This document is Honeywell International's reply to counterclaims filed by Nest Labs in a patent infringement lawsuit. Honeywell admits some basic facts about the parties and jurisdiction. Honeywell denies many of Nest Labs' characterizations of its thermostat product and marketing. Honeywell asserts that these characterizations are irrelevant to the core patent issues and appear intended to divert attention from the lawsuit.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise boosts blood flow, releases endorphins, and promotes changes in the brain which help enhance one's emotional well-being and mental clarity.
New Horizons Partnership provides training and employment support for people with intellectual disabilities in the North West of Ireland. They have developed an independent travel training program to teach essential travel skills through multimedia resources and practical assessments. The program covers topics like roads, vehicles, public transportation, and includes materials for trainers and assessments to certify students' skills. Their goal is to support individuals in fulfilling their work potential through community-based projects.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document discusses an unassigned case of COVID-19. It does not provide any details about the individual, their symptoms, treatment or location. In just 3 words, "Unassigned C-19", it conveys only that an unspecified case of the novel coronavirus has been identified but no further identifying information is given.
1) SRP is a monopoly power provider in its service area and has adopted new pricing plans (SEPPs) that penalize customers who obtain solar power through distributed solar energy systems like rooftop panels.
2) The penalties eliminate the economic benefits of solar installations and have led to a 96% drop in new solar applications in SRP's territory.
3) The penalties are not cost-justified and contradict SRP's previous promotion of solar energy through incentives. They are an anticompetitive tactic to prevent competition from SolarCity and other solar providers in SRP's retail electricity market.
Suit from ixmation against Switch Lighting, October 23, 2014katiefehren
This document is a memorandum opinion and order from a United States District Court case between Ixmation, Inc. and Switch Bulb Company regarding a letter of credit. Ixmation and Switch had entered into an agreement for Ixmation to manufacture a custom automated system, with payments secured by a letter of credit from Wells Fargo. However, before the project was completed, Switch told Ixmation to stop work and later executed an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Ixmation filed for arbitration and a temporary restraining order to prevent the letter of credit from expiring, and the court placed an equitable lien on the funds from the letter of credit to maintain the status quo until arbitration was concluded. Ixmation now seeks
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise boosts blood flow, releases endorphins, and promotes changes in the brain which help enhance one's emotional well-being and mental clarity.
New Horizons Partnership provides training and employment support for people with intellectual disabilities in the North West of Ireland. They have developed an independent travel training program to teach essential travel skills through multimedia resources and practical assessments. The program covers topics like roads, vehicles, public transportation, and includes materials for trainers and assessments to certify students' skills. Their goal is to support individuals in fulfilling their work potential through community-based projects.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document discusses an unassigned case of COVID-19. It does not provide any details about the individual, their symptoms, treatment or location. In just 3 words, "Unassigned C-19", it conveys only that an unspecified case of the novel coronavirus has been identified but no further identifying information is given.
1) SRP is a monopoly power provider in its service area and has adopted new pricing plans (SEPPs) that penalize customers who obtain solar power through distributed solar energy systems like rooftop panels.
2) The penalties eliminate the economic benefits of solar installations and have led to a 96% drop in new solar applications in SRP's territory.
3) The penalties are not cost-justified and contradict SRP's previous promotion of solar energy through incentives. They are an anticompetitive tactic to prevent competition from SolarCity and other solar providers in SRP's retail electricity market.
Suit from ixmation against Switch Lighting, October 23, 2014katiefehren
This document is a memorandum opinion and order from a United States District Court case between Ixmation, Inc. and Switch Bulb Company regarding a letter of credit. Ixmation and Switch had entered into an agreement for Ixmation to manufacture a custom automated system, with payments secured by a letter of credit from Wells Fargo. However, before the project was completed, Switch told Ixmation to stop work and later executed an assignment for the benefit of creditors. Ixmation filed for arbitration and a temporary restraining order to prevent the letter of credit from expiring, and the court placed an equitable lien on the funds from the letter of credit to maintain the status quo until arbitration was concluded. Ixmation now seeks
The document lists the names and addresses of over 100 companies and individuals. It appears to be a list of creditors, suppliers or other contacts for a company going through bankruptcy. The names and addresses provided include companies located in the US, Canada, Germany, Spain, Korea and other countries.
Suit from ixmation against Switch Lightingkatiefehren
The document appears to be a legal case filing containing 20 numbered pages of exhibits with no other descriptive information provided. It includes page headers with a case number and document number but no other details about the nature of the case or contents of the exhibits.
Fisker's bankruptcy filing that lays out incomekatiefehren
This document provides global notes, methodology, and specific disclosures for the schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs filed by Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. and Fisker Automotive, Inc. (the "Debtors"). It was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as part of the Debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The document provides information on the Debtors' process for preparing the schedules and statements, including that they reflect book values as of November 21, 2013 and are not intended as fully reconciled financial statements. It also includes reservations of rights and explanations of methodology regarding the treatment of various assets, liabilities, claims, and other items.
This document lists over 200 company names and addresses. It appears to be a list of creditors or parties of interest in a bankruptcy case numbered 13-13086-KG filed on 11/22/13. The companies are located in various countries and regions around the world, including the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, and others.
This class action lawsuit alleges that Kior, Inc. and its executives made false and misleading statements about the company's progress towards producing commercially viable quantities of cellulosic biofuels. The complaint states that Kior failed to achieve production levels and timelines promised at its Columbus, Mississippi facility. It alleges that despite missing targets, executives continued to reassure investors about imminent production increases that did not occur. The suit contends these statements damaged investors when the company disclosed much lower than expected second quarter 2013 production figures.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
This document appears to be a legal filing with a case number and page numbers listed but no other descriptive text. It is difficult to determine the essential information or high-level topic from this document alone without any accompanying context or explanation of the legal case details.
CDH Detroit, Inc. filed a complaint against Coda Automotive, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. CDH and Coda had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve unpaid invoices, which required Coda to pay CDH $338,234 in monthly installments. Coda failed to make the first payment that was due on April 15 and did not cure this default, so the full amount became due. CDH is suing for breach of contract, seeking payment of the $338,234 balance plus interest and other damages. Venue is proper as some of the events occurred in Michigan and the settlement agreement specified disputes would be litigated in Michigan.
Exhibit B, letter from dealer to Fisker katiefehren
This 4-page court document outlines a civil case with case number 8:13-cv-01131-RWT filed on April 17, 2013. The document includes standard boilerplate language for civil case filings and lists details such as the presiding judge, parties to the case, and causes of action. However, without more context it is difficult to determine the specific claims or issues in dispute.
Fisker's lawsuit against insurance companykatiefehren
A lawsuit filed by Fisker against insurance company XL for denying its claim when 338 Karmas were lost in Sandy flooding, which had a value of $33 million.
The document discusses the rise and fall of cleantech startups since John Doerr's 2007 TED talk promoting cleantech investment. It describes the recession slowing cleantech momentum and startups struggling to find profitable business models. However, it argues investors should still be excited about cleantech due to long term resource trends and opportunities in areas like business model innovation, the Clean Web, partnerships with internet companies and corporations, China, and ARPA-E funding. The author provides contact information for those wanting to discuss cleantech further.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document provides a framework for energy education consisting of 7 essential principles and supporting fundamental concepts. The principles identify big ideas about energy that are important for citizens to understand to make informed decisions. Some key points:
- Energy is a physical quantity that follows natural laws and can be transferred between systems. It exists in different forms and categories.
- Biological and physical processes on Earth result from the flow of energy through the Earth system.
- Humans use various energy sources, like fossil fuels, to power activities. Energy often needs to be transferred from its source.
- Energy decisions are influenced by economic, political, environmental, and social factors. The amount of energy used depends on many interconnected factors.
The document lists the names and addresses of over 100 companies and individuals. It appears to be a list of creditors, suppliers or other contacts for a company going through bankruptcy. The names and addresses provided include companies located in the US, Canada, Germany, Spain, Korea and other countries.
Suit from ixmation against Switch Lightingkatiefehren
The document appears to be a legal case filing containing 20 numbered pages of exhibits with no other descriptive information provided. It includes page headers with a case number and document number but no other details about the nature of the case or contents of the exhibits.
Fisker's bankruptcy filing that lays out incomekatiefehren
This document provides global notes, methodology, and specific disclosures for the schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs filed by Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. and Fisker Automotive, Inc. (the "Debtors"). It was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as part of the Debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The document provides information on the Debtors' process for preparing the schedules and statements, including that they reflect book values as of November 21, 2013 and are not intended as fully reconciled financial statements. It also includes reservations of rights and explanations of methodology regarding the treatment of various assets, liabilities, claims, and other items.
This document lists over 200 company names and addresses. It appears to be a list of creditors or parties of interest in a bankruptcy case numbered 13-13086-KG filed on 11/22/13. The companies are located in various countries and regions around the world, including the US, Canada, Europe, Asia, and others.
This class action lawsuit alleges that Kior, Inc. and its executives made false and misleading statements about the company's progress towards producing commercially viable quantities of cellulosic biofuels. The complaint states that Kior failed to achieve production levels and timelines promised at its Columbus, Mississippi facility. It alleges that despite missing targets, executives continued to reassure investors about imminent production increases that did not occur. The suit contends these statements damaged investors when the company disclosed much lower than expected second quarter 2013 production figures.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
This document appears to be a legal filing with a case number and page numbers listed but no other descriptive text. It is difficult to determine the essential information or high-level topic from this document alone without any accompanying context or explanation of the legal case details.
CDH Detroit, Inc. filed a complaint against Coda Automotive, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. CDH and Coda had entered into a settlement agreement to resolve unpaid invoices, which required Coda to pay CDH $338,234 in monthly installments. Coda failed to make the first payment that was due on April 15 and did not cure this default, so the full amount became due. CDH is suing for breach of contract, seeking payment of the $338,234 balance plus interest and other damages. Venue is proper as some of the events occurred in Michigan and the settlement agreement specified disputes would be litigated in Michigan.
Exhibit B, letter from dealer to Fisker katiefehren
This 4-page court document outlines a civil case with case number 8:13-cv-01131-RWT filed on April 17, 2013. The document includes standard boilerplate language for civil case filings and lists details such as the presiding judge, parties to the case, and causes of action. However, without more context it is difficult to determine the specific claims or issues in dispute.
Fisker's lawsuit against insurance companykatiefehren
A lawsuit filed by Fisker against insurance company XL for denying its claim when 338 Karmas were lost in Sandy flooding, which had a value of $33 million.
The document discusses the rise and fall of cleantech startups since John Doerr's 2007 TED talk promoting cleantech investment. It describes the recession slowing cleantech momentum and startups struggling to find profitable business models. However, it argues investors should still be excited about cleantech due to long term resource trends and opportunities in areas like business model innovation, the Clean Web, partnerships with internet companies and corporations, China, and ARPA-E funding. The author provides contact information for those wanting to discuss cleantech further.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
The document provides a framework for energy education consisting of 7 essential principles and supporting fundamental concepts. The principles identify big ideas about energy that are important for citizens to understand to make informed decisions. Some key points:
- Energy is a physical quantity that follows natural laws and can be transferred between systems. It exists in different forms and categories.
- Biological and physical processes on Earth result from the flow of energy through the Earth system.
- Humans use various energy sources, like fossil fuels, to power activities. Energy often needs to be transferred from its source.
- Energy decisions are influenced by economic, political, environmental, and social factors. The amount of energy used depends on many interconnected factors.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Enchancing adoption of Open Source Libraries. A case study on Albumentations.AIVladimir Iglovikov, Ph.D.
Presented by Vladimir Iglovikov:
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/iglovikov/
- https://x.com/viglovikov
- https://www.instagram.com/ternaus/
This presentation delves into the journey of Albumentations.ai, a highly successful open-source library for data augmentation.
Created out of a necessity for superior performance in Kaggle competitions, Albumentations has grown to become a widely used tool among data scientists and machine learning practitioners.
This case study covers various aspects, including:
People: The contributors and community that have supported Albumentations.
Metrics: The success indicators such as downloads, daily active users, GitHub stars, and financial contributions.
Challenges: The hurdles in monetizing open-source projects and measuring user engagement.
Development Practices: Best practices for creating, maintaining, and scaling open-source libraries, including code hygiene, CI/CD, and fast iteration.
Community Building: Strategies for making adoption easy, iterating quickly, and fostering a vibrant, engaged community.
Marketing: Both online and offline marketing tactics, focusing on real, impactful interactions and collaborations.
Mental Health: Maintaining balance and not feeling pressured by user demands.
Key insights include the importance of automation, making the adoption process seamless, and leveraging offline interactions for marketing. The presentation also emphasizes the need for continuous small improvements and building a friendly, inclusive community that contributes to the project's growth.
Vladimir Iglovikov brings his extensive experience as a Kaggle Grandmaster, ex-Staff ML Engineer at Lyft, sharing valuable lessons and practical advice for anyone looking to enhance the adoption of their open-source projects.
Explore more about Albumentations and join the community at:
GitHub: https://github.com/albumentations-team/albumentations
Website: https://albumentations.ai/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/100504475
Twitter: https://x.com/albumentations
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMESafe Software
In this second installment of our Essentials of Automations webinar series, we’ll explore the landscape of triggers and actions, guiding you through the nuances of authoring and adapting workspaces for seamless automations. Gain an understanding of the full spectrum of triggers and actions available in FME, empowering you to enhance your workspaces for efficient automation.
We’ll kick things off by showcasing the most commonly used event-based triggers, introducing you to various automation workflows like manual triggers, schedules, directory watchers, and more. Plus, see how these elements play out in real scenarios.
Whether you’re tweaking your current setup or building from the ground up, this session will arm you with the tools and insights needed to transform your FME usage into a powerhouse of productivity. Join us to discover effective strategies that simplify complex processes, enhancing your productivity and transforming your data management practices with FME. Let’s turn complexity into clarity and make your workspaces work wonders!
Dr. Sean Tan, Head of Data Science, Changi Airport Group
Discover how Changi Airport Group (CAG) leverages graph technologies and generative AI to revolutionize their search capabilities. This session delves into the unique search needs of CAG’s diverse passengers and customers, showcasing how graph data structures enhance the accuracy and relevance of AI-generated search results, mitigating the risk of “hallucinations” and improving the overall customer journey.
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptxdanishmna97
Pakdata Cf is a groundbreaking system designed to streamline and facilitate access to CNIC information. This innovative platform leverages advanced technology to provide users with efficient and secure access to their CNIC details.
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!SOFTTECHHUB
As the digital landscape continually evolves, operating systems play a critical role in shaping user experiences and productivity. The launch of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0 marks a significant milestone, offering a robust alternative to traditional systems such as Windows 11. This article delves into the essence of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0, exploring its unique features, advantages, and how it stands as a compelling choice for both casual users and tech enthusiasts.
Building RAG with self-deployed Milvus vector database and Snowpark Container...Zilliz
This talk will give hands-on advice on building RAG applications with an open-source Milvus database deployed as a docker container. We will also introduce the integration of Milvus with Snowpark Container Services.
GraphSummit Singapore | The Art of the Possible with Graph - Q2 2024Neo4j
Neha Bajwa, Vice President of Product Marketing, Neo4j
Join us as we explore breakthrough innovations enabled by interconnected data and AI. Discover firsthand how organizations use relationships in data to uncover contextual insights and solve our most pressing challenges – from optimizing supply chains, detecting fraud, and improving customer experiences to accelerating drug discoveries.
“An Outlook of the Ongoing and Future Relationship between Blockchain Technologies and Process-aware Information Systems.” Invited talk at the joint workshop on Blockchain for Information Systems (BC4IS) and Blockchain for Trusted Data Sharing (B4TDS), co-located with with the 36th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), 3 June 2024, Limassol, Cyprus.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 5. In this session, we will cover CI/CD with devops.
Topics covered:
CI/CD with in UiPath
End-to-end overview of CI/CD pipeline with Azure devops
Speaker:
Lyndsey Byblow, Test Suite Sales Engineer @ UiPath, Inc.
TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy SurveyTrustArc
How does your privacy program stack up against your peers? What challenges are privacy teams tackling and prioritizing in 2024?
In the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey, we asked over 1,800 global privacy professionals and business executives to share their perspectives on the current state of privacy inside and outside of their organizations. This year’s report focused on emerging areas of importance for privacy and compliance professionals, including considerations and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, building brand trust, and different approaches for achieving higher privacy competence scores.
See how organizational priorities and strategic approaches to data security and privacy are evolving around the globe.
This webinar will review:
- The top 10 privacy insights from the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey
- The top challenges for privacy leaders, practitioners, and organizations in 2024
- Key themes to consider in developing and maintaining your privacy program
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 6DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 6. In this session, we will cover Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI webinar offers an in-depth exploration of leveraging cutting-edge technologies for test automation within the UiPath platform. Attendees will delve into the integration of generative AI, a test automation solution, with Open AI advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Throughout the session, participants will discover how this synergy empowers testers to automate repetitive tasks, enhance testing accuracy, and expedite the software testing life cycle. Topics covered include the seamless integration process, practical use cases, and the benefits of harnessing AI-driven automation for UiPath testing initiatives. By attending this webinar, testers, and automation professionals can gain valuable insights into harnessing the power of AI to optimize their test automation workflows within the UiPath ecosystem, ultimately driving efficiency and quality in software development processes.
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into integrating generative AI.
2. Understanding how this integration enhances test automation within the UiPath platform
3. Practical demonstrations
4. Exploration of real-world use cases illustrating the benefits of AI-driven test automation for UiPath
Topics covered:
What is generative AI
Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath integration with generative AI
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
1. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff, Civil No. 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM
vs.
NEST LABS, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL’ S
BEST BUY STORES, L.P., and REPLY TO
BESTBUY.COM, LLC NEST LABS’COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendants.
Plaintiff Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell"), hereby replies to the
Counterclaims filed by Defendant Nest Labs, Inc. ("Nest Labs") as follows:
PARTIES
1. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 132 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell admits that Nest Labs, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Palo Alto, California.
2. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 133 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell admits that it is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
place of business in Morristown, New Jersey. Honeywell further states that the division
of Honeywell that oversees the development and implementation of thermostats for
homes and businesses in the United States is located in Golden Valley, Minnesota.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Honeywell admits the allegations of paragraph 134 of the Counterclaims.
4. Honeywell admits the allegations of paragraph 135 of the Counterclaims.
2. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 19
5. Honeywell admits the allegations of paragraph 136 of the Counterclaims.
SUMMARY OF COUNTERCLAIM CASE
6. The statements contained in paragraph 137 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather, are self-serving
characterizations based on Nest Labs’unfounded opinions and speculations that are
irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that a response is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies.
7. Honeywell admits that Nest Labs was founded by Tony Fadell and Matt
Rogers, and that both men were previously employed by Apple. The remaining
statements contained in paragraph 138 of the Counterclaims are not averments of facts to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations of Nest Labs
that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear
s
intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is
deemed necessary, Honeywell lacks sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 138 of the Counterclaims and
therefore denies them.
8. The statements contained in paragraph 139 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell lacks sufficient information
-2-
3. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 19
or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations in paragraph 139
of the Counterclaims and therefore denies them.
9. Honeywell admits that the Nest Thermostat has embedded wireless
communications capabilities and an LCD display. Honeywell admits that Nest Labs
advertises the Nest Thermostat as having multiple sensors, but Honeywell currently lacks
sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations concerning such sensors, and therefore, denies them. Honeywell further
admits that a user can provide certain programming input to the thermostat by rotating a
ring and making selections between displayed choices. The remaining the statements
contained in paragraph 140 of the Counterclaims are not averments of facts to which a
response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations of the Nest Thermostat
that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear
s
intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is
deemed necessary, Honeywell lacks sufficient information or knowledge as to the truth or
falsity of the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 140 of the Counterclaims and
therefore denies them.
10. Honeywell admits that the Nest Thermostat can display a green leaf.
Honeywell further admits that Nest Labs advertises that the Nest Thermostat can display
certain information related to a user’ history of energy usage, but Honeywell lacks
s
sufficient information or knowledge as to the truth or falsity of such statement, and
therefore, denies it. Honeywell further admits that a user can provide a heating or
cooling schedule manually. With respect to the remaining the statements contained in
-3-
4. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 19
paragraph 141 of the Counterclaims, Honeywell lacks sufficient information or
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the allegations and therefore denies them.
11. Honeywell admits that certain users of the Nest Thermostat can also use the
Nest Web App to interface with their Nest Thermostats and that an app can also be used
with Android- and Apple-based mobile devices. Honeywell lacks sufficient information
or knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 142 of the
Counterclaims related to the remaining statements, and therefore denies them.
12. Honeywell denies that traditional programmable thermostats are primarily
marketed and purchased by expert home builders and HVAC professionals to the
exclusion of home users. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 143 of the
Counterclaims are not averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are
self-serving characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’
s
valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the
core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell lacks
sufficient information or knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations
of paragraph 143 of the Counterclaims and therefore denies them.
13. The statements contained in paragraph 144 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
-4-
5. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 19
14. With respect to the allegation set forth in paragraph 145 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell admits that on or about October 25, 2011, Nest Labs made a
public announcement related to the Nest Thermostat.
15. The statements contained in paragraph 146 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement, appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues, and
ignore contrary reviews. Honeywell admits that Exhibit A is attached to the
Counterclaims and purports to be the identified article. To the extent that an answer to
the claims related to the Nest Thermostat made in the article is deemed necessary,
Honeywell denies them.
16. The statements contained in paragraph 147 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
Honeywell admits that Exhibit B is attached to the Counterclaims and purports to be the
identified article. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary to the claims related
to the Nest Thermostat made in the article, Honeywell denies them.
17. The statements contained in paragraph 148 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are irrelevant, self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
-5-
6. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 6 of 19
Honeywell admits that Exhibit C is attached to the Counterclaims and purports to be the
identified article. To the extent that an answer to the claims related to the Nest
Thermostat made in the article is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
18. The statements contained in paragraph 149 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
Honeywell admits that Exhibit D is attached to the Counterclaims and purports to be the
identified article. To the extent that an answer to the claims related to the Nest
Thermostat made in the article is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
19. The statements contained in paragraph 150 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer to the claims related to the Nest Thermostat made in the
article is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
20. The statements contained in paragraph 151 of the Counterclaims are not
averments of facts to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations of the Nest Thermostat that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims
s
of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell lacks sufficient information
-6-
7. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 7 of 19
or belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of paragraph 151, and therefore denies
them.
21. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 152 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell admits that according to its 2011 Annual Report, its 2011
revenues exceeded $36 billion across all of its business segments, including its major
businesses of Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and
Technologies (formerly Specialty Materials), and Transportation Systems. Honeywell
denies that its Five Initiatives, the first listed of which is "Growth," does not include any
goal directed at innovation.
22. Honeywell admits that the partial quotations are taken from Exhibits A and
D. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 153 are not averments of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations that are
irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
23. Honeywell admits that Honeywell introduced its iconic, round T-86
thermostat in 1953, that round thermostats remain in production today, and that
Honeywell displays three round non-programmable thermostats on its website.
Honeywell denies the remaining statements contained in paragraph 154.
24. The statements contained in paragraph 155 are not averments of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations and
speculations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and
s
-7-
8. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 8 of 19
appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an
answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
25. The statements contained in the first sentence of paragraph 156 are not
averments of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations and speculations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of
s
patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell states that Honeywell’
s
references to "chunky, rectangular" thermostats referred to models that pre-date
Honeywell’ 1953 T-86 round thermostat, not current Honeywell thermostats.
s
Honeywell admits the second sentence of paragraph 156. To the extent an answer is
deemed necessary to any remaining allegations, Honeywell denies them.
26. Honeywell admits that some studies have concluded that programmable
thermostats were complicated and difficult for users to program, and that EnergyStar
discontinued evaluating programmable thermostats in December 2009. Honeywell
further admits that the study cited contains the authors’conclusions as reflected in
paragraph 157. The remaining statement in paragraph 157 is not an averment of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather an inaccurate attempt to attribute the selective
characterizations to the Honeywell RTH7600. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies it.
27. The statement contained in paragraph 158 is not an averment of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather consists of self-serving characterizations and
speculations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and
s
-8-
9. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 9 of 19
appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an
answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies it.
28. Honeywell admits that it purchased Quad Six in or about 1985 and that
Quad Six’ technology assets were incorporated into Honeywell. The remaining
s
statements contained in paragraph 159 are not averments of fact to which a response is
necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’
s
valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the
core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
29. Honeywell admits that it asserted a counterclaim of trade dress
infringement after Eco Manufacturing initiated a lawsuit against Honeywell. Honeywell
admits that the Court in that case issued an opinion that contains a description of the
history of intellectual property protection associated with the Honeywell Round. The
remaining statements contained in paragraph 160 are not averments of fact to which a
response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations of the prior, unrelated
litigation that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and
s
appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues, particularly given the fact
that Honeywell makes no trade dress claims here. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
30. Honeywell admits that it asserted a counterclaim of trade dress
infringement after Eco Manufacturing initiated a lawsuit against Honeywell. Honeywell
admits that the Court in that case issued an opinion that included the excerpts reflected in
paragraph 161. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 161 are not averments
-9-
10. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 10 of 19
of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations of
the prior, unrelated litigation that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent
s
infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues,
particularly given the fact that Honeywell makes no trade dress claims here. To the
extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
31. Honeywell admits that based on the evidence before it, the Court in the
unrelated Eco Manufacturing case made certain determinations in the opinion excerpted
in paragraph 162 in concluding that the decision by the Trademark Trial Appeal Board
was not entitled to deference. Nest Labs’attempt to extend that evidentiary ruling to this
case is not an averment of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather is a self-
serving characterization that is irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent
s
infringement and appears intended to divert attention away from the core issues,
particularly given the fact that Honeywell makes no trade dress claims here. To the
extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies it.
32. Honeywell admits that it was sued in state court anti-trust actions after the
Eco Manufacturing case. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 163 are not
averments of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving
characterizations that are inaccurate and irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent
s
infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the
extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
33. Honeywell admits that it has initiated a patent infringement case against
Venstar, Inc. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 164 are not averments of
-10-
11. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 11 of 19
fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations derived
from Venstar’ Motion to Dismiss that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of
s s
patent infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues.
To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
34. The statements contained in paragraph 165 are not averments of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations that are
irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
35. Honeywell admits that David Pogue reviewed the Nest Thermostat on or
about November 30, 2011, and that the quotation appears in Exhibit A. Honeywell also
admits that it offers the Honeywell Prestige thermostat that has a color screen and internet
connections. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 166 are not averments of
fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are selective excerpts of the article that
are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
36. Honeywell admits that Farhad Manjoo did a report in on the Nest
Thermostat. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 167 are not averments of
fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are selective and self-serving
characterizations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement
s
and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an
-11-
12. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 12 of 19
answer to the remaining statements in paragraph 167 is deemed necessary, Honeywell
denies them.
37. The statements contained in paragraph 168 are not averments of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving and selective characterizations
that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear
s
intended to divert attention away from the core issues. Honeywell admits that the
identified Fortune article contains the quoted excerpt. To the extent that an answer is
deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
38. The statements contained in paragraph 169 are not averments of fact to
which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations that are
irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
39. Honeywell admits that Nest Labs appears to have attached European Patent
Application EP 1 065 079 A2, untranslated from German, as Exhibit E. Honeywell
denies that the cited patent invalidates the asserted '899 Patent. Honeywell admits that
some of the asserted patents relate to round thermostats, but denies that Nest Labs’
general interpretation of the scope of the patents –made without any reference to the
words of the patent claims –is accurate. The remaining statements contained in
paragraph 170 are not averments of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are
self-serving characterizations that are irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent
s
-12-
13. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 13 of 19
infringement and appear intended to divert attention away from the core issues. To the
extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
40. Honeywell admits that it filed an application resulting in United States
Patent No. 4,657,179 ("'179 Patent") entitled "Distributed Environmental/Load Control
System" that disclosed a remotely located control module which was capable of
providing control signals to a variety of temperature regulating equipment. Honeywell
admits that the '179 Patent was not cited during the prosecution of the '958 patent, but
denies that the disclosure of the '179 Patent to the United States Patent and Trademark
Office ("USPTO") during the prosecution of the '958 Patent was necessary or
appropriate. Honeywell further denies that the '179 Patent invalidates the '958 Patent.
Honeywell further denies that Nest Labs’characterization of the scope of '958 Patent and
its characterization of whether Nest infringes certain claims of the '958 Patent are
accurate. The remaining statements contained in paragraph 171 are not averments of fact
to which a response is necessary, but rather are self-serving characterizations that are
irrelevant to Honeywell’ valid claims of patent infringement and appear intended to
s
divert attention away from the core issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed
necessary, Honeywell denies them.
41. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 172 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell admits that it filed for United States Patent No. 5,736,795
("'795 Patent") prior to the filing of the asserted '988 Patent. Honeywell admits that the
'795 Patent was not cited during the prosecution of the '988 Patent, but denies that
disclosure of the '795 Patent to the USPTO during the prosecution of the '988 Patent was
-13-
14. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 14 of 19
necessary or appropriate. Honeywell further denies that Nest Labs’characterization of
the scope of '988 Patent is accurate and that the '795 Patent invalidates the '988 Patent.
42. Honeywell admits that claim 1 of the asserted '790 Patent includes the
terms that Nest identifies in paragraph 173. Honeywell further admits that it filed for
United States Patent No. 4,405,080 ("'080 Patent") in 1982. Honeywell denies that the
'080 Patent has the "same features" as the '790 Patent and that the '080 Patent invalidates
the '790 Patent. Honeywell admits that the '080 Patent was not cited to the USPTO
during prosecution of the '790 Patent but denies that disclosure was necessary or
appropriate. Honeywell further denies that Nest Labs’characterization of the scope of
the '790 Patent and its characterization of whether Nest Labs infringes certain claims of
the '790 Patent are accurate.
43. Honeywell denies that the cited United States Patent No. 5,065,813 ("'813
Patent") invalidates the '504 Patent. Honeywell further denies that Nest Labs’
characterization of the disclosure of the '813 Patent is accurate and denies that disclosure
of the '813 Patent to the USPTO during the prosecution of the '504 Patent was necessary
or appropriate. The remaining statement contained in paragraph 174 is not averment of
fact to which a response is necessary, but rather is a self-serving characterization. To the
extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies it.
44. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 175 of Nest Labs’
Counterclaims, Honeywell denies that the invention disclosed in the '948 Patent was
"old" when Honeywell filed for the patent in 2004. Honeywell further denies that either
United States Patent No. 6,286,764 ("'764 Patent") or United States Patent No. 5,767,488
-14-
15. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 15 of 19
("'488 Patent") invalidate the '948 Patent. Honeywell admits that neither the '764 Patent
nor the '488 Patent were cited in the prosecution history of the '948 Patent, but denies that
disclosure of either reference to the USPTO during the prosecution of the '948 Patent was
necessary or appropriate. Honeywell denies that Nest Labs’characterizations of the
disclosures of either the '764 Patent or the '488 Patent are accurate.
45. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 176 of Nest Labs'
Counterclaims, Honeywell denies that the '789 patent-in-suit is "matched" by the cited
United States Patent No. 5,224,649 ("'649 Patent"). Honeywell further denies that Nest
Labs’characterizations of the disclosures of the '789 Patent or the '649 Patent are
accurate. Honeywell admits that the '649 Patent was not disclosed during the prosecution
of the '789 Patent, but denies that disclosure was necessary or appropriate. Honeywell
denies that the '649 Patent invalidates the '789 Patent.
46. As discussed above, Honeywell denies that any of the patents cited by Nest
Labs invalidate any of the seven asserted patents. The remaining statements contained in
paragraph 177 are not averments of fact to which a response is necessary, but rather are
self-serving characterizations and appear intended to divert attention away from the core
issues. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, Honeywell denies them.
47. To the extent that an allegation is not specifically admitted, Honeywell
denies it.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '504 Patent)
48. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 47 above.
-15-
16. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 16 of 19
49. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 179.
50. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 180 of the Counterclaims.
51. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 181 of the Counterclaims.
52. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 182 of the Counterclaims.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '948 Patent)
53. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 52 above.
54. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 184.
55. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 185 to the Counterclaims.
56. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 186 to the Counterclaims.
57. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 187 to the Counterclaims.
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '958 Patent)
58. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 57 above.
59. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 189.
60. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 190 to the Counterclaims.
61. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 191 to the Counterclaims.
62. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 192 to the Counterclaims.
FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '899 Patent)
63. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 62 above.
-16-
17. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 17 of 19
64. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 194.
65. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 195 to the Counterclaims.
66. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 196 to the Counterclaims.
67. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 197 to the Counterclaims.
FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '789 Patent)
68. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 67 above.
69. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 199.
70. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 200 to the Counterclaims.
71. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 201 to the Counterclaims.
72. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 202 to the Counterclaims.
SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '790 Patent)
73. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 72 above.
74. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 204.
75. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 205 to the Counterclaims.
76. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 206 to the Counterclaims.
77. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 207 to the Counterclaims.
SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '988 Patent)
78. Honeywell reincorporates and realleges its responses as set forth in
paragraphs 1 - 77 above.
-17-
18. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 18 of 19
79. Honeywell admits the allegations as set forth in paragraph 209.
80. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 210 to the Counterclaims.
81. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 211 to the Counterclaims.
82. Honeywell denies the allegations of paragraph 212 to the Counterclaims.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
In response to the Prayer for Relief on pages 55-56 on Nest Labs’Counterclaims,
Honeywell denies that Nest Labs is entitled to any relief, and in particular, to any relief
requested in paragraphs A-E, and further requests that the Court enter such preliminary
and final orders and judgment that are necessary to provide Honeywell with the following
requested relief:
1. Judgment in favor of Honeywell on Nest Labs’Counterclaims against
Honeywell;
2. Judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,634,504, 7,142,948,
6,975,958, 7,584,899, 7,159,789, 7,159,790, and 7,476,988 are valid and enforceable;
3. Judgment in favor of Honeywell that Nest Labs infringes one or more
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,634,504, 7,142,948, 6,975,958, 7,584,899, 7,159,789,
7,159,790, and 7,476,988;
4. An order declaring this case to be exceptional and awarding Honeywell its
reasonable attorneys’fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other
applicable statutes; and
5. Award Honeywell such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
-18-
19. CASE 0:12-cv-00299-SRN-JSM Document 21 Filed 05/07/12 Page 19 of 19
Dated: May 7, 2012
s/ Ken Liebman
Kenneth A. Liebman (No. 236731)
Randall E. Kahnke (No. 202745)
Andrew F. Johnson (No. 389331)
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
Fax: (612) 766-1600
Email: ken.liebman@faegrebd.com
randall.kahnke @ faegrebd.com
andrew.johnson@faegrebd.com
Nina Y. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
Joel D. Sayres (admitted pro hac vice)
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
3200 Wells Fargo Center
1700 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (303) 607-3500
Fax: (303) 607-3600
Email: nina.wang@faegrebd.com
joel.sayres@faegrebd.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Honeywell
International, Inc.
-19-