Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 72 PageID #: 446
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-907
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`SIPCO, LLC, and IP CO, LLC
`(d/b/a INTUS IQ),
`
`
`
` v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP, FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC. and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ) (“Plaintiffs” or “SIPCO”), by and
`
`
`
`through their counsel Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP, hereby file this First Amended Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement against Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Process Management LLLP,
`
`Fisher-Rosemont Systems, Inc., and Rosemount Inc. (collectively “Emerson”) and against BP,
`
`p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company (collectively “BP”), as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`SIPCO, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Georgia, having its principal office at 8215 Roswell Road, Building 900, Suite 950,
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30350.
`
`2.
`
`IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ) is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Georgia, having its principal office at 8215 Roswell Road,
`
`Building 900, Suite 950, Atlanta, Georgia 30350.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 72 PageID #: 447
`
`3.
`
`Emerson Electric Co. (“EEC”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Missouri, having a place of business at 1300 East Whaley Street, Suite B, Longview,
`
`Texas 75601.
`
`4.
`
`Emerson Process Management LLLP (“Emerson Process Management”) is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., and is an entity organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 1100 W. Louis Henna Blvd., Bldg. 2,
`
`Round Rock, Texas 78681 and, upon information and belief, a place of business at 12301
`
`Research Blvd., Research Park Plaza, Bldg. III, Austin, Texas 78759. Emerson Process
`
`Management’s branded products and services include those made, used, sold and/or offered for
`
`sale by and through Defendant Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. and Defendant Rosemount, Inc.
`
`5.
`
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. (“Fisher Rosemount”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Emerson Electric Co., and is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`having its principal place of business at 1100 W. Louis Henna Blvd., Bldg. 1, Round Rock,
`
`Texas 78681.
`
`6.
`
`Rosemount, Inc. (“Rosemount”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co.,
`
`and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, having its
`
`principal place of business at 8200 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317.
`
`7.
`
`BP America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 501 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston,
`
`TX 77079. BP America, Inc. does substantial business in Texas, including within this judicial
`
`district, and may be served with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 350
`
`N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`8.
`
`BP America Production Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 501 Westlake Park Boulevard,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 72 PageID #: 448
`
`Houston, TX 77079. BP America Production Company does substantial business in Texas,
`
`including within this judicial district, and may be served with process through its registered agent
`
`CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`9.
`
`BP p.l.c. is a British public limited company with its corporate headquarters in London,
`
`England, SW1Y 4PD. BP p.l.c.is the global parent company of the world-wide business
`
`operating under the “BP” logo. Defendants BP America, Inc. and BP America Production
`
`Company are wholly-owned subsidiaries of BP p.l.c. and are sufficiently controlled by BP p.l.c.
`
`so as to be BP p.l.c.’s agents in Texas. BP p.l.c. does substantial business in Texas, including
`
`within this judicial district, and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, C.T.
`
`Corporation System, at 350 N. St. Paul St., Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is for patent infringement arising under the patent
`
`statutes, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., in particular 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, BP p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production
`
`Company are subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due
`
`process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statue, due at least to their substantial business in this
`
`forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly
`
`doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving
`
`substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this judicial
`
`district. For example, Houston is home to BP’s largest number of employees anywhere in the
`
`world, and BP America, Inc.’s Texas-based activities include oil and gas exploration and
`
`production, research and innovation, natural gas power and trading, petrochemical production
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 72 PageID #: 449
`
`and wind power generation. BP America, Inc. has over 6000 Texas-based employees and
`
`supports over 28,000 Texas-based jobs. In 2014 BP America, Inc. paid over $160 million in
`
`Texas-based royalty, property, production and state and federal income taxes, and spent over $9
`
`billion with Texas-based vendors. BP America, Inc., on its own and/or by and through BP
`
`America Production Company, owns and operates an East Texas Campus located at 886 Finklea
`
`Road in Hallsville, Texas. The Harrison County Campus supports BP’s oil and natural gas
`
`operations in East Texas, including over 800 wells with associated compression, production and
`
`flow lines at and within Greg, Harrison, Panola, Rusk, Shelby and Upshur Counties. The
`
`Campus also supports drilling operations at and within the Haynesville Shale, with Texas-based
`
`operations at and within Angelina, Cass, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rusk, Sabine,
`
`San Augustine and Shelby Counties. In addition, BP p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and/or BP America
`
`Production Company own, operate and/or license BP-branded service stations at and within this
`
`judicial district. BP p.l.c., BP America, Inc., and BP America Production Company have also
`
`purposefully availed themselves of jurisdiction by voluntarily and purposefully committing and
`
`continuing to commit acts of infringement in Texas and in this jurisdiction, including using
`
`infringing products sold by Emerson Electric, Emerson Process Management, Fisher Rosemount
`
`Systems, and/or Rosemount, including, upon information and belief, at and within the greater
`
`than 800 wells and associated compression, production and flow lines operated at and within
`
`Greg, Harrison, Panola, Rusk, Shelby and Upshur Counties.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Emerson Electric, Emerson Process Management, Rosemount,
`
`and Fisher-Rosemount Systems are subject to this Court’s specific and general personal
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statue, due at least to their
`
`substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged
`
`herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 72 PageID #: 450
`
`conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in
`
`Texas and in this judicial district. For example, Emerson Electric, Emerson Process Management
`
`LLP, Rosemount, and Fisher-Rosemount Systems conduct substantial business in Texas and in
`
`this judicial district, and have purposefully availed themselves of jurisdiction in this state and
`
`judicial district, including by voluntarily and purposefully committing and continuing to commit
`
`acts of infringement in this state and judicial district. In particular, Emerson Process
`
`Management has two places of business in Texas and has purposefully availed itself of the laws
`
`and benefits of doing business here by selling infringing products in Texas and in this judicial
`
`district. Rosemount has its principal place of business in Texas and has purposefully availed
`
`itself of the laws and benefits of doing business here by selling infringing products in Texas and
`
`in this judicial district. Emerson Electric maintains an office in this judicial district and thus has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the laws and benefits of doing business here, as well as by selling
`
`infringing products in Texas and in this judicial district. Fisher-Rosemount has purposefully
`
`availed itself of the laws and benefits of doing business here by selling infringing products in
`
`Texas and in this judicial district.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 1400(b) at least
`
`because a substantial part of the infringing acts of each Defendant have occurred and are
`
`occurring in this judicial district.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`15.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,697,492 (“the ‘492 patent”) was duly and legally issued on April 13,
`
`2010.
`
`16.
`
`The ‘492 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling
`
`Remote Devices.”
`
`17.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘492 patent.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 72 PageID #: 451
`
`18.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘492 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘492
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,437,692 (“the ‘692 patent”) was duly and legally issued on August 20,
`
`2002.
`
`20.
`
`The ‘692 patent is entitled “System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Remote
`
`Devices.”
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘692 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘692 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘692
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,914,893 (“the ‘893 patent”) was duly and legally issued on July 5,
`
`2005.
`
`24.
`
`The ‘893 patent is entitled “System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Remote
`
`Devices.”
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘893 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘893 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘893
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,516 (“the ‘516 patent”) was duly and legally issued on June 19,
`
`2001.
`
`28.
`
`The ‘516 patent is entitled “Wireless Network Gateway and Method for Providing
`
`Same.”
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`IP CO owns the ‘516 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘516 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘516
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 7 of 72 PageID #: 452
`
`31.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,468,661 (“the ‘661 patent”) was duly and legally issued on December
`
`23, 2008.
`
`32.
`
`The ‘661 patent is entitled “System and Method for Monitoring and Controlling Remote
`
`Devices.”
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘661 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘661 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘661
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,000,314 (“the ‘314 patent”) was duly and legally issued on August 16,
`
`2011.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`The ‘314 patent is entitled “Wireless Network System and Method for Providing Same.”
`
`IP CO owns the ‘314 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘314 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘314
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,233,471 (“the ‘471 patent”) was duly and legally issued on July 31,
`
`2012.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`The ‘471 patent is entitled “Wireless Network System and Method for Providing Same.”
`
`IP CO owns the ‘471 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘471 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘471
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,625,496 (“the ‘496 patent”) was duly and legally issued on January 7,
`
`2014.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`The ‘496 patent is entitled “Wireless Network System and Method for Providing Same.”
`
`IP CO owns the ‘496 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 8 of 72 PageID #: 453
`
`46.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘496 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘496
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,754,780 (“the ‘780 patent”) was duly and legally issued on June 17,
`
`2014.
`
`48.
`
`The ‘780 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling
`
`Remote Devices.”
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘780 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘780 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘780
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (“the ‘842 patent”) was duly and legally issued on December
`
`9, 2014.
`
`52.
`
`The ‘842 patent is entitled “Multi-Functional General Purpose Transceivers and
`
`Devices.”
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘842 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘842 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘842
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,013,732 (“the ‘732 patent”) was duly and legally issued on September
`
`6, 2011.
`
`56.
`
`The ‘732 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling
`
`Remote Devices.”
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`SIPCO owns the ‘732 patent.
`
`Emerson had knowledge of the ‘732 patent and knowledge of its infringement of the ‘732
`
`patent before the filing of the Complaint.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 9 of 72 PageID #: 454
`
`SIPCO AND IP CO
`
`59.
`
`SIPCO and IP CO are small research, development and technology companies based in
`
`Atlanta, Georgia. T. David Petite is a founding member of both companies.
`
`60.
`
`In the 1990’s, through his own individual research and development efforts, Mr.
`
`Petite invented a large number of wireless control and distribution technology applications. The
`
`inventions resulting from Mr. Petite’s efforts include, but are not limited to, various ways of
`
`moving data as economically and seamlessly as possible over both wired and wireless networks.
`
`61.
`
`Through the 1990’s and early 2000’s investors contributed tens of millions of dollars for
`
`technology development and implementation of networks. Clients included Georgia Power,
`
`Alabama Power, Newnan Utilities GA, Johnson Controls, Synovus Bank and Grand Court
`
`Lifestyles residential living facilities.
`
`62.
`
`After proving that the technology worked in the field, several companies competed to
`
`purchase an exclusive license to Mr. Petite’s technology for the market known as “smart grid.”
`
`Landis+Gyr (http://www.landisgyr.com/) (previously Siemens Metering) took an exclusive
`
`license to the smart grid technology in 2002 and in 2005 purchased rights to the technology for
`
`utility applications for $30,000,000. Mr. Petite’s technology has been deployed in millions of
`
`meters across North America and throughout the world.
`
`63.
`
`SIPCO retained the rights to the mesh network patents, and for use of the technology
`
`outside of the utility space. It still maintains ownership of the software, firmware, hardware and
`
`patent portfolio that resulted from Mr. Petite’s research and development efforts, and SIPCO
`
`continues to develop and deploy wireless technology applications and wireless technology
`
`systems throughout the United States.
`
`64.
`
`SIPCO’s patent portfolios (which contain the patents in suit) include inventions that are
`
`widely recognized as pioneering in various fields of use. As a result, over 60 corporations
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 10 of 72 PageID #: 455
`
`have taken licenses to them. Licensees include companies operating in the vertical markets of
`
`Industrial Controls, Smart Grid, Building Automation, Network Backhaul, Home Appliance,
`
`Home Automation and Entertainment, Sensor Monitoring, and Internet Service Provisioning.
`
`Licensed products use standard wireless mesh protocols and include products such
`
`as WirelessHART, Zigbee, IEEE 802.15.4, and Z-Wave as well as proprietary wireless
`
`protocols. Licensed Companies utilizing WirelessHART products include Siemens and ABB.
`
`THE DEFENDANTS
`
`65.
`
`Emerson makes, sells and offers for sale “Smart Wireless Solutions” that provide
`
`monitoring and control of remote wireless devices in industrial environments.
`
`66.
`
`A basic Smart Wireless Solutions system includes a gateway, remote field devices
`
`(including adaptors) integrated with sensors, and a software package that runs on a host
`
`computer for monitoring and control of the remote field devices. The remote field devices and
`
`gateways in a Smart Wireless Solution implementation support the WirelessHART standard
`
`communication protocol, which allows remote field devices to communicate either directly or
`
`indirectly through other remote field devices with a gateway.
`
`67.
`
`The gateway receives wireless messages (i.e., WirelessHART packets) comprising sensor
`
`data from remote field devices and delivers such data to a host computer running the monitoring
`
`software package via a second network.
`
`68.
`
`The gateway and remote field devices in Smart Wireless Solutions communicate in a
`
`server/client fashion. The gateway implements a WirelessHART Network Manager which
`
`maintains a link tree of all paths from remote field devices to the gateway based on information
`
`received from remote field devices, in accordance with one or more of the claims of the asserted
`
`patents, as specified more particularly below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 11 of 72 PageID #: 456
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, Emerson is contractually obligated to provide Smart
`
`Wireless Solutions and related support to BP. Upon information and belief, BP has
`
`corresponding contractual obligations to Emerson, including, inter alia, operating remote field
`
`devices, network managers, and gateways in conformance with the WirelessHART standard that
`
`underlies Emerson Smart Wireless Solutions. Among Emerson’s contractual obligations is the
`
`provision of Smart Wireless Solutions (and related support) for wellhead monitoring at BP oil
`
`and gas fields. On or about August of 2015, BP and Emerson extended their mutual contractual
`
`obligations by 10 years. The new agreement requires Emerson to provide automation services to
`
`BP’s upstream oil and gas operations. Upon information and belief, BP’s upstream oil and gas
`
`operations include wellheads at oil and gas fields around the globe. Also upon information and
`
`belief, BP operates wellheads in this judicial district, including at least the greater than 800 wells
`
`and associated compression, production and flow lines operated at and within Greg, Harrison,
`
`Panola, Rusk, Shelby and Upshur Counties.
`
`70.
`
`Alternatively, or in addition, upon information and belief Emerson conditions BP’s use of
`
`Smart Wireless Solutions to BP’s adherence to the WirelessHART standard. Emerson thereby
`
`directs and controls BP to adhere to the WirelessHART standard, which comprises the
`
`performance of one or more steps of certain method claims of the patents-in-suit. In return, BP
`
`receives the benefit of cost savings and increased safety at its oil and gas wellheads, including,
`
`upon information and belief, wells and associated compression, production and flow lines
`
`operated at and within this judicial district. Furthermore, Emerson establishes the manner or
`
`timing of BP’s performance. For example, upon information and belief Emerson directs BP’s
`
`deployment of infringing field devices at BP’s oil and gas wellheads, including those located in
`
`this judicial district.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 12 of 72 PageID #: 457
`
`LICENSE AGREEMENT
`
`71.
`
`On or about October 25, 2011, SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a IntusIQ) entered into
`
`a license agreement with Emerson Electric Co. through its White-Rodgers Division (hereinafter
`
`referred to as the “License Agreement”).
`
`72.
`
`Through the License Agreement, the White-Rogers Division of Emerson Electric Co.
`
`received a license to certain patents owned by SIPCO and IP CO, including at least U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,103,511, 6,044,062, 6,249,516, 7,697,492, 6,437,692, 7,468,661, 6,914,893,
`
`8,000,314, and 8,233,471 (hereinafter the “Licensed Patents”). The scope of the license granted
`
`to the White-Rogers Division of Emerson Electric Co., including any licensed field(s) of use and
`
`any licensed product(s) identified therein, is governed by the specific terms of the License
`
`Agreement.
`
`73.
`
`Emerson Electric Co. is not licensed under the License Agreement other than through the
`
`license granted to its White-Rodgers Division, as governed by the specific terms of the License
`
`Agreement.
`
`74.
`
`Emerson Electric Co. does not have a license to the Licensed Patents other than through
`
`the license granted to its White-Rodgers Division, as governed by the specific terms of the
`
`License Agreement.
`
`75.
`
`Emerson Process Management LLP is not a party to the License Agreement and is not
`
`licensed under the License Agreement.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`Emerson Process Management LLP does not have a license to the Licensed Patents.
`
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. is not a party to the License Agreement and is not
`
`licensed under the License Agreement.
`
`78.
`
`Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. does not have a license to the Licensed Patents.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 13 of 72 PageID #: 458
`
`79.
`
`Rosemount, Inc. is not a party to the License Agreement and is not licensed under the
`
`License Agreement.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`Rosemount, Inc. does not have a license to the Licensed Patents.
`
`By virtue of entering into the License Agreement with SIPCO and IP CO on or about
`
`October 25, 2011, Emerson Electric Co. had knowledge of at least the Licensed Patents and
`
`knowledge of its infringement thereof.
`
`82.
`
`Upon information and belief, Emerson Process Management has had knowledge of at
`
`least the Licensed Patents and knowledge of its infringement thereof since at least as early as
`
`October 25, 2011.
`
`83.
`
`Upon information and belief, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. has had knowledge of at
`
`least the Licensed Patents and knowledge of its infringement thereof since at least as early as
`
`October 25, 2011.
`
`84.
`
`Upon information and belief, Rosemount, Inc. has had knowledge of at least the Licensed
`
`Patents and knowledge of its infringement thereof since at least as early as October 25, 2011.
`
`85.
`
`BP is not a party to the License Agreement and is not licensed under the License
`
`Agreement.
`
`86.
`
`BP does not have a license to the Licensed Patents.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,697,492 BY EMERSON
`
`87.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby restate and re-allege the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`and incorporate them by reference.
`
`88.
`
`On information and belief, Emerson has been and is now directly infringing, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘492 Patent (including, but not
`
`limited to, claim 1) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, selling
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 14 of 72 PageID #: 459
`
`within the United States, or importing into the United States products, including but not limited
`
`to the following lines of products:
`
`a.
`
`Gateways, including but not limited to the Emerson Smart Wireless Gateway
`
`1420, Emerson Smart Wireless Gateway 1410, Smart Wireless Gateway
`
`1552WU, and the Wireless I/O Card (WIOC) with Field Link lines of products;
`
`b.
`
`Field Devices, including, but not limited to, the Rosemount 3308 Series Guided
`
`Wave Radar, Rosemount 3051S Wireless High Static DP Transmitter, Rosemount
`
`3051 Wireless Pressure Transmitter, Rosemount 3051S Wireless Thermal Range
`
`Expander, Rosemount 2051 Wireless Pressure Transmitter, Rosemount 848T
`
`Wireless Temperature Transmitter, Rosemount 648 Single-Point Wireless
`
`Temperature Transmitter, Rosemount 248 basic temperature transmitter,
`
`Rosemount 2160 Wireless Level Switch, Rosemount 705 Wireless Totalizing
`
`Transmitter, Rosemount 708 Wireless Acoustic Transmitter, Rosemount 702
`
`Wireless Discrete Transmitter, Rosemount 6081 Wireless Transmitter for pH and
`
`ORP and Conductivity, Fisher 4320 Wireless Position Monitor, TopWorx 4310
`
`Wireless Position Monitor, Roxar CorrLogWireless transmitter, Roxar SandLog
`
`Wireless Transmitter, CSI 9420 Wireless Vibration Transmitter, Perpetua Power
`
`Puck, SmartPower Solutions Black Power Module, SmartPower Solutions Green
`
`Power Module, TopWorx 4310 Wireless Position Monitor, Fisher 4320 Wireless
`
`Position Monitor, Rosemount 2410 Tank Hub, Rosemount 5900S Radar Level
`
`Gauge, Rosemount 5900C Radar Level Gauge, Rosemount Wireless Pressure
`
`Gauge, 52WM Wireless Temperature and Humidity Sensor, 52WM-3T Wireless
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 15 of 72 PageID #: 460
`
`Temperature Sensor, 50WM Wireless Sensor, and 56WM Wireless Power Meter
`
`lines of products;
`
`c.
`
`Adapters, including but not limited to, the Rosemount Smart Wireless THUM™
`
`Adapter and Fisher 775 THUM™ lines of products; and
`
`d.
`
`Monitoring and control software, including but not limited to, the AMS, Ovation,
`
`and DeltaV lines of products.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Emerson is liable for infringement of the ‘492 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`On information and belief, Emerson has been and is now indirectly infringing, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘492 Patent (including, but not
`
`limited to, claim 1) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or (c) by actively inducing infringement or
`
`contributing to the infringement of the ‘492 Patent in the United States, by providing or selling at
`
`least the products identified above to customers or users of those products within this judicial
`
`district and throughout the United States, including but not limited to BP.
`
`91.
`
`Upon information and belief, Emerson has been made aware of the asserted claims of the
`
`‘492 patent and its infringement thereof through communications with Plaintiffs, and continues
`
`to make, use, sell and offer to sell same, despite its known infringement.
`
`92.
`
`Upon information and belief, Emerson induces its customers, including, but not limited to
`
`BP, to infringe one or more claims of the ‘492 patent at least by providing them with infringing
`
`devices and instructing and assisting them to operate the infringing devices in conformance with
`
`claims of the ‘492 patent, which cover mandatory features of the WirelessHART standard.
`
`93.
`
`Upon information and belief, Emerson knows that the accused products identified above
`
`form a material part of the asserted claims because they conform to mandatory features of the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 16 of 72 PageID #: 461
`
`WirelessHART standard, and so are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the
`
`‘492 patent, and are not capable of substantial noninfringing use.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`Emerson is liable for infringement of the ‘492 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`Emerson is liable for infringement of the ‘492 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`Plaintiffs have been damaged and injured by the infringement of the ‘492 Patent by
`
`Emerson.
`
`97.
`
`Because of its infringing acts, Emerson is liable to Plaintiffs for damages in an amount no
`
`less than a reasonable royalty for its unauthorized use of the invention claimed in the ‘492
`
`Patent.
`
`98.
`
`Because Emerson had knowledge of the ‘492 Patent and knowledge of its infringement of
`
`the ‘492 Patent before the Complaint was filed, its infringement of the ‘492 Patent has been and
`
`continues to be willful, and therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`284.
`
`99.
`
`The infringement of the ‘492 Patent by Emerson has caused and will continue to cause
`
`irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, for which they have no adequate remedy at law, unless Emerson is
`
`enjoined from further infringement.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,697,492 BY BP
`
`100. Plaintiffs hereby restate and re-allege the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`and incorporate them by reference.
`
`101. On information and belief, BP has been and is now directly infringing, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ‘492 Patent (including, but not limited to,
`
`claim 1) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, within the United States, or importing into the
`
`United States products, including but not limited to the following lines of products:
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 17 of 72 PageID #: 462
`
`a.
`
`Gateways, including but not limited to the Emerson Smart Wireless Gateway
`
`1420, Emerson Smart Wireless Gateway 1410, and the Wireless I/O Card
`
`(WIOC) with Field Link lines of products;
`
`b.
`
`Field Devices, including, but not limited to, the Rosemount 3308 Series Guided
`
`Wave Radar, Rosemount 3051S Wireless High Static DP Transmitter, Rosemount
`
`3051 Wireless Pressure Transmitter, Rosemount 3051S Wireless Thermal Range
`
`Expander, Rosemount 2051 Wireless Pressure Transmitter, Rosemount 848T
`
`Wireless Temperature Transmitter, Rosemount 648 Single-Point Wireless
`
`Temperature Transmitter, Rosemount 248 basic temperature transmitter,
`
`Rosemount 2160 Wireless Level Switch, Rosemount 705 Wireless Totalizing
`
`Transmitter, Rosemount 708 Wireless Acoustic Transmitter, Rosemount 702
`
`Wireless Discrete Transmitter, Rosemount 6081 Wireless Transmitter for pH and
`
`ORP and Conductivity, Fisher 4320 Wireless Position Monitor, TopWorx 4310
`
`Wireless Position Monitor, Roxar CorrLogWireless transmitter, Roxar SandLog
`
`Wireless Transmitter, CSI 9420 Wireless Vibration Transmitter, Perpetua Power
`
`Puck, SmartPower Solutions Black Power Module, SmartPower Solutions Green
`
`Power Module, TopWorx 4310 Wireless Position Monitor, Fisher 4320 Wireless
`
`Position Monitor, Rosemount 2410 Tank Hub, Rosemount 5900S Radar Level
`
`Gauge, Rosemount 5900C Radar Level Gauge, and Rosemount Wireless Pressure
`
`Gauge lines of products;
`
`c.
`
`Adapters, including but not limited to, the Rosemount Smart Wireless THUM™
`
`Adapter and Fisher 775 THUM™ lines of products; and
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 18 of 72 PageID #: 463
`
`d.
`
`Monitoring and control software, including but not limited to, the AMS, Ovation,
`
`and DeltaV lines of products.
`
`102. BP is liable for infringement of the ‘492 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`103. Because of its infringing acts, BP is liable to SIPCO for damages in an amount no less
`
`than a reasonable royalty for its unauthorized use of the invention claimed in the ’492 Patent.
`
`104. The infringement of the ‘492 Patent by BP has caused and will continue to cause
`
`irreparable harm to SIPCO, for which it has no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined
`
`from further infringement.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,697,492 BY EMERSON AND BP
`
`105. Plaintiffs hereby restate and re-allege the allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs
`
`and incorporate them by reference.
`
`106. On information and belief, as recited in paragraphs 65 through 70, which are incorporated
`
`herein by reference, Emerson and BP have been and are now jointly directly infringing, literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, within the United States and within this judicial district, one
`
`or more claims of the ‘492 P