throbber
Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1787
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 12-CV-00799-LED
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
`AND SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendant Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”)1 hereby responds to Plaintiff’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`First Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
`
`the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`
`1 Invensys Systems, Inc. (“Invensys”) incorrectly identified Micro Motion Inc., USA as a
`Defendant in this action in the Original Complaint. The correct name is Micro Motion, Inc.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 1788
`
`
`2.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion.
`
`3.
`
`Micro Motion denies that its name is “Micro Motion Inc., USA” and affirmatively
`
`states that its correct name is “Micro Motion, Inc.” Micro Motion admits that it is a Colorado
`
`corporation with its principal place of business being at 7070 Winchester Circle, Boulder,
`
`Colorado 80301, and that it is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co.
`
`(“Emerson”). Micro Motion also admits that certain of its products are sold, offered for sale, and
`
`used in this District. Micro Motion otherwise denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`Micro Motion admits that Invensys purports to bring this action under Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`5.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`6.
`
`Micro Motion admits that it conducts business in Texas and that this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Micro Motion. Micro Motion otherwise denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`VENUE
`
`7.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. Micro Motion 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, Micro Motion 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
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 1789
`
`
`transfer venue to the District of Colorado. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. Micro Motion admits that some digital Coriolis
`
`flowmeters provide precise measurements 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. Micro Motion 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 Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`10. Micro Motion admits that it is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson.
`
`Micro Motion also admits that in or around 2006, it released certain Coriolis flowmeters having a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor. Micro Motion otherwise denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`11.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. Micro Motion denies that it has facilities in this
`
`District. Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 1790
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’646 Patent)
`
`12. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-11 of the Complaint.
`
`13. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be
`
`the ’646 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit A. Micro Motion denies that the ’646
`
`patent was duly and legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`15.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`16.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 1791
`
`
`regarding “at least one Information Disclosure Statement[]” in this Paragraph and therefore
`
`denies them. Further, Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`17.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’761 Patent)
`
`18. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-17 of the Complaint.
`
`19. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’761 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B. Micro Motion denies that the ’761 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 1792
`
`
`21.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`22.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion 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, Micro Motion
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`23.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`THIRD CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’136 Patent)
`
`24. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-23 of the Complaint.
`
`25. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’136 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C. Micro Motion denies that the ’136 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 1793
`
`
`26.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`27.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`28.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits: (a) U.S. Patent No. 8,063,694 (“the ’694 patent”) states on its face that Micro
`
`Motion is the assignee and the ’136 patent appears among twelve references under the
`
`References Cited section; (b) U.S. Patent No. 7,974,792 (“the ’792 patent”) states on its face that
`
`Micro Motion is the assignee and the ’136 patent appears among eighteen references under the
`
`References Cited section; (c) U.S. Patent No. 7,293,470 (“the ’470 patent”) states on its face that
`
`Micro Motion is the assignee and the ’136 patent appears among twelve references under the
`
`References Cited section; and (d) U.S. Patent No. 6,487,507 (“the ’507 patent”) states on its face
`
`that Micro Motion is the assignee and the ’136 patent appears among twenty-one references
`
`under the References Cited section. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 1794
`
`
`29.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`30. Micro Motion admits that the ’136 patent and U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`2003/0154804 appear among ten references listed in an IDS for the ’470 patent bearing a March
`
`8, 2006 date stamp by the Patent & Trademark Office, and an assignment of the ’470 patent to
`
`Micro Motion was recorded on March 8, 2006. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations
`
`in this Paragraph.
`
`31. Micro Motion admits that the ’136 patent appears among seven references listed
`
`in the September 11, 2007 IDS for the ’792 patent, and an assignment of the ’792 patent to Micro
`
`Motion was recorded on September 11, 2007. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in
`
`this Paragraph.
`
`32. Micro Motion admits that the ’136 patent appears among eight references listed in
`
`the October 15, 2008 IDS for the ’694 patent, and an assignment of the ’694 patent to Micro
`
`Motion was recorded on October 15, 2008. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in
`
`this Paragraph.
`
`33.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion 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 Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 1795
`
`
`35.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’854 Patent)
`
`36. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-35 of the Complaint.
`
`37. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’854 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D. Micro Motion denies that the ’854 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`39.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 1796
`
`
`40.
`
` No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion lacks sufficient information to form a belief about the truth of the vague allegations
`
`regarding “one or more patent applications assigned to Micro Motion” in this Paragraph and
`
`therefore denies them. Further, Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`41.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’594 Patent)
`
`42. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-41 of the Complaint.
`
`43. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’594 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E. Micro Motion denies that the ’594 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`44.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 1797
`
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`45.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion 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, Micro Motion
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’062 Patent)
`
`48. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-47 of the Complaint.
`
`49. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’062 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F. Micro Motion denies that the ’062 patent was duly and
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 1798
`
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`50.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`51.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`52.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits: (a) U.S. Patent No. 8,289,179 (“the ’179 patent”) states on its face that Micro
`
`Motion is the assignee and the ’062 patent appears among sixteen references under the
`
`References Cited section; (b) an assignment of the ’179 patent to Micro Motion was recorded on
`
`November 4, 2009; and (c) a Notice of Allowability with a June 22, 2012 mail date and a Notice
`
`of References Cited with a mail room date of June 22, 2012 posted on the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office database reference U.S. Patent Nos. 7,571,062; 6,917,887; 7,404,336; and 8,000,906.
`
`Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`53.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 1799
`
`
`Motion 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 Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`55.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`SEVENTH CLAIM
`
`(Alleged Patent Infringement of the ’906 Patent)
`
`56. Micro Motion repeats and incorporates herein by reference its responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1-55 of the Complaint.
`
`57. Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion also admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’906 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit G. Micro Motion denies that the ’906 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. As for the remaining allegations, Micro Motion lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and therefore denies them.
`
`58.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion admits that Micro Motion makes, offers for sale, and sells, within the territorial
`
`boundaries of the United States, Coriolis meters containing a Micro Motion transmitter with a
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 1800
`
`
`Micro Motion enhanced core processor, and the components thereof. Micro Motion denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`59.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. Micro Motion admits: (a) the ’179 patent
`
`states on its face that Micro Motion is the assignee and the ’906 patent appears among sixteen
`
`references under the References Cited section; (b) an assignment of the ’179 patent to Micro
`
`Motion was recorded on November 4, 2009; and (c) a Notice of Allowability with a June 22,
`
`2012 mail date and a Notice of References Cited with a mail room date of June 22, 2012 posted
`
`on the Patent and Trademark Office database reference U.S. Patent Nos. 7,571,062, 6,917,887,
`
`7,404,336, and 8,000,906. Micro Motion denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`61.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion 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 Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`63.
`
`No response is required from Micro Motion to the extent that the allegations in
`
`this Paragraph are not directed to Micro Motion. To the extent that a response is required, Micro
`
`Motion denies the allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 1801
`
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`64.
`
`The allegations in this Paragraph do not call for a response from Micro Motion.
`
`However, as indicated below, Micro Motion desires a trial by jury on all issues so triable and
`
`respectfully requests the same.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`65. Micro Motion 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 Invensys patents-in-suit”) either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`66.
`
`The claims of the Invensys 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.
`
`68.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Invensys’s claims for damages, if any, against Micro Motion 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. Micro Motion 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.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 1802
`
`
`72.
`
`By virtue of statements made, amendments made, or positions taken during the
`
`prosecution of the applications for the Invensys patents-in-suit and/or any related patents or
`
`patent applications, Invensys is estopped from construing any claim of the Invensys patents-in-
`
`suit to cover or include, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any of Micro
`
`Motion’s products, systems, or processes.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`The Invensys patents-in-suit are unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct.
`
`The ’646 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent App. No. 09/716,644, filed
`
`November 21, 2000 and to U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/166,742, filed November 22, 1999.
`
`75.
`
`The ’646 patent claims a method or controller for a Coriolis effect flowmeter,
`
`including processing devices configured, among other things, to “determine, based on the sensor
`
`signal, the flow rate of the flowing liquid during a transition of the flowtube from a first state in
`
`which the flowtube is substantially empty of the flowing liquid to a second state in which the
`
`flowtube is substantially full of the flowing liquid.”
`
`76.
`
`The claims of the ’646 patent purport to claim this process in all industrial
`
`settings.
`
`77.
`
`However, the data used in the ’646 patent comes exclusively from controlled
`
`laboratory experiments.
`
`78.
`
`The ’646 patent states that its methods are repeatable in industrial settings:
`
`“Similar repeatability could be achieved in an arbitrary industrial batch process.” ’646 patent,
`
`col. 57:39-40.
`
`79.
`
`This is the only statement in the ’646 patent that the claimed method can be used
`
`in a variety of real-world industrial batch processes.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 1803
`
`
`80.
`
`The provisional application on which the ’646 patent claims priority, U.S.
`
`Provisional App. No. 60/166,742, says: “Thus, it cannot be guaranteed that similar repeatability
`
`could be achieved in an arbitrary industrial process.”
`
`81.
`
`The provisional application thus expressly states that the results cannot be
`
`generalized to a range of industrial processes.
`
`82.
`
`In the original application on which the ’646 patent claims priority, U.S. Patent
`
`App. No. 09/716,644, the language quoted above from the provisional application was changed
`
`to say: “Thus, it can be guaranteed that similar repeatability could be achieved in an arbitrary
`
`industrial batch process.”
`
`83.
`
`The language in the application is identical to the language in the provisional
`
`application, except that the application changed the word “cannot” to “can.”
`
`84.
`
`This language was changed to attempt to support the broad claims asserted in the
`
`’646 patent.
`
`85.
`
`The language from the ’646 patent quoted above was not supported by
`
`experimental data.
`
`86.
`
`The named inventors of the ’646 patent did not possess the broad scope of
`
`invention claimed in the independent claims of the ’646 patent.
`
`87.
`
`On information and belief, the language was changed from the provisional
`
`application with an intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office that the
`
`claims were adequately supported.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`The change in language was a material misrepresentation.
`
`This material misrepresentation renders
`
`the claims of
`
`the ’646 patent
`
`unenforceable.
`
`
`4852-2053-5061.1
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 71 Filed 09/13/13 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 1804
`
`
`90.
`
`Throughout the specification of the ’646 patent are further examples where the
`
`author of the ’646 patent specification attempted to generalize the invention in a way that was
`
`inconsistent with the provisional application.
`
`91.
`
`For example, in the provisional application, the inventors state that they had been
`
`unable to stall any “B” tube – a Foxboro Coriolis tube of a particular shape. However, the
`
`specification deleted the letter “B” and stated instead that “laboratory experiments conducted
`
`thus far have been unable to stall a tube of any size with any level of gas phase when controlled
`
`by the digital controller 105.” ’646 patent, col. 57:63-65.
`
`92.
`
`Likewise, immediately following the portion of the provisional application that
`
`corresponds to column 58, line 48, the provisional application states: “However, the correction
`
`technique used here is not suitable for applications with much variation in the fluid density, or in
`
`three-phase flow applicatio

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