`
` 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