`
`Case 1:16—cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP co, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 6: 15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ROBERT KARSCI-INIA
`
`1, Robert Karschnia, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a competent adult over 18 years of age. I make the following statements
`
`based upon my personal knowledge or upon the corporate knowledge of Rosemount, Inc.
`
`(“Rosemount”) which I have obtained during the course of my employment with Rosemount.
`
`2.
`
`I am the same Vice President/General Manager of Wireless Products, Rosemount
`
`Inc. who submitted an earlier declaration in this matter.
`
`I submit this declaration to supplement
`
`my earlier declaration and address issues raised in connection with the field testing of Emerson’s
`
`Smart Wireless products.
`
`3.
`
`Emerson was involved in the manufacture and sale of process management
`
`products for years before it began development of its Smart Wireless products. Emerson made
`
`and sold sensors that communicate over wired connections long before it began development of
`
`the Smart Wireless line of products.
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`Case 1:16—cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`4.
`
`Emerson’s wired products continue to represent the vast majority of Emerson’s
`
`process management product sales.
`
`5.
`
`The sensors used in Emerson’s product line that communicate over a wired
`
`connection included both a component that could measure a physical characteristic such as
`
`temperature, pressure, product flow, vibration and the like, and a processor that converted that
`
`measurement into a message that can be sent over the connecting wire network to the plant
`
`manager’s work station computer.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that an assertion has been made that BP jointly developed Emerson’s
`
`Smart Wireless products. I have personal knowledge of the development of the Smart Wireless
`
`product line and the testing of that product at the test bed BP provided to test those products.
`
`I
`
`strongly disagree with the assertion that BP jointly developed Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`products.
`
`I also strongly disagree with the assertion that BP directed or controlled Emerson’s
`
`development of those products.
`
`7.
`
`Emerson designed and developed its Smart Wireless products. Emerson worked
`
`with a vendor of wireless communication products as part of its development of the Smart
`
`Wireless products, but BP played no role in the development of those products. BP did,
`
`however, agree to “trial” the products Emerson developed in their plant in order to support our
`
`product introduction and as part of their process to evaluate new technology. The products BP
`
`tested were provided to BP at no expense to BP in test-ready form. BP obligated itself to allow
`
`Emerson to test the functionality and reliability of its Smart Wireless products within BP’s
`
`facilities but BP exercised no control over that testing other than to reserve the right to object or
`
`terminate that testing if it felt that the testing was dangerous or created a possible safety issue
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`Case 1:16—cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`within their plant. BP was at no time obligated to purchase any of Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`products — all such purchase decisions would be made independent of the Emerson testing.
`
`8.
`
`Emerson’s development of the Smart Wireless products was not done under
`
`contract from BP or any other customer.
`
`9.
`
`Emerson does not control BP’s placement or use of the products BP buys from
`
`Emerson and BP does not control how Emerson, or any other purchaser of the Smart Wireless
`
`products, use those products.
`
`10.
`
`Emerson solicits feedback as wells as product requests and suggestions in order to
`
`improve its products or to promote additional sales of those products. That solicitation and
`
`customer involvement is a standard engineering practice at Emerson. Emerson researches
`
`market opportunities and current product offerings in order to determine which new products
`
`might present the biggest market opportunities. This practice involved, and continues to involve,
`
`significant research to gain an understanding of customer’s problems. Emerson uses that
`
`research to identify products for development, whether it be just an extension of an existing
`
`product line or the creation of an entirely new product offering.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to facilitating testing of the Smart Wireless products Emerson supplied
`
`and evaluated within their plant, BP was an early adopter of Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`technology.
`
`12.
`
`Emerson did not limit its testing of the Smart Wireless products to just BP.
`
`Multiple customers, including Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Shell and
`
`BASF all provided test facilities in which to test products within the Smart Wireless product line.
`
`13.
`
`Emerson evaluates potential component substitutions as part of its on-going
`
`development effort. Different antennae are something that Emerson works on all of the time.
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`Case 1:16—cv-02690-AT Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`Emerson did propose a new antennae to BP Alaska as one possible way of addressing a range
`
`issued that company identified. That proposed product was developed as a result of a problem
`
`BP identified, but it was Emerson who developed a product solution to that problem. To my
`
`knowledge, BP Alaska has not purchased the product solution Emerson offered for that problem.
`
`That product solution is not exclusive to BP and Emerson has presented that same product to
`
`others customers.
`
`14.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: May 5, 2016
`
`