Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 29 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1336
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
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
