`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907-RWS-KNM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN
`OPPOSITION TO BP, P.L.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Plaintiffs, SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (“Plaintiffs” or “SIPCO”), respectfully move the
`
`Court for an Order enlarging the time for SIPCO to file an opposition to BP, p.l.c.’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Misjoinder (“Motion to Dismiss”)(Dkt. No. 87) from
`
`June 13, 2016, to June 27, 2016. Defendants, Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process
`
`Management LLLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., Rosemount, Inc., BP America, Inc., BP
`
`America Production Company and BP, p.l.c.1 (together, “Defendants”) do not oppose this
`
`motion. This is SIPCO’s first request for an enlargement of time to file an opposition to the
`
`
`1 BP, p.l.c., the entity that filed the instant Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 87), has not filed an Answer to the Amended
`Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 89 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, SIPCO respectfully requests the Court to
`
`Grant this unopposed motion.
`
`1.
`
`This case involves U.S. Patent Nos.: 7,697,492; 6,437,692; 6,914,893; 6,249,516;
`
`7,468,661; 8,000,314; 8,233,471; 8,625,496; 8,754,780; 8,908,842 and 8,013,732 (together “the
`
`Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`Through its Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19), SIPCO seeks a judgment, inter
`
`alia, that the Defendants infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`Through their respective Answers (Dkt. Nos. 30, 49 and 52), Defendants deny
`
`that SIPCO is entitled to the relief sought in the Amended Complaint.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`BP, p.l.c. filed the Motion to Dismiss on May 25, 2016.
`
`Because of pre-planned attorney vacations and planned time off over the
`
`intervening Memorial Day holiday weekend, counsel for SIPCO requested and received
`
`Defendants’ assent to a two week extension of the deadline to file an opposition to BP, p.l.c.’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss.
`
`6.
`
`This is the first request SIPCO has made to extend the deadline to file an
`
`opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. This request is not an attempt to delay, but rather to further
`
`the interests of justice.
`
`7.
`
`A Proposed Order is attached to this joint motion as Exhibit A.
`
`Wherefore, for the reasons set forth herein, SIPCO respectfully requests the Court to
`
`Grant this Motion and extend SIPCO’s due date from June 13, 2016 to June 27, 2016 as set forth
`
`in the Proposed Order, attached hereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 89 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul J. Cronin by permission Claire A. Henry
`Paul J. Cronin, (MA Bar No. 641230)
`James C. Hall (MA Bar No. 656019)
`Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, MA 02210-2604
`Telephone: (617) 439-2000
`Facsimile: (617) 310-9000
`Email: pcronin@nutter.com
`Email: jhall@nutter.com
`
`T. John Ward, Jr., State Bar No. 00794818
`Claire Henry, State Bar No. 24053063
`Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
`1127 Judson Rd., Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`Email: ch@wsfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record
`
`by email on this 8th day of June, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Claire Abernathy Henry
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
