throbber
Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 24 Filed 01/31/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 466
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`C.A. No. 6:12-cv-00799-LED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO DEFENDANT MICRO MOTION INC., USA’S COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”) hereby
`
`answers the counterclaims of Defendant Micro Motion Inc., USA (“Micro Motion”) as follows,
`
`and denies each of Micro Motion’s allegations except as set forth below.
`
`ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Invensys admits the allegations of Paragraph 1.
`
`Invensys admits the allegations of Paragraph 2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Invensys admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`matter.
`
`Invensys admits that an actual case and controversy exists with respect to Micro
`
`Motion’s Counterclaims.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro Motion’s Counterclaims have merit and
`
`denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`Invensys admits that it filed a Complaint for infringement of United States Patent
`
`Nos. 7,124,646 (“the ‘646 Patent”), 7,136,761 (“the ‘761 Patent”), 6,311,136 (“the ‘136 Patent”),
`
`EAST\54783252
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 24 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 467
`
`and 7,505,854 (“the ‘854 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) against Micro Motion.
`
`Invensys admits that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the Patents-in-Suit)
`
`5.
`
`Invensys realleages and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 – 4 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Invensys admits the allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion denies infringement of the patents-in-suit, but
`
`denies the merit of that denial.
`
`8.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion filed a purported counterclaim for declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro Motion’s
`
`counterclaim of non-infringement has merit and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion has filed a purported counterclaim for
`
`declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro
`
`Motion’s counterclaim of non-infringement has merit and denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 9.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit)
`
`10.
`
`Invensys realleages and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 – 9 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Invensys admits that the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are valid.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion contends that the claims of the patents-in-suit
`
`are invalid, but denies the merit of that contention.
`
`EAST\54783252
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 24 Filed 01/31/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 468
`
`13.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion filed a purported counterclaim for declaratory
`
`judgment of invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit. Invensys denies that Micro Motion’s counterclaim
`
`of invalidity has merit and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion has filed a purported counterclaim for
`
`declaratory judgment of invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro Motion’s
`
`counterclaim of invalidity has merit and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14.
`
`RESPONSE TO MICRO MOTION’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Although no response is required to Micro Motion’s Prayer for Relief, to the extent
`
`necessary, Invensys denies all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14 in the
`
`Counterclaims, and further denies that relief should be granted to Micro Motion.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Invensys repeats its request for relief as set forth in its First Complaint and further
`
`requests judgment denying the relief sought by Micro Motion in its counterclaims.
`
`Date:
`
`January 31, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`State Bar No. 21671300
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`State Bar No. 24029638
`Amy P. Mohan
`State Bar No. 24051070
`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
`Amy.Mohan@dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`EAST\54783252
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 24 Filed 01/31/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 469
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document was filed electronically on January 31, 2013,
`pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a) and has been served on all counsel who have consented to
`electronic service. Any other counsel of record will be served by first class U.S. mail on this
`same date.
`
`/s/ Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`
`EAST\54783252

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket