IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.
`
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-00898-RWS
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`EMERSON PROCESS MANAGEMENT, ET
`AL.
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., ET
`AL.
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION, ET
`AL.
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`YASKAWA AMERICA, INC., ET
`AL.
`
`AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE
`SOLUTIONS, INC.
`V.
`MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP., ET
`AL.
`
`§
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01266-RWS
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01269-RWS
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01539-RWS
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01771-RWS
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§ CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01982-RWS
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ IDENTIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSED CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE UNDER PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-2
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 4-2 of the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the Eastern District
`
`of Texas and the Court’s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 96) and Joint (Proposed) Discovery Order
`
`(Dkt. 82), Defendants Invensys Systems, Inc. and Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Invensys”), Emerson Process Management, LLLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., Rosemount,
`
`Inc., Emerson Industrial Automation USA Inc., Emerson Industrial Automation USA LLC and
`
`Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. (collectively “Emerson”), Rockwell
`
`Automation, Inc. and Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Rockwell”),
`
`Kollmorgen Corporation and Danaher Corporation (collectively “Kollmorgen”), Yaskawa
`
`America, Inc. (“Yaskawa”), VIPA USA, Inc. (“VIPA”), Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi
`
`Electric U.S. Holdings, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Inc. (collectively “Mitsubishi”)
`
`(altogether referred to as “Defendants”) hereby identify certain preliminary proposed claim
`
`constructions and extrinsic evidence related to terms of United States Patent No. 6,513,058 (“the
`
`‘058 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236 (“the ‘236 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,941,543 (“the ‘543
`
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,073,557 (“the ‘557 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897 (“the ‘897
`
`Patent”).
`
`The identified preliminary proposed claim constructions and extrinsic evidence are based
`
`on Defendants’ analysis and investigation to date, as well as ongoing discovery. Defendants
`
`reserve the right to amend or supplement this list as the parties engage in further discovery, after
`
`Plaintiff provides meaningful Infringement Contentions, or after receiving Plaintiff’s proposed
`
`claim terms for construction and its proposed constructions. Defendants’ identification of any
`
`claim term for construction is not an admission that a claim containing that term meets the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Groupings of terms in the table below are solely for the purpose
`
`of readability, and are not an admission that terms grouped together should be construed
`
`identically, or that terms not grouped together should be construed differently. Defendants also
`
`reserve the right to propose constructions for combinations of the terms and phrases below and to
`
`propose constructions for shorter phrases contained in the phrases below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`For any term identified in Defendants’ or Plaintiff’s identification of claim terms under
`
`Local Patent Rule 4-1(a) that does not appear in the chart below, Defendants presently contend
`
`that the term does not require construction. Defendants reserve the right to provide a construction
`
`for these and other terms should the need to do so become clear from the proposals of the Plaintiff,
`
`the discussions in the meet and confer process, or additional developments in the litigation (e.g.
`
`Plaintiff’s service of Amended Infringement Contentions).
`
`
`Claim Term For Construction
`
`a desired manner
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`a manner desired by a designer or user of the application
`program
`
`a desired motion sequence
`
`a motion sequence desired by a designer or user of the
`application program
`
`a selected destination of control
`commands
`
`a destination of control commands selected by a designer or
`user of the application program
`
`a set of
`
`two or more
`
`application program
`
`a software program that directly controls each motor using
`base incremental steps
`
`associates
`
`
`
`associated with
`
`component code
`
`cross references
`
`This term is indefinite under Section 112, paragraph 2
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`
`component function
`
`a hardware independent function that corresponds to an
`operation performed by a motion control device
`
`control command generating
`module
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`
`control commands
`
`commands in hardware language specific to a given motion
`control device, which instruct the motion control device to
`perform motion control operations
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term For Construction
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`core driver function
`
`a driver function associated one-to-one with a primitive
`motion control operation
`
`defining a [core/extended] set
`of [core/extended] driver
`functions
`defining a set of component
`functions
`defining a set of motion control
`operations
`
`
`developing a set of software
`drivers
`
`driver code
`
`driver functions
`
`No construction necessary for term string.
`Certain terms within each string have proposed
`constructions provided elsewhere in this chart
`
`No construction necessary for term string.
`Certain terms within each string have proposed
`constructions provided elsewhere in this chart
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`
`hardware independent abstract functions that define the
`parameters necessary to carry out motion control operations
`and that are separate and distinct from the component
`functions
`
`extended driver function
`
`a driver function associated one-to-one with a non-primitive
`motion control operation
`
`the plurality of incremental
`motion step(s)
`
`The full term at left (as used in the ‘897 patent) is indefinite
`because it lacks an antecedent basis.
`“incremental motions steps” means: the smallest increment
`of movement of which each individual stepper motor in a
`motion control device is capable
`
`motion control
`
`controlled movement of an object along a desired path
`
`motion control component /
`motion component
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`
`motion control device
`
`a device comprising a controller and a mechanical system
`capable of moving an object in a controlled manner
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term For Construction
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`motion control operation(s) /
`motion operation
`
`motion steps
`
`network
`
`non-primitive operations / non-
`primitive motion operation
`
`operating/operates on []
`workstation(s)
`the application program runs on
`a first of the plurality of
`workstations
`at least one application program
`operating on a first workstation
`the control command
`generating module on the at
`least one workstation
`the control command
`generating module operates
`on a second of the plurality
`of workstations
`a control command generating
`module operating on a second
`workstation”
`the software system operates on
`a plurality of workstations
`
`
`hardware independent operations that are used to perform
`motion control (such as GET POSITION, MOVE
`RELATIVE, or CONTOUR MOVE) and that are performed
`by a motion control device
`
`steps performed by a motion control device to move an
`object along a desired path
`
`a communications and data exchange system created by
`connecting two or more computers
`
`This term is indefinite under Section 112, paragraph 2
`
`
`
`For reasons set forth in the motion to dismiss briefing (Dkt.
`47, 31 and related filings and argument), the ‘058 patent
`(the only asserted patent including this claim term), is
`invalid because it purports to claim subject matter
`(intangible software) not within a statutory class, 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101; see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.
`2007), and, according to AMS “workstations” are “not
`necessarily structural elements of the systems.” Dkt. 114 at
`p. 5.
`
`
`To the extent “operating on a workstation” connotes a
`required action (as AMS suggested at oral argument, e.g.,
`Aug. 3 Transcript at pp.114-139), the ‘058 patent
`impermissibly claims mixed classes of subject matter
`(process and article of manufacture), rendering the claims
`indefinite. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
`
`
`Alternatively, to the extent “workstation” is a structural
`limitation of the claims, (i.e., there must be a workstation,
`and the claimed software must be operating on it, before
`there can be infringement), then “workstation” should be
`construed as a “personal computer.”
`
`plurality
`
`two or more
`
`primitive operations / primitive
`motion operation
`
`This term is indefinite under Section 112, paragraph 2
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term For Construction
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`providing component code for
`each of the component
`functions
`providing response stream code
`
`selected
`a selected software driver
`selecting one motion control
`device
`selecting a software driver
`selecting at least one of the
`destinations . . . of control
`commands
`selecting from the set of
`software drivers the software
`driver developed for the
`selected motion control device
`
`
`software driver / driver
`
`
`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`
`means for generating command
`data strings for controlling the
`selected motion control device
`based on the command format
`template and the application
`program
`
`means for parsing response
`data strings generated by the
`selected motion control device
`based on the response format
`
`No construction necessary
`
`“Selected” should be construed as: selected by a designer
`or user of the application program
`All other terms within the claim term string do not need
`construction
`
`one or more controller dependent software modules that
`implements all core driver functions and generates motion
`control commands for the specific hardware device or group
`of related hardware devices
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`No construction necessary; Not an asserted claim term
`
`No construction necessary; Not an asserted claim term
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`template and the application
`program
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`a control command generating
`module […] for generating
`control commands based on the
`component functions of the
`application program, the
`component code associated
`with the component functions,
`and the driver code associated
`with the software drivers
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`Function: generating control commands based on the
`component functions of the application program, the
`component code associated with the component functions,
`and the driver code associated with the software drivers
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`component code …
`
`component code associated
`with each of the component
`functions, where the
`component code associates at
`least some of the component
`functions with at least some of
`the driver functions
`component code associates at
`least one of the component
`functions with at least one of
`the driver functions
`component code associates at
`least one component function
`with a plurality of core driver
`functions [and…] associates at
`least one component function
`with one of the core driver
`functions
`component code implements at
`least one extended driver
`function by associating at least
`one component function with a
`plurality of core driver
`functions [and…] implements
`at least one core driver function
`by associating at least one
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6. Specifically, the patents fail to
`disclose sufficient structure under §112, ¶6 for the functions
`recited below; therefore, the claim terms are indefinite.
`Functions:
`
`associates at least some of the component functions with at
`least some of the driver functions
`(claim 1,3,4)
`
`associates at least some of the component functions with at
`least some of the driver functions
`(claim 1)
`
`associates at least one of the component functions with at
`least one of the driver functions
`(claim 16)
`
`[implements] component function
`(claim 46)
`
`associates at least one component function with a plurality
`of core driver functions [and…] associates at least one
`component function with one of the core driver functions
`(claim 17)
`
`implements at least one extended driver function by
`associating at least one component function with a plurality
`of core driver functions [and…] implements at least one core
`driver function by associating at least one component
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`component function with one
`of the core driver functions
`
`component code emulates at
`least one extended driver
`function by associating at least
`one component function with a
`plurality of core driver
`functions [and…] implements
`at least one extended driver
`function by associating at least
`one component function with
`one of the extended driver
`functions [and…] implements
`at least one core driver function
`by associating at least one
`component function with one
`of the core driver functions
`
`driver code for implementing
`…
` … the driver functions
` … the motion control
`operations associated with at
`least some of the driver
`functions (claim 1)
` … all of the core driver
`functions (claim 2)
` … at least some of the
`extended driver functions
`(claim 3)
` … the motion control
`operations identified by at least
`some of the driver functions
` … the supported extended
`driver functions
`
`driver code of at least one
`software driver associates at
`
`
`
`
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`function with one of the core driver functions
`(claims 18, 48)
`
`emulates at least one extended driver function by associating
`at least one component function with a plurality of core
`driver functions [and…] implements at least one extended
`driver function by associating at least one component
`function with one of the extended driver functions [and…]
`implements at least one core driver function by associating
`at least one component function with one of the core driver
`functions
`(claims 19, 49)
`
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6The claimed function for the
`“driver code” in each claim is identified below. The
`specification does not disclose sufficient structure that is
`clearly linked to any of the functions identified
`below. “Driver code” is therefore indefinite in each of these
`claims.
`
`
`
`Functions:
`implementing the driver functions
`(‘058 patent, claims 1, 3, 4)
`
`implementing the motion control operations associated with
`at least some of the driver functions
`(‘236 patent, claim 1)
`
`implementing all of the core driver functions
`(‘236 patent, claim 2)
`
`implementing at least some of the extended driver functions
`(‘236 patent, claim 3)
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`least one driver function with
`at least one control command
`of the at least one [controller
`language / set of control
`commands] associated with at
`least one of the software
`drivers
`
`developing driver code to
`implement all of the core driver
`functions
`developing driver code to
`implement at least some of the
`extended driver functions
`
`driver code to control one or
`more motion control devices
`
`a motion control component for
`generating the sequence of
`control commands for
`controlling the selected motion
`control device based on the
`component functions of the
`application program, the
`component code associated
`with the component functions,
`and the driver code associated
`with the selected software
`driver (claim 1)
`the motion control component
`generates control commands
`based on the driver code
`associated with a combination
`of the core driver functions to
`emulate the motion control
`operations associated with at
`least some of the non-
`supported extended driver
`functions (claim 4)
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`associates at least one driver function with at least one
`control command of the at least one controller language
`associated with at least one of the software drivers
`(‘557 patent, claim 16)
`
`associates at least one driver function with at least one
`control command of the at least one set of control
`commands associated with at least one of the software
`drivers
`(‘557 patent, claim 46)
`
`implementing the motion control operations identified by at
`least some of the driver functions
`(‘897 patent, claim 17)
`
`control one or more motion control devices
`(‘543 patent, claim 1)
`
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6.
`‘236 Patent, Claim 1: Function: generating a sequence of
`control commands for controlling the selected motion
`control device based on the component function of the
`application program, the component code associated with
`the component functions and the driver code associated with
`the selected software driver.
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`‘236 Patent, Claim 4 (to the extent asserted):
`Function: Same as Claim 1, additionally, generates control
`commands based on the driver code associated with a
`combination of the core driver functions to emulate the
`motion control operations associated with at least some of
`the non-supported extended driver functions.
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`the motion control component
`generates the control
`commands further based on the
`contents of the extended
`function pointer table (claim 5)
`motion component exposes an
`application programming
`interface
`
`
`means for determining a driver
`unit system employed by the
`software drivers
`
`means for converting an
`application unit system
`employed by the application
`program into the driver unit
`system
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`‘236 Patent, Claim 5 (to the extent asserted):
`Function: Same as Claim 1, additionally, generates the
`control commands further based on the contents of the
`extended function pointer table.
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6.
`
`Function: “determining a driver unit system employed by
`the software drivers.”
`Structure: “CDriverMgr object within motion component 34,
`as identified in the ‘236 Patent at 11:15–19, 11:58 to 13:6,
`Figs. 6–7, and equivalents thereof.”
`
`‘557 Patent, Claim 16:
`Function: exposes an application programming interface
`comprising a set of component functions
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`‘557 Patent, Claim 27:
`The “motion component” is a “binary module” that performs
`the function recited in claim 16.
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`Function: “converting an application unit system employed
`by the application program into the driver unit system.”
`Structure: “CUnitMapper object within motion component
`34, as identified in the ‘236 Patent at 11:17–22, 12:19–21,
`12:36–38, 12:43–58, Figs 6–7, and equivalents thereof.”
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Term to Be Construed
`Under § 112 ¶ 6
`
`stream control means for
`communicating the control
`commands to the selected
`destination of control
`commands based on the
`transmit stream code contained
`by the stream associated with
`the selected destination of
`control commands (claim 8)
`the stream control means
`processes the response data
`based on the response stream
`code (claim 9)
`
`a controller capable of
`generating electrical signals
`based on at least one control
`command of the controller
`language associated with the
`motion control device (claim
`16)
`
`Preliminary Proposed Construction
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`
`Function: “communicating the control commands to the
`selected destination of control commands based on the
`transmit stream code contained by the stream associated
`with the selected destination of control commands.”
`Structure: “software drivers 30 as identified in the ‘236
`Patent at 20:50–67, Figure 30, and equivalents thereof.”
`
`Subject to construction as means-plus-function terms under
`Section 112, paragraph 6
`Function: “generating electrical signals based on at least one
`control command of the controller language associated with
`the motion control device”
`Structure: No structure, or insufficient structure, disclosed,
`rendering the claim indefinite.
`
`As indicated above, Defendants identify William Howard, Melvin Ray Mercer, and/or
`
`Arthur M. Zatarain, as expert witnesses, who may offer testimony in support Defendants’ claim
`
`construction positions and further in rebuttal to any claim construction positions presented by the
`
`Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants expect to rely on expert testimony to provide an explanation
`
`of the Asserted Patents, the involved technology, and the general state of the art prior to the alleged
`
`inventions of the asserted patent. Defendants further expect to rely on expert testimony regarding
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of the terms used in the Asserted
`
`Patent. Defendants also expect to rely on expert testimony in support of the construction of the
`
`identified terms and the constructions proposed.
`
`For each term which should be constructed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, Defendants expect
`
`to rely on expert testimony regarding the function of the term and then to identify the structure
`
`corresponding to those functions, or to identify when insufficient structure corresponding to the
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`functions
`
`is disclosed
`
`in
`
`the Asserted Patent, and any
`
`resulting
`
`invalidity
`
`for
`
`indefiniteness. Defendants expect to rely on expert testimony that U.S. Patent 6,513,058 fails to
`
`disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the function identified for the control command
`
`generating module, and as a result, claims reciting this term in U.S. Patent 6,513,058 are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. Likewise, Defendants expect to rely on expert testimony that U.S.
`
`Patent 8,073,557 fails to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the function identified for
`
`motion control component, and as a result, claims reciting this term in U.S. Patent 8,073,557 are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2. It should be understood that Defendants expect to rely on
`
`similar expert testimony, as to indefiniteness and/or to identify appropriate structure, for each of
`
`the claims terms designated to be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6. Defendants expect to rely
`
`on expert testimony that that the terms “associated with” and “primitive [] / non-primitive []” are
`
`indefinite, as indicated above. It should be understood that Defendants expect to rely on similar
`
`expert testimony, as to indefiniteness, for each of the claims terms designated indefinite above.
`
`Further, there is a significant amount of evidence that would be typically considered
`
`extrinsic evidence (e.g. dictionary definitions and witness statements) that has been previously
`
`included in reexaminations or IPRs. As such, that material is now considered intrinsic evidence
`
`for these purposes and is not identified herein. Defendants may also rely on treatises and prior art,
`
`for example, the materials identified and described in conjunction with Defendants Invalidity
`
`Contentions under Local Patent Rule 3-3 and referenced in the file histories of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Defendants may also rely on litigation documents from this case and others involving the asserted
`
`patents, including claim construction materials, tutorial materials, and transcripts, Markman
`
`Hearing materials, transcripts, and orders, and depositions of David W. Brown and Jay S. Clark.
`
`In addition to any extrinsic evidence cited above, as well as all administrative and judicial
`
`proceedings relating to the asserted patents, Defendants also identify the following extrinsic
`
`evidence: American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition (1997) (“select”); Webster’s New World
`
`Dictionary, Third College Edition (1994) (“select”); Webster’s Ninth New College Dictionary, at
`
`1064 (1988) (“select”); Terry L. M. Bartelt, Industrial Automated Systems: Instrumentation and
`12
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`Motion Control (2010); National Electrical Manufacturers Association Programmable Motion
`
`Control Handbook (1992). To the extent AMS refers to any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence in its
`
`L.R. 4-2 submission, Defendants incorporate such evidence by this reference and reserve the right
`
`to rely on it, whether or not that evidence is ultimately relied on by AMS. Defendants further
`
`reserve the right to identify additional evidence in response to any evidence identified by AMS.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Cynthia J. Rigsby .
`Cynthia J. Rigsby
`WI Bar No. 1025479
`Kevin J. Malaney
`WI Bar No. 1066371
`Michelle A. Moran
`WI Bar No. 1073653
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5306
`Tel: (414) 319-7067
`Fax: (414) 297-4900
`crigsby@foley.com
`kmalaney@foley.com
`mmoran@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert William Weber
`Texas Bar No. 21044800
`SMITH WEBER LLP
`5505 Plaza Drive
`PO Box 6167
`Texarkana, Texas 75505
`Tel: (903) 223-5656
`Fax: (903) 223-5652
`bweber@smithweber.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Rockwell Automation
`Technologies, Inc. and Rockwell Automation, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Clyde M. Siebman
`Clyde M. Siebman
`clydesiebman@siebman.com
`Texas Bar No. 18341600
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
`Federal Courthouse Square
`300 N. Travis Street
`Sherman, Texas 75090
`Telephone: (903) 870-0070
`Facsimile: (903) 870-0066
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio, P.C.*
`Sean M. McEldowney*
`gregg.locascio@kirkland.com
`sean.mceldowney@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 879-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
`
`Jeanne M. Heffernan*
`jheffernan@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 11109
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Kollmorgen
`Corporation and Danaher Corporation
`
`By: /s/ Joseph A. Saltiel .
`Joseph A. Saltiel
`Steven L. Katz
`MASUDA, FUNAI, EIFERT & MITCHELL,
`LTD.
`203 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1262
`Telephone: (312) 245-7500
`E-mail: jsaltiel@masudafunai.com
`E-mail: skatz@masudafunai.com
`
`Allen F. Gardner
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`102 N College, Suite 800
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: 903.934.8450
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`Fax: 903.934.9257
`allen@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Yaskawa America, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Tonya M. Gray .
`TONYA M. GRAY
`Texas Bar No. 24012726
`tonyagray@andrewskurth.com
`ANDREWS KURTH LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 3700
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: 214-659-4400
`Facsimile: 214-659-4401
`
`Steven P. Petersen (pro hac vice)
`Illinois Bar No. 6196793
`
`spetersen@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD.
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: 312-616-5600
`Telecopier: 312-616-5700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Mitsubishi Electric Corp.,
`Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc. and
`Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Keith B. Davis .
`Keith B. Davis
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 24037895
`Email: o
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood Street
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 969-4528
`Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
`
`Attorneys for Defendants VIPA USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`15
`
`By: /s/ Thad Heartfield .
`J. Thad Heartfield, Attorney In Charge
`Texas Bar No. 09346800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM
`The Heartfield Law Firm
`2195 Dowlen Road
`Beaumont, Texas 77706
`Phone: (409) 866.3318
`Fax: (409) 866.5789
`thad@jth-law.com
`
`Terrence J. Truax
`Peter H. Hanna
`Michael G. Babbitt
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456
`Telephone: (312) 222-9350
`Fax: (312) 527-0484
`ttruax@jenner.com
`phanna@jenner.com
`mbabbitt@jenner.com
`
`Nick G. Saros
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2054
`Telephone: (213) 239-5100
`Fax: (213) 239-5199
`nsaros@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc.
`Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Rudolph A. Telscher .
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.*
`Email: rtelscher@hdp.com
`Kara R. Fussner*
`Email: kfussner@hdp.com
`Steven E. Holtshouser*
`Email: sholtshouser@hdp.com
`Greg W. Meyer*
`Email: gmeyer@hdp.com
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Telephone: 314-726-7500
`Facsimile: 314-726-7501
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`*Pro Hac Vice
`
`and
`
`Michael C. Smith
`State Bar Card No. 18650410
`Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP
`113 East Austin Street
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903.938.8900
`Email: michaelsmith@siebman.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Emerson Process
`Management LLLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems,
`Inc., Rosemount, Inc., Emerson Industrial
`Automation USA Inc., Emerson Industrial
`Automation USA LLC and Emerson Process
`Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Peter H. Hanna, hereby certify that on September 2, 2016, I caused the foregoing
`
`document to be served on all attorneys of record via email.
`
`By: /s/ Peter H. Hanna
`Peter H. Hanna
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`RA v. AMS
`Ex. 1005