Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 4802
`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 21 Page|D #: 4802
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 4803
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff, §
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`§
`§
`Counterclaim-Defendant.§
`
`PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT INVENSYS
`SYSTEMS, INC.’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF
`MICRO MOTION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”), by and
`
`through its attorneys, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local
`
`Civil Rules of the Eastern District of Texas, hereby sets forth its third supplemental objections
`
`and responses to Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Micro Motion Inc.’s (“Micro Motion”)
`
`First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Interrogatories”).
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 4804
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`1.
`
`Invensys objects to the Instructions to the Interrogatories to the extent they
`
`attempt to impose obligations extending beyond those imposed or authorized by the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that they are not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and/or do not seek
`
`information or documents that are relevant to the subject matter of this action.
`
`3.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information protected, privileged, immune or otherwise exempt from discovery by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest/joint defense privilege, or any
`
`other applicable privilege. Nothing contained in the responses below is intended to be, nor
`
`should be considered, a waiver of any attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine, or any
`
`other applicable privilege or indemnity that may apply.
`
`4.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that they seek
`
`information not within Invensys’ possession, custody, and/or control.
`
`5.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it is overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and/or ambiguous.
`
`6.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information or documents that are confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secrets. To the extent
`
`that any interrogatory seeks documents or information that contain or constitute confidential,
`
`proprietary, or trade secret information, Invensys shall only produce such information or
`
`documents pursuant to the terms of the Joint Protective Order [Dkt. No. 66].
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4805
`
`7.
`
`Invensys objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information or documents protected from disclosure by non-disclosure agreements or
`
`confidentiality agreements with third parties.
`
`8.
`
`Invensys objects to these interrogatories to the extent they are compound and
`
`contain multiple subparts that count separately toward the total number of individual
`
`interrogatories allowed to Micro Motion.
`
`9.
`
`The fact that Invensys has responded to part or all of any particular interrogatory
`
`is not intended and shall not be construed as a waiver by Invensys of any part of any objection to
`
`such an interrogatory. Invensys’ agreement to furnish any information or identify documents in
`
`response to any interrogatory shall not be deemed to constitute an admission as to the relevance,
`
`competency, materiality or admissibility of any document or information sought or produced,
`
`and Invensys reserves all rights with respect thereto.
`
`10.
`
`Invensys objects to Definition 1 insofar as the definition of “Invensys” is overly
`
`broad and includes entities which Invensys does not control such as predecessors, successors and
`
`joint venturers, and to the extent it purports to require Invensys to gather information from third
`
`parties. Invensys further objects to Definition 1 insofar as it purports to require Invensys to
`
`disclose attorney-client privileged communications or attorney work product from, inter alia,
`
`“attorneys” or “draftsmen” when responding to the Interrogatories.
`
`11.
`
`Invensys objects to Definition 2 insofar as it incorporates the definition of
`
`“Invensys,” which is objectionable as set forth above.
`
`12.
`
`Invensys objects to Definition 3 insofar as Micro Motion seeks to impose
`
`obligations beyond those set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 4806
`
`13.
`
`Invensys objects to Definition 5 insofar as the definition of “relate to,” “related
`
`to” and “relating to” is overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible.
`
`14.
`
`Invensys objects to Definitions 8-12 insofar as the definition of “to identify” is
`
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, implicates privacy laws, and requires Invensys to disclose
`
`personal identification information, including residential addresses and telephone numbers.
`
`15.
`
`Invensys objects to Definition 24 to the extent that the terms “Invensys Accused
`
`Product” is defined to include products beyond Invensys Foxboro Model Nos. CFT50 & CFT51
`
`I/A Series Digital Coriolis Mass Flow Transmitters and the Invensys Foxboro Model Nos.
`
`CFS10 & CFS20 Mass Flowtubes.
`
`16.
`
`These responses represent Invensys’ good faith effort to respond based on
`
`information available at this time. Invensys’ investigation of this matter is continuing, and
`
`Invensys specifically reserves the right to amend, supplement, correct, or clarify its responses in
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern District
`
`of Texas.
`
`INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`
`
`Separately for each asserted claim of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit describe in detail the
`
`conception, reduction to practice (actual or constructive), and all activities constituting diligence
`
`from conception to reduction to practice, including without limitation, an identification and
`
`description of: (i) when, where, and by whom each claimed invention was conceived; (ii) the
`
`specific contribution by each alleged inventor; (iii) the first written description of each claimed
`
`invention (including when and where it was made and by whom); (iv) the earliest priority date of
`
`each claimed invention and all bases for such priority; (v) when, where, by whom, and under
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 4807
`
`what circumstances each claimed invention was first reduced to practice; (vi) the first public
`
`disclosure of each claimed invention, including when, where, by whom, and to whom; and (vii)
`
`all evidence and witnesses corroborating the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`seeking conception and reduction to practice information for multiple patents. Each subpart of
`
`this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted towards Micro Motion’s limits as
`
`agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys
`
`further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 as overly broad and unduly burdensome, including the
`
`terms “all activities constituting diligence” and “all evidence and witnesses corroborating the
`
`above.”
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds by referring
`
`Micro Motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), to its L.P.R. 3-2(b) production located at
`
`INVENSYS0000001 – 0016920 and MH0000001 – MH0051483. Invensys incorporates herein
`
`its L.P.R. 3-1(e) disclosure from its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions. Invensys states that the inventions were conceived by the individual inventors
`
`listed on the face of each of the Patents-in-Suit. Each inventor contributed to the inventions as a
`
`whole with Manus Henry taking the lead on all of the claimed inventions. However, certain
`
`inventors took the intellectual lead or co-lead on certain general concepts related to the various
`
`inventions. For example, David W. Clarke was primarily involved with respect to synchronous
`
`modulation techniques and using PI control algorithms; James H. Vignos, dynamic analysis;
`
`Maria de la Fuente, neural networks, network training, on-line correction of mass flow errors,
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 4808
`
`and code listing; and Mayela E. Zamora, issues related to digital synthesis, task division and
`
`other issues related to FPGA and processors, zero crossing determination, filter characteristics,
`
`monitoring drive output, compensation for digital delay, start-up techniques, operational
`
`techniques.
`
`
`
`The first written description and public disclosure, to the extent those phrases are
`
`understood by Invensys, for each of the ‘136, ‘761, ‘646, ‘594, ‘062 and ‘906 Patents is no later
`
`than November 26, 1997 as evidenced by the provisional application no. 60/006,554. The first
`
`written description and public disclosure, to the extent those phrases are understood by Invensys,
`
`for the ‘854 Patent is no later than March 29, 2002 as evidenced by the provisional application
`
`no. 60/368,153.
`
`
`
`The following chart identifies dates related to conception and reduction to practice, to the
`
`extent those dates are understood by Invensys, for each of the patents in suit as supported by at
`
`least the already identified documents in this response and specifically, but not limited to, the
`
`following documents: MH0027702-05, MH0051424-83, MH0000066-263, MH 0000264-460,
`
`MH0000461-652, MH0000856-1052, MH0001888-911, INVENSYS0303737-741, and the
`
`patents, patent applications and provisional patent applications of the patents in suit.
`
`Patent
`
`6,311,136 (claims 17, 21)
`6,311,136 (claims 24-26)
`6,311,136 (claim 36)
`6,754,594 (claim 1)
`6,754,594 (claims 3, 4, 6, 13)
`6,754,594 (claims 8-11)
`6,754,594 (claim 14)
`7,124,646 (claims 1, 5, 9-11, 15,
`19)
`7,124,646 (claims 16, 17)
`7,136,761 (all asserted claims)
`7,571,062 (claims 1, 12, 23, 24,
`
`Date of conception is no
`later than:
`December 11, 1996
`March 13, 1998
`December 11, 1996
`December 11, 1996
`July 1, 1996
`April 30, 1998
`December 11, 1996
`September 17, 1997
`
`Date of reduction to
`practice is no later than:
`December 11, 1996
`March 13, 1998
`July 8, 1998
`July 8, 1998
`July 1, 1996
`April 30, 1998
`December 11, 1996
`September 17, 1997
`
`March 13, 1998
`September 17, 1997
`December 11, 1996
`
`March 13, 1998
`September 17, 1997
`July 8, 1998
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 4809
`
`March 4, 1997
`November 12, 1997
`March 19, 1998
`December 11, 1996
`September 17, 1997
`March 29, 2002
`
`July 8, 1998
`July 8, 1998
`July 8, 1998
`April 30, 1998
`September 17, 1997
`March 29, 2002
`
`29, 36)
`7,571,062 (claim 13)
`7,571,062 (claim 25)
`7,571,062 (claim 30)
`7,571,062 (claims 40, 43, 45)
`8,000,906 (all asserted claims)
`7,505,854 (all asserted claims)
`
`
`
`Determination of priority dates requires a legal conclusion. However, Invensys believes
`
`that such dates can be determined from the dates provided above and the associated documents
`
`identified with respect to, at least, this interrogatory response.
`
`
`
`Invensys’ investigation is ongoing and these responses will be supplemented as
`
`appropriate.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Identify by model name, model number, and time period sold, any product or process
`
`made or used by anyone other than Micro Motion, including without limitation Invensys, which
`
`Invensys contends is covered by any of the claims of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit, including
`
`without limitation, any products or processes that have been marketed, advertised, or marked as
`
`being covered by the Invensys Patents-in-Suit, and for each such product or process state which
`
`claims cover it and the date of its first offer for sale and public use in the United States.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to the terms “products or processes” and as
`
`being vague and ambiguous.
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 4810
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds by
`
`incorporating herein its L.P.R. 3-1(f) disclosure from its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions. Responding further, Invensys states that Model Nos. CFT50 and
`
`CFT51 have both been marketed, advertised, and/or marked as being covered by one or more of
`
`the Invensys Patents-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`Specifically, and without conceding that it qualifies as a sale or offer for sale in the
`
`United States, the first order for the CFT50 was received in December 2002 and the first CFT50
`
`was shipped in February 2003. The CFT50 is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,311,136, 6,754,594,
`
`7,124,646, and 7,136,761.
`
`
`
`Further, and without conceding that it qualifies as a sale or offer for sale in the United
`
`States, the first order for the CFT51 was received in June 2011 and the first CFT51 was shipped
`
`in June 2011. The CFT51 is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,311,136, 6,754,594, 7,124,646,
`
`7,136,761, 7,505,854, 7,571,062, and 8,000,906.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`For each product or process identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify
`
`whether it was marked pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), including: (i) a listing of each patent
`
`number it was marked with; (ii) a description of all time periods it was marked with each
`
`identified patent number; (iii) a description of all time periods it was made, used, sold or offered
`
`for sale in, or imported into, the United States; (iv) a description, in an element-by-element chart,
`
`of how each asserted claim of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit reads on the product or process; and
`
`(v) an identification of all documents describing or supporting any of the information requested
`
`by this Interrogatory.
`
`
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 4811
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to subpart (iv) of this Interrogatory insofar as
`
`it seeks to impose burdens or responsibilities beyond those set forth in the Local Patent Rules,
`
`specifically L.P.R. 3.1(f). Invensys further objects to the terms “product or process” and
`
`“supporting” as being vague and ambiguous.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds by
`
`incorporating herein its L.P.R. 3-1(f) disclosure from its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions. Invensys further responds that marking of the CFT50 with U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,311,136 began on 9/30/2002. Marking of the CFT50 with the additional U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,754,594, 7,124,646, and 7,136,761 began on 1/27/2008 and persisted until the
`
`CFT50 was discontinued at the end of 2012. Marking of the CFT51 with U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,311,136, 6,754,594, 7,124,646, 7,136,761, 7,505,854, 7,751,062, and 8,000,906 commenced
`
`on 4/17/2012.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Invensys states that at least the following documents
`
`are responsive to Interrogatory No. 3: INVENSYS0114866-INVENSYS0114890,
`
`INVENSYS0158031, INVENSYS0114865, INVENSYS0183548-INVENSYS0183552,
`
`INVENSYS0180518-INVENSYS0180522, INVENSYS0180523-INVENSYS0180527,
`
`INVENSYS0180725, INVENSYS0114859- INVENSYS0114863, INVENSYS0114891,
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 4812
`
`INVENSYS0129331, INVENSYS0158035, INVENSYS0169237-I NVENSYS0169252,
`
`INVENSYS0114855- INVENSYS0114858.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Identify each person who was associated with preparing, filing, or prosecuting the
`
`Invensys Patents-in-Suit, and describe in detail the nature of each person’s involvement.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to this Interrogatory as overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome and to the extent it seeks to elicit information subject to and
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Invensys further
`
`objects that the term “person who was associated with” is vague and ambiguous.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds as follows:
`
`Name
`Kevin Greene, Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`John Hayden, Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`William Hughes, Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`Meghan McGovern, Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`Gregory Walters, Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Nature of Involvement
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos.:
`7,124,646; 7,136,761; 7,505,854; 7,571,062;
`8,000,906
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos.:
`6,311,136; 6,754,594
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos.:
`6,754,594
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent No.:
`7,505,854
`Prosecution of U.S. Patent Nos.:
`7,124,646; 7,136,761; 6,311,136; 6,754,594
`
`
`
`Identify any entity or person including, but not limited to, any holding company, parent,
`
`subsidiary, affiliate, shareholder, or third party that has any financial interest, direct or indirect,
`
`in the outcome of the current litigation or in any of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit.
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 4813
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to this Interrogatory as overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory as neither
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence nor seeking information
`
`relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Invensys further objects to the terms “third
`
`party”; “any financial interest”; and “direct or indirect” as being vague and ambiguous.
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds that the
`
`entity known as the Chancellors, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford (“Oxford
`
`University”) has a financial interest in the outcome of the current litigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`
`
`Identify and describe in detail each and every instance in which Invensys has licensed,
`
`attempted to license, offered to license, suggested a license under, discussed a license under,
`
`entered a covenant not to sue, entered a technology transfer agreement, or settled a lawsuit that
`
`relates to the subject matter of any of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit and/or the Micro Motion
`
`Patents-in-Suit, including, but not limited to, the persons, places, dates, and material terms
`
`associated with each instance.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the
`
`attorney work product doctrine. Invensys further objects to Micro Motion’s characterization of
`
`this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 4814
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for
`
`disclosure of confidential information protected by agreements with third parties, and insofar as
`
`the terms “suggested”, “discussed”, and “relates to the subject matter of” are vague, ambiguous
`
`and overly broad.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d), Invensys states that at least the following documents are responsive to Interrogatory No. 6:
`
`INVENSYS0121700 - INVENSYS0121710; INVENSYS0121711- INVENSYS0121726;
`
`INVENSYS0125988 - INVENSYS0125998; INVENSYS0125938 - INVENSYS0125940;
`
`INVENSYS0125941- INVENSYS0125954; INVENSYS0197915 - INVENSYS0197917;
`
`INVENSYS0390126 - INVENSYS0390128; INVENSYS0086151- INVENSYS0086163;
`
`INVENSYS0121677- INVENSYS0121685; INVENSYS0121686- INVENSYS01216993;
`
`INVENSYS0125955- INVENSYS0125962; INVENSYS0125963- INVENSYS0125971;
`
`INVENSYS0197902- INVENSYS0197914; INVENSYS0197934- INVENSYS0197947;
`
`INVENSYS0125972- INVENSYS0125987; INVENSYS0393133- INVENSYS0393147;
`
`MH0014179-MH0014208; MH0014217-MH0014230; MH0027749- MH0027780; MH0014210
`
`-MH0014216; MH0014146- MH0014153; MH0027502- MH0027508; MH0014155-
`
`MH0014161; MH0014245- MH0014259.
`
`
`
`Invensys’ investigation is ongoing and these responses will be supplemented as
`
`appropriate.
`
` INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail the pre-suit investigation you or a third party on your behalf undertook
`
`to form the basis of your allegation that Emerson and/or Micro Motion has infringed any claim
`
`of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit, including, but not limited to, (i) the dates of all activities related
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 4815
`
`to your pre-suit investigation; (ii) the persons that participated or were involved in your pre-suit
`
`investigation; (iii) any and all products examined, inspected, evaluated, or tested during the
`
`course of your pre-suit investigation; (iv) the manner in which any products were examined,
`
`inspected, evaluated, or tested during the course of your pre-suit investigation; and (v) all
`
`documents and testing results relating to your pre-suit investigation.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to
`
`elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work
`
`product doctrine. Finally, Invensys objects to the term “pre-suit investigation” as vague and
`
`ambiguous.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys states that: testing of
`
`certain Micro Motion digital Coriolis flowmeters was performed in March 2007. The reports
`
`and other materials associated with the testing are covered by the attorney-client privilege, the
`
`attorney work product doctrine, and the common interest privilege. Privilege log entries related
`
`to the testing and other pre-suit investigation activities can be found in Invensys’s privilege log
`
`dated Jan. 21, 2014 and Manus Henry’s privilege log dated Jan. 20, 2014.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail the legal and factual bases supporting any claims for lost profits,
`
`reasonable royalties, or any other damages that Invensys claims to have suffered as a result of
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 4816
`
`any conduct by Emerson and/or Micro Motion, and identify all evidence that Invensys contends
`
`corroborates its claim for damages.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the
`
`requested subject matter is properly the subject of expert opinion and testimony, the exchange of
`
`which is regulated by this Court’s Second Amended Docket Control Order, [Dkt. No. 69].
`
`Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad with regards to the terms
`
`“any other damages” and “all evidence.” Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature insofar as fact discovery is still underway and to the extent that this Interrogatory calls
`
`for expert testimony.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) that at least the following documents contain financial and other factual
`
`data that an expert might rely upon in providing an opinion about Invensys’ claim for damages in
`
`this case (Beginning BATES Nos.): INVENSYS0129151, INVENSYS0125895,
`
`INVENSYS0129348, INVENSYS0390645, INVENSYS0129152, INVENSYS0129324 -
`
`INVENSYS0129325, INVENSYS0216949, INVENSYS0304381, INVENSYS0304382,
`
`INVENSYS0129349, INVENSYS0237353, INVENSYS0237357, INVENSYS0237358,
`
`INVENSYS0237354, INVENSYS237356, INVENSYS237355, INVENSYS0129347,
`
`INVENSYS0393148, INVENSYS0393149, INVENSYS0393150, INVENSYS0393151,
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 4817
`
`INVENSYS0393152, INVENSYS0393153, INVENSYS0394196, INVENSYS0394366,
`
`INVENSYS0394367, INVENSYS0394368, INVENSYS0394369, INVENSYS0394370,
`
`INVENSYS0394371, INVENSYS0394372, INVENSYS0394373, INVENSYS0394374,
`
`INVENSYS0394375, INVENSYS0394376, INVENSYS0394377, INVENSYS0394378,
`
`INVENSYS0394379, INVENSYS0394380, INVENSYS0394381, INVENSYS0394382,
`
`INVENSYS0394383, INVENSYS0394384, INVENSYS0394385, INVENSYS0394386,
`
`INVENSYS0394387, INVENSYS0394388, INVENSYS0394389, INVENSYS0394390, and
`
`INVENSYS0394391.
`
`
`
`Invensys’ investigation is ongoing and these responses will be supplemented as
`
`appropriate.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`
`
`
`
`Identify each and every instance in which you contend Invensys has lost a sale as a result
`
`of the alleged infringement of Micro Motion or Emerson, including an identification of (i) the
`
`customer or potential customer to whom the sale was made; (ii) the date or approximate date of
`
`the same; (iii) the Invensys product offered or proposed to the customer; (iv) the person at the
`
`customer most knowledgeable about the proposed transaction; and (v) the person at Invensys
`
`most knowledgeable about the proposed transaction.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory as premature insofar as
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 4818
`
`fact discovery is still underway and to the extent that this Interrogatory calls for expert
`
`testimony. Given the number of sales and potential sales at issue in this suit, this Interrogatory is
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly in light of its lack of relevance. Invensys is
`
`not required to submit factual evidence detailing every alleged lost sale in order to prevail on its
`
`claim for damages in this case.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Invensys responds pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) that the document bates-labeled INVENSYS0390646 may reference certain
`
`potential sales lost to Micro Motion or Emerson as a result of their infringement.
`
`
`
`Discovery is ongoing. Invensys’ response to this interrogatory is therefore made without
`
`prejudice to its right to supplement this response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail all sources of funding for any and all research that led to the alleged
`
`inventions in any of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit, identifying the name of the funding source, the
`
`amount of funding received from each funding source, conditions imposed by each funding
`
`source, and any and all agreements related to the funding and/or the ownership interests in the
`
`alleged inventions that arose out of the research for which funding was provided.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`
`
`In addition to its General Objections, Invensys objects to Micro Motion’s characterization
`
`of this Interrogatory as one interrogatory because it contains multiple subparts and is directed to
`
`multiple patents. Each subpart of this Interrogatory as to each asserted patent should be counted
`
`towards Micro Motion’s limits as agreed upon by the Parties in the Discovery Order entered by
`
`the Court [Dkt. No. 53]. Invensys further objects to this Interrogatory as neither reasonably
`
`EAST\76067703.1
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 163-3 Filed 06/10/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 4819
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence nor seeking information relevant to the
`
`claims and defenses in this case insofar as it concerns funding and sources of funding.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d), Invensys states that at least the following documents are responsive to Interrogatory No.
`
`10: INVENSYS0121700 - INVENSYS0121710; INVENSYS0121711- INVENSYS0121726;
`
`INVENSYS0125988 - INVENSYS0125998; INVENSYS0125938 - INVENSYS0125940;
`
`INVENSYS0125941- INVENSYS0125954; INVENSYS0197915 - INVENSYS0197917;
`
`INVENSYS0390126 - INVENSYS0390128; INVENSYS0086151- INVENSYS0086163;
`
`INVENSYS0121677- INVENSYS0121685; INVENSYS0121686- INVENSYS01216993;
`
`INVENSYS0125955- INVENSYS0125962; INVENSYS0125963- INVENSYS0125971;
`
`INVENSYS0197902- INVENSYS0197914; INVENSYS0197934- INVENSYS0197947;
`
`INVENSYS0125972- INVENSYS0125987; MH0014179-MH0014208; MH0014217-
`
`MH0014230; MH0027749- MH0027780; MH0014210 -MH0014216; MH0014146-
`
`MH0014153; MH0027502- MH0027508; MH0014155- MH0014161; MH0014245-
`
`MH0014259.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`
`
`For each Invensys Accused Product state in detail the complete basis for Invensys’s
`
`position, if any, that such Invensys Accused Product does not infringe the Micro Motion Patents-
`
`in-Suit, identify all documents or evidence that support this position, and set forth these
`
`contentions in a three-column claim chart setting out in the left column the claim elements, in the
`
`middle column the claim elements you contend are missing, and in the right column the basis fo