Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2947
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to PR 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order dated April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs
`
`and Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.,
`
`Rosemount Inc., BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company
`
`(“Defendants”) hereby jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,516, 8,000,314, 8,233,471, 8,625,496, 6,437,692,
`
`6,914,893, 7,468,661, 7,697,492, 8,013,732, 8,754,780, and 8,908,842. BP, p.l.c appears
`
`specially and only for the limited purpose of preserving its rights, notwithstanding and without
`
`waiving its rights to answer, obtain resolution of any Rule 12 motion, or otherwise plead in
`
`response to the Amended Complaint served on April 4, 2016.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)
`
`Exhibit A, attached hereto, identifies the claim terms and proposed constructions that the
`
`parties have agreed upon for this proceeding. The parties will continue to meet and confer in an
`
`effort to narrow the issues in advance of Markman briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to PR 4-3 and the Court’s Docket Control Order dated April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs
`
`and Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLP, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.,
`
`Rosemount Inc., BP, p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company
`
`(“Defendants”) hereby jointly submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`
`concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,249,516, 8,000,314, 8,233,471, 8,625,496, 6,437,692,
`
`6,914,893, 7,468,661, 7,697,492, 8,013,732, 8,754,780, and 8,908,842. BP, p.l.c appears
`
`specially and only for the limited purpose of preserving its rights, notwithstanding and without
`
`waiving its rights to answer, obtain resolution of any Rule 12 motion, or otherwise plead in
`
`response to the Amended Complaint served on April 4, 2016.
`
`P.R. 4-3(a)
`
`Exhibit A, attached hereto, identifies the claim terms and proposed constructions that the
`
`parties have agreed upon for this proceeding. The parties will continue to meet and confer in an
`
`effort to narrow the issues in advance of Markman briefing.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2948
`
`P.R. 4-3(b)
`
`With respect to the terms that are in dispute, the chart attached as Exhibit B identifies the
`
`10 terms that the parties have agreed are the most important disputed terms, or the most
`
`important terms identified by Plaintiffs and Defendants that the parties were unable to agree
`
`upon, divided evenly between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and includes the identification of the
`
`parties’ intrinsic and extrinsic support for those disputed claim terms, and which terms are
`
`considered by one or both parties to be case or claim dispositive. Each party reserves the right to
`
`rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by the other party.
`
`Exhibit C, also attached hereto, identify the remaining claim terms for which the parties
`
`could not reach agreement. Exhibit C provides an identification of the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`evidence upon which each party intends to rely to support its proposed constructions, and which
`
`terms are considered by one or both parties to be case or claim dispositive. Each party reserves
`
`the right to rely on any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence identified by the other party.
`
`P.R. 4-3(c) and P.R. 4-3(d)
`
`As to the Claim Construction Hearing, Plaintiffs propose a three-hour hearing, and
`
`anticipate calling their technical expert, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, as a witness at that hearing only if
`
`expert testimony is requested by the Court. A summary of Dr. Almeroth’s expected testimony,
`
`including expected testimony regarding Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges, is attached as
`
`Exhibit D hereto.
`
`Defendants propose a seven-hour hearing, including an appropriate technology tutorial,
`
`and anticipate calling as a witness at that hearing one or more of their technical experts, Dr.
`
`Robert Akl or Stephen Heppe. A summary of Dr. Akl’s and/or Heppe’s expected evidence,
`
`including expected testimony regarding Defendants’ indefiniteness challenges, is included in
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2949
`
`Defendants’ citations of extrinsic evidence. Defendants’ object to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D to the
`
`extent inconsistent with Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-2(b) submission. Dr. Akl’s CV is attached as Exhibit
`
`E, and Dr. Heppe’s CV is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`P.R. 4-3 (e)
`
`Defendants request that a pre-hearing conference be scheduled prior to the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing to address outstanding issues, including the complexity of the case given
`
`the large number of patents (11) and asserted claims (180). In particular, Defendants believe that
`
`the Court’s assistance may be necessary to achieve a meaningful reduction in the number of
`
`claim terms in dispute. In the absence of a meaningful reduction of the issues in this case,
`
`Defendants may ask the Court to expand the briefing limitations set forth in the Docket Control
`
`Order to allow for construction of additional terms.
`
`Further, Plaintiffs and Defendants would be willing to participate in a pre-hearing
`
`conference, if the Court deems one appropriate, to address issues such as whether the Court
`
`wishes to hear a live technology tutorial prior to the Markman hearing and whether the Court
`
`wishes to hear live expert testimony.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2950
`
`DATED: July 14, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`James C. Hall
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`Email: claire@wsfirm.com
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Road, Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`Telephone: (903) 757-6400
`Facsimile: (903) 757-2323
`
`Paul J. Cronin, Admitted July 16, 2012
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`(MA Bar No. 641230)
`James C. Hall, Admitted April 9, 2012
`(MA Bar No. 656019)
`NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP
`155 Seaport Boulevard
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Telephone: (617) 439-2000
`Facsimile: (617) 310-9000
`Email: pcronin@nutter.com
`Email: jhall@nutter.com
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS,
`
`
`
`Donald L. Jackson
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: Melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Donald L. Jackson (pro hac vice)
`James D. Berquist (pro hac vice)
`J. Scott Davidson (pro hac vice)
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 400
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 107 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2951
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`This document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d)
`and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were
`served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email on this the 14th day of July, 2016
`
`
`
`
`3215185.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
