Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 5238
`
`         
`
`Exhibit B  
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 5239
`2m33-Dfise 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 P ge 2 of 8 Page|D #: 5239
`AMENDED ANSWER — AMENDEDGENERAI O
`T
`L
`A
`364624
`’m2E%;
`1
`lllllll
`llllll
`II Ill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS and
`SCHOLARS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
`OXFORD and INVENSYS SYSTEMS,
`INC
`,
`_
`Plaintiff
`
`IN THE DISTR§C‘®gQ§R'§H 3; 21
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`g
`
`gt
`I
`.
`j»
`2 C 15
`, scat:
`
`"‘
`. TEXAS
`5
`EEPUTY
`
`I
`
`OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`§ §
`
`v.
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP,
`Defendant
`
`DEFENDANT’S FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER,
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
`
`Defendant Shore Chan DePumpO LLP (“DefendaI1t” or “Counter-Plaintiff”) files this
`
`Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, and in support thereof
`
`would Show as follows:
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`As pennitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Constitutions of the United
`
`States and the State of Texas, Defendant hereby generally denies each and every, all and
`
`singular, of the material allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and demands strict
`
`proof thereof by a preponderance of the evidence before a jury.
`
`II.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action fails to state a claim upon which relief may
`
`be granted.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
`
`Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`l54783vl
`
`PAGE 1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 5240
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 P‘ge 3 of 8 Page|D #: 5240
`
`HI.
`
`DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
`
`4.
`
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under TEX. R. CIV. P.
`
`190.4 (Level 3).
`
`IV.
`
`C OUNTERCLAIMS
`
`5.
`
`Defendant, referred to in this section as “Counter-Plaintiff,” further pleads as
`
`follows:
`
`6.
`
`When a party asserts a counterclaim against another party who has entered an
`
`appearance, the claim may be served as provided in Rule 2l(a). TEX. R. CIV. P. 124. Plaintiffs,
`
`The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford and Invensys Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Oxford” or “lnvensys”) have entered an appearance in this case and may be served by
`
`facsimile on its attorney of record, Claudia Wilson Frost, DLA Piper LLP (US), 1000 Louisiana,
`
`Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77002.
`
`7.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff began providing legal services to Invensys and advising it on
`
`intellectual property matters in 2009.
`
`In February or March 2010, Invensys asked Counter-
`
`Plaintiff to examine a particular set of patents owned by Invensys, and Shore Chan began
`
`rendering legal advice and services to Invensys concerning those patents.
`
`8.
`
`Over two and a half years later, on September 21, 2012, after Counter-Plaintiff
`
`had discovered and developed the true and full value of the aforementioned patents and had
`
`provided Invensys with extensive counsel and legal services concerning the pursuit of a patent
`
`infringement lawsuit against Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) and Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro
`
`Motion”), Invensys abruptly informed Counter-Plaintiff that it would be retaining other counsel
`
`to pursue that infringement suit. One month later, based mostly (if not entirely) on the work-
`
`product and counsel provided by Counter-Plaintiff, Invensys filed a federal patent-infringement
`
`lawsuit against Emerson in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`(“the Emerson Lawsuit”).
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`l54783vl
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 5241
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JR%D0cument 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 age 4 of 8 Page|D #: 5241
`
`Unbeknownst to Counter-Plaintiff, Invensys had retained DLA Piper, counsel for Invensys and
`
`Oxford in this case, to prosecute the Emerson Lawsuit.
`
`COUNT ONE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION vs. INVENSYS
`
`9.
`
`In its Original Petition, Invensys essentially requests a declaration, pursuant to
`
`TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.001 et. seq., that it does not owe any fees or expenses to
`
`Counter-Plaintiff arising out of any agreements with or legal services provided by Counter-
`
`Plaintiff, including any contingent fees based on recoveries in the Emerson Lawsuit. Counter-
`
`Plaintiff, on the other hand, maintains that Invensys owes it fees, expenses, and possibly other
`
`compensation for the value of legal services Counter-Plaintiff rendered to Invensys from early
`
`2010 through September 2012, based quantum meruit principles.
`
`As such, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Counter-Plaintiff and Invensys
`
`concerning whether Invensys owes Counter-Plaintiff any fees, expenses, or other compensation
`
`arising out of any agreements with or legal services provided by Counter-Plaintiff. Counter-
`
`Plaintiff seeks to resolve this controversy through a declaratory judgment under TEX. CIV. PRAC.
`
`& REM. CODE § 37.001 et. seq. This controversy will be resolved through the Court’s issuance
`
`of a judgment favoring Counter-Plaintiff and declaring that Invensys owes Counter-Plaintiff for
`
`the value of its legal services, including but not limited to it fees and expenses. However,
`
`Counter-Plaintiff is not seeking the recovery of a contingent fee in connection with this
`
`counterclaim.
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 37.009, Counter-Plaintiff seeks its
`
`reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs expended in connection with defending
`
`against Invensys’ declaratory judgment action, pursuing its own declaratory judgment action,
`
`and otherwise seeking to resolve the controversy underlying those declaratory judgment actions.
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`154783vl
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5242
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 172-3 Filed O6/30/14 age 5 of 8 Page|D #: 5242
`
`COUNT Two: THEFT OF SERVICES vs. INVENSYS
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff hereby sues Invensys for theft of services pursuant to the Texas
`
`Theft Liability Act (TEX. C1v. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 134.001 et. seq.) and Texas Penal Code.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff provided services to Invensys, as that term is defined in the Texas Penal Code §
`
`3 1 .01 .
`
`13.
`
`Counter-Defendant
`
`Invensys knowingly and intentionally secured Counter-
`
`Plaintiffs services and knew the services were provided for compensation.
`
`14.
`
`Counter-Defendant Invensys intended to avoid compensating Counter-Plaintiff
`
`for its services by: (a) intentionally or knowingly securing the services by deception; and/or (b)
`
`intentionally or knowingly diverting Counter-Plaintiffs services, to which Invensys was not
`
`entitled but over which it had control, to lnvensys’s own benefit. The above—described conduct
`
`constitutes theft of services that has caused Counter-Plaintiff to incur actual damages in excess of
`
`the jurisdictional limits of this Court for which Invensys is liable. However, Counter-Plaintiff is
`
`not seeking the recovery of a contingent fee in connection with this cause of action.
`
`15.
`
`Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§134.005(a)(1) and (b) and TEX.
`
`CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 41.008, Counter-Plaintiff also seeks the recovery of its costs and
`
`reasonable and necessary attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, exemplary
`
`damages, and additional statutory remedies.
`
`COUNT THREE: QUANTUM MERUIT VS. INVENSYS
`
`16.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 16 above as if fi1lly set forth
`
`herein.
`
`17.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff provided Invensys with legal services for Invensys’ benefit,
`
`Invensys accepted these services, and Invensys had reasonable notice that Counter-Plaintiff
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`154783vl
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 5243
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JR%Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 age 6 of 8 Page|D #: 5243
`
`expected compensation in return for these services. Accordingly, Invensys has been unjustly
`
`enriched and must be compelled to pay Counter-Plaintiff for the reasonable value of its services,
`
`which is in an amount in excess of the Court’s minimum jurisdictional limits. However,
`
`Counter-Plaintiff is not seeking the recovery of a contingent fee in connection with this cause of
`
`action.
`
`18.
`
`Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §38.00l(l)-(3), Counter-Plaintiff also
`
`seeks the recovery of its costs and reasonable and necessary attorney fees, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest, exemplary damages, and additional statutory remedies.
`
`V.
`
`ACTUAL DAMAGES
`
`20.
`
`Counter-Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`Invensys has caused Counter-Plaintiff to suffer actual damages exceeding $1
`
`million, but not exceeding some percentage of approximately $40 million, excluding attorneys’
`
`fees and exemplary damages, to be determined at the appropriate time by expert testimony. This
`
`estimate is based, in part, on a presentation given by Invensys employee, Brian Dickson, to
`
`million. Shore Chan contends that it is entitled to a percentage of this amount as representative
`
`.... ,...1
`..,...
`-n-.3.-.
`..
`......l
`T.u....,..-.
`111 Clfiyfi 5 3 1lU1'(11 U Ll1lb'Cl
`
`..
`..
`......J A-..‘
`21111.1 CKCUU
`
`of the value Shore Chan provided to Invensys.
`
`VI.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`22.
`
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`VII.
`
`REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 194, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff requests that Oxford
`
`and Invensys supplement all disclosures as necessary.
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`l54783vl
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 5244
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 172-3 Filed O6/30/14 Pige 7 of 8 Page|D #: 5244
`
`VIII.
`
`PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffi Shore
`
`Chan Bragalone DePumpo, LLP prays that Plaintiffs The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of
`
`the University of Oxford and Invensys Systems, Inc. take nothing in connection with any of their
`
`claims against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff;
`
`that the Court deny any and all relief requested
`
`against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and that the Court award
`
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff all costs and attorneys’ fees it incurs in defending against Plaintiffs’
`
`declaratory judgment action;
`
`that the Court award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff its requested
`
`declaratory relief;
`
`that the Court award Counter-Plaintiff actual or compensatory damages,
`
`exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest, costs, attorneys’
`
`fees, and
`
`additional available statutory remedies on its counterclaims in an amount to be determined at
`
`trial; and that the Court award Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff all other relief, general or special, at
`
`law or in equity, to which it may show itself entitled.
`
`Respectfixlly submitted,
`
`
`
`ar A. Sayles
`ar No. 17697500
`
`
`
`Will S. Snyder
`State Bar No. 00786250
`
`E. Sawyer Neely
`State Bar No. 24041574
`SAYLES | WERBNER
`4400 Renaissance Tower
`
`1201 Elm Street
`
`Dallas, Texas 75270
`(214) 939-8700 Telephone
`(214) 939-8787 Facsimile
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`l54783vl
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 5245
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JR%Document 172-3 Filed 06/30/14 ige 8 of 8 Page|D #: 5245
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this the 12th day of November, 2013, a true and
`correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas
`Rules of Civil Procedure on counsel of record.
`
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 2800
`
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Claudia.Frost@dlapiper.com
`Facsimile: (713) 425-8401
`
`Kathy J. Owen
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1717 Main Street, Suite 4600
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201-4629
`Kathy. Owen@dlapiper.com
`Facsimile: (972) 813-6270
`
`E
`
`W er Nee y
`
`FOURTH AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, & COUNTERCLAIMS
`154783v1
`
`PAGE 7