Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 3665
`Case 6:l2—cv—00799—JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 52 Page|D #: 3665
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2629Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 52 PageID #: 3666
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`
`§
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`§
`
`
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`§
`v.
`
`§
`
`
`§
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`§
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`§
`
`
`§
`
`Defendants,
`§
`and
`
`§
`
`
`§
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`§
`
`
`§
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`§
`v.
`
`§
`
`
`§
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`§
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant. §
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4-3 and the Court’s Fourth Amended Docket Control
`
`
`
`
`
`Order dated January 22, 2014 (Dkt. 103), Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Invensys
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”) and Defendant Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) and Defendant and
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) hereby submit the following Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. The parties expressly reserve the right to modify
`
`this Joint Statement should the Court issue any relevant rulings, including, but not limited to,
`
`rulings on claim construction or adjustment of case management deadlines and any related
`
`additional disclosures or discovery, between now and the Markman hearing scheduled for May
`
`1, 2014.
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2630Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 52 PageID #: 3667
`
`
`
`
`The Invensys Patents-in-Suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646 entitled “Correcting for
`
`Two-Phase Flow in a Digital Flowmeter” and issued on October 24, 2006 (“the ‘646 Patent”);
`
`7,136,761 entitled “Digital Flowmeter” and issued on November 14, 2006 (“the ‘761 Patent);
`
`6,311,136 entitled “Digital Flowmeter” and issued on October 30, 2001 (“the ‘136 Patent”);
`
`7,505,854 entitled “Startup Techniques for a Digital Flowmeter” and issued on March 17, 2009
`
`(“the ‘854 Patent”); 6,754,594 entitled “Digital Flowmeter and issued on June 22, 2004 (“the
`
`‘594 Patent”); 7,571,062 entitled “Digital Flowmeter” and issued on August 4, 2009 (“the ‘062
`
`Patent”); and 8,000,906 entitled “Digital Flowmeter” and issued on August 16, 2011 (“the ‘906
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Invensys Patents”).
`
`
`
`The Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,555,190 entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Adaptive Line Enhancement in Coriolis Mass Flow Meter Measurement” and
`
`issued on September 10, 1996 (“the ‘190 Patent”) and 6,505,131 entitled “Multi-Rate Digital
`
`Signal Processor for Signals from Pick-Offs on a Vibrating Conduit” and issued on January 7,
`
`2003 (“the ‘131 Patent”) (collectively, the “Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`
`
`Section a of this Joint Claim Construction Statement identifies the claim terms and
`
`phrases of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit and Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit for which the parties
`
`have agreed to a proper construction. Section b and Exhibits A and B contain the parties’
`
`proposed constructions for the disputed terms and phrases of each of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit
`
`and Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit, along with the identification of supporting intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence. Section c contains the parties’ positions regarding the anticipated length of
`
`the claim construction hearing. Section d addresses the expert testimony that the parties may rely
`
`on in support of their proposed claim constructions. Section e addresses the parties’ current
`
`position on the need for a prehearing conference.
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 2631Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 52 PageID #: 3668
`
`
`1. Agreed Constructions of Claim Terms P.R. 4-3(a)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(a), the parties have agreed to the following constructions for the
`
`Invensys Patents-in-Suit:
`
`Patent:Claim Claim Term
`
`
`
`
`
`And as to the Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit, the parties have agreed to the following
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`
`
`constructions:
`
`Patent:Claim Claim Term
`’131: 1, 13, 26
`“decimating said
`samples”
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`“converting from a first number of samples to a lesser
`number of samples”
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Disputed Constructions of Claim Terms P.R. 4-3(b)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), and in the claim term charts attached as Exhibits A (Invensys
`
`Patents-in-Suit) and B (Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit), the parties designate disputed claim
`
`terms, phrases, and clauses and state their positions on the construction of those terms, phrases,
`
`and clauses for each of the Patents-in-Suit. The parties also identify in Exhibits A and B the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, if any, upon which they may rely to support their proposed
`
`constructions. Each party expressly reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic
`
`evidence identified by the other party and any evidence obtained, or that may be obtained,
`
`through claim construction discovery. Each party expressly reserves the right to amend, correct,
`
`or supplement its claim construction positions and supporting evidence in response to any
`
`change of position by the other party, in response to the extrinsic and intrinsic evidence disclosed
`
`by each party, in response to information received through claim construction discovery, in
`
`response to a controlling Court order, or for other good cause. Emerson and Micro Motion
`
`expressly reserve the right to contest the definiteness of any of the terms, phrases, or clauses
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 2632Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 5 of 52 PageID #: 3669
`
`
`identified in Exhibit A and the validity of any claim in the Invensys Patents-in-Suit. Emerson and
`
`Micro Motion also reserve the right to identify additional terms and constructions to the extent
`
`Invensys amends its infringement contentions. And Invensys expressly reserves the right to
`
`contest the definiteness of any of the terms, phrases, or clauses identified in Exhibit B and the
`
`validity of any claim in the Micro Motion Patents-in-Suit. Invensys also reserves the right to
`
`identify additional terms and constructions to the extent Micro Motion amends its infringement
`
`contentions.
`
`3. Length of Claim Construction Hearing P.R. 4-3(c)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(c), Invensys requests 1.5 hours per side for the claim construction
`
`hearing. Emerson and Micro Motion request 1.5 hours per side for the claim construction
`
`hearing.
`
`4. Live Witness Testimony at Claim Construction Hearing P.R. 4-3(d)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 4-2(d), and with respect to the testimony of percipient and expert witnesses,
`
`the parties do not believe that any live witness testimony is needed at the claim construction
`
`hearing. However, the parties may rely on expert witness declarations. Invensys intends to offer
`
`testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez1 of the University of Arizona and Dr. Pol Spanos of Rice
`
`
`1 Emerson’s and Micro Motion’s objection to the expert declaration of Dr. Rodriguez is without merit. Invensys’
`P.R. 4-2 disclosures stated (at p.3) that “depending upon the proposed constructions proposed by Micro Motion and
`Emerson Electric Co. (‘Emerson’) (collectively, ‘Defendants’) and/or the extrinsic evidence, if any, cited by
`Defendants, Invensys reserve[d] the right to identify, designate or rely upon expert testimony and/or other extrinsic
`evidence.” Moreover, counsel for Emerson and Micro Motion has engaged in an effort to hinder Invensys’ case
`preparations by raising a baseless objection to Dr. Rodriguez under the guise of a Protective Order concern.
`
`
`Specifically, Invensys disclosed Dr. Rodriguez as its expert on January 13, 2014. Counsel for Defendants objected
`on January 23, 2014, to Dr. Rodriguez on the basis that a named inventor on one of the Micro Motion patents, Tamal
`Bose, is Dr. Rodriguez’s department head at the University of Arizona. The Parties initially meet-and-conferred on
`Friday, January 24, 2014. During that meet-and-confer, Defendants suggested that Invensys should consult with Dr.
`Rodriguez as to whether he would be concerned about testifying in the case (and implicitly about his position at the
`University of Arizona). When Invensys's counsel indicated that they had talked to Dr. Rodriguez after the objection
`had been lodged, counsel for Emerson and Micro Motion requested to extend the meet-and-confer process over the
`weekend to Monday, January 27, 2014. Thereafter, counsel for Emerson and Micro Motion refused Invensys’
`request to continue the meet-and-confer, waiting until January 31, 2014 at 11:10am, just prior to the P.R. 4-3 filing,
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 2633Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 6 of 52 PageID #: 3670
`
`
`University2 through declarations. A summary of Dr. Rodriguez’s and Dr. Spanos’ expected
`
`opinions is attached as Exhibit C. Emerson and Micro Motion intend to offer testimony of Dr.
`
`Harry Direen. A summary of Dr. Direen’s expected opinions is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`5. Prehearing Conference P.R. 4-3(e)
`
`The parties do not believe that a prehearing conference is required.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2014
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Todd Patterson
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`State Bar No. 21671300
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`State Bar No. 24029638
`Dawn M. Jenkins
`State Bar No. 24074484
`DLA PIPER LLP
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.425.8400
`Facsimile: 713.425.8401
`Claudia.Frost@dlapiper.com
`Jeffrey.Johnson@dlapiper.com
`Dawn.Jenkins@dlapiper.com
`
`Nicholas G. Papastavros
`
`
`to finally withdraw their “objection.” Accordingly, Plaintiff reserves its rights to identify a substitute expert at a
`later date.
`
` Invensys’s P.R. 4-2 disclosures did not state that Invensys would rely on any testimony or provide a “brief
`description of the substance of that witness’ proposed testimony,” as required by P.R. 4-2(b). Emerson and Micro
`Motion object to the late disclosure here and to any attempt to use the undisclosed testimony of Dr. Rodriguez and
`Dr. Spanos in connection with the claim construction process. Despite meeting and conferring about claim
`construction issues after the exchange of P/R. 4-2 disclosures, as of at least noon on January 31, 2014 – the day
`these P.R. 4-3 disclosures are due – Invensys had not disclosed the substance of Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony or even
`what claim terms or issues Dr. Rodriguez will testify about. And Invensys did not disclose the use of Dr. Spanos
`until after 6 pm on January 31, leaving Micro Motion/Emerson no opportunity to rebut that disclosure. Emerson and
`Micro Motion reserve their rights to object to Dr. Rodriguez’s and Dr. Spanos’ testimony and to identify at a later
`date a witness and/or other intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to rebut the testimony of Dr. Rodriguez and Dr. Spanos.
`Invensys’s complaint about Micro Motion/Emerson’s objection to the disclosure of confidential information to Dr.
`Rodriguez is a red-herring, of course, because Micro Motion/Emerson’s confidential information is irrelevant to
`claim construction.
`
` 2
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 2634Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 7 of 52 PageID #: 3671
`
`
`Daniel Rosenfeld
`DLA PIPER LLP
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: 617.406.6000
`Facsimile: 617.406.6100
`Nick.Papastavros@dlapiper.com
`Daniel.Rosenfeld@dlapiper.com
`
`Todd S. Patterson
`DLA PIPER LLP
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Telephone: 512.457.7017
`Facsimile: 512.721.2217
`todd.patterson@dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`/s/ Kadie M. Jelenchick (with permission)
`Linda E.B. Hansen, WI Bar No. 1000660
`Richard S. Florsheim, WI Bar No. 1015905
`Jeffrey N. Costakos, WI Bar No. 1008225
`Kadie M. Jelenchick, WI Bar No. 1056506
`Matthew J. Shin, WI Bar No. 1090096
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, WI 53202
`Telephone: 414.271.2400
`Facsimile: 414.297.4900
`lhansen@foley.com
`rflorsheim@foley.com
`jcostakos@foley.com
`kjelenchick@foley.com
`mshin@foley.com
`
`Guy N. Harrison
`State Bar No. 00000077
`Harrison Law Firm
`217 N. Center Street
`Longview, TX 75606
`Telephone: 903.758.7361
`Facsimile: 903.753.9557
`guy@gnhlaw.com
`cj_gnharrison@att.net
`
`
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105 Filed 01/31/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 2635Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 8 of 52 PageID #: 3672
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR EMERSON ELECTRIC
`CO. and MICRO MOTION INC., USA
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on January 31, 2014, 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). Any other counsel of record will be served
`
`by facsimile transmission and/or first class mail.
`
`
`
`/s/ Todd Patterson
`Todd Patterson
`
`
`
`EAST\69066495.3
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 2636Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 9 of 52 PageID #: 3673
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2637Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 10 of 52 PageID #: 3674
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`
`
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`“configured to,”
`“operable to,” and
`“circuitry to” render
`the claims indefinite.
`If not indefinite, the
`terms “configured to”
`and “operable to”
`mean:
`
`configured to or
`operable to (as the case
`may be) perform the
`recited function under
`the conditions of use
`for which it was
`intended
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`“configured
`to”:
`’646: 1, 5,
`9, 10,
`’854: 15,
`20, 21
`’062: 1, 12,
`23, 24, 25,
`30, 40, 43
`
`“operable
`to”:
`’136: 17,
`21, 24, 26,
`36
`’594: 1, 3,
`8, 13
`’761: 1, 2,
`9, 11
`’854: 1, 15
`’062: 1, 23,
`36, 40, 45
`’906: 1, 2, 8
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`“configured to” and
`“operable to” and
`variants thereof (as used
`in all claims)
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`’136: Abstract; 1:50-
`7:25; File History, e.g.
`November 15, 2000
`Response, March 19,
`2001 Response, April
`12, 2001 Supplemental
`Amendment, May 7,
`2001 Notice of
`Allowability, July 19,
`2001 Supplemental
`Notice of Allowability
`
`’594: Abstract; 1:52-
`7:26; File History, e.g.
`July 3, 2002 Response,
`February 11, 2003
`Response, March 10,
`2003 Request for
`Reconsideration, April
`8, 2003 Notice of
`Allowance, February
`24, 2004 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`’646: Abstract; 1:59-
`6:56; File History, e.g.
`March 13, 2006
`Amendment, June 6,
`2006 Notice of
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`1
`
`

`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 2638Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 11 of 52 PageID #: 3675
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Allowability
`
`’761: Abstract; 1:60-
`7:31; File History, e.g.
`January 19, 2006
`Amendment, February
`15, 2006 Examiner's
`Amendment, February
`27, 2006 Notice of
`Allowance, June 21,
`2006 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`’854: Abstract; 2:32-
`5:4; File History, e.g.
`April 25, 2007
`Amendment,
`November 16, 2007
`Amendment, March
`17, 2008 Appeal,
`September 8, 2008
`Reply, November 6,
`2008 Notice of
`Allowability
`
`’062: Abstract; 1:58-
`7:21; File History, e.g.
`August 13, 2007
`Amendment, March
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`2
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 2639Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 12 of 52 PageID #: 3676
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`
`
`
`24, 2008 Amendment,
`October 1, 2008
`Amendment, March
`11, 2009 Notice of
`Allowance, November
`24, 2009 Certificate of
`Correction
`
`’906: Abstract; 1:65-
`7:32 File History, e.g.
`February 8, 2011
`Amendment, March
`29, 2011 Notice of
`Allowance
`’761: Intrinsic Evid.
`2:28-31; 11:48-55;
`12:26-42; 25:61-63;
`26:7-10; (all related
`figures to all of the
`above).
`
`’906: Intrinsic Evid.
`2:31-35; 11:34-38;
`12:11-26; 25:4-6;
`25:15-18; (all related
`figures to all of the
`above).
`
`“input module” and
`“output module”
`
`’761: 1, 9
`’906: 1, 8
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`“input module” and
`“output module” are not
`means-plus-function
`elements
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`“input module” and
`“output module”
`should be construed as
`means-plus-function
`elements
`
`The specification does
`not use the term “input
`module” or “output
`module”, and it does
`not identify structure
`corresponding to the
`input module and
`output module
`limitations
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`3
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 2640Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 13 of 52 PageID #: 3677
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`Intrinsic Evidence: (all
`references are to the
`’761 specification,
`which shares a
`common spec with the
`’906):
`2:42-47; 5:15-22;
`7:10-18; 11:39-42;
`37:45-55; 39:30-32;
`39:45-49; 48:59-49:3;
`50:1-52:21; Fig. 42;
`Figs. 43A-C;
`Prosecution History:
`Amendment filed
`1/19/05 at 5-6
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and
`Testimony of Dr.
`Harry Direen; see
`Exhibit D
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`This limitation is
`indefinite.
`
`If it is not indefinite, it
`should be construed to
`mean:
`
`“The control system
`modifies the drive
`signal, and, except for
`programmed pauses
`between setpoint
`adjustments, the drive
`signal maintains
`oscillation of the flow
`tube at amplitude
`setpoints set by the
`controller throughout
`the transition from the
`point in time the
`flowtube is
`substantially empty of
`liquid until the
`flowtube is
`substantially full of
`liquid.
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`’761: 1, 9
`’906: 1, 8
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`“Maintains oscillation
`during a transition” and
`variants thereof:
`
`“control system
`operable to modify the
`drive signal and thereby
`maintain oscillation of
`the flowtube during a
`transition of the
`flowtube from a first
`state in which the
`flowtube is substantially
`empty of liquid to a
`second state in which
`the flowtube is
`substantially full of
`liquid…”
`
`“control system
`operable to modify the
`drive signal and thereby
`maintain oscillation of
`the flowtube during a
`transition of the
`flowtube from a
`substantially empty state
`to a substantially full
`state”
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`thereby = “as a result”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`’761: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:60-2:26; 2:42-60;
`3:10-35; 4:22-25;
`4:37-5-53; 7:3-27;
`8:47-49; 9:33-10:9;
`10:15-32; 10:59-64;
`11:53-12:4; 12:26-42;
`17:30-21:67; 25:58-
`30:20; 38:59-39:10;
`48:59-49:3; 50:1-
`51:45; 54:42-55:63;
`(all related figures to
`all of the above).
`Patent History, e.g.,
`January 19, 2006
`Amendment in Reply
`to Office Action;
`February 15, 2006
`Notice of Allowability
`and Examiner’s
`Amendment; June 21,
`2006 Notice of
`Allowance and
`Detailed Action
`
`’906: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:65-2:30, 2:45-62,
`3:11-36, 4:23-26, 4:38-
`5:53, 7:4-28, 8:47-49,
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`4
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 2641Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 14 of 52 PageID #: 3678
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`9:30-10:3, 10:7-23,
`10:46-50, 11:39-55,
`12:11-26, 17:1-21:26,
`25:1-29:3, 37:8-25,
`46:60-49:36, 52:29-
`53:45 (and all related
`figures to all of the
`above);
`Patent History, e.g.,
`September 8, 2010
`Office Action,
`February 8, 2011
`Amendment, March
`29, 2011 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`Declaration and
`Testimony
`This limitation is
`’761: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:60-2:26; 2:42-60;
`indefinite.
`3:10-35; 4:22-25;
`If it is not indefinite, it
`4:37-5-53; 7:3-27;
`should be construed to
`8:47-49; 9:33-10:9;
`mean:
`10:15-32; 10:59-64;
`“Except for
`11:53-12:4; 12:26-42;
`programmed pauses
`17:30-21:67; 25:58-
`between setpoint
`30:20; 38:59-39:10;
`adjustments,
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`5
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`’761: 5
`’906:5
`
`“maintaining oscillation
`during an onset of liquid
`flow through the
`substantially empty flow
`tube”
`
`“maintaining oscillation
`of the flowtube during
`an onset of fluid flow
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: (all
`references are to the
`’761 specification,
`which shares a
`common spec with the
`’906):
`2:42-47; 5:15-22;
`7:10-18; 11:39-42;
`37:45-55; 39:30-32;
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 2642Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 15 of 52 PageID #: 3679
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`maintaining oscillation
`of the flow tube at
`amplitude setpoints set
`by the controller
`throughout transition
`from the point in time
`when the flowtube is
`substantially empty
`until the flowtube is no
`longer substantially
`empty.”
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`39:45-49; 48:59-49:3;
`50:1-52:21; Fig. 42;
`Figs. 43A-C;
`Prosecution History:
`Amendment filed
`1/19/05 at 5-6
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and
`Testimony of Dr.
`Harry Direen; see
`Exhibit D
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`through the flowtube”
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`48:59-49:3; 50:1-
`51:45; 54:42-55:63;
`(all related figures to
`all of the above).
`Patent History, e.g.,
`January 19, 2006
`Amendment in Reply
`to Office Action;
`February 15, 2006
`Notice of Allowability
`and Examiner’s
`Amendment; June 21,
`2006 Notice of
`Allowance and
`Detailed Action
`
`’906: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:65-2:30, 2:45-62,
`3:11-36, 4:23-26, 4:38-
`5:53, 7:4-28, 8:47-49,
`9:30-10:3, 10:7-23,
`10:46-50, 11:39-55,
`12:11-26, 17:1-21:26,
`25:1-29:3, 37:8-25,
`46:60-49:36, 52:29-
`53:45 (and all related
`figures to all of the
`above);
`Patent History, e.g.,
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`6
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 2643Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 16 of 52 PageID #: 3680
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`September 8, 2010
`Office Action,
`February 8, 2011
`Amendment, March
`29, 2011 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`Declaration and
`Testimony
`This limitation is
`’761: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:60-2:26; 2:42-60;
`indefinite.
`3:10-35; 4:22-25;
`
`4:37-5-53; 7:3-27;
`If it is not indefinite, it
`8:47-49; 9:33-10:9;
`should be construed to
`10:15-32; 10:59-64;
`mean:
`11:53-12:4; 12:26-42;
`
`17:30-21:67; 25:58-
`“Except for
`30:20; 38:59-39:10;
`programmed pauses
`48:59-49:3; 50:1-
`between setpoint
`51:45; 54:42-55:63;
`adjustments,
`(all related figures to
`maintaining oscillation
`all of the above).
`of the flow tube at
`Patent History, e.g.,
`amplitude setpoints set
`January 19, 2006
`by the controller
`Amendment in Reply
`throughout the
`to Office Action;
`processing of a first
`February 15, 2006
`batch of liquid fluid
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`7
`
`’761: 7
`
`“maintaining oscillation
`of the flowtube while
`separate batches of the
`liquid fluid flow are
`processed through the
`flowtube, wherein the
`flowtube is substantially
`empty of liquid between
`the separate batches”
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: (all
`references are to the
`’761 specification,
`which shares a
`common spec with the
`’906):
`2:42-47; 5:15-22;
`7:10-18; 11:39-42;
`37:45-55; 39:30-32;
`39:45-49; 48:59-49:3;
`50:1-52:21; Fig. 42;
`Figs. 43A-C;
`Prosecution History:
`Amendment filed
`1/19/05 at 5-6
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 2644Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 17 of 52 PageID #: 3681
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`thereby = “as a result”
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`
`Notice of Allowability
`and Examiner’s
`Amendment; June 21,
`2006 Notice of
`Allowance and
`Detailed Action
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`Declaration and
`Testimony
`This limitation is
`’761: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:60-2:26; 2:42-60;
`indefinite.
`3:10-35; 4:22-25;
`If it is not indefinite, it
`4:37-5-53; 7:3-27;
`should be construed to
`8:47-49; 9:33-10:9;
`mean:
`10:15-32; 10:59-64;
`
`11:53-12:4; 12:26-42;
`“The control system
`17:30-21:67; 25:58-
`modifies the drive
`30:20; 38:59-39:10;
`signal, and, except for
`48:59-49:3; 50:1-
`programmed pauses
`51:45; 54:42-55:63;
`between setpoint
`(all related figures to
`adjustments, the drive
`all of the above).
`signal maintains
`Patent History, e.g.,
`oscillation of the flow
`January 19, 2006
`tube at amplitude
`Amendment in Reply
`setpoints set by the
`to Office Action;
`controller throughout
`February 15, 2006
`the processing of a
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`8
`
`’761: 11
`’906: 1, 8
`
`“wherein the control
`system is further
`operable to modify the
`drive signal and thereby
`maintain oscillation of
`the flowtube while
`separate batches of the
`liquid fluid flow are
`processed through the
`flowtube, wherein the
`flowtube is substantially
`empty of liquid in
`between the separate
`batches”
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`flow, the transition
`between the first and
`second batches that
`includes a period when
`the flowtube is
`substantially empty of
`liquid fluid flow, and
`the processing of a
`second batch of liquid
`fluid flow.”
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`Testimony of Dr.
`Harry Direen; see
`Exhibit D
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: (all
`references are to the
`’761 specification,
`which shares a
`common spec with the
`’906):
`2:42-47; 5:15-22;
`7:10-18; 11:39-42;
`37:45-55; 39:30-32;
`39:45-49; 48:59-49:3;
`50:1-52:21; Fig. 42;
`Figs. 43A-C;
`Prosecution History:
`Amendment filed
`1/19/05 at 5-6
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`Declaration and
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 2645Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 18 of 52 PageID #: 3682
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`’906: 7
`
`“maintaining oscillation
`of the flowtube when
`the flowtube is
`substantially filled by
`the fluid
`flow”
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`first batch of liquid
`fluid flow, the
`transition between the
`first and second
`batches that includes a
`period when the
`flowtube is
`substantially empty of
`liquid fluid flow, and
`the processing of a
`second batch of liquid
`fluid flow.
`’906: Intrinsic Evid.
`This limitation is
`1:65-2:30, 2:45-62,
`indefinite.
`3:11-36, 4:23-26, 4:38-
`
`5:53, 7:4-28, 8:47-49,
`If it is not indefinite, it
`9:30-10:3, 10:7-23,
`should be construed to
`10:46-50, 11:39-55,
`mean:
`12:11-26, 17:1-21:26,
`
`25:1-29:3, 37:8-25,
`“maintaining
`46:60-49:36, 52:29-
`oscillation of the flow
`53:45 (and all related
`tube at amplitude
`figures to all of the
`setpoints set by the
`above);
`controller during that
`Patent History, e.g.,
`portion of the onset of
`September 8, 2010
`fluid flow when the
`Office Action,
`flowtube is
`February 8, 2011
`substantially filled by
`Amendment, March
`the flowing fluid.”
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`9
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Notice of Allowability
`and Examiner’s
`Amendment; June 21,
`2006 Notice of
`Allowance and
`Detailed Action
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`Declaration and
`Testimony
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s References
`Testimony of Dr.
`Harry Direen; see
`Exhibit D
`
`Intrinsic Evidence: (all
`references are to the
`’761 specification,
`which shares a
`common spec with the
`’906):
`2:42-47; 5:15-22;
`7:10-18; 11:39-42;
`37:45-55; 39:30-32;
`39:45-49; 48:59-49:3;
`50:1-52:21; Fig. 42;
`Figs. 43A-C;
`Prosecution History:
`Amendment filed
`1/19/05 at 5-6
`
`Extrinsic Evidence:
`
`

`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-LED Document 105-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 2646Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 124-3 Filed 03/07/14 Page 19 of 52 PageID #: 3683
`EXHIBIT A
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 7,505,854; 6,754,594; 7,571,062; and 8,000,906
`
`
`Terms, Phrases, or
`Clauses
`
`Claim Nos.
`
`Invensys’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Invensys’ References
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Motion’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`“during an onset”
`
`’906: 5
`
`EAST\69236775.2
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`from the point in time
`the flowtube is
`substantially empty of
`liquid until the
`flowtube is no longer
`substantially empty of
`liquid
`
`29, 2011 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`Declaration and
`Testimony
`’906: Intrinsic Evid.
`1:65-2:30, 2:45-62,
`3:11-36, 4:23-26, 4:38-
`5:53, 7:4-28, 8:47-49,
`9:30-10:3, 10:7-23,
`10:46-50, 11:39-55,
`12:11-26, 17:1-21:26,
`25:1-29:3, 37:8-25,
`46:60-49:36, 52:29-
`53:45 (and all related
`figures to all of the
`above);
`Patent History, e.g.,
`September 8, 2010
`Office Action,
`February 8, 2011
`Amendment, March
`29, 2011 Notice of
`Allowance
`
`Extrinsic Evid:
`Dr. Rodriguez
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
`Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00799
`10
`
`Emerson & Micro
`Mot