`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`Defendants.
`and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF LINDA E.B. HANSEN
`
`I, Linda E.B. Hansen, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. I am a partner at the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP and one of the attorneys for
`
`Emerson Electric Co. and Micro Motion, Inc. in this matter. I am over 18 years of age, of
`
`sound mind, and capable of making this declaration.
`
`2. On October 10, 2014, I conferred with Mr. Jeffrey Johnson, counsel for Invensys
`
`Systems, Inc., via telephone. On the telephone call, I proposed that the parties agree to
`
`delay the deadline for rebuttal expert reports by two weeks to allow Invensys sufficient
`
`time to respond to all of Defendants’ invalidity arguments, and, to allow Defendants
`
`sufficient time to respond to all of Invensys’s infringement arguments. Mr. Johnson did
`
`not accept my offer.
`
`3. Mr. Tony Pankratz was deposed by Invensys on July 10, 2014. Mr. Pankratz worked
`
`with an outside consultant, Mr. Howard Derby, on the Micro Motion digital prototypes.
`
`At his deposition, Mr. Pankratz testified about, among other things, a successful
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 234-1 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 6617
`
`demonstration that he conducted of one of the digital prototypes at a customer site—
`
`Cooper Industries, in Ohio—on November 7, 1996.
`
`4. Mr. Howard Derby was deposed by Invensys on July 29, 2014. Mr. Derby was the
`
`former consultant to Micro Motion whose retrieved electronic files contained thousands
`
`of pages of material concerning the digital prototypes that were produced to Invensys in
`
`July 2014. Mr. Derby also had data extracted from an old hard drive, and that too was
`
`also provided to Invensys prior to his deposition on July 29th.
`
`5. Invensys took the deposition of Tamal Bose, an outside consultant who worked on
`
`aspects of the Digital Prototypes, on July 1, 2013.
`
`6. Invensys took the deposition of Southwest Research Institute, a third party subpoenaed
`
`by both Invensys and Micro Motion at whose facility one of the Digital Prototypes was
`
`successfully used in June 1996, on July 10, 2014.
`
`7. Mr. Rick Maginnis was deposed by Invensys on July 13, 2014. At his deposition, Mr.
`
`Maginnis testified about his development work on the Altus DSP.
`
`8. As of May 24, 2014, when plaintiff’s counsel received the information regarding the
`
`Digital Prototypes on May 24, 2014, Invensys had only taken two depositions total (both
`
`relating to email discovery), and had not yet taken a single deposition of Micro Motion
`
`on any technical issues.
`
`9. On September 25, 2014, Defendants served their Amended Invalidity Contentions
`
`pursuant to P.R. 3-6(a)(2).
`
`10. On October 6, 2014, Invensys served Defendants with three expert reports consisting of
`
`more than 2,600 pages.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 234-1 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 6618
`
`11. On October 6, 2014, Defendants served Invensys with two expert reports consisting of
`
`approximately 335 pages. One of the reports, Defendants’ Invalidity Expert Report of
`
`Tamal Bose, Ph.D., contained invalidity analysis of the Invensys asserted patents based
`
`on, inter alia, the Digital Prototypes.
`
`12. I understand that Defendants produced Altus DSP sales numbers to Invensys on October
`
`25, 2013. See MM0888153. I further understand that Defendants produced documents
`
`relating to the schematics of the Altus product on June 12, 2014. See MM1101727-36.
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on October 20, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Linda E.B. Hansen
`Linda E.B. Hansen
`
`
`
`
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
