Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1926
`
`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,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff, §
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.§
`
`PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT INVENSYS
`SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND
`COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF MICRO MOTION, INC.’S
`SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant
`
`Invensys Systems,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Invensys”) hereby
`
`answers the Second Amended Counterclaims (ECF. No. 71) of Defendant and Counterclaim-
`
`Plaintiff Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) as follows, and denies each of Micro Motion’s
`
`allegations except as set forth below.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Invensys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 1, and such allegations are therefore denied.
`
`2. Admitted.
`
`1
`
`
`
`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,
`
`and
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`v.
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff, §
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.§
`
`PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT INVENSYS
`SYSTEMS, INC.’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT AND
`COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF MICRO MOTION, INC.’S
`SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant
`
`Invensys Systems,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Invensys”) hereby
`
`answers the Second Amended Counterclaims (ECF. No. 71) of Defendant and Counterclaim-
`
`Plaintiff Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) as follows, and denies each of Micro Motion’s
`
`allegations except as set forth below.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Invensys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 1, and such allegations are therefore denied.
`
`2. Admitted.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1927
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Invensys admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant matter.
`
`Invensys admits that it filed a First 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
`
`Patent”), 7,571,062 (“the ‘062 Patent”), and 8,000,906 (“the ‘906 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “Patents-in-Suit”) against Micro Motion and that an actual case and controversy
`
`exists, but denies that Micro Motion’s defenses and Second Amended Counterclaims
`
`have merit.
`
`4.
`
`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 ¶¶ 1-4 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`6. Admitted.
`
`7.
`
`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 ¶ 8.
`
`9.
`
`Invensys admits that Micro Motion has filed a purported counterclaim for declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Invensys denies that Micro
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1928
`
`Motion’s counterclaim of non-infringement has merit and denies the remaining
`
`allegations of ¶ 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 ¶¶ 1-9 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`11. Invensys admits that the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are valid.
`
`12. Invensys admits that Micro Motion contends that the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`invalid, but denies the merits of that contention.
`
`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 ¶ 13.
`
`14. Invensys admits that Micro Motion has filed a purported counterclaim for declaratory
`
`judgment of invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit. Invensys denies that Micro Motion’s
`
`counterclaim of invalidity has merit and denies the remaining allegations of ¶ 14.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Unenforceability of the Invensys Patents-in-Suit)
`
`15-38.
`
`Contemporaneously with its answer, Invensys is filing a Rule 9(b) and Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Micro Motion’s unenforceability counterclaim relating to inequitable
`
`conduct. Accordingly, no answer to Count III is required at this time.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190)
`
`39.
`
`Invensys realleages and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations
`
`contained in ¶¶ 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1929
`
`40.
`
`Invensys admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190 (“the ‘190 Patent”): (a) is entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Adaptive Line Enhancement in Coriolis Mass Flow Meter
`
`Measurement”; (b) lists an issue date of September 10, 1996; (c) lists Howard V. Derby, Tamal
`
`Bose, and Seeraman Rajan as the inventors; and (d) that Micro Motion, Inc. is identified as the
`
`assignee. Invensys admits that a copy of what appears to be the ‘190 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 1 to the Second Amended Counterclaims. Invensys lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 40, and such
`
`allegations are therefore denied.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT V
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,131)
`
`46.
`
`Invensys realleages and incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations
`
`contained in ¶¶ 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`Invensys admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,505,131 (“the ‘131 Patent”): (a) is entitled
`
`“Multi-Rate Digital Signal Processor for Signals from Pick-Offs on a Vibrating Conduit”; (b)
`
`lists an issue date of January 7, 2003; (c) lists Denis Henrot as the inventor; and (d) that Micro
`
`Motion, Inc. is identified as the assignee. Invensys admits that a copy of what appears to be the
`
`‘131 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Second Amended Counterclaims.
`
`Invensys lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 47, and such allegations are therefore denied.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1930
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`MICRO MOTION’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`No response is required to Micro Motion’s Prayer for Relief.
`
`ADDITIONAL AND 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
`
`Micro Motion has failed to state a claim against Invensys upon which relief may be
`
`granted.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`Invensys does not and has not infringed any valid claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,555,190
`
`(“the ‘190 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,505,131 (“the ‘131 Patent”) (the ‘190 Patent and the
`
`‘131 Patent collectively referred to as “the Micro Motion Patents”)
`
`literally, directly,
`
`contributorily, by way of inducement, and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`The Micro Motion Patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more provisions
`
`of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103,
`
`and/or 112.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1931
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`By reason of the proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the
`
`prosecution of the application which resulted in the issuance of the Micro Motion Patents, Micro
`
`Motion is estopped from claiming infringement by Invensys of one or more claims of the Micro
`
`Motion Patents.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`Micro Motion’s claims are barred by the doctrines of laches, waiver, unclean hands,
`
`and/or equitable estoppel.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`Micro Motion’s claims for damages for patent infringement are limited by 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 to those damages occurring only after notice of infringement, and by 35 U.S.C. § 286 to
`
`those damages within six years from filing of the Counterclaims.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`Micro Motion is not entitled to an injunction because Micro Motion has an adequate
`
`remedy at law and no basis for the grant of equitable relief.
`
`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 Second Amended
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`Invensys hereby reiterates its demand for a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1932
`
`Date: October 8, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Nicholas G. Papastavros
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`State Bar No. 21671300
`Jeffrey L. Johnson
`State Bar No. 24029638
`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
`
`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 PLAINTIFF INVENSYS
`SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 78 Filed 10/08/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1933
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document was filed electronically on October 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/ Nicholas G. Papastavros
`Nicholas G. Papastavros
`
`8
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
