Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 4218
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv-799-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INDEFINITENESS
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 4219
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii
`Factual Background .........................................................................................................................2
`Indefiniteness Standard....................................................................................................................2
`Argument .........................................................................................................................................3
`I.
`The ’190 Patent Does Not Set Forth an Algorithm or Programming Instructions as
`Required by Federal Circuit Precedent................................................................................3
`The Mathematical Operations Required in the ’131 Patent Are Not Possible. ...................6
`A.
`It Is Not Possible to Calculate a Dot Product of the Normalized Pulsation
`and the Sensor Signals as Required by the Claims of the ’131 Patent. ...................6
`Even If the Required Dot Product Could Be Calculated, the Result of That
`Calculation Could Not Be Used to Translate to a Center Frequency. .....................8
`Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`II.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 4220
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank,
`475 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)................................................................................. 6
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................... 1, 3, 8
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................... 4, 5, 6
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................. 1, 3, 8, 10
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`In re Dossel,
`115 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
`190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................. 1, 8, 10
`
`Other
`
`Douglas Downing, DICTIONARY OF MATHEMATICS TERMS 103-04 (3d ed. 2009)......................... 7
`
`Douglas Downing, DICTIONARY OF MATHEMATICS TERMS 278 (3d ed. 2009) .............................. 9
`
`Jim Giles, Internet Encyclopedias Go Head to Head, 438 NATURE 900 (Dec. 15, 2005) ............. 6
`
`Wikipedia, Dot Product.................................................................................................................. 7
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4221
`
`The “mass flow measurement means,” which appears in independent claims 1 and 35 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190 (the “ ’190 patent”), is a computer-implemented means-plus-function
`
`term. The patent does not disclose an algorithm or other programming instructions (i.e., a
`
`structure) corresponding to this term, however. Under settled Federal Circuit precedent, this
`
`omission renders the “mass flow measurement means” indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).1 See
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Every independent claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,131 (the “ ’131 patent”) is indefinite or
`
`alternatively is not enabled or lacks utility under §§ 112(a) and 101. All the independent claims
`
`of the ’131 patent require “calculating dot products of said normalized pulsation and said signals
`
`from said first pick-off sensor and said second pick-off sensor to translate said signals to said
`
`center frequency.” This mathematical calculation cannot be performed, however. Because a
`
`skilled artisan could not give meaning to an impossible mathematical operation, this term is
`
`insolubly ambiguous. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005); Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Alternatively, the claimed invention’s inoperability means that it is not enabled or lacks utility.
`
`See Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Either
`
`way, the ’131 patent is invalid.
`
`1 The America Invents Act recodified several parts of § 112. Since those changes did not alter
`the substantive law applicable to the present motion, for simplicity, Invensys will refer to the
`current version of the statute.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 4222
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”) manufactures (among other things) patented digital
`
`drive Coriolis flowmeters. Coriolis flowmeters measure the mass flow rate of materials flowing
`
`through a conduit (often called a flowtube) by measuring the oscillation of the conduit.2
`
`On October 22, 2012, Invensys sued two competing manufacturers, Micro Motion, Inc.
`
`(“Micro Motion”) and Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”), for infringing several of Invensys’s
`
`digital drive Coriolis flowmeter patents. See Pl.’s Original Compl., ECF No. 1. On July 15,
`
`2013, Micro Motion filed an amended counterclaim accusing Invensys of infringing the ’190 and
`
`’131 patents. See Def.’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Am. Counercls., ECF No. 44. Both
`
`of Micro Motion’s patents relate to digital signal processing technology for Coriolis flowmeters.
`
`The ’190 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Adaptive Line Enhancement in Coriolis
`
`Mass Flow Meter Measurement” and covers a mechanism for filtering noise out of the
`
`flowmeter’s sensor signals to enhance accuracy. The ’131 patent is titled “Multi-rate Digital
`
`Signal Processor for Signals from Pick-offs on a Vibrating Conduit” and is directed to
`
`technology that will (purportedly) allow the same basic electronics package to work with
`
`flowtubes of different diameters.
`
`Invensys now moves for partial summary judgment that claims 1-17 and 35 of the ’190
`
`patent are indefinite under § 112(b). Likewise, all the claims of the ’131 patent are indefinite or
`
`alternatively are no enabled or lack utility.
`
`INDEFINITENESS STANDARD
`
`Section 112(b) provides that: “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
`
`particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
`
`2 A more detailed description of Coriolis flowmeter technology can be found in Invensys’s
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 122, at 2-5.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 4223
`
`inventor regards as the invention.” “[T]he purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure
`
`that the claims delineate the scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the
`
`public of the patentee’s right to exclude.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347.
`
`Indefiniteness is a
`
`question of law for the court. See id. at 1348.
`
`Indefiniteness is measured by how a skilled
`
`artisan would understand the claims. See Allen Eng’g, 299 F.3d at 1348. In this case, a skilled
`
`artisan would have a bachelors in electrical engineering (or equivalent work experience) and
`
`three or four years of experience or post-graduate education. See Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 17 (Ex. C).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The ’190 Patent Does Not Set Forth an Algorithm or Programming Instructions as
`Required by Federal Circuit Precedent.
`
`The parties agree that the term “mass flow measurement means” is a means-plus-function
`
`term and that the claimed function is “determining a mass flow rate value of the material flowing
`
`through the flow tube.” Joint Claim Constr. and Prehearing Statement Ex. B at 3, ECF No. 105.
`
`The structure that corresponds to this function is the “mass flow computation” block, 290 in
`
`Figure 2.3
`
`As the name implies, the mass flow computation block is a computer element.4 The
`
`specification’s entire description of the mass flow computation block is as follows: “Mass flow
`
`computation element 290 corrects the Δt value to generate the mass flow rate and apply it to
`
`utilization 292 of FIG. 2 over path 155. Element 290 performs appropriate corrections and
`
`scaling to compensate for the effects of temperature and other environmental factors.” ’190 Pat.
`
`3 Invensys initially believed that the “Δt computation” block was part of the structure that
`determine the flow rate, but on further reflection concedes that this view was erroneous. The
`“Δt computation” block is a distinct structure that provides data to the “mass flow
`computation” block. See ’190 Pat. 35:23-25, 36:22-32. This data is merely the starting point
`from which the “mass flow computation” block determines the flow rate. See id.
`4 There does not appear to be any dispute on this point.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 4224
`
`36:27-32. The ’190 patent does not disclose an algorithm or instructions for programming the
`
`mass flow computation block or otherwise explain what corrections and scaling are required to
`
`perform the claimed function.
`
`“In cases involving a computer-implemented invention in which the inventor has invoked
`
`means-plus-function claiming, this court has consistently required that the structure disclosed in
`
`the specification by more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor.”
`
`Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1333; see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d
`
`1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled that simply disclosing software, however, without
`
`providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function, is not enough.” (quotations
`
`and brackets omitted)).
`
`Instead, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm or
`
`programming necessary to enable the computer to carry out the claimed function. See Aristocrat
`
`Techs., 521 F.3d at 1333. The ’190 patent, however, merely discloses using “appropriate
`
`corrections and scaling” to calculate the mass flow rate.
`
`’190 Pat. 36:30-31.
`
`In Aristocrat
`
`Technologies,
`
`the Federal Circuit expressly held that simply referring to “appropriate
`
`programming” was not an adequate structural disclosure under § 112.5 See 521 F.3d at 1336.
`
`Many other Federal Circuit decisions have also invalidated similar black box claims in which the
`
`software means is described only in terms of the function it performs.6
`
`5 In contrast, Aristocrat Technologies cited (and distinguished) In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 1328
`(Fed. Cir. 2008), as an example of a proper computer-implemented means-plus-function
`limitation. The patent in Dossel provided detailed equations describing how to perform the
`claimed function and omitted only the known mathematical techniques for solving those
`equations. See Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1336. For comparison to the ’190 patent, a copy
`of the patent at issue in Dossel, with the relevant disclosures highlighted, is attached as Exhibit
`A, in addition to a side-by-side comparison of the disclosure in the Dossel patent and the ’190
`patent.
`6 See, e.g., Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1318-19; ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d
`509, 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1383-84
`(Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 4225
`
`Similarly, this Court has found purely functional black box claims indefinite. The
`
`disclosure in the present case is indistinguishable from the one the Court found indefinite in i4i
`
`L.P. v. Microsoft Corp. In i4i, the patent disclosed that a “ ‘processing system, represented by
`
`Box 134, produces a menu of metacodes to select from using the instructions provided in Box
`
`136.’ ” Mem. Op. & Order at 20, i4i L.P. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:07CV113 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10,
`
`2008), ECF No. 111. The text accompanying Box 136 merely “explain[ed] that the processing
`
`system produces a menu of metacodes using instructions inside the processing system.” Id. at
`
`21. Just as in i4i, the ’190 patent’s specification does not provide even a hint of an algorithm or
`
`any code associated with the “mass flow computation” block, 290 in Figure 2. The ’190 patent
`
`merely restates the function performed (i.e., “[e]lement 290 performs appropriate corrections and
`
`scaling to compensate for the effects of temperature and other environmental factors”). ’190 Pat.
`
`36:30-32.
`
`It is also irrelevant that skilled artisans might understand how to perform the claimed
`
`function: “A patentee cannot avoid providing specificity as to structure simply because someone
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would be able to devise a means to perform the claimed function.”
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009).7
`
`In fact, “[t]hat
`
`ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely
`
`why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ from must disclose the particular structure that is
`
`7 See also, e.g., Function Media, 708 F.3d at 1319 (“[I]t is well established that proving that a
`person of ordinary skill could devise some method to perform the function is not the proper
`inquiry goes to enablement.”); ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson
`inquiry as to indefiniteness—that
`Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 519 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The indefiniteness inquiry is concerned
`with whether the bounds of the invention are sufficiently demarcated, not whether one of
`ordinary skill in the art may find a way to practice the invention.”); Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d
`at 1336 (explaining that even though a skilled artisan might be able to build the claimed device
`based on the disclosures in the specification (a question of enablement), the claims may still be
`indefinite).
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 4226
`
`used to perform the recited function.” Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385; see also Aristocrat Techs.,
`
`521 F.3d at 1333 (explaining that “[b]ecause general purpose computers can be programmed to
`
`perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply disclosing a computer as the structure
`
`designed to perform a particular function does not” satisfy § 112).
`
`The “mass flow measurement means” is a computer-implemented means-plus-function
`
`limitation. Because the ’190 patent’s specification fails to disclose an algorithm or other
`
`instructions for programming the corresponding structure (the “mass flow computation” block),
`
`all the claims containing the “mass flow measurement means” limitation are indefinite.
`
`II.
`
`The Mathematical Operations Required in the ’131 Patent Are Not Possible.
`
`A.
`
`It Is Not Possible to Calculate a Dot Product of the Normalized Pulsation and
`the Sensor Signals as Required by the Claims of the ’131 Patent.
`
`Every claim of the ’131 patent requires “calculating dot products of said normalized
`
`pulsation and said signals from said first pick-off sensor and said second pick-off sensor.” See,
`
`e.g., ’131 Pat. 11:36-40. This is not mathematically possible, however.
`
`There is no dispute that a “dot product” is “a single number [calculated] from two equal-
`
`length sequences of numbers.” Defs.’ LR 4-2 Disclosures at 15 (Ex. B); see also Rodriguez
`
`Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. C); Wikipedia, Dot Product (Ex. D) (“In mathematics, the dot product . . . is an
`
`algebraic operation that
`
`takes two equal-length sequences of numbers (usually coordinate
`
`vectors) and returns a single number.”).8 A dot product can be expressed as:
`
`X · Y = x1y2 + . . . + xnyn
`
`8 Some courts have been reluctant to rely on Wikipedia. While these concerns may be justified
`for some types of articles (e.g., articles on politically sensitive topics), for scientific articles,
`Wikipedia is generally as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. See Jim Giles, Internet
`Encyclopedias Go Head to Head, 438 NATURE 900 (Dec. 15, 2005) (Ex. E) (reporting on a
`peer-review study comparing Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica). Courts routinely
`take judicial notice of encyclopedias, and many courts have relied on Wikipedia. See Alfa
`Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank, 475 F. Supp. 2d 357, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (collecting cases).
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 4227
`
`See Eric W. Weisstein, THE CRC CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MATHEMATICS 489 (1998) (Ex.
`
`F).9 That is, each number in set X is multiplied by the number in the corresponding position in
`
`set Y, and the product of each of those calculations is added together.
`
`But the ’131 patent expressly provides that the normalized pulsation is a single number,
`
`not a sequence of numbers: “Process 700 begins in step 701 by calculating a normalized
`
`pulsation, which is expressed in the following equation: ωd=2Π(12Fd)/Fs where: ωd=the
`
`normalized pulsation . . . .”10 ’131 Pat. 9:6-12. By definition, a dot product cannot be calculated
`
`using a single number. In fact, even Micro Motion acknowledges that a dot product requires a
`
`sequence of numbers, not a single number See Defs.’ LR 4-2 Disclosures at 15 (Ex. B). Micro
`
`Motion’s proposed construction of the phrase “calculating dot products of said normalized
`
`pulsation and said signals from said first pick-off sense and said second pick-off sensor” also
`
`implicitly confirms that a dot product cannot be taken from a single number since it attempts to
`
`add the new limitation “a sequence of data representing the normalized pulsation” to this term.
`
`Joint Claim Constr. and Prehearing Statement Ex. B at 9, ECF No. 105 (emphasis added).
`
`This is also consistent with the ’131 patent’s specification, which does correctly set forth
`
`a different dot product in another section: “The dot product of the ‘twiddle factor’ and the actual
`
`received
`
`signal
`
`is
`
`calculated
`
`in
`
`step
`
`702
`
`by
`
`the
`
`following
`
`equation:
`
`yβ=WkXβ(k)=(Ab/2){cos((ω+ωd)k+Φ)+cos((ω-ωd)k+Φ)}.” ’131 Pat. 9:26-30. The “twiddle
`
`factor” in this equation is Wk and is expressly defined by the equation Wk=cos(ωdk), which is
`
`different than the equation for calculating the normalized pulsation discussed above. See id. at
`
`9 See also, e.g., Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. C); Douglas Downing, DICTIONARY OF
`MATHEMATICS TERMS 103-04 (3d ed. 2009) (Ex. G); Wikipedia, Dot Product (Ex. D).
`10 As set forth in detail in Invensys’s Response to Micro Motion’s Opening Claim Construction
`Brief, ECF No. 138, at 7-8, the parties have some relatively minor disagreements about how to
`construe “normalized pulsation,” but there appears to be no dispute that the normalized
`pulsation calculation produces a single value.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 4228
`
`9:15-18 (“The real valued ‘twiddle’ factor is calculated in step 701 according to the following
`
`equation: Wk=cos(ωdk) . . . .”). (Of course, the claims of the ’131 patent require calculating the
`
`dot product of the normalized pulsation and the sensor signals, not the twiddle factor and the
`
`sensor signals. Cf. Allen Eng’g, 299 F.3d at 1349 (holding that courts do not “rewrite claims to
`
`preserve their validity”).)
`
`Because a dot product cannot be calculated from the normalized pulsation and the sensor
`
`signals, the dot product term in the ’131 patent is essentially mathematical nonsense. It is akin to
`
`requiring division by zero. Attempting to give meaning to an impossible mathematical operation
`
`is necessarily futile, rendering the term insolubly ambiguous. See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347.
`
`Alternatively, the impossibility of actually performing the claim renders it not enabled or lacking
`
`utility. See Process Control, 190 F.3d at 1359. Either way, the claim is invalid.
`
`B.
`
`Even If the Required Dot Product Could Be Calculated, the Result of That
`Calculation Could Not Be Used to Translate to a Center Frequency.
`
`While the impossibility of calculating a dot product from the single-number normalized
`
`pulsation value is sufficient by itself to render the ’131 patent indefinite, the patent suffers from
`
`other fatal defects as well. For example, even if Micro Motion were permitted to rewrite the
`
`claims, the result of the dot product under its incorrect proposed construction is still a single
`
`number. A single number cannot be used to “translat[e] said signals to said center frequency” as
`
`required by all the claims of the ’131 patent. See, e.g., ‘131 Pat. 11:39-40.
`
`In the ’131 patent, the sensor signals represent the position of the Coriolis flowtubes as
`
`they vibrate due to the drive signal. See id. at 1:43-45 (“Pick-off sensors are placed on the
`
`conduit(s) to produce sinusoidal signals representative of the motion of the conduit(s).”). That
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 4229
`
`is, the sensor signals provide information on the location of the flowtubes (at particular times), a
`
`measure of distance such as inches.11 See Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. C)
`
`Normalized pulsation is measured in radians, however.12 “Radians” are a unit of measure
`
`for angles. See Douglas Downing, DICTIONARY OF MATHEMATICS TERMS 278 (3d ed. 2009) (Ex.
`
`G). For example, 6.3 radians is approximately 360 degrees. See id. (“[A] full circle (360
`
`degrees) equals 2π radians.”); see also Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. C).
`
`Whatever “sequences of data” are purported to represent the normalized pulsation and the
`
`sensor signals, they necessarily must represent measurements of the same characteristic if the dot
`
`product of those values is to have any meaning. See Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. C). Instead, the
`
`result of the dot product of the values Micro Motion proposes would be in “radians-inches.”13
`
`See id. This is neither the correct unit for the sensor signals (measured in “inches”) nor is it the
`
`correct unit for center frequency (measured in “cycles per second”). See id.
`
`Therefore, even assuming the dot product operation required by the claims could
`
`technically be performed, the result of the calculation cannot “translate said signals to said center
`
`frequency” as required by the claims. See id.
`
`It is akin to someone claiming to predict stock
`
`market performance using a mathematical formula in gallons per degrees or attempting to
`
`describe the area of a plot of land in pounds per second. Thus, as with the dot product
`
`11 For convenience, for the balance of this letter brief Invensys uses inches, but substituting
`another unit of distance would not change the analysis.
`12 As discussed above, although the parties disagree about the proper construction of “normalized
`pulsation,” both definitions use radians as the unit of measure. For example, Micro Motion
`seeks to construe normalized pulsation as “converting the normalized frequency into angular
`form,” which can be calculated using the formula ω=2πf. Def.’s Opening Claim Constr. Br. at
`19, ECF No. 124.
`13 To calculate a dot product between the two sequences of data representing the normalized
`pulsation and the sensor signals (measured in radians and inches, respectively), each of the
`corresponding components in the sequence must first be multiplied together, producing a
`sequence of numbers measured in (radians) x (inches). Adding up a sequence of numbers with
`those units will result in a number with the same units. See id.
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 4230
`
`calculation itself, the results of that (hypothetical) calculation are incomprehensible, rendering
`
`the claims either indefinite or inoperable. See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347; Process Control, 190
`
`F.3d at 1359.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, claims 1 and 35 (and the accompanying dependent claims) of
`
`the ’190 patent and all the claims of the ’131 patent are invalid as a matter of law. The Court
`
`should dismiss with prejudice all of Micro Motion’s infringement claims that are based on these
`
`invalid claims.
`
`Dated: April 11, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`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
`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
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 143 Filed 04/11/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 4231
`
`Telephone: 512.457.7017
`Facsimile: 512.721.2217
`todd.patterson@dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on April 11, 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/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`
`EAST\74729521.2
`
`11