February 16, 2007, Emerson responded to the IPCO
`
`Letter with a letter asking Mr. Herman to specify which of Emerson’s products he
`
`believed required a license and which claims of the patents were relevant.
`
`22. Emerson did not receive a response to its February 2007 letter and
`
`received no further communication from Mr. Herman or anyone associated with
`
`IPCO or SIPCO about any of the Patents-in-Suit for nearly four years.
`
`23.
`
`In January 2011, plaintiff Rosemount became the target of activity
`
`related to the ‘511 and ‘492 Patents in SIPCO, LLC v.Control4 Corporation, et al.,
`
`N.D. Ga. Case No. 1:11-cv-00612-JEC (“the Control4 case”).
`
`24. On or about January 10, 2011, Rosemount received a letter from
`
`Siemens AG notifying Rosemount of the Control4 case, in which SIPCO accused
`
`certain products of Siemens Industry, Inc. (an indirect subsidiary of Siemens AG)
`
`of infringing the ‘511 and ‘492 Patents and one additional patent. The letter
`
`alleged that such products are subject to indemnification from Rosemount due to a
`
`contractual provision between Rosemount and Siemens AG.
`
`25. On or about January 27, 2011, SIPCO served a subpoena upon
`
`Rosemount in connection with the Control4 case. The subpoena demanded that
`
`Rosemount produce documents related to products Rosemount supplied or had
`
`supplied to Siemens Industry, Inc.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`26. The subpoena from SIPCO included broad document requests. For
`
`example, Request No. 1 asked for “[d]ocuments sufficient to identify all Products,
`
`including any ZigBee, WirelessHART, ISA-100, Z-Wave, EnOcean, JenNet,
`
`6WLoPAN, 802.15.4, or other wireless communication protocol-enabled devices,
`
`that were sold, leased, or in any way provided by Rosemount to Siemens since
`
`May 1, 2003, including without limitation Rosemount’s 1420 Gateway.” Request
`
`No. 3 asked for “[a]ll documents that refer, reflect, or relate to any agreement to
`
`indemnify, defend, or hold harmless between Rosemount and Siemens for claims
`
`related to any Products identified in response to Request No. 1.” Request No. 4
`
`asked for “[a]ll technical documents that refer, reflect, or relate to each Product
`
`responsive to Request No. 1.”
`
`27. Rosemount responded to the discovery by producing documents
`
`designated as “Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order in the Control4
`
`case.
`
`28.
`
`In or around late February or early March 2013, Emerson received a
`
`letter dated February 27, 2013 from Candida Petite, COO of SIPCO, LLC (“the
`
`SIPCO Letter”).
`
`29. The SIPCO Letter is “regarding licensing of the Wireless Mesh Patent
`
`Portfolio owned by SIPCO, LLC and IntusIQ (formerly known as IPCO, LLC)”
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`and states “[w]e understand that some of Emerson’s products such as the Emerson
`
`Smart Wireless product line may incorporate features that make use of patents in
`
`the Wireless Mesh Patent Portfolio License, and therefore, would benefit from
`
`such a license.”
`
`30. On or about March 18, 2013, Emerson responded to the SIPCO Letter
`
`with a letter expressing surprise at receiving the SIPCO Letter and its allegations
`
`“given past events,” including Emerson’s February 16, 2007 response to the IPCO
`
`Letter from which “[m]ore than six years have passed without Emerson receiving
`
`the information it requested or SIPCO ever indicating that it believed that Emerson
`
`required a license for wireless products being sold by its Emerson Process
`
`Management business units. Thus, these Emerson business units have continued to
`
`invest in the development of and grow the market for these wireless products
`
`throughout this period.” Emerson’s response further states that “[w]e have no
`
`reason to believe that SIPCO’s patents implicate Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`products…” and asks “if you have information that you would like us to review
`
`with respect to any specific Emerson products and SIPCO’s patents, we would be
`
`happy to consider it and respond to you promptly when we do.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 9 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`31. Emerson and Defendants have had further communications, including
`
`a July 9, 2013 e-mail from Candida Petite forwarding a purported “standard license
`
`agreement”.
`
`32. On or about July 14, 2013, Candida Petite provided charts with
`
`“illustrative examples” comparing Emerson’s products to claims of the ‘511 Patent
`
`and other SIPCO Patents, and to claims of the ‘062 Patent and other IPCO Patents
`
`and purportedly showing infringement (“the SIPCO/IPCO Illustrative Claim
`
`Charts”).
`
`33. The SIPCO/IPCO Illustrative Claim Charts assert infringement of
`
`claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,437,692 (“the ’692 Patent”) by specific models of
`
`Emerson’s products (“the ‘692 Accused Products”); claim 1 of the ’893 Patent by
`
`specific models of Emerson’s products (“the ‘893 Accused Products”); claim 1 of
`
`the ’511 Patent by specific models of Emerson’s products (“the ‘511 Accused
`
`Products”); claim 14 of the ‘492 Patent by specific models of Emerson’s products
`
`(“the ‘492 Accused Products”); claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ‘732
`
`Patent”) by specific models of Emerson’s products (“the ‘732 Accused Products”);
`
`claim 2 of the ‘062 Patent by specific models of Emerson’s products and by
`
`“Emerson’s Wireless Field Data Backhaul Network” (collectively, “the ‘062
`
`Accused Products”); claim 1 of the ‘516 Patent by specific models of Emerson’s
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 10 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`products (“the ‘516 Accused Products”); and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,000,314 (“the ‘314 Patent”) by specific models of Emerson’s products (“the ‘314
`
`Accused Products”).
`
`34. SIPCO and IPCO have brought numerous lawsuits against more than
`
`50 defendants alleging infringement of the Patents-in-Suit and other patents
`
`belonging to the same patent families as the Patents-in-Suit, both in this judicial
`
`district and in others. These lawsuits include:
`
`a.
`
`IPCO, LLC v. Elster Electricity, LLC, Northern District of
`
`Georgia, Atlanta Division (1:05-cv-01182-CC) (asserting the ‘516 Patent);
`
`b.
`
`IP Co., LLC v. Cellnet Technology, Inc., Northern District of
`
`Georgia, Atlanta Division (1:05-cv-02658-CC) (asserting the ‘516 and ‘062
`
`Patent);
`
`c.
`
`IP Co., LLC, et al. v. Cellnet Technology, Inc. and Tropos
`
`Networks, Inc., Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (1:06-cv-03048-
`
`JEC) (asserting the ‘511 Patent);
`
`d.
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Cooper Industries, Ltd.,
`
`Cooper Wiring Devices, Inc., Crestron Electronics, Inc., Eaton Corporation,
`
`Hawking Technologies, Inc., Homeseer Technologies, Inc., Intermatic, Inc.,
`
`Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., Smart Home Systems, Inc., Wayne-Dalton Corp.,
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 11 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`and X10 Wireless Technology, Inc., Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`
`(2:08-cv-00359-DF) (asserting the ‘511 Patent);
`
`e.
`
`SIPCO, LLC and Advanced Sensor Technology, Inc. v. The
`
`Toro Company, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2:08-cv-00505-TJS) (asserting
`
`the ‘511 Patent);
`
`f.
`
`SIPCO LLC v. Datamatic, Ltd., EKA Systems, Inc., Johnson
`
`Controls, Inc., Sensus USA Inc., and Trilliant Networks, Inc., Eastern District of
`
`Texas, Tyler Division (6:09-cv-00532-LED-JDL) (asserting the ‘511 Patent and
`
`one other patent);
`
`g.
`
`SIPCO LLC v. Control4 Corporation, Digi International Inc.,
`
`Home Automation Inc., Schneider Electric Buildings Americas, Inc., Schneider
`
`Electric USA, Inc., and Siemens Industry, Inc., Northern District of Georgia,
`
`Atlanta Division (1:11-cv-00612-JEC) (asserting the ‘511 and the ‘492 Patent and
`
`one other patent);
`
`h.
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Energate Inc., Ecobee Inc., Rainforest
`
`Automation, Inc., Smartsynch, Inc., AMX Corporation, Simplehomenet, Inc., and
`
`Centralite Systems, Inc., Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (6:10-cv-00533-
`
`LED) (asserting the ‘511 and ‘492 Patents);
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 12 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`i.
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Abb, Inc., Coulomb Technologies, Inc.,
`
`Ecotality, Inc., Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation d/b/a Ecotality
`
`North America, Energyhub, Inc., Jetlun Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company,
`
`Ingersoll-Rand Schlage Lock Holding Company LLC, Schlage Lock Company,
`
`Trane, Inc., and Smartlabs, Inc., Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (6:11-
`
`cv-00048-LED) (asserting the ‘511 and the ‘492 Patent and one other patent);
`
`j.
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. ADT Security Services, Inc., Southern District
`
`of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (9:11-cv-80521-DMM) (asserting the ‘692,
`
`‘511, ‘492 and the ‘893 Patents); and
`
`k.
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Comcast Corporation and Comcast Broadband
`
`Security, LLC, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (9:11-cv-
`
`80999-DMM) (asserting the ‘511 and the ‘492 Patent and two additional patents).
`
`35.
`
`It is evident from the lawsuits listed above that SIPCO and IPCO are
`
`actively enforcing the Patents-in-Suit and their patent families through litigation.
`
`36.
`
`It is further evident from the lawsuits listed above in Paragraphs 34
`
`(a), (b), (c) and/or (g) that SIPCO and IPCO are purposefully directing activities
`
`related to the enforcement and defense of some of the Patents-in-Suit and other
`
`patents from the same patent families in this judicial district.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 13 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`37. The events described in the foregoing paragraphs, including the IPCO
`
`Letter, the SIPCO Letter, SIPCO’s and IPCO’s proffered “standard license
`
`agreement,” the SIPCO/IPCO Illustrative Claim Charts, and the additional
`
`communications demonstrate the existence of a substantial controversy between
`
`SIPCO and IPCO on the one hand and Emerson, parties having adverse legal
`
`interests with respect to the validity and alleged infringement of the identified
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and
`
`reality to warrant the issuance of a Declaratory Judgment.
`
`38. Therefore, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`Emerson and Defendants as to the infringement and the validity of identified
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit, and Emerson has no adequate remedy at law if the
`
`Court does not issue a Declaratory Judgment and enjoin Defendants from asserting
`
`its infringement claims.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Invalidity of the ‘511 Patent – Claim 1)
`
`39. Emerson repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 - 38 as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 14 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`40. Upon information and belief, claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent is invalid for
`
`failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States
`
`Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112 thereof.
`
`41. To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Emerson and to
`
`afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy which Defendants’ accusations
`
`have precipitated, Emerson seeks a declaration from this Court that claim 1 of the
`
`‘511 Patent is invalid.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Invalidity of the ‘062 Patent – Claim 2)
`
`42. Emerson repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 - 38 as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`43. Upon information and belief, claim 2 of the ‘062 Patent is invalid for
`
`failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of Title 35, United States
`
`Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112 thereof.
`
`44. To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Emerson and to
`
`afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy which Defendants’ accusations
`
`have precipitated, Emerson seeks a declaration from this Court that claim 2 of the
`
`‘062 Patent is invalid.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 15 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘511 Patent – Claim 1)
`
`45. Emerson repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 - 38 as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`46. The ‘511 Accused Products do not infringe and have not infringed
`
`claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent, either directly, by active inducement, or by contributing
`
`to infringement by others.
`
`47. To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Emerson and to
`
`afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy which Defendants’ accusations
`
`have precipitated, Emerson seeks a declaration from this Court that the ‘511
`
`Accused Products do not infringe claim 1 of the ‘511 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Non-Infringement of the ‘062 Patent – Claim 2)
`
`48. Emerson repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 - 38 as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`49. The ‘062 Accused Products do not infringe and have not infringed
`
`claim 2 of the ‘062 Patent, either directly, by active inducement, or by contributing
`
`to infringement by others.
`
`50. To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Emerson and to
`
`afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy which Defendants’ accusations
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 16 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`have precipitated, Emerson seeks a declaration from this Court that the ‘062
`
`Accused Products do not infringe claim 2 of the ‘062 Patent.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`51. Emerson respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Emerson requests entry of judgment in their favor and
`
`against Defendants:
`
`a.
`
`Declaring that each of the identified claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.;
`
`b.
`
`Declaring that the ‘511 Accused Products, and the ‘062
`
`Accused Products have not infringed, and will not infringe, any of the identified
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit, either directly, by active inducement, or by
`
`contributing to infringement by others;
`
`c.
`
`Enjoining the Defendants and/or any affiliates, agents,
`
`successors and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any
`
`of them, from directly or indirectly asserting infringement against, or instituting
`
`any further action for infringement of the identified claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`against Plaintiffs, or any of their customers, affiliates, successors, assigns,
`
`representatives, agents, subsidiaries, and vendors;
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 17 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`d.
`
`Finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and awarding Emerson the costs and expenses of this litigation, including
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements; and
`
`e.
`
`Awarding to Emerson such other and further relief as the Court
`
`may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`
`Dated: January 30, 2015
`
`By: /s/ Damon J. Whitaker
` William V. Custer
`Georgia Bar No. 202910
`bill.custer@bryancave.com
`Damon J. Whitaker
`Georgia Bar No. 752722
`damon.whitaker@bryancave.com
`BRYAN CAVE, LLP
`One Atlantic Center, Fourteenth Floor
`1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: 404-572-6828
`Fax: 404-420-0828
`
`-Of Counsel-
`Donald L. Jackson
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
`Arlington, Virginia 22203
`Telephone: (703) 894-6400
`Facsimile: (703) 894-6430
`djackson@dbjg.com
`jberquist@dbjg.com
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 18 of 18Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 19 of 21
`
`sdavidson@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC. and
`ROSEMOUNT, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1-1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 20 of 21
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`JS44 (Rev. 1/13 NDGA)
`
`The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
`provided by local rules of court. This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket record. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED)
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFF(S)
`
` DEFENDANT(S)
`
` (b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED
` COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED
` DEFENDANT
` PLAINTIFF
`
` (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`
`
`
`
` (c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND
` E-MAIL ADDRESS)
`
`NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF
`LAND INVOLVED
`ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
`
` III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
`
` (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY) (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)
`
` (FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
`
`
`
` 1 U.S. GOVERNMENT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION
` PLAINTIFF
` (U.S. GOVERNMENT NOT A PARTY)
`
` PLF DEF PLF DEF
`
` 1 1 CITIZEN OF THIS STATE 4 4 INCORPORATED OR PRINCIPAL
`
` PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
`
` 2 2 CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE 5 5 INCORPORATED AND PRINCIPAL
` 2 U.S. GOVERNMENT 4 DIVERSITY
` DEFENDANT (INDICATE CITIZENSHIP OF PARTIES PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER
` IN ITEM III)
` STATE
` 3 3 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A
` FOREIGN COUNTRY 6 6 FOREIGN NATION
`
`
`IV. ORIGIN (PLACE AN “X “IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`
` TRANSFERRED FROM APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE
`
` 1 ORIGINAL 2 REMOVED FROM 3 REMANDED FROM 4 REINSTATED OR 5 ANOTHER DISTRICT 6 MULTIDISTRICT 7 FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE
` PROCEEDING STATE COURT APPELLATE COURT REOPENED
` (Specify District)
` LITIGATION
` JUDGMENT
`
`
`V. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE - DO NOT CITE
` JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
`
`(IF COMPLEX, CHECK REASON BELOW)
`
` 1. Unusually large number of parties.
`
`6. Problems locating or preserving evidence
`
` 2. Unusually large number of claims or defenses.
`
`7. Pending parallel investigations or actions by government.
`
` 3. Factual issues are exceptionally complex
`
` 8. Multiple use of experts.
`
` 4. Greater than normal volume of evidence.
`
`9. Need for discovery outside United States boundaries.
`
` 5. Extended discovery period is needed.
`
`10. Existence of highly technical issues and proof.
`
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`
`RECEIPT #
`AMOUNT $
` APPLYING IFP
`
` MAG. JUDGE (IFP)
`
`CONTINUED ON REVERSE
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE NATURE OF SUIT CAUSE OF ACTION _
` (Referral)
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT Document 1-1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 121-3 Filed 08/05/16 Page 21 of 21
`VI. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY)
`CONTRACT - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`CIVIL RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`
`150 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT &
`441 VOTING
` ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
`
`442 EMPLOYMENT
`152 RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED STUDENT
`
`443 HOUSING/ ACCOMMODATIONS
` LOANS (Excl. Veterans)
`
`444 WELFARE
`153 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF
`
`440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
` VETERAN'S BENEFITS
`
`445 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Employment
`
`446 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Other
`448 EDUCATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONTRACT - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`
`110 INSURANCE
`
`120 MARINE
`
`130 MILLER ACT
`
`140 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
`
`151 MEDICARE ACT
`
`160 STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS
`
`190 OTHER CONTRACT
`
`195 CONTRACT PRODUCT LIABILITY
`
`196 FRANCHISE
`
`REAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`210 LAND CONDEMNATION
`220 FORECLOSURE
`230 RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT
`240 TORTS TO LAND
`245 TORT PRODUCT LIABILITY
`290 ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY
`
`TORTS - PERSONAL INJURY - "4" MONTHS
`DISCOVERY TRACK
`
`310 AIRPLANE
`
`315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY
`
`320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & SLANDER
`
`330 FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
`
`340 MARINE
`
`345 MARINE PRODUCT LIABILITY
`
`350 MOTOR VEHICLE
`
`355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY
`
`360 OTHER PERSONAL INJURY
`362 PERSONAL INJURY - MEDICAL
` MALPRACTICE
`365 PERSONAL INJURY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
`367 PERSONAL INJURY - HEALTH CARE/
` PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY
`368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT
` LIABILITY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TORTS - PERSONAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHS
`DISCOVERY TRACK
`370 OTHER FRAUD
`371 TRUTH IN LENDING
`380 OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE
`385 PROPERTY DAMAGE PRODUCT LIABILITY
`
`
`BANKRUPTCY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`
`422 APPEAL 28 USC 158
`
`423 WITHDRAWAL 28 USC 157
`
`IMMIGRATION - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`462 NATURALIZATION APPLICATION
`465 OTHER IMMIGRATION ACTIONS
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`463 HABEAS CORPUS- Alien Detainee
`510 MOTIONS TO VACATE SENTENCE
`530 HABEAS CORPUS
`535 HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY
`540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
`550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed Pro se
`555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed Pro se
`560 CIVIL DETAINEE: CONDITIONS OF
` CONFINEMENT
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed by Counsel
`555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed by Counsel
`
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`625 DRUG RELATED SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
` 21 USC 881
`690 OTHER
`
`LABOR - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
`710 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
`720 LABOR/MGMT. RELATIONS
`740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
`751 FAMILY and MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
`790 OTHER LABOR LITIGATION
`791 EMPL. RET. INC. SECURITY ACT
`
`SOCIAL SECURITY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`862 BLACK LUNG (923)
`863 DIWC (405(g))
`863 DIWW (405(g))
`864 SSID TITLE XVI
`865 RSI (405(g))
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
`TRACK
`
`870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)
`871 IR