`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`Defendants,
`
`Case No. 12-CV-00799
`
`and
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.’S. CORRECTED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
`DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) hereby responds to Plaintiff’s First
`
`Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Emerson admits that it is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 8000 W. Florissant Ave., St. Louis, Missouri, and that it does business in this District
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1337
`
`and is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Emerson otherwise denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`3.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. Emerson admits that Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro
`
`Motion”) is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson. To the extent that a response is
`
`otherwise required, Emerson denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`Emerson admits that Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”) purports to bring this
`
`action under Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`5.
`
`Emerson admits that it conducts business in Texas and that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Emerson. Emerson otherwise denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`6.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`VENUE
`
`7.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. Emerson admits that because it is subject to this Court’s
`
`personal jurisdiction and therefore is deemed to reside in this District, venue is proper; however,
`
`Emerson affirmatively states that for the reasons set forth in Micro Motion’s previously filed
`
`motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this Court should transfer venue to the
`
`District of Colorado. Emerson denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1338
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. Emerson admits that some digital Coriolis flowmeters
`
`provide precise measurement of the mass flow rate of liquids and that some digital Coriolis
`
`flowmeters are used in a variety of industries, including oil and gas, chemical, and food and
`
`beverage. Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`9.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`10.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. Emerson admits that Micro Motion is an indirect wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Emerson. To the extent that a response is otherwise required, Emerson
`
`denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`11.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. Emerson denies that it has facilities in this District.
`
`Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1339
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’646 Patent)
`
`12.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-11 of the Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 7,124,646 (“the ’646 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Correcting for Two-Phase Flow in a Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on
`
`October 24, 2006; (c) the named inventors are Manus P. Henry and Maria Jesus De La Fuente;
`
`and (d) Invensys is the assignee. Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the
`
`’646 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Emerson denies that the ’646 patent was
`
`duly and legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`15.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`16.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations regarding “at least
`
`one Information Disclosure Statement[]” in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. Further,
`
`Emerson denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1340
`
`17.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’761 Patent)
`
`18.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-17 of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 7,136,761 (“the ’761 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on November 14, 2006; (c) the named
`
`inventors are Manus P. Henry, David W. Clarke, and James H. Vignos; and (d) Invensys is the
`
`assignee. Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’761 patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit B. Emerson denies that the ’761 patent was duly and legally issued.
`
`As for the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`21.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`22.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations regarding “at least
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 1341
`
`one IDS” in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. Further, Emerson denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`23.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`THIRD CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’136 Patent)
`
`24.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-23 of the Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 6,311,136 (“the ’136 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on October 30, 2001; (c) the named
`
`inventors are Manus P. Henry, David W. Clarke, and James H. Vignos; and (d) Invensys is the
`
`assignee. Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’136 patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit C. Emerson denies that the ’136 patent was duly and legally issued.
`
`As for the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`27.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 1342
`
`28.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson
`
`admits: (a) U.S. Patent No. 6,606,917 states on its face that Emerson is the assignee and the ’136
`
`patent appears among twenty-two references and an International Search Report listed under the
`
`References Cited section; and (b) U.S. RE43,288 states on its face that Emerson is the assignee
`
`and the ’136 patent appears among sixty-seven references and an International Search Report
`
`listed under the References Cited section. Emerson denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`29.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson
`
`admits: (a) the ’136 patent appears as one of thirty-nine references listed on an IDS for U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,114,517 (“the ’517 patent”) date stamped March 3, 2006 by the Patent &
`
`Trademark Office; (b) RE43,288 is a reissue of the ’517 patent; and (c) an assignment of the
`
`’517 patent to Emerson was executed by some inventors on November 21, 2001 and recorded on
`
`October 18, 2006. Emerson denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`30.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`31.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 1343
`
`32.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`33.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations in this Paragraph
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`34.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`35.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’854 Patent)
`
`36.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-35 of the Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 7,505,854 (“the ’854 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Startup Techniques for a Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on March 17,
`
`2009; (c) the named inventors are Manus P. Henry and Mayela E. Zamora; and (d) Invensys is
`
`the assignee. Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’854 patent is attached
`
`to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Emerson denies that the ’854 patent was duly and legally issued.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 1344
`
`As for the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`39.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`40.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations regarding “one or
`
`more patent applications assigned to . . . Emerson” in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`Further, Emerson denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`41.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’594 Patent)
`
`42.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-41 of the Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 6,754,594 (“the ’594 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on June 22, 2004; (c) the named inventors
`
`are Manus P. Henry, David W. Clarke, and James H. Vignos; and (d) Invensys is the assignee.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 1345
`
`Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’594 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit E. Emerson denies that the ’594 patent was duly and legally issued. As for
`
`the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`44.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`45.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations regarding “at least
`
`one IDS” in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. Further, Emerson denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’062 Patent)
`
`48.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-47 of the Complaint.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 1346
`
`49.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 7,571,062 (“the ’062 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on August 4, 2009; (c) the named inventors
`
`are Manus P. Henry, David W. Clarke, and James H. Vignos; and (d) Invensys is the assignee.
`
`Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’062 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit F. Emerson denies that the ’062 patent was duly and legally issued. As for
`
`the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`50.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`51.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`52.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`53.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations in this Paragraph
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`54.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 1347
`
`55.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SEVENTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’906 Patent)
`
`56.
`
`Emerson repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to Paragraphs
`
`1-55 of the Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`Emerson admits U.S. Patent No. 8,000,906 (“the ’906 patent”) states on its face
`
`that: (a) its title is “Digital Flowmeter”; (b) it issued on August 16, 2011; (c) the named inventors
`
`are Manus P. Henry, David W. Clarke, and James H. Vignos; and (d) Invensys is the assignee.
`
`Emerson also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’906 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit G. Emerson denies that the ’906 patent was duly and legally issued. As
`
`for the remaining allegations, Emerson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`58.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`59.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 1348
`
`61.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson lacks
`
`sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations in this Paragraph
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`62.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`63.
`
`No response is required from Emerson to the extent that the allegations in this
`
`Paragraph are not directed to Emerson. To the extent that a response is required, Emerson denies
`
`the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`64.
`
`The allegations in this Paragraph do not call for a response from Emerson.
`
`However, as indicated below, Emerson desires a trial by jury on all issues so triable and
`
`respectfully requests the same.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`65.
`
`Emerson has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced the
`
`infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’646, ’761, ’136, ’854, ’594, ’062, and
`
`’906 patents (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”) either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`66.
`
`The claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid for failing to comply with one or
`
`more of the statutory requirements set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`67.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 1349
`
`68.
`
`Invensys’s claims for damages, if any, against Emerson are statutorily limited by
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.
`
`69.
`
`Invensys’s claims are barred from relief under the applicable statute of
`
`limitations.
`
`70.
`
`Emerson believes that after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and
`
`discovery, the evidence will show that Invensys’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, under
`
`principles of equity, including without limitation, prosecution laches, laches, waiver, and/or
`
`estoppel.
`
`71.
`
`Invensys is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury is not
`
`immediate or irreparable, and/or because Invensys has an adequate remedy at law.
`
`72.
`
`By virtue of statements made, amendments made, or positions taken during the
`
`prosecution of the applications for the patents-in-suit and/or any related patents or patent
`
`applications, Invensys is estopped from construing any claim of the patents-in-suit to cover or
`
`include, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any of Emerson’s products, systems,
`
`or processes.
`
`73.
`
`Emerson reserves all defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist
`
`or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this case.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Emerson denies that Invensys is entitled to any relief as prayed
`
`for in the Complaint or otherwise, and accordingly, respectfully prays for entry of a judgment:
`
`A.
`
`Dismissing the Complaint with prejudice and denying Invensys all relief
`
`requested in the Complaint;
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 1350
`
`B.
`
`That Emerson has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced
`
`infringement of, and is not infringing, contributing to the infringement of, or inducing
`
`infringement of any valid claim of the patents-in-suit;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`That the claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid;
`
`That the Court find this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award
`
`Emerson its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`E.
`
`Awarding to Emerson such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Emerson desires a trial by jury on all issues so triable and respectfully requests
`
`the same.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 1351
`
`Dated: February 19, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Shin
`Matthew J. Shin
`
`Linda E.B. Hansen, WI Bar No. 1000660
`Richard S. Florsheim, WI Bar No. 1015905
`Jeffrey N. Costakos, WI Bar No. 1008225
`Kadie M. Jelenchick, WI Bar No. 1056506
`Matthew J. Shin, WI Bar No. 1090096
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
`Phone: (414) 271-2400
`Fax: (414) 297-4900
`Email: lhansen@foley.com
`rflorsheim@foley.com
`jcostakos@foley.com
`kjelenchick@foley.com
`mshin@foley.com
`
`Guy N. Harrison, State Bar No. 00000077
`Harrison Law Firm
`217 N. Center Street
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Phone: (903) 758-7361
`Fax: (903) 753-9557
`Email: guy@gnhlaw.com and
`cj-gnharrison@att.net
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Emerson Electric Co.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 19, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document
`
`with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`4819-6851-6370.2
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Shin
`Matthew J. Shin
`
`16