`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-CV-907-JRG-KNM
`
`
`
`
`MOTION OF EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC. AND ROSEMOUNT INC.
`TO STAY THIS ACTION PENDING DISMISSAL OR TRANSFER
`
`Defendants Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and Rosemount Inc.
`
`(collectively “Emerson”) respectfully request that this Court stay this action pending resolution
`
`of the Emerson’s motion to dismiss or transfer.
`
`A district court has general discretionary power to stay proceedings before it in the
`
`control of its docket and in the interests of justice. McNight v. C.H. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477,
`
`479 (5th Cir. 1982). The court must “weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance”
`
`between the party advocating a stay and the party opposing the stay. Landis v. North American
`
`Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). As between pending actions in federal district courts, “the
`
`general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Evanston Insurance Co. v. Jimco, Inc., 844
`
`F.2d 1185, 1190 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United
`
`States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). In deciding to stay proceedings pending resolution of a request
`
`to transfer, courts generally consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-movant; (2)
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 13 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 431
`
`hardship and inequity to the movant if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that
`
`would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation. Hernandez v. ASNI, Inc., 2015 WL 3932415
`
`(D. Nev. 2015) (staying proceedings pending resolution of a request to transfer to a MDL).
`
`In the instant action, Plaintiffs have initiated a second action in which they assert
`
`numerous patents from the same two patent families already at issue in the Northern District of
`
`Georgia, the first-filed action (Action No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT). Given the substantial overlap of
`
`issues presented in these two cases, Emerson has moved this Court to dismiss or transfer the
`
`allegations brought by Plaintiffs in this action. See Emerson’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay, filed
`
`concurrently. This action should be stayed while that motion is pending. A stay at this early
`
`junction will conserve the resources of this Court and the parties and will not prejudice Plaintiffs.
`
`The Plaintiffs have it within their own power to shorten any delay by expediting their response to
`
`the motion to dismiss or stay. Further, Plaintiffs cannot be heard to complain any delay that
`
`might be occasioned by resolution of that motion as it was the Plaintiffs who created the problem
`
`by filing related infringement claims in two different forums.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Emerson respectfully requests that this Court stay this action
`
`pending resolution of the Emerson’s motion to dismiss or transfer.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 13 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 432
`
`Dated: December 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/_Melissa R. Smith
`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
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Emerson Electric
`Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and
`Rosemount Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 10th day of December, 2015, a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via the Court’s ECF system to all
`
`counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith______________
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 13 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 433
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to L.R. CV-7(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Defendants
`
`met and conferred on December 10, 2015 and have complied with L.R. CV- 7(h). Plaintiff
`
`opposes the motion, conclusively leaving the parties at an impasse, and an open issue for the
`
`Court to resolve.
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa Smith
`Melissa Smith
`
`-4-
`
`