`
`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 REPLY TO DEFENDANT MICRO MOTION INC.’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [Dkt. 28]
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”), hereby
`
`answers the counterclaims of Defendant Micro Motion Inc. (“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 and Invensys’ First Amended Complaint.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro
`
`Motion’s Counterclaims have merit and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`Invensys admits that it filed an Original Complaint and Amended 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”), 7,505,854 (“the ‘854 Patent”), 6,754,594 (“the ‘594
`
`EAST\55286908.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1384
`
`Patent”), 7,571,062 (“the ‘062 Patent”), and 8,000,906 (“the ‘906 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 merits 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 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 merits of that contention.
`
`EAST\55286908.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1385
`
`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 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.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`In addition to the defenses described below, Invensys expressly reserves the right to
`
`allege additional defenses as they become known through the course of discovery.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`15. Micro Motion has failed to state a claim against Invensys upon which relief may
`
`be granted.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Invensys repeats its request for relief as set forth in its First Amended Complaint and
`
`further requests judgment denying the relief sought by Micro Motion in its counterclaims.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Invensys hereby reiterates its demand for a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`EAST\55286908.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 33 Filed 03/08/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1386
`
`Date: March 8, 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.
`
`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 March 8, 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\55286908.1
`
`4