`
`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-JRG-KNM
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`EMERGENCY OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PENDING TRANSFER
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGMENT LLLP,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP PLC, BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants respectfully request a stay pending transfer of this action.
`
`The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 1, 2016 [Dkt. No. 98]. Pursuant to Local Rule
`
`CV-83(b), the Court may not transmit the case file for at least 21 days after the order granting
`
`transfer is entered. Certain critical filing dates are currently pending in this action, and will be
`
`due prior to transfer. Plaintiffs oppose this motion.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Amended Docket Control Order in this action [Dkt. 73], the parties are to
`
`file the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement required by P.R. 4-3 on July 7, 2016.
`
`On that same day, the parties are to also file Amended Pleadings, including inequitable conduct
`
`allegations, and Defendant BP p.l.c. must file its Reply in support of its Motion to Dismiss. Each
`
`of these filings has an extremely short fuse and will require the expenditure of significant effort
`
`and resources. It does not make sense to make these additional filings in this action now. Given
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 99 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`the existing transfer Order, it is unlikely this Court has any interest in receiving these additional
`
`filings and it is not clear that the Georgia transferee court will need or benefit from those filings.
`
`For example, the Georgia District Court does not have the numerical limitation imposed by this
`
`Court’s P.R. 4-3. Moreover, the Georgia District Court does not include a deadline by which
`
`inequitable conduct must be pled. Preparing and filing these materials would impose a
`
`significant, potentially unnecessary burden on the parties.
`
`
`
`As grounds for opposing the proposed requested stay, the SIPCO/IPCO plaintiffs advised
`
`that they did not want to delay the claim construction process in this case because the claim
`
`construction briefing is complete in the Georgia action. But it is not clear how the Georgia
`
`District Court would proceed given the fact that a total of 210 patent claims of 13 patents are at
`
`issue in the two proceedings. That court might keep the two actions separate or it might
`
`consolidate the two. If the two actions are consolidated, it is possible that the Georgia District
`
`Court would render the case more manageable by requiring SIPCO/IPCO to identify a
`
`reasonable number of claims to assert. Given these uncertainties, it is not clear how filing the
`
`required P.R. 4-3 here would advance resolution of any aspect of the Georgia action.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants move this Court for an Order vacating the pending due dates pending
`
`transfer of this action.
`
`
`Dated: July 5, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James Berquist _
`Donald L. Jackson
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 99 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Emerson Electric
`Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and
`Rosemount Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on July 5, 2016.
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to L.R. CV-7(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Defendants
`
`met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs on July 1 and July 5, 2016 and have complied with
`
`L.R. CV- 7(h). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, conclusively leaving the parties at an impasse, and
`
`an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
`/s/ Bobby Lamb
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`