Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC

I'll research this case across dockets, court opinions, and trade press.

Good detail emerging. Let me pin down the '780 patent specifically and the case's current status.

Let me verify the '780 IPR outcome, the case's current status, and the ITC track.

Parties and their roles

This is a long-running, multi-front dispute between an industrial-automation operating company and two Atlanta-based patent-holding companies. On the plaintiff side is Emerson Electric Co. (St. Louis, MO) together with its process-automation subsidiaries Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. (Round Rock, TX), Rosemount, Inc. (Chanhassen, MN), and (in the related action) Emerson Process Management LLLP — the arm of Emerson that sells Rosemount-brand wireless instrumentation and AMS asset-management software. Emerson is the declaratory-judgment plaintiff and, in the consolidated case, also the accused infringer. On the defense side are SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC d/b/a Intus IQ, both Georgia corporations maintaining a place of business in Georgia (SIPCO/IP CO answer, Dkt. 10 in 1:15-cv-319). In their own pleadings SIPCO and IP CO describe themselves as "small research and development companies that share a common founder: T. David Petite," and state that "SIPCO's patents have been widely licensed, and their licensing remains a major focus of SIPCO's ongoing business activities" — i.e., functionally a licensing/NPE-style monetization operation, though with genuine inventor roots (Petite's 1990s wireless mesh work; related smart-grid technology was bought by Landis+Gyr) (Dkt. 58-1 memo in 1:16-cv-2690). By the time of the predecessor declaratory-judgment complaint (1:13-cv-02528), SIPCO/IPCO had filed roughly eleven suits against more than fifty defendants, including Amazon, Siemens, Trane, Comcast and ADT (National Law Review case note).

Accused technology and the patents at issue

The accused technology is Emerson's industrial WirelessHART (IEC 62591) wireless mesh portfolio: Smart Wireless Gateways (1410, 1420, 1552WU), the Wireless I/O Card (WIOC) with Field Link, Rosemount wireless field devices (e.g., 3051S and 3051S High Static DP pressure transmitters, 648 temperature transmitters, 702 discrete transmitters, 3308 guided-wave radar), and the AMS Trex Device Communicator, built around Analog Devices SmartMesh motes (DN2510 IA-510, LTC5800) with Analog's network-manager software acting as the claimed "controller" (SIPCO infringement allegations reproduced in PTAB filings). SIPCO's theory was not just direct infringement by Emerson but active inducement and contributory infringement premised on customer networks (Goodyear, ExxonMobil, ArcelorMittal, ConocoPhillips, etc.). Patents:

• US 8,754,780 ("the '780 patent"), Systems and Methods for Monitoring and Controlling Remote Devices (Petite + Richard M. Huff; SPIlico assignee; App. 13/855,452 filed Apr. 2, 2013; issued June 17, 2014). Claim 1 is directed to a wireless device with a uniquely-identified transceiver interfaced to a sensor that both receives and retransmits select information in a predetermined signal type (mesh/relay), plus a controller that formats a sensor-data packet for transmission. It is a later continuation in the Petite family that traces back through the '732/'059/'667/'661/'692 line to the 1990s applications (PTAB Exhibit 1001 copy of the patent).
• The broader consolidated litigation carried two families: the Petite family ('511, '692, '893, '492, '661, '732, '842, '780) and the Brownrigg family ('062, '516, '314, '471, '496) owned/licensed through IP CO. One-line sketches: the '511 patent covers wireless communication networks for remote monitoring; the '062/'516/'314 Brownrigg patents cover routing/monitoring in wireless networks; the '692/'893/'492 patents recite transceiver networks communicating via preformatted packet messages with "scalable addresses"; and the '842 patent claims a low-power transceiver establishing a communication link to a central location. A later SIPCO campaign added the '708 patent.

On the specific question left open in the prior summary: the '780 patent was not in Emerson's January 2015 declaratory-judgment complaint (which targeted the '511 and '062 patents), but it was asserted against Emerson and BP in SIPCO/IP CO's E.D. Tex. complaint filed October 16, 2015 (No. 6:15-cv-907), which was transferred to N.D. Ga. on July 1, 2016 and docketed as 1:16-cv-2690-AT, then consolidated with 1:15-cv-319 (PTAB IPR2017-00213 petition, related-matters section; Emerson stay/status filing). So the '780 patent is properly treated as at issue in this case, but it entered through the transferred/consolidated action rather than the original DJ pleading.

Procedural posture, forum, and the PTAB/ITC overlay

The core case was filed January 30, 2015 in the N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division, assigned to Judge Amy Totenberg (1:15-cv-00319-AT), with Emerson's earlier DJ action (1:13-cv-02528-AT) as its predecessor (Docket Alarm docket; National Law Review). Venue mattered enormously: SIPCO is Georgia-based (its home forum), and the fight over forum became a "first-to-file"/§ 1404(a) war — Emerson moved to enjoin SIPCO's later E.D. Tex. action, SIPCO counter-moved, the E.D. Tex. court transferred that case to Georgia on July 1, 2016 (finding the patents were all traceable to the two Georgia families and the accused products overlapped), and Judge Totenberg then transferred both consolidated actions back to the Tyler Division of the E.D. Tex. on SIPCO's motion (E.D. Tex. transfer/consolidation record; hearing minute sheet). Running in parallel, Emerson filed a comprehensive PTAB campaign against essentially every asserted patent — CBM2016-00095 ('842); IPR2016-00984 ('780); IPR2016-01895 ('492); IPR2017-00001, -00008, -00213, -00216, -00252, -00359, and IPR2019-00545 — and SIPCO responded with a Section 337 ITC action, Investigation No. 337-TA-1131 ("Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products," instituted Sept. 10, 2018, before ALJ Dee Lord, naming Emerson, Emerson Process Management entities, Analog Devices and Tadiran; target date Jan. 10, 2020), plus a short-lived D. Del. suit (1:18-cv-01170, dismissed without prejudice) (ITC filings; IPR2019-00545 certificate). Status caveat: Docket Alarm shows 1:15-cv-319-AT as "Terminated June 17, 2024," while another aggregator lists it "Closed 09/04/18" — I could not reconcile these, and I found no opinion, verdict, consent judgment or settlement filing that resolves the district case's ultimate outcome. Treat the termination date and the method of disposition as unverified.

Why the case is notable

First, IPR linkage is the headline: in IPR2016-00984, the Board's Oct. 25, 2017 final written decision held claims 1–15 of the '780 patent unpatentable (obviousness over the '732 patent, and over Kahn/APA combinations), which RPX Insight records as "All Claims Unpatentable" (RPX Insight). Second, the '780 appeal produced a genuinely interesting procedural question about certificates of correction in IPRs: SIPCO had misidentified a parent application, making the '732 patent prior art; after its certificate of correction issued post-FWD under 35 U.S.C. § 255, the Federal Circuit remanded for the Board to decide the certificate's effect (No. 2018-1364), and the Board's determination was ultimately affirmed under Rule 36 on January 21, 2021 (Fed. Cir. remand order; 18-1364 Rule 36). Third, the companion appeals are precedential Federal Circuit authority: SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., 939 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2019) (18-1635) construed "low-power transceiver" and reversed the Board's CBM "technological invention" analysis as arbitrary and capricious under 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b); on remand after Thryv v. Click-to-Call, the same appeal yielded a Nov. 17, 2020 opinion holding the § 18(d) CBM-eligibility determination non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 324(e) (Fed. Cir. opinion; Alston & Bird summary). Fourth, on industry impact: the case is the definitive test of whether SIPCO's "wireless mesh" portfolio could reach the industrial IoT / process-automation market — Emerson's WirelessHART ecosystem was the leading commercial deployment, and SIPCO's inducement/contributory theory against Emerson's customers' networks (plus the parallel ITC action seeking an exclusion order) framed the risk as an industry-wide tax on WirelessHART adoption rather than a single-product dispute. The litigation is also a case study in asymmetric NPE defense — a deep-pocketed operating company answering a licensing demand with a DJ action plus a full IPR/CBM slate — and the '780 result shows how quickly a terminal continuation in an old priority chain can be wiped out when a priority defect puts an earlier family member in the prior art.

Sourcing caveats: party roles, product lists and patent family sketches above are drawn from the parties' own filings and PTAB records. I could not independently verify (a) the precise D. Ga./E.D. Tex. docket events after 2018, (b) the final disposition of 1:15-cv-319, or (c) the Commission's final determination in 337-TA-1131; the ALJ initial determination is published as USITC Pub. 5256, and it addressed, among other things, SIPCO's failure to prove the "scalable address" limitation of the '893 patent. Those items should be confirmed against PACER, the ITC EDIS docket, and the Federal Circuit docket before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and case-specific sources.

Let me dig into the docket details, the '780 patent's involvement, and the PTAB proceedings.

Rich results. Now let me pin down the final disposition, the Federal Circuit appeals, and the ITC parallel.

Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT (N.D. Ga.) — Chronology of Key Developments

Bottom line up front: This was never a trial case. It was a declaratory-judgment/consolidated infringement dispute that was routed into a single forum (N.D. Ga.), then stayed in its entirety behind a wave of PTAB proceedings and a parallel ITC § 337 action, with the PTAB cancelling the asserted claims of most of the patents in suit. The docket shows termination on 2024-06-17, after years of administrative closure. No Markman ruling, no trial, no verdict. Because your metadata lists only US 8,754,780, the key finding below is that the '780 patent entered this case through the transferred EDTX action and was one of the ten patents-in-suit in the consolidated N.D. Ga. case, even though it was not in Emerson's original DJ complaint.

---

1. Pre-history and the 2013 first-filed DJ action (context)

• 2013-07-31 — Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and Rosemount Inc. filed a first declaratory-judgment action, Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO LLC, No. 1:13-cv-02528-AT (N.D. Ga.), before Judge Amy Totenberg, seeking declarations of invalidity/non-infringement as to eight SIPCO/IPCO patents (the '692, '893, '511, '492, '732, '062, '516, and '314 patents). SIPCO later characterized this as a "preemptive" suit that Emerson withdrew. (Nat'l Law Review summary of the 2013 complaint; SIPCO's EDTX brief, Sipco, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 6:15-cv-00907, Dkt. 24 (E.D. Tex. filed 2016-01-08).)

2. Filing and initial pleadings (2015)

• 2015-01-30 — Emerson, Fisher-Rosemount Systems, and Rosemount filed the operative DJ complaint, No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT, against SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a Intus IQ), challenging claim 1 of the '511 patent and claim 2 of the '062 patent as invalid and not infringed. (Docket Alarm docket sheet; complaint recitation in Emerson's IPR filings, e.g., IPR2017-00213 papers at PTACTS.)
  • Note: US 8,754,780 was not part of this original 2015 complaint. It came in later via the Texas action (see §3).
• 2015-07-27 — SIPCO and IP CO filed their Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. 10), denying invalidity/non-infringement and asserting infringement counterclaims. (Dkt. 10, via Docket Alarm)

3. The second forum: SIPCO's EDTX infringement suit (2015–2016)

• 2015-10-16 — SIPCO and IP CO filed Sipco, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 6:15-cv-00907-JRG-KNM (E.D. Tex., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III / Mag. J. Payne), asserting ten patents against Emerson — the '492, '692, '893, '516, '661, '314, '471, '496, '780, and '842 patents — later amended to add the '732 patent and the BP defendants. (Docket Alarm search result for patent 8754780; Emerson's IPR2016-00984 briefing.)
• 2015-12-10 — Emerson moved in EDTX to dismiss or transfer (and separately to stay pending that motion), arguing the case belonged in the first-filed N.D. Ga. action. (EDTX Dkt. 13)
• 2016-02-17 — Back in N.D. Ga., Emerson moved to enjoin SIPCO from prosecuting the second-filed Texas action (Dkt. 51); SIPCO opposed, arguing the cases shared no patent in common and that 1404(a) factors favored Texas. (Dkt. 51; SIPCO opposition memo at Docket Alarm)

4. Transfer to N.D. Ga. and consolidation (mid-2016)

• 2016-07-01 — The EDTX court granted Emerson's motion to dismiss/transfer in part, transferring the Texas action to the N.D. Ga., reasoning that the patents in suit traced to the same two patent families (Petite and Brownrigg) as the N.D. Ga. action and that the same parties and accused products were involved: SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., No. 6:15-cv-907, 2016 WL 7743496 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2016). (Westlaw excerpt within Emerson's 2018 emergency motion)
• 2016-07-26 — Transferred case docketed in N.D. Ga. as 1:16-cv-02690-AT and consolidated with 1:15-cv-00319-AT before Judge Totenberg. (Docket Alarm)
• Interpretation: This is the point at which the '780 patent became part of the N.D. Ga. litigation (as one of the consolidated ten patents-in-suit).

5. Early case management and a venue counter-move (2016)

• 2016-08-10 — Motion hearing before Judge Totenberg (minute sheet). The court: (i) dismissed as moot Emerson's motion to enjoin the Texas action (Dkt. 51); (ii) heard argument on SIPCO's motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas; (iii) discussed BP joinder/necessary-party issues, severance, mediation, scheduling, and appointment of a special master; and (iv) addressed the pending motion to de-designate SIPCO's infringement contentions (Dkt. 50). (Minute sheet, Dkt. 138)
• There is a proposed order in the record granting SIPCO's motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the Tyler Division of the E.D. Tex. (Dkt. 137-3). Whether that order was ever entered appears to have been overtaken by events — the cases remained in N.D. Ga. and moved into the stay. This procedural wrinkle is not fully resolved in the sources I could retrieve and should be verified on PACER. (Proposed transfer order)
• 2016-10-26 — Amended Scheduling Order entered in N.D. Ga. (referenced in SIPCO's 2016-12-09 filing)
• 2016-12-09 — SIPCO/IP CO served their Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims. (Same filing.)

6. Discovery milestones of significance

• 2016-11-21 / 2016-11-30 — Ancillary discovery litigation in the N.D. Cal.: Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 4:16-mc-80164-DMR (Mag. J. Donna Ryu), involving a subpoena to Linear Technology Corp. The court resolved a joint discovery letter (order 2016-11-21) and entered an amended protective-order addendum (2016-11-30). (Justia docket)
• Special Master: The docket carries a "SM" flag and multiple filings reference a court-appointed Special Master who issued a Report & Recommendation (Dkt. 201) analyzing the asserted patents' relationships and recommending a stay — later adopted by the court. (Cited in Emerson's 2018 combined emergency motion.)
• The de-designation dispute over SIPCO's infringement contentions (Dkt. 50) was set for further conferral by 2016-08-31. (Minute sheet, Dkt. 138.)
• I found no evidence the case ever reached fact-expert discovery close or a pretrial order; the stay intervened.

7. The PTAB proceedings that drove the case (2015–2018)

This is the heart of the story — and it is where the '780 patent is squarely at issue.

Third-party IPRs (FieldComm Group / HART):

• IPR2015-00659 ('492), IPR2015-00663 ('511), IPR2015-00668 ('692) — filed by FieldComm Group in 2015. SIPCO sought additional discovery on whether Emerson was a real party-in-interest; the Board denied that motion (Order, 2015-06-18). (PTAB Order)

Emerson's IPRs/CBM on the asserted patents:

• IPR2016-00984 — U.S. 8,754,780 — Emerson petitioned 2016-04-29. Final Written Decision 2017-10-25 found claims 1–15 unpatentable (including as obvious over the '732 patent, and over Kahn/AAPA, Kahn/AAPA/Burchfiel). Board also construed "function code" and "function." (PTAB file; SIPCO's PO Response 2017-01-06)
• CBM2016-00095 ('842) — claim 1 unpatentable.
• IPR2016-01895 ('492) — claims 1, 2, 10, 14, 19 unpatentable.
• IPR2017-00008 ('471) — claim 17 unpatentable.
• IPR2017-00213 ('496) — claim 39 unpatentable.
• IPR2017-00216 ('732) — asserted claims unpatentable.
• IPR2017-00252 ('314) — FWD issued ~2018-04 (decision issued the day before Emerson's 2018-04 letter).
• IPR2017-00359 ('692) — instituted; after SAS Institute v. Iancu (2018), the Board instituted on all grounds, pushing the FWD past June 2018 (to ~Aug. 2018).
• IPR2016-01602 and IPR2017-00001 — additional Emerson IPRs; SIPCO noticed appeals from these.
• (Later) Emerson filed a further IPR on the '708 patent (2018), a child of the '492 patent asserted in the later forum-shopping suits.

(All of the above list of unpatentability findings is drawn from Emerson's 2018-04-19 letter/status filing in the N.D. Ga. case, reproduced in PTACTS: link.)

The '780 certificate-of-correction saga (its own Federal Circuit appeal):

• SIPCO had failed to claim benefit of an earlier application, leaving the '780 patent exposed to the '732 patent as prior art. SIPCO tried four times to obtain a § 255 certificate of correction; the Petitions Branch dismissed the first three as non-compliant, and granted the fourth on 2018-02-08, with the certificate issuing 2018-03-27. The '780 patent expired 2018-06-22. (IP Alerts summary, 2020-02-13; SIPCO Reply Br., No. 18-1364)
• 2018-05-03 — SIPCO moved the Federal Circuit for a remand; the court partially remanded for the Board to decide the certificate's effect.
• 2020-01-24 — On remand, the Board held the certificate of correction had no retroactive effect on the IPR and did not disturb the FWD (applying 35 U.S.C. § 255's "thereafter arising" language; assuming arguendo an IPR is a "trial of actions"). (Board remand decision; SIPCO's Fed. Cir. opening brief)
• 2020-11-17 — Federal Circuit affirmed (O'Malley, Reyna, Chen, JJ.; opinion designated precedential), judgment issued, mandate 2021-01-11. (Fed. Cir. docket via UniCourt)

The '692 appeal:

• Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 19-1490 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2020) (nonprecedential) — Emerson appealed the Board's '692 IPR decision; the court affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Cunningham did not disclose the "control signal" and "translating" limitations, and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to let Emerson submit new evidence after the SAS-driven expanded institution. (GovInfo opinion PDF)

8. The stay, the "emergency" motion, and the ITC parallel (2017–2018)

• Stay entered — The court stayed the consolidated case (Docs. 218, 258), on the Special Master's recommendation, in view of the PTAB proceedings. The parties agreed to continue the stay in November 2017. (Referenced in Emerson's 2018 letter and the 2018-10-05 order.)
• 2018 — SIPCO (via IP CO/Emerson Process Management entities) filed new, duplicative suits in the D. Del. and S.D. Tex. on the '708 and '126 patents, and filed an ITC § 337 complaint.
• 2018-09-05 — The ITC instituted In the Matter of Certain Wireless Mesh Networking Products and Related Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1131. (Cited in Emerson's 2018 motion.)
• 2018-08-17 — Emerson filed a Combined Emergency Motion (Dkt. 268) to (1) administratively reopen; (2) lift the stay to consider the motion; (3) enjoin SIPCO's newly filed Texas and Delaware actions; (4) stay all cases through PTAB appeals; and (5) stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending the ITC action — plus a request for attorneys' fees/sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court's inherent power for vexatious, duplicative forum-shopping. (Motion text via PTACTS)
• 2018-10-05 — Judge Totenberg entered an Order Extending the Stay (on the parties' joint stipulation):
  • Stay extended as to the '893 and '511 patents under § 1659 until the ITC determination in 337-TA-1131 becomes final (including appeals);
  • Stay extended until the last PTAB FWD on the other patents;
  • Emerson's combined emergency motion (Dkt. 268) withdrawn in its entirety, without prejudice (so the sanctions/fee request was not adjudicated);
  • Case to remain administratively closed. (Order Extending the Stay)
• ITC outcome — The Commission's opinion/publication in 337-TA-1131 (USITC Pub. 5256) reflects a failure of proof on infringement at least as to the '893 patent (the opinion repeatedly concludes "SIPCO has failed to show that the accused products infringe claim 1 of the '893 patent"), i.e., no violation found. (USITC Pub. 5256)

9. Markman / trial / post-trial

• No district-court Markman ruling issued in the N.D. Ga. consolidated case that I could locate — the case was stayed before claim construction. (The only claim-construction activity in the record is at the PTAB in IPR2016-00984, and prior E.D. Tex. constructions of SIPCO patents in SIPCO v. Amazon.com, No. 2:08-cv-00359-JRG; SIPCO v. ABB, No. 6:11-cv-00048; and SIPCO v. Datamatic, No. 6:09-cv-00532 — cited by SIPCO in its EDTX briefing.) Flag: absence of a Markman order is an inference from the stay posture; verify on PACER.
• No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions. The case resolved pretrial.
• Fee/sanctions relief was sought (Dkt. 268) but withdrawn with the Oct. 5, 2018 order.

10. Final disposition / present posture

• The case was administratively closed by the 2018-10-05 order and remained so for years.
• Docket Alarm shows the action terminated on 2024-06-17 (case flags: CLOSED, PROTO, SM; Judge Totenberg). (Docket Alarm) I could not retrieve the specific closing document (stipulated dismissal vs. judgment vs. dismissal on claim cancellation), so treat the instrument of termination as unconfirmed. Some third-party aggregators list an earlier "closed" date of 2018-09-04, which conflicts — the 2024-06-17 termination date is the better-sourced one.
• Substantively, the case was effectively won at the PTAB by Emerson: the asserted claims of the '842, '492, '471, '496, '732, and '780 patents were held unpatentable, with the '780 FWD affirmed (including on the § 255 certificate-of-correction issue) by a precedential Federal Circuit decision on 2020-11-17. Emerson's 2018 motion represented that only the '511, '661, and '692 patents' claims remained "free and clear" and were themselves under attack/on appeal. The parallel ITC action produced no violation.

---

Direct answer on US 8,754,780

• The '780 patent was not in Emerson's original 2015 DJ complaint (which targeted '511 and '062 only).
• It was asserted by SIPCO against Emerson in the E.D. Tex. action (No. 6:15-cv-00907) filed 2015-10-16, as one of ten patents; that action was transferred to N.D. Ga. on 2016-07-01 and consolidated with 1:15-cv-00319 as 1:16-cv-02690, making the '780 patent one of the ten patents-in-suit in the N.D. Ga. litigation.
• Emerson challenged it at the PTAB in IPR2016-00984; claims 1–15 were held unpatentable (FWD 2017-10-25), the Board's ruling survived the certificate-of-correction remand (2020-01-24) and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit (2020-11-17); the patent expired 2018-06-22. So by the time the district case wound down, the '780 asserted claims had been cancelled.

---

Caveats / items to verify on PACER or Westlaw

1. The 2024-06-17 termination instrument in No. 1:15-cv-00319 (and the current status of No. 1:16-cv-02690) — I could not confirm the closing order or any settlement/consent judgment.
2. Whether the N.D. Ga. court ever ruled on SIPCO's motion to transfer the consolidated cases to E.D. Tex. (a proposed order exists at Dkt. 137-3), or whether it became moot.
3. Exact patent-to-IPR mapping for IPR2016-01602 and IPR2017-00001 (appealed by SIPCO), and the full disposition of IPR2015-01973 ('732) — the latter shows a 2020-04-10 FWD, which suggests a remand/late-stage posture I could not fully reconstruct.
4. Precedential opinion citation for the Nov. 17, 2020 Federal Circuit decision (reported volume/page not verified here).
5. Supreme Court activity — SIPCO's Fed. Cir. reply brief references a cert petition, No. 19-966; outcome not confirmed.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Side, Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT (N.D. Ga.)

Threshold note on "plaintiff." The metadata caption names only Emerson Electric Co., but the actual complaint and every subsequent filing style the plaintiff group as Emerson Electric Co., Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc., and Rosemount, Inc. (collectively "Emerson"). All three were represented by the same two-firm team. This was a declaratory-judgment patent action (28:1338 / DJ Patent, Judge Amy Totenberg), and a second-filed E.D. Tex. case by SIPCO (6:15-cv-00907) was transferred in and consolidated with it.

Method caveat. PACER itself is paywalled and I could not pull the live docket sheet directly. The roster below is reconstructed from court filings reproduced in public repositories (Docket Alarm, PTAB exhibits, GA E-Flex) that carry "Attorneys for Plaintiffs" signature blocks or Rule 5 service lists. No sealed appearance, in-house counsel, or counsel substitution surfaced in those materials.

---

1. Local / Georgia counsel — Bryan Cave LLP (later Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP), Atlanta

2. Pro hac vice / "of counsel" — Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP (Virginia IP boutique)

---

Related counsel you may see in the same dispute (not district-court counsel of record in '319)

• Ropes & Gray LLP — James L. Davis, Jr.; James R. Batchelder; Daniel W. Richards; Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier; Carolyn Redding; Matthew R. Shapiro. Emerson's PTAB counsel in the later IPR wave (e.g., IPR2019-00545/-00547/-00548) and the Federal Circuit appeals (2021-1039/-1040; also 18-1986). These are agency/appellate appearances for Emerson, not counsel of record on the N.D. Ga. docket.
• Walter D. Davis, Jr. (Reg. No. 45,137) — listed as back-up IPR counsel for Emerson under the DBJG firm address; a Law360 attorney profile later shows him at Rimon PC and tags him to "Emerson Electric Co. et al v. SIPCO LLC et al, Georgia Northern" (Patent, Jan. 30, 2015). His formal entry of appearance in the district case is not confirmed in the records I retrieved.

Roles I could not verify

• No in-house counsel of record for Emerson appears in the filings reproduced publicly; the appearances are outside-counsel only.
• The publicly reproduced signature blocks do not designate a formal "lead" vs. "local" label beyond Bryan Cave signing as Attorneys for Plaintiffs and DBJG signing as -Of Counsel- / Admitted Pro Hac Vice. The lead/local split above reflects that convention.

Status discrepancy worth flagging

The metadata lists the matter as live/related, but Docket Alarm shows the '319 docket terminated June 17, 2024, with case flags "CLOSED, PROTO, SM" (and the related 1:16-cv-02690 and 1:13-cv-02528 matters also closed). The relevant "live" activity is the continuation of this dispute through the PTAB and Federal Circuit, not new district-court filings.

---

Primary sources consulted: Emerson's Jan. 30, 2015 DJ complaint in 1:15-cv-00319 (greenpatentblog PDF, signed Whitaker/Bryan Cave with DBJG of counsel); "Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Enjoin Prosecution of the Second-Filed Texas Action," 1:15-cv-00319 (Docket Alarm, "Attorneys for Plaintiffs"); Brownrigg's Rule 45 objections service list, Oct. 26, 2016 (GA E-Flex / Docket Alarm); N.D. Ga. minute sheet for the Aug. 10, 2016 hearing (1:16-cv-02690 Doc. 138); Emerson's Aug. 17, 2018 combined emergency motion (BCLP signature block); IPR2015-01579 and IPR2017-00308 power-of-attorney/service documents; Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment, May 3, 2022 (2021-1039/-1040); Law360 attorney profiles.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this case. Let me start with the docket and related sources.

Let me dig into the specific docket entries and appearances of counsel in this case.

Let me verify the Thompson Hine (local counsel) attorneys and any other appearances on the docket.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s) — Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT (N.D. Ga.)

Important framing note: Although the metadata captions the case as Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, the actual N.D. Ga. docket (No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT, Judge Amy Totenberg) has two defendants: SIPCO, LLC and IP CO, LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ). Both were represented jointly by the same defense team, per the Answer (Dkt. 10), which states it was filed "by and through their counsel Thompson Hine LLP and Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP."

Also note: the two patents actually litigated in this district-court action were U.S. 7,103,511 and U.S. 6,044,062 (see Dkt. 64, Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief). The '780 patent (US 8,754,780) referenced in the case metadata appears in the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit track (it was a SIPCO patent at issue in IPR2015-01973, discussed in Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, No. 2017-1866 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2018)), not as the asserted patent in the '319 district-court case. I flag this because the defendant's district-court counsel below are distinct from the PTAB counsel.

---

Lead trial / patent counsel — Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP (Boston, MA)

Filed and signed the operative defense papers (Answer Dkt. 10; Opening Claim Construction Brief Dkt. 64; the Oct. 26, 2016 Brownrigg subpoena objections), each appearing pro hac vice:

Local counsel — Thompson Hine LLP (Atlanta, GA)

Named in the Answer as co-defense counsel and served as local counsel of record (Two Alliance Center, Ste. 1600, 3560 Lenox Rd., Atlanta, GA — see the certificate of service at Doc. 130 in the related case 1:16-cv-02690):

Additional/outside counsel

---

Sourcing & caveats

• Grounded in primary filings: the Answer (Dkt. 10), the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 64, filed 3/3/2016), and Brownrigg's Objections to Subpoena (Oct. 26, 2016) — all captioned "Case 1:15-cv-00319-AT" — plus a certificate of service in the related N.D. Ga. case 1:16-cv-02690 (Doc. 130) listing the Thompson Hine and Nutter attorneys.
• I could not retrieve the raw PACER docket sheet / individual Notices of Appearance for 1:15-cv-00319 within the research window. The names above are drawn from filed documents and secondary profiles rather than an ECF "attorney appearance" list, so a formal per-attorney appearance date is not verified. Roles (lead vs. local) are inferred from the signature blocks (Nutter = briefs/signatures with pro hac vice designations → lead trial counsel; Thompson Hine = Atlanta office + service as local counsel) and should be confirmed against ECF entries.
• Do not conflate with PTAB counsel. In the parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-00547, -00548), SIPCO was represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (Jason E. Stach, Cory C. Bell, Benjamin A. Saidman) and the Gonsalves Law Firm (Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves). Those are Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, not this district-court case, and those attorneys are not the N.D. Ga. counsel of record.
• PTAB/ITC counsel on the Emerson side (Ropes & Gray: James L. Davis, Jr., etc.) is again a separate track.
• Status note: Docket Alarm shows this case terminated (June 17, 2024) with flags CLOSED/PROTO; the "live/related" label in the metadata reflects its status as the anchor of a web of related SIPCO–Emerson matters (E.D. Tex. 6:15-cv-00907; N.D. Ga. 1:16-cv-02690; D. Del.; ITC; and multiple IPRs/appeals), not an open district-court docket.

If you need the exact appearance dates and any withdrawn/additional attorneys, the next step is a direct PACER pull of the 1:15-cv-00319 docket sheet (or the Lead Case "SIPCO" MDL-style consolidation) — I couldn't access it here and won't guess at dates.