`
`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