throbber
Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
` 1
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS,
`INC., AND ROSEMOUNT, INC.,
` PLAINTIFFS,
`vs.
`SIPCO, LLC, AND IP CO, LLC
`(D/B/A INTUS IQ),
` DEFENDANTS.
`
`SIPCO, LLC, AND IP CO, LLC
`(D/B/A INTUS IQ),
` PLAINTIFFS,
`vs.
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.,
` DEFENDANTS.
`
`
`
`:
`:
` :
` :
` :
`: CIVIL ACTION FILE
`: NO. 1:15-CV-0319-AT
`:
` :
` :
` :
`
`:
` :
` :
` :
`: CIVIL ACTION FILE
`: NO. 1:16-CV-2690-AT
` :
` :
` :
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS PROCEEDINGS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE AMY TOTENBERG
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`AUGUST 10, 2016
`2:48 P.M.
`
`
`MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY OF PROCEEDINGS AND COMPUTER-AIDED
`TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
`
`SHANNON R. WELCH, RMR, CRR
`1949 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
`75 TED TURNER DRIVE, SOUTHWEST
`ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
`(404) 215-1383
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 2
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
` FOR THE EMERSON AND BP ENTITIES:
`
`
`
`DONALD L. JACKSON
`JAY BERQUIST
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`
` WILLIAM V. CUSTER
` DAMON J. WHITAKER
` BRYAN CAVE
`
` RYAN T. PUMPIAN
` BLOOM SUGARMAN
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE SIPCO, LLC, AND IP CO, LLC, ENTITIES:
`
`
`
`PAUL J. CRONIN
`JAMES C. HALL
`NUTTER LAW FIRM
`
` J. CHRISTOPHER FOX, II
` THOMPSON HINE
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 3
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`(Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia; August 10, 2016.)
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon.
`MR. CRONIN: Good afternoon.
`THE COURT: All right. I know you've been
`circulating to a lot of courts, and I haven't seen you in
`person. So I am looking forward to hearing from you all.
`We are here for Emerson Electric Company, et al., vs.
`SIPCO, LLC, et al., Civil Action Number 15-CV-319. And we have
`SIPCO vs. Emerson Electric, which has been transferred here.
`It is 16-CV-2690, if that is really the right number.
`COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK: That is the correct number,
`Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Counsel, would you go ahead and introduce
`yourselves for the record.
`MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor. This is Don Jackson
`on behalf of the Emerson and BP entities.
`MR. BERQUIST: Jay Berquist, Your Honor, also for
`
`Emerson.
`
`MR. CUSTER: Your Honor, Bill Custer. I'm here with
`Damon Whitaker. We're with the Bryan Cave firm. And we're
`here on behalf of Emerson.
`MR. PUMPIAN: And I'm Ryan Pumpian with Bloom
`Sugarman on behalf of the BP entities.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 4 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 4
`
`MR. WHITAKER: Your Honor, I'm Damon Whitaker. I'm
`here on behalf of Emerson.
`THE COURT: Great.
`MR. CRONIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`Paul Cronin. I'm with the Nutter firm from Boston. We
`represent SIPCO and IP CO in both cases.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. HALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jim Hall from
`also Nutter also representing SIPCO and IP CO.
`MR. FOX: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm Chris Fox
`from Thompson Hine here in Atlanta. I'm also with SIPCO and
`IP CO.
`
`THE COURT: Great. All right. Well, we have a
`flurry of filings. And as you can see, I was just finishing a
`trial. So I'm not quite as completely studied as I prefer to
`be. But I have at least read a good deal. But I have a bunch
`of questions.
`I'm going to -- I won't be able to dispose of
`everything in front of me. But at least I can deal with the
`motion for transfer in terms of just asking some questions and
`getting us in a posture where I can also deal with the motion
`for -- it was a motion also to enjoin defendants from
`prosecuting the second filed action, which is obviously
`intimately related with the motion for transfer.
`We have substantively the motion to limit the number
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 5 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 5
`
`of asserted claims and prior art references. I'm totally
`unprepared to deal with that at this juncture. But we can at
`least chat about it.
`We are going to talk a little bit about the motion to
`amend the protective order and the filing of the motion to
`transfer under seal.
`There is also BP's motion to sever and stay. It
`seems to me it is related directly to where this is going to be
`heard on the transfer issue.
`There are a number of other pending motions in
`16-CV-2690 that probably I can't get to at this juncture unless
`they were directly related to where we're going to hear their
`case for confidentiality issues.
`We have a lot of motions to file surreplies. And I
`don't know whether that is something that is routinely approved
`in the Eastern District of Texas so that everyone has gotten
`used to doing that. We don't routinely approve them. That
`doesn't mean I won't ever consider them. But I just wanted to
`say don't assume that I'll approve it because I don't routinely
`approve it. But if I do, I usually say, okay, but five pages,
`unless there is something unusual.
`All right. I thought it would be most helpful if I
`could just ask you, first of all, some questions about the
`motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas and
`its associated related motions that were filed by Emerson.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 6 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 6
`
`This is a question to Emerson's counsel. And just if
`you would -- you know, at some point, I may have you up for a
`good long time. But maybe until then, just be sure that you
`have got the microphone in front of you. You don't have to
`stand up until you come up front. Because if you stand up,
`you'll be even further away from the microphone.
`So explain to me this basic thing. In the motion to
`transfer filed by SIPCO, they say on Page 14 Emerson witnesses
`located in and around Round Rock, Texas, which houses
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems' headquarters and Emerson Process
`Management's 70 million-dollar facility for demonstrating its
`products to customers. Will have information relevant to both
`infringement, willfulness, and damages.
`Let's forget BP for a second. Talk to me about that
`sentence, which is -- you've given a lot of information to me
`about the witnesses. But because I don't know your business, I
`don't know really what that means that you -- Emerson's -- when
`they -- when SIPCO says your witnesses are housed around this
`referring to these -- the headquarters and the Emerson Process
`Management facility for showing products, I don't have any idea
`what precisely that means.
`And I'm not sure I got any further clarification from
`your submission. So if somebody wants to come up. And if that
`is more than a two-sentence answer, come on up to the
`microphone.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 7 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 7
`
`MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I'll do my best to address
`that. There's several points. First of all, Round Rock,
`Texas, is in the Eastern District of Texas. So as it relates
`to whether facilities in Round Rock are relevant to transfer to
`the Eastern District of Texas, that is really -- that is off
`point.
`
`Second of all -- and this is --
`THE COURT: Remind me which district in Texas it is
`
`in.
`
`MR. JACKSON: It is in the Southern District.
`MR. BERQUIST: Southern District.
`MR. JACKSON: Southern or Western. It is one of the
`two. It would be in the district where Austin, Texas, is. I
`think that is the Southern District. But I could be wrong
`about that.
`As a little bit of background, there are three --
`well, there are technically in the transferred case four
`Emerson entities. There is Emerson Electric Company, which is
`the parent company. And it is largely a holding company.
`There are two operating subsidiaries, Rosemount, Inc., and
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.
`And then there is a third subsidiary -- and these are
`indirect subsidiaries of Emerson Electric Co.
`THE COURT: I'm sorry. Just one second.
`(There was a brief pause in the proceedings.)
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 8 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 8
`
`THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
`MR. JACKSON: And the fourth Emerson entity is an
`entity called Emerson Process Management, LLLP. LLLP is a
`limited liability limited partnership comprised of Rosemount,
`Inc., and Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.
`So in terms of operating entities, we're really only
`dealing with the two, Rosemount, Inc., and Fisher-Rosemount
`Systems, Inc. Most of these -- the truth is this entire line
`of products was developed by Rosemount up in Minnesota.
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., sells one model out
`of this entire line of products. All the rest of them are sold
`by the Rosemount entity, not Fisher-Rosemount, in terms of the
`entities that are in this case. And Fisher-Rosemount Systems,
`Inc., makes many other products that are completely unrelated
`to these wireless products.
`I have not visited the facility in Round Rock, Texas,
`to see exactly what is there. But given the sheer, you know,
`number of other products that Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.,
`makes compared to the one gateway that it sells, which by the
`way is also a product that was developed by Rosemount in
`Minnesota, I think that that is a very, very minor -- even
`assuming it has been shown there. I think it is such a minor
`portion of the products at issue that that is not really a
`factor for transferring to either the Southern or the Western
`District of Texas, whichever the case may be with respect to
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 9 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 9
`
`Round Rock.
`There has really been no evidence as to exactly what
`it is that is being shown in that facility. This statement
`here is largely a paraphrase of something from one of the
`Emerson websites. There's nothing beyond what you see here in
`terms of evidence that would point to whether these products,
`you know, are being sold in this facility or not.
`And to be honest with Your Honor, as I stand here
`today, I don't know for sure one way or the other. I suspect,
`in fact, they are probably not. These are largely Rosemount
`products.
`
`The other question you had was about witnesses. I
`think it would be --
`THE COURT: No. I just was -- so Emerson Process
`Management is the holding company or -- they refer to Emerson's
`$70 million for demonstrating its products to customers. What
`is that?
`
`MR. JACKSON: Let me address also the name Emerson
`Process Management. So the reality is it has taken us as
`outside counsel quite a while working with Emerson to
`understand their corporate structure.
`Not only does Emerson Electric Company have many,
`many subsidiaries that are actually legal entities, such as the
`other two defendants in this case, but it also groups its
`companies by what it calls business platforms.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 10 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 10
`
`And so Emerson Process Management is not a legal
`entity per se. It is a business platform. Now, confusingly
`within that business platform is Emerson Process Management,
`LLLP. But when the website talks about Emerson Process
`Management, it is referring to the business platform that is
`called Emerson Process Management, which is a collection of
`companies that not only include Rosemount and Fisher-Rosemount
`Systems, Inc., and the LLLP entity but also additional legal
`entities.
`
`So that is -- that is very loose language. Any time
`that is looked at on a website from Emerson, it is -- it is not
`specific enough for you to say what legal entities are
`included, what legal entities are not included.
`Emerson also has other business platforms as well
`where they do the same thing. There is one called Emerson
`Network Power. That is a group of other companies that do
`different business operations. But it is a group of companies,
`rather.
`
`(There was a brief pause in the proceedings.)
`MR. JACKSON: Yes. So with respect -- I'm sorry.
`Did I answer your question, Your Honor?
`THE COURT: More or less. You can go ahead with the
`yellow sticky that you just received.
`MR. JACKSON: I was going to loop back to the
`witnesses.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 11 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 11
`
`THE COURT: All right. I'm still not at the
`witnesses, though.
`So this facility where products are shown to
`customers, would that include some -- many of the items that
`would have been captured by the patents under which SIPCO is
`suing?
`
`MR. JACKSON: I don't believe that to be the case,
`Your Honor. Again, there is only one product that is sold by
`the Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., entity, which is also
`located in the Round Rock, Texas, area. And, again, I haven't
`been there. I can't tell you with absolute certainty.
`But I can tell you there is no evidence in the record
`as to whether any of these products are actually being sold
`there or not.
`THE COURT: All right. All right. So what type of
`operation for Emerson -- if it was -- we were just solely
`focused on the alleged infringer's activities -- again forget
`BP. Forget the world of jurisdiction and the Supreme Court.
`Where would be the center -- from your perspective the nucleus
`of activity that would relate to the patents at issue that they
`have raised and you have raised?
`MR. JACKSON: It would easily be Minneapolis. The
`Minneapolis metropolitan area is where Rosemount is located. A
`large percentage of the Emerson Process Management business
`platform executives are in the Minneapolis area. And their
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 12 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 12
`
`research and development is done there. A large part of the
`manufacturing is done there. I think components are sourced
`from probably around the world. But in terms of final
`assembly, tests, research and development, it is all in the
`Minneapolis area.
`THE COURT: All right. And, again, before we get to
`witnesses -- because you have provided a lot on that. And I
`almost think it would be more useful for me to hear from you
`about the witnesses after they have had a chance to respond to
`your response on that.
`If you could tell me in as plain of English as is
`feasible under these circumstances, what are the two -- what do
`the two patents that you selected to have the declaratory
`judgment action sort of focused on? What do those deal with
`and what are -- what are all these other ones, from your
`perspective? What are their connections?
`I know we already have an overlapping determination
`from the district court judge in Texas. So I'm not trying to
`revisit that. I'm just trying to educate myself because the
`judge didn't happen to deal with that. Just reached a
`conclusion.
`MR. JACKSON: Yes. Your question -- are you really
`more focused on understanding the high level of the technology,
`or do you want to understand the relationship among the
`patents?
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 13 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 13
`
`THE COURT: Well, I want you just to, first of all,
`tell me -- if you had to tell your nonexisting 15-year-old
`daughter about what this is all about, what are we doing here
`without the -- then we'll get to the relationships. I think I
`need to understand from your perspective just in as plain
`English as possible. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert
`here.
`
`What are these patents really about and then the
`issue for you, theirs, and then you can say the relationship.
`I'm not looking for any grand thesis. But I think it just --
`again, it is a little bit like saying, well, where does
`everyone live here?
`MR. JACKSON: Right. Well, I do have a 13-year-old
`daughter. So I am used to speaking to a younger teenager.
`We actually brought images -- one image from each of
`the two patents on the off-chance that you did want to hear a
`little bit about the technology. I am not going to attempt to
`go into all of the details of what is in the claims. Just a
`very high level --
`THE COURT: All right. That is what I'm really
`truly -- you know, remember, federal judges are the ultimate
`generalist even if in the Eastern District of Texas they do a
`lot of other things.
`MR. CUSTER: Judge, I had him explain it to me. So
`that is only to assume it is a seventh grader.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 14 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 14
`
`THE COURT: I'm happy to go on the seventh grade
`level. That might be too high.
`Would you like to come over so you can see?
`MR. CRONIN: Please, Your Honor.
`THE COURT: Can you see if you stand right near the
`-- can you see there?
`MR. CRONIN: I can see fine right here.
`THE COURT: Great.
`MR. JACKSON: And I'm sensitive to the fact the court
`reporter is going to need to take down what I say. Should I
`just spin this microphone around so I can point to the figure?
`THE COURT: Shannon is pretty fabulous. So if she
`has trouble hearing you, she is going to let you know. So she
`is beyond fabulous.
`MR. JACKSON: I'll spin it around just in case. So
`you let me know.
`THE COURT: All right.
`MR. JACKSON: So this is Figure 1 from the 511
`patent, which is the Petite patent that we filed the DJ action
`on. The other figure -- let me double-check -- is -- and I'll
`talk about that in a moment.
`But that is Figure 1 from the 062 patent, which is a
`member of the other family, the Brownrigg Family that we also
`filed the DJ on here in this court.
`THE COURT: Right.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 15 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 15
`
`MR. JACKSON: Again, just as a talking point, we
`chose these two figures. Generally speaking, all of the
`devices that are shown here in this cloud representation are --
`in a simplified form, they are a special type of radio. These
`are two-way radios. They can both send and receive messages
`typically.
`And because they can send a message -- in other words
`they can transmit a message. And because they can receive a
`message, they are called transceivers. And you'll see that
`term in the patent when you have the opportunity to really dig
`into the technology.
`The transceivers in this figure are typically shown
`with the Reference Number 135, and you'll see those here
`associated with many of these boxes. This one happens to be a
`145, and there are discrepancies in the patents on both of
`these cases.
`But, generally speaking, these are transceivers.
`Some of these boxes, such as the one with the Number 125, are
`simply transceivers or repeaters. And I'll explain a little
`bit what about that means. But, again, they are radios. These
`are all radios. And they are talking to each other.
`Many of these, such as the one here with the
`transceiver identified as 135, are coupled in some fashion to a
`sensor actuator pair. And the sensor is something that senses
`some sort of condition like temperature. The actuator is
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 16 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 16
`
`something that when it receives a command it does something.
`It takes some action. It could be in certain contexts maybe
`turning something off or taking it on.
`One of the examples in one of the patents is that of
`a thermostat. In a thermostat, you actually have a sensor that
`is measuring the temperature. It does all this internally in
`that setting, but it also turns on and off the heating or
`cooling system. So it is a sensor and an actuator.
`So we have these radios that are coupled to the
`sensor actuator pairs. In one example here, they show it just
`coupled to a sensor -- actually two examples. But these are
`all radios that are sensing data, transmitting that data from
`one radio to another.
`And the purpose of these, this network of radios, is
`to route the information in the case of a sensor back to this
`device that this patent calls a site controller. And it shows
`two of those down here at the bottom of this cloud.
`THE COURT: Well, just on a general level, is it
`correct to say it is a web of sensors that talk to each other
`and can adjust themselves or be adjusted by some simple
`computer and then some of them might activate something and
`they will send the activation notice?
`MR. JACKSON: I think in a general sense, that is
`fair. The only wrinkle -- what I was really driving at with
`these two things here is these things individually act sort of
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 17 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 17
`
`as a bridge between this wireless network and an outside
`network.
`
`THE COURT: I see.
`MR. JACKSON: And so they do play an important role
`when it comes to --
`THE COURT: The site controllers?
`MR. JACKSON: The claims and the overall operation of
`the system. These -- yes, these site controllers -- and I
`believe in certain of the related patents, they are sometimes
`referred to as a gateway or they are referred to as the device
`that performs a gateway function. And we will get into all of
`this when we get into the Markman.
`But the gateway, generally speaking, is a device that
`translates messages from one protocol, in other words, one
`language, into another language that is used on a different
`network. So it is the go-between between the two networks.
`THE COURT: All right. So one of the issues seems to
`be that SIPCO says this is going to be a lot more complicated,
`that I'm going to have to basically listen to the claims on
`each of the patents. It is not just -- I can't just resolve
`this by looking at it from your perspective.
`So from -- you pick this one saying it somehow is
`emblematic for the family.
`What does the family have to do with it now?
`MR. JACKSON: Okay. So the family -- in patent law
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 18 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 18
`
`oftentimes --
`THE COURT: I know what the family means in patent
`law. I'm just wondering what is similar in the family.
`MR. JACKSON: Okay. Generally speaking, these
`figures and other of the figures from this patent appear in
`many of the other patents. In this particular patent family,
`which we referred to as either the SIPCO Family with an S or
`the Petite Family named after the lead inventor, Mr. Petite --
`in this family, the applicants -- Mr. Petite and his attorneys
`tended to file a lot of what are referred to as continuations
`in part, which means that the second application will
`frequently add subject matter compared to the first one. Or
`actually in many cases in this family, they also would delete
`subject matter, which is a fairly unique approach to
`prosecuting patents in the patent office.
`So sometimes you'll see additional figures.
`Sometimes you will see some of the figures from the parent
`application not continued into the next application. But at
`its core, this concept is present in all of the Petite patents
`and incidentally has a lot of similarities to the other family,
`the Brownrigg Family, which I can talk about in a moment.
`Now, having said that, the different patents have
`specific claim subject matter. Some of the patents in the
`Petite Family focus on the overall system. Some of them view
`the invention from the perspective of the site controller
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 19 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 19
`
`looking back into the network. Some of them look at the
`invention from the perspective of one of these transceivers and
`what it is coupled to and the way it sends data through the
`network. But, again, from a high level, really they are
`talking about various perspectives on this same invention or
`the same system.
`THE COURT: All right. So in essence, though, from
`your perspective, the invalidity contention revolves around
`what?
`
`MR. JACKSON: Well, the invalidity contentions, of
`course, have to deal with all of the permutations of the claims
`and as between the -- formerly the Texas case -- I'll refer to
`it as the Texas case for simplicity. In the Texas case and the
`original case here in Georgia originally, there were asserted a
`total of 211 claims. One claim fell out. We're down to 210
`claims as of a few weeks ago.
`THE COURT: It is amazing what discussion can
`achieve. Go ahead.
`MR. JACKSON: I know. Under the scheduling order
`that was in place in Texas and remains in place today at least,
`the plaintiff in that case, SIPCO and IP CO, were required to
`reduce the number of claims down to 32. They made that
`election -- I don't recall -- a week or two ago.
`In the Georgia case, however, there was no
`limitation. And, hence, the reason we filed the motion to
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 20 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 20
`
`limit the number of asserted claims and prior art references.
`There are currently 30 claims asserted between the two patents
`at issue in the original Georgia case.
`So between the two cases, we're still looking at a
`total of 62 claims, which is by far way, way too much to even
`approach trial on. You can't have a jury trial on 60-something
`claims. I mean, you would be hard pressed to have a reasonable
`jury trial with 20 claims. And that is a small number of
`independent claims and the rest of them being dependent claims.
`THE COURT: All right. Just mindful of the time and
`we've got other issues, I just want you to briefly say what the
`other one deals with.
`MR. JACKSON: Let me briefly talk about the other
`figure, which is a more simple figure. However, in the
`specification of the patent -- the Brownrigg patent, the
`invention -- the alleged invention at least is a little more
`complex.
`
`So this is drawn differently. But it is actually
`fairly similar in structure to the Petite figure. What we have
`over here on the left-hand side are a number of the radios.
`Jay, are the radios the number or the letter A, B, C,
`D, or is it the 20? I think it is the A. It is the letters;
`right?
`
`MR. BERQUIST: I don't remember. One is the device,
`and one is the radio. I'm sorry.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 21 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 21
`
`MR. JACKSON: I think it is the radio. Because here
`is the antenna. It is a symbol for the antenna.
`So we have these radios, again transceivers. They
`transmit and receives messages. A, B, and C. They are coupled
`to these devices that are numbered 20 in the figure. And these
`radios can communicate with themselves or with this other box
`that is shown here by reference numeral 16 with the S. That is
`called the server in the language of the Brownrigg patents.
`These are called clients out here on the left. These are
`clients. And there's a single server.
`And the objective of this system, similar to what we
`saw with the Petite patents, is for these radios here to either
`communicate directly with the server or they can relay messages
`through other clients and get messages back to the server.
`Okay. The server again, you'll see there is another
`network number two out here on the far right similar to what we
`saw before. This device here acts as that intermediary between
`this wireless network and this second network.
`This figure also shows an additional device called a
`router, which is a further separator between the two networks.
`But, again, we have sort of a similar structure. We have a lot
`of these transceiver radios communicating directly or
`indirectly through each other back to this server radio, which
`then relays messages on to network number two.
`And conversely messages can come from network number
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 22 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 22
`
`two back through the server and be relayed directly or
`indirectly to these clients.
`I'm not sure that that was simple enough.
`THE COURT: All right. Once again, you're saying
`that the other patents at issue in the Texas litigation --
`placed at issue are variations of the theme, additions and
`subtractions?
`MR. JACKSON: In the case of this family of patents,
`the Brownrigg Family, they are straight -- what we call
`straight continuations. Every single figure, every single part
`of the specification is identical. The claims can change, and
`they do change. And that becomes material to the story of the
`Brownrigg Family of patents, in fact. But the figures and the
`text that describes the figures is exactly the same.
`THE COURT: All right. So as I understand -- and I'm
`going to let SIPCO's counsel talk -- your position is that
`basically almost all of the work with BP, first of all, wasn't
`in actual development. It was they -- they basically were
`helping to test and you would see how functional it was. But
`that testing was in Cherry Point, Washington, rather than in
`Texas?
`
`MR. JACKSON: Right. So, again, there's multiple
`relevant pieces of information there. BP is a company that is
`actually even much larger than Emerson, as you may know. They
`break their operations down into what they call upstream
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 141 Filed 08/31/16 Page 23 of 73
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` 23
`
`operations, which is developing the oil or the gas from the
`ground. Those would be the wells, and then there's the
`downstream operations, which are the refineries, which turn it
`into usable products.
`The companies that have been accused of infringement
`in this case are the -- some of the upstream companies. So BP
`America Production Company is the company that physically
`operates -- owns and operates the wells.
`It is a completely unrelated legal entity that
`operates the Cherry Point Refinery facility. That is a
`completely -- it is not accused of infringement in this case.
`So that is one issue.
`THE COURT: So what do the ones that are accused of
`infringement do? You have talked about the Cherry Point ones.
`So what are the ones that were supposedly infringing
`with you or joint participants?
`MR. JACKSON: The ones that were alleged to be the
`joint partici

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket