Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2675
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2675
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 6: 15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ROBERT KARSCI-INIA
`
`1, Robert Karschnia, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a competent adult over 18 years of age. I make the following statements
`
`based upon my personal knowledge or upon the corporate knowledge of Rosemount, Inc.
`
`(“Rosemount”) which I have obtained during the course of my employment with Rosemount.
`
`2.
`
`I am the same Vice President/General Manager of Wireless Products, Rosemount
`
`Inc. who submitted an earlier declaration in this matter.
`
`I submit this declaration to supplement
`
`my earlier declaration and address issues raised in connection with the field testing of Emerson’s
`
`Smart Wireless products.
`
`3.
`
`Emerson was involved in the manufacture and sale of process management
`
`products for years before it began development of its Smart Wireless products. Emerson made
`
`and sold sensors that communicate over wired connections long before it began development of
`
`the Smart Wireless line of products.
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2675
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 6: 15-cv-907
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ROBERT KARSCI-INIA
`
`1, Robert Karschnia, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a competent adult over 18 years of age. I make the following statements
`
`based upon my personal knowledge or upon the corporate knowledge of Rosemount, Inc.
`
`(“Rosemount”) which I have obtained during the course of my employment with Rosemount.
`
`2.
`
`I am the same Vice President/General Manager of Wireless Products, Rosemount
`
`Inc. who submitted an earlier declaration in this matter.
`
`I submit this declaration to supplement
`
`my earlier declaration and address issues raised in connection with the field testing of Emerson’s
`
`Smart Wireless products.
`
`3.
`
`Emerson was involved in the manufacture and sale of process management
`
`products for years before it began development of its Smart Wireless products. Emerson made
`
`and sold sensors that communicate over wired connections long before it began development of
`
`the Smart Wireless line of products.
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2676
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2676
`
`4.
`
`Emerson’s wired products continue to represent the vast majority of Emerson’s
`
`process management product sales.
`
`5.
`
`The sensors used in Emerson’s product line that communicate over a wired
`
`connection included both a component that could measure a physical characteristic such as
`
`temperature, pressure, product flow, vibration and the like, and a processor that converted that
`
`measurement into a message that can be sent over the connecting wire network to the plant
`
`manager’s work station computer.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that an assertion has been made that BP jointly developed Emerson’s
`
`Smart Wireless products. I have personal knowledge of the development of the Smart Wireless
`
`product line and the testing of that product at the test bed BP provided to test those products.
`
`I
`
`strongly disagree with the assertion that BP jointly developed Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`products.
`
`I also strongly disagree with the assertion that BP directed or controlled Emerson’s
`
`development of those products.
`
`7.
`
`Emerson designed and developed its Smart Wireless products. Emerson worked
`
`with a vendor of wireless communication products as part of its development of the Smart
`
`Wireless products, but BP played no role in the development of those products. BP did,
`
`however, agree to “trial” the products Emerson developed in their plant in order to support our
`
`product introduction and as part of their process to evaluate new technology. The products BP
`
`tested were provided to BP at no expense to BP in test-ready form. BP obligated itself to allow
`
`Emerson to test the functionality and reliability of its Smart Wireless products within BP’s
`
`facilities but BP exercised no control over that testing other than to reserve the right to object or
`
`terminate that testing if it felt that the testing was dangerous or created a possible safety issue
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2677
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2677
`
`within their plant. BP was at no time obligated to purchase any of Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`products — all such purchase decisions would be made independent of the Emerson testing.
`
`8.
`
`Emerson’s development of the Smart Wireless products was not done under
`
`contract from BP or any other customer.
`
`9.
`
`Emerson does not control BP’s placement or use of the products BP buys from
`
`Emerson and BP does not control how Emerson, or any other purchaser of the Smart Wireless
`
`products, use those products.
`
`10.
`
`Emerson solicits feedback as wells as product requests and suggestions in order to
`
`improve its products or to promote additional sales of those products. That solicitation and
`
`customer involvement is a standard engineering practice at Emerson. Emerson researches
`
`market opportunities and current product offerings in order to determine which new products
`
`might present the biggest market opportunities. This practice involved, and continues to involve,
`
`significant research to gain an understanding of customer’s problems. Emerson uses that
`
`research to identify products for development, whether it be just an extension of an existing
`
`product line or the creation of an entirely new product offering.
`
`11.
`
`In addition to facilitating testing of the Smart Wireless products Emerson supplied
`
`and evaluated within their plant, BP was an early adopter of Emerson’s Smart Wireless
`
`technology.
`
`12.
`
`Emerson did not limit its testing of the Smart Wireless products to just BP.
`
`Multiple customers, including Pittsburgh Plate Glass (PPG), Exxon Mobile (XOM), Shell and
`
`BASF all provided test facilities in which to test products within the Smart Wireless product line.
`
`13.
`
`Emerson evaluates potential component substitutions as part of its on-going
`
`development effort. Different antennae are something that Emerson works on all of the time.
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS-KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2678
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00907-RWS—KNM Document 82-1 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2678
`
`Emerson did propose a new antennae to BP Alaska as one possible way of addressing a range
`
`issued that company identified. That proposed product was developed as a result of a problem
`
`BP identified, but it was Emerson who developed a product solution to that problem. To my
`
`knowledge, BP Alaska has not purchased the product solution Emerson offered for that problem.
`
`That product solution is not exclusive to BP and Emerson has presented that same product to
`
`others customers.
`
`14.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated: May 5, 2016
`
`
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
