`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ABB, Ltd., ABB, Inc., MEADWESTVACO
`TEXAS, LP and MEADWESTVACO
`CORPORATION,
`
` Defendants.
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`MOTIVA ENTERPRISES, LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS CORP., et al.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:11-cv-00622-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:11-cv-00623-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:11-cv-00624-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION’S AMENDED
`DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`PURSUANT TO LOCAL PATENT RULE 3-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 3-1 of the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases Before the Eastern
`
`District of Texas (“the Patent Rules” or “P.R.”), ROY-G-BIV Corporation (“Plaintiff”)
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`hereby submits its Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
`
`Contentions, including the claim charts previously served on September 14, 2012 as
`
`Exhibits A-D, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and accompanying Exhibit E.
`
`This disclosure is made solely for the purpose of this action.
`
`Discovery in this matter is at a very early stage and is ongoing. The Defendants
`
`have not yet produced any documents and things, any computer source code, or provided
`
`any deposition testimony or other discovery in this action. RGB’s investigation regarding
`
`these and other potential grounds of infringement is ongoing. This patent rule disclosure is
`
`based upon information that RGB has been able to obtain publicly, together with RGB’s
`
`current good faith beliefs regarding each accused apparatus, product, device, process,
`
`method, act, or other instrumentality (generally referred to herein as “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities” and as further defined below) of which Plaintiff is aware, and is given
`
`without prejudice to RGB’s rights to obtain leave, as necessary, to supplement or amend its
`
`disclosure as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, research is completed
`
`and/or claims are construed, especially the review of Defendants’ confidential information
`
`including source code, documents, and deposition testimony. For example, the selection of
`
`figures shown in Exhibits A-E, including but not limited to those depicting the location of
`
`and identifying the presence of claim elements in the Accused Instrumentalities, is
`
`illustrative and may change after review of Defendants’ confidential information including
`
`source code and related information. Accordingly, Plaintiff explicitly reserves the right to
`
`amend and/or supplement Exhibits A-E regarding direct and/or indirect infringement, as
`
`well as literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents based
`
`upon evidence uncovered in this litigation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`These disclosures also are based at least in part upon RGB’s present understanding
`
`of the meaning and scope of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in the absence of
`
`claim construction proceedings for all the patents-in-suit or discovery in this matter. Any
`
`references in Exhibits A-E to prior claim constructions refer to the Markman Order issued
`
`in ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. FANUC Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00418-DF in which certain
`
`terms of the ‘236, 543 and ‘058 Patents (as defined below) were construed by the Court,
`
`and are provided merely for the convenience of the parties and are not to be construed as
`
`admissions or a waiver of other claim constructions that RGB may propose during the
`
`Markman phase of this case. RGB reserves the right to seek leave to supplement or amend
`
`these disclosures if its understanding of the claim terms change, including if the Court
`
`further construes them.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(a), Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants currently
`
`infringe and/or have infringed at least the following claims:
`
`(a)
`
`Defendants ABB, Inc. and ABB, Ltd (collectively “ABB”) currently
`
`infringe and/or have infringed under one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g)
`
`(either individually, jointly, or jointly in concert with their customers such as
`
`Meadwestvaco Texas, LP and Meadwestvaco Corporation (collectively, “Meadwestvaco”),
`
`or by inducing and/or contributing to infringement by customers such as Meadwestvaco):
`
`(i) claims 1-5 of United States Patent No. 6,513,058 (“the ‘058 Patent”); (ii) claims 1-10 of
`
`United States Patent No. 6,516,236 (“the ‘236 Patent); (iii) claims 5-16 of United States
`
`Patent No. 6,941,543 (“the ‘543 Patent”); and (iv) claims 16-30 and 46-59 of United States
`
`Patent No. 8,073,557 (“the ‘557 Patent”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Defendant Meadwestvaco currently infringes and/or has infringed
`
`under one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) (either individually, jointly, or
`
`jointly in concert with ABB): (i) claims 1-5 of the ‘058 Patent; (ii) claims 1-10 of the ‘236
`
`Patent; (iii) claims 5-16 of the ‘543 Patent; and (iv) claims 16-30 and 46-59 of the ‘557
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(e): (1) the asserted claims of the ‘058 Patent, claims 1-
`
`9 of the ‘236 Patent, and the asserted claims of the ‘543 and ‘557 Patents are each entitled
`
`to the benefit of the May 30, 1995 filing date of United States Application Serial No.
`
`08/454,736, which issued as United States Patent No. 5,691,897; and (2) claim 10 of the
`
`‘236 Patent is entitled to the benefit of the May 30, 1996 filing date of United States Patent
`
`Application Serial No 08/656,421, which issued as United States Patent No. 5,867,385.
`
`3.
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-1(f), Plaintiff’s XMC software, when used alone or in
`
`combination with third party hardware, such as third-party motion control devices,
`
`computers, and other objects incorporates or reflects each of the asserted claims of the
`
`‘058, ‘236, ‘543 and ‘557 Patents.
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to P.R 3-1(b)-(d), Exhibits A-E identify which of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities infringe each asserted claim, as well as where each limitation of the claim
`
`is literally found in the Accused Instrumentalities. To the extent that any of the limitations
`
`in claims 7-10 of the ‘236 patent are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), Plaintiff’s expects
`
`that ABB’s source code or other confidential information will be required to identity the
`
`structure (i.e., software code) that performs the claimed function in the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. Based upon its review and analysis of publicly available documents,
`
`Plaintiff asserts the claims are literally infringed. To the extent Defendants successfully
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`argue that any of the limitations are not literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`the charts identify illustrative support for where the equivalent feature is found under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents pursuant to the function-way-result and/or insubstantial differences
`
`tests.
`
`5.
`
`As used herein and in the accompanying exhibits, the following terms have
`
`the following meanings:
`
`(a)
`
`The term “Accused Instrumentalities” means Industrial System
`
`800xA Systems, as defined further below.
`
`(i)
`
`The term “Industrial System 800xA Systems” means the
`
`systems and sub-systems described as such in Exhibits A-E and includes systems
`
`incorporating one or more Industrial System 800xA Drivers and, depending upon the claim
`
`at issue, one or more Industrial System 800xA Servers, one or more Industrial System
`
`800xA Application Programs, and Industrial System 800xA Hardware, as further defined
`
`below.
`
`
`
`(A)
`
`The term “Industrial System 800xA” Server means
`
`software identified as such in Exhibits A-E, including the software marketed by ABB as the
`
`“Connectivity Server” and/or the “Real Time Database” and any software implementing
`
`the same or similar functionality to that disclosed for Industrial System 800xA Servers in
`
`Exhibits A-E;
`
`(B)
`
`The term “Industrial System 800xA Application
`
`Program” means any application program that comprises hardware independent function
`
`calls exposed by any Industrial System 800xA Server, which on information and belief
`
`includes but is not necessarily limited to those application programs described in Exhibits
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`A-E, including Industrial IT System 800xA Operations, System 800xA Smart Client,
`
`System 800xA Engineering Tools, Panel 800, Compact HMI 800, the Aspect Server, and
`
`all application programs based upon the Industrial System 800xA Systems including but
`
`not limited to those application programs that offer the same or similar functionality to that
`
`disclosed in Exhibits A-E and/or which are offered in the various industries and submarkets
`
`listed
`
`on
`
`ABB’s
`
`website
`
`at
`
`the
`
`following
`
`links:
`
`http://www.abb.com/product/seitp334/102b314866674ccdc12572bb0031ea42.aspx.
`
`(C)
`
`The term “Industrial System 800xA Drivers” means
`
`identified in Exhibits A-E, as well as any drivers that expose functions corresponding to
`
`function calls made by any Industrial System 800xA Server, which on information and
`
`belief includes but is not necessarily limited to Industrial System 800xA OPC Servers;
`
`drivers for controllers such as AC800M, AC500, ACS800, IRC5; and drivers used by PLC
`
`Connect or other architecturally equivalent interfaces that communicate with Industrial
`
`System 800xA Hardware, as further defined below; and
`
`(D)
`
`The term “Industrial System 800xA Hardware”
`
`means any hardware identified in Exhibits A-E as well as any controller or motion control
`
`device hardware corresponding to any Industrial System 800xA Driver, which on
`
`information and belief includes but is not necessarily limited to the AC800M, AC500,
`
`ACS800, and IRC5, and any controllers and motion control devices for which an OPC
`
`Server or equivalent architectural interface exists.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`Dated: November 6, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for
`
`
`
`7
`
`/s/ Richard S. Meyer
`William A. Isaacson
`D. Michael Underhill
`Richard S. Meyer
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20015
`Telephone: 202.237.2727
`Fax: 202.237.6131
`E-mail: wisaacson@BSFLLP.com
`E-mail: munderhill@BSFLLP.com
`E-mail: rmeyer@BSFLLP.com
`
`Lance Lubel
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 12651125
`Adam Voyles
`Lubel Voyles LLP
`5020 Montrose Blvd., 8th Floor
`Houston, Texas 77006
`Tel: (713) 284-5200
`E-mail: lance@lubelvoyles.com
`E-mail: adam@lubelvoyles.com
`
`Gregory P. Love
`Texas Bar No. 24013060
`STEVENS LOVE
`P. O. Box 3427
`Longview, Texas 75606-3427
`903.753.6760
`903.753.6761 (Fax)
`E-mail: greg@stevenslove.com
`
`Russell A. Chorush
`Texas State Bar No. 24031948
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
`JP Morgan Chase Tower
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 221-2000
`Fax: (713) 221-2021
`E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
`
`Attorneys
`Corporation
`
`Plaintiff
`
`ROY-G-BIV
`
`Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 6, 2012, counsel of record for the parties are being
`
`served a copy of the foregoing document via E-mail:
`
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Allen F. Gardner
`POTTER MINTON
`A Professional Corporation
`110 N. College Ave., Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`Steven M. Auvil
`BENESCH FRIEDLANDER
`COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
`200 Public Square, Suite 2300
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2378
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Patrick M. Lafferty____________
`Patrick M. Lafferty
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 8
`
`
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
